How many complaints does the FTC have to get before they file a suit against Ziff Davis?

In February, Jeffrey asked “Does Ziff Davis’s Spam Damage its Brand?” Both Jeffrey and I could not get off of Ziff Davis’s email list, no matter how many times we tried to remove ourselves. Thankfully, a reader (James) left a comment on June 10th about how he solved this problem:

Hi all,

I found a solution to Ziff Davis SPAM. I spent an hour searching every Ziff Davis email on google and come up with the following list.

info@ziffdavis.com, phil_kramer@ziffdavis.com, kelli_turtz@ziffdavis.com, sandra_gibson@ziffdavis.com, Sloan_Seymour@ziffdavis.com, Martha_Schwartz@ziffdavis.com, Stephen_Veith@ziffdavis.com, Phil_Kramer@ziffdavis.com, angelo_mandarano@ziffdavis.com, lfreeman@ziffdavis.com, chris_maginn@ziffdavis.com, baseline@ziffdavis.com, appscout@ziffdavis.com, larryseltzer@ziffdavis.com, matthew_graven@ziffdavis.com, randy_zane@ziffdavis.com, events@ziffdavis.com, chris_primesberger@ziffdavis.com, opportunities@ziffdavis.com, eWEEK@ziffdavis.com, Debra_Olchick@ziffdavis.com, jeffrey_burt@ziffdavis.com, dennis_barker@ziffdavis.com, mary_hart@ziffdavis.com, gearlog@ziffdavis.com, Sheena_Mohan@ziffdavis.com, askloyd@ziffdavis.com, kristin_holmes@ziffdavis.com, ppereira@ziffdavis.com, debra_donston@ziffdavis.com, Matthew_rothenberg@ziffdavis.com, Evan_Schuman@ziffdavis.com, elda_vale@ziffdavis.com, eric_lundquist@ziffdavis.com, jason_freidenfelds@ziffdavis.com, Mary_behr@ziffdavis.com, john_mccormick@ziffdavis.com, aimee_levine@ziffdavis.com, stan_gibson@ziffdavis.com, Nicholas_mokhoff@ziffdavis.com, dennis_fisher@ziffdavis.com, garcia@ziffdavis.com, darryl_taft@ziffdavis.com, caton@ziffdavis.com, Karl_Elken@ziffdavis.com, barry_ harrigan@ziffdavis.com, andrew_garcia@ziffdavis.com, cameron_sturdevant@ziffdavis.com, chris_maginn@ziffdavis.com, joe_wilcox@ziffdavis.com, peter_coffee@ziffdavis.com, kristin_holmes@ziffdavis.com

This list includes CEO’s, GM’s Managers, Executives and staff thoughout thier SPAM empire.

Send an email to all these people with an email subject similer to:

Violation of Federal CAN-SPAM act of 2003: Request to stop receiving unsolicited emails from ALL Ziff Davis related publications, subsidiaries and websites.

However, don’t be rude or abusive just politily tell them that thier “unsubscribe” links have not stopped thier spam and that they are in voilation of the above Federal Legislation.

I sent off this email with a read receipt, and received no reponsce from anyone apart from:

Sloan Seymour
President, Enterprise Group
Ziff Davis Media
Office: 212.503.4850
Mobile: 917.273.2774
Sloan_Seymour@ziffdavis.com

She apologised, and advisde me I would be removed from all mailing lists. I have happily never received SPAM since

I’m sure you could just email Sloan and help would help you, but the extra emails in the CC feild might add a bit more weight.

Hope this helps other people out there stop the madness.

I followed this advice and was personally contacted by Sloan Seymour.

An Open Letter To Sloan Seymour

Sloan,

Thank you for keeping me off your email list, till now.

How bad are things at Ziff Davis? Desperate enough that you have to insist on sending emails to people who have so angrily opted out?

I suggest you invest a few bucks and buy a few copies of this book for your staff. Make it a requirement to actually read it and practice permission marketing.

By the way, if things are so bad at Ziff Davis, let me know — I’ll happily purchase a handful of copies and send it to you, as long as you never email me again.

You can see from the comments on our post that this is a common complaint. I’m sure you are aware. Please let us know what you plan to do?

Pissed off in the blogosphere,

Bryan

P.S. Below is the previous email thread to remind you of our correspondence.

Related Posts:

• Email Secrets of a Top Converting Website
• Spirit Air Wants to Have a Threesome With Me
• Godin Was Right -- Threadless is Better than "Seamless"
• America's Test Kitchen Shows How to Sizzle an Email
• Warren Miller Loses His Edge Online

Delta’s latest marketing campaign has been focused on how much the airline has changed. Although marketing has surely been told to make sincere promises, it seems the business has no intention of keeping them.

While reading the news on Yahoo! this morning, I stumbled upon this ad for Delta. I’m a frequent Delta flyer and I’ve seen some small, directional changes — but they have a long way to go. They’re going through the motions of realligning and rebranding, but new tactics can’t change one’s corporate DNA.

When you click through on the ad, it takes you to Delta’s Under the Wing blog. (Blogging is an amazing tactic for engaging in conversation with your customers. I even hear from my good friend Joe that Delta is twittering.) So, what happens on the blog? One might expect to learn more about the airline’s changes. Instead, I was presented with a rather drab (like the old Delta), but clean, design and a post called “How Does Delta Gather Customer Input?”

Words can tell a lot about a company’s focus. I ran the text of this post through the customer focus (”We-we”) calculator and here are the results:

Your Customer Focus Rate: 17.39%
You have 4 instances of customer-focused words.

Your Self Focus Rate: 82.61%
You have 15 instances of self-focused words.
You have 4 instances of the Company Name.

You speak about yourself approximately 0,005 times as often as you speak about your customers.
Might that have an impact on your effectiveness?

Frank Wrenn, General Manager, Customer Insights & Analytics for Delta, wrote the post. Frank, I’d like to offer you and Delta my two cents:

1. The key to great customer insight and analysis is empathy. Don’t live by the surveys or the data; live with your customers. How often do you go through the process of booking and flying, just like the majority of your customer’s do? Want to improve the experience? Experience it like most people do. You’ll hate it. Really!

2. Show us you really care about listening to OUR voices. I believe you have honorable intentions, but your words are all about Delta. If you’d like to see how you could have changed your post from being all about how you gather data to why you want to hear from us, so you can improve the experience, I’d be happy to speak with you. I’d gladly share my experiences from the last 75,000 miles I’ve flown with Delta. Feel free to call me: (877) 643-7244 ext.801.

Is Delta serious about change? It will take more than a blog, some advertising, new uniforms, a new logo, some paint, and otherwise going through the motions.

The Greeks use the symbol delta to represent change because “Διαφορά” means “difference” in Greek. Will you really make a difference in customers’ lives, or will you be content putting lipstick on a pig?

Related Posts:

• Why Free Web Tools Make Customers Want to BUY NOW
• Online Retailers Fail Customer Experience 101
• Future Now's 2007 Retail Customer Experience Study
• Why I Nearly Flaked on the Season Pass
• "No, but I did sleep at a Staybridge Suites last night... "

One of the best things to happen this year is the term “jumping the shark” sinking its teeth into the pop lexicon. Eventually, though, even this perfect phrase must itself jump the shark. But, hey, that’s evolution. So goes ABC’s “Cavemen” — a sitcom based on the popular Geico ads — which debuted last night amid the dorsal fins of critics, bloggers, and critical bloggers.

New York Magazine captured the pre-shark-jump jitters:

. . .when this show was pitched to America as “the Geico Cavemen show” that it became laughable (and not in the good way). Yes, we are pretty sure this is gonna suck. But isn’t there even the slightest chance it won’t? After all, it’s not the worst idea for a commercial turned sitcom anyone could have come up with. What if it’s good?

Now let’s take a look at some of the initial reaction. Here’s Jay Black from the TV Squad blog:

There’s been a considerable amount of morbid curiosity surrounding Cavemen. Would it transcend its bad buzz and go on to be a seven-season television institution? Or would it wind up on the flop-heap of history? The answer after the jump…The short answer, for those of you only interested in that sort of thing:

It’s a flop. A major flop. The kind of flop that makes Steven Bochco feel okay about Cop Rock again.

Ouch! Cop Rock? Anyone who recalls that awful show can feel that zinger. But if it’s truly that bad, maybe I do want to see it.[Hollers off-stage] “Roll the clip… ”

(If you’re reading this via RSS, click here for video.)

Hmm… Looks like it might be funny, so long as they don’t overreach — which is exactly why Time Magazine wasn’t too impressed:

The mistake the show’s creators made in the first place was taking the sophisticated, low-key humor of the Geico commercials and making it sitcommy. What makes the Geico ads memorable is that their humor comes from playing the cavemen absolutely straight: they’re successful, business-trip-taking, therapy-going, bourgie members of society who happen to run up against reminders of discrimination.

The Cavemen sitcom turned them into another variation of three guys sitting on a couch, and that made the satire play broader, dumber and thus, at least to some people, more offensive […]

[…] Don’t get me wrong; the original Cavemen pilot was uneven, but it had a point of view and potential. If ABC had had the conviction to stand behind the concept it bought, recognizing that of course people were going to make fun of them for it, they would at least have had the chance of proving the skeptics wrong. As it is, it looks like they’re just praying for the series’ quick extinction.

Thanks to National Geographic (and Google), I’ve found that, yes, prehistoric sharks still exist. Maybe there’s hope for Cavemen after all.

Regardless, there’s not much hope for the show’s website, CavemansCrib.com. It’s Flash-heavy, slow-loading, and does an awkward — albeit admirable — job of re-branding the (GEICO) Cavemen around Apple’s (APPL) iPhone. Doesn’t the show’s mere existence do enough to dilute Geico’s brand? Their commercials are fun, but Geico’s marketing slips when it stops jumping sharks and starts crossing channels.

Is multi-channel marketing so easy a caveman could do it? Take our Cro-Magnon Neanderthal Challenge and find out.

Related Posts:

• Brands & Landing Pages: A Neanderthal Challenge
• Anyone Else Sick of Esurance?
• Podcast: How to Profit from the Social Media Groundswell
• Study: Brand Erosion Caused By E-Commerce Friction
• How to Find Your Website's Voice (Even if it's a Blog)

Want to clear inventory or goose sales this month? Announce yet another promotion.

Want to clear out a crowded elevator? Ask my friend John and he’ll explain how a poorly digested meal will do the trick.

You will get results! Even if both leave a stink.

Farting and clearances are both necessary and both have an appropriate place and time.

Kevin Hillstrom got me thinking about this issue again…

Bryan and I often rant against discounting dependence, and we’re not alone. In his Entrepreneur magazine column, my good friend Roy Williams has explained the time and place to balance relational and transactional customers in your advertising . Another good friend, Jim Novo, can explain why discounting fails with RFM modeling techniques. So it’s not a new concept, but one worth revisiting.

Kevin Hillstrom wrote about sales and discount promotions in a recent blog post, which includes a spreadsheet on the matter:

…When executed properly, management loves a sale — profit could increase, sales likely increase, inventory is moved.

But then the sale ends. And a cohort of customers purchased because they got a “deal”. These customers, in many instances, are less likely to repurchase, and if they want to repurchase, they want to get a “deal”!

Couple that with a management team that is forced to grow top line sales. Sure, bloggers, management consultants and marketing experts will tell management to “sell great products”, and everything will take care of itself. That’s a theoretical argument. Management has to move what sits on the shelves today, regardless whether it is great or not.

So, management adds additional sale periods. Management mixes promotions, free shipping, 20% off your order, 40% off selected merchandise. Sales grow! All is good!

Eventually, the mix of the customer file is irrevocably changed. A large chunk of the customer file loves sale merchandise. Even if you have great full-price merchandise, it will take a few years to acquire the kind of customer who loves full-price merchandise… read the entire post

The addiction to discounting (clearly related to the crackvertising addiction) seems to be so consuming that, despite it’s noxious effects, retailers simply can’t control the habit. Perhaps repetition can change that.

So, I ask you retailers who read this blog: does repeating this information help?

Related Posts:

• Top 10 Online Retailers by Conversion Rate: February 2008
• Will Marketers Keep Their Eye on the Ball?
• Top 10 Online Retailers by Conversion Rate: January 2008
• Is Something Wrong With Your Design?
• Top 10 Online Retailers by Conversion Rate: An Analysis

BusinessWeek’s Bruce Nussbaum asks: “Are Big Ad Agencies So Clueless That Corporations Should Avoid Them?”

It’s not this bad, is it?

(Video may not be work-safe… If you work in an ad agency.)

Related Posts:

• Google Can Win While Cities Drop the Ball on Wi-Fi
• LOLcat: "In UR Advertizrs, Stealing Revenooz"
• What's The Value Of A Brand?
• Process Creams Creativity in Communications
• Monkey See, Monkey Do Marketing

Will you trust a .org more than a .com?

Hmmm…

TIAA-CREF thinks you will. Their new advertising campaign created by Modernista emphasizes its status as a nonprofit organization. Their new campaign, starting this week, focuses on a new website, PowerOf.org.

According to the New York Times article “A Dot-Org Stresses That It’s No Dot-Com“:

“Think .org-onimically,” the headline of a print ad urges. “How much more objective can you get than .o-r-g?” another ad inquires. A third ad declares that “.org” represents “three of the most trusted letters on the Internet.”

In a television commercial, an announcer declares: “We are a financial services dot-org, not a dot-com. For nearly 90 years, our mission has been to put the heart of a nonprofit to work for those who serve the greater good.

“We do this the dot-org way,” the announcer continues, “with low fees, objective advice and a unique insight into the hearts and minds of those who give us hope for the future.” …

I think the campaign has dialed into some powerful emotions about nonprofits that will resonate with their audience. Unfortunately, they’re using the advertising campaign as the driving point to PowerOf.org, and that afterthought of a website is the weak link.

PowerOf.org is a poorly designed website — actually, it’s a mini-site, and part of TIAA-CREF.org. The scent trails are weak, the navigation is worse, the usability is poor — especially those tiny plus signs for “more-ons” — and the messaging is the usual financial services schpiel with a pixie dust sprinkling of the creative that could have been.

I think TIAA-CREF may be onto something, but I’m not impressed with the execution. Too bad they’ll spend all that money on traffic to a website that won’t deliver the customer experience to match.

What do you think?

Related Posts:

• Why I Nearly Flaked on the Season Pass
• Can Delta's Blog Really Deliver A Change?
• Does Anyone Really Click on Sponsored Links in Gmail?
• Who Comes First - Your Customers or Your Advertisers?
• How Much of My $1000 Rock Climbing Gear Budget Do You Want?

Has anyone camping out for an iPhone realized that you don’t have to go to an Apple Store? As you may recall (from the only negative moments in any of the reviews), it’s an AT&T device. I just called a few AT&T stores in Brooklyn. No lines.

Apple has become the #1 brand this year for making people blind to the obvious. Don’t get me wrong; we love Apple so much our entire office has gone Mac. Still, this is nuts…

In fact, it might be the biggest example ever of what Saatchi & Saatchi CEO Kevin Roberts calls “brand loyalty beyond reason.”

So, contact AT&T if you don’t want to “reach out and touch” the person next to you in line. Works better than “The new AT&T,” doesn’t it?

Related Posts:

• GrokDotCom Is First To Be Optimized for iPhone
• A Bruised Apple in the Age of Speed
• Marketing Lessons From Apple
• Blog Buzz for September 5, 2007
• McDonalds Instead of Starbucks: Brand Heresy?

Any marketers out there ever feel like non-business folk’s knee-jerk contempt for your profession rivals that of ambulance-chasing attorneys?*

This prejudice, although generic, is understandable. And, by the way, show me an attorney who defends her trade as much as her clients and I’ll show you the reason lawyer jokes were invented.

I love the art of marketing but, like anyone else, I loath artifice…

So, here’s an idea: don’t market vanity products that result in “oily discharge.” It’s just not a good long-term strategy. (If you’re already offended, you probably shouldn’t read this Wired post about the new diet pill “alli.” And, whatever you do, don’t read this funny-yet-profane rant about the drug’s marketing spin, which I found at the very top of Reddit.com yesterday. How’s that for word-of-mouth?)

As you can see, saying “it’s not for everybody” doesn’t suffice–especially when “not for everybody” really means “. . . it’s probably a smart idea to wear dark pants, and bring a change of clothes with you to work.” Oops!

Far beyond the fact that the FDA approved Alli (aka “Orlistat“) for over-the-counter use–thanks, drug lobbyists–isn’t it a drug maker’s responsibility to make it perfectly clear that treatments like this are extreme?

Sure, the big drug companies are an easier target than even the marketers and attorneys who enable them. But, without them, there’s no innovation. And for every Vioxx lawsuit, there’s a story about a new drug that saves lives. For instance, compare GlaxoSmithKline’s advertisement for Alli with this honest commercial for Merck’s HPV-preventing cervical cancer drug (thanks to DDB).

David Ogilvy wrote Confessions of an Advertising Man back in 1963, and what offends me–not quite as much as those who think “oily discharge” is fair trade for weight-loss–is when I realize an ad exec hasn’t bothered to read Ogilvy. It’s a conversation-killer. As a salesman, marketer, copywriter, entrepreneur and advertiser, the man came from nothing to master his craft. The least you can do is buy his book.

Consider these last few points from the Confessions… chapter on drug marketing:

Advertising drugs is a special art. Here, started with the dogmatism of brevity, are the principles I recommend to those who practice this art:

. . . (4) A good patent-medicine advertisement conveys a feeling of authority. There is a doctor-patient relationship inherent in medicine copy, not merely a seller-buyer relationship.

(5) The advertisement should not merely extol the merits of your product; it should also explain the disease. The sufferer should feel that he has learned something about his condition.

(6) Do not strain credulity. A person in pain wants to believe that you can help him. His will to believe is an active ingredient in the efficacy of the product.

(*Sorry attorneys, but at least you get high-profile dramas. We get low-budget sitcoms, at best.)

Related Posts:

• Blogging: Who Makes Up the Rules?
• The Difference Between Edgy and Creative
• When A Product Sells Itself
• Believe What I Do, Not What I Say
• Are You Shooting Blanks?

I know my audience. Or at least I thought I did. My bet is that this audience sits right in the Starbucks demographic sweet spot.

I just read this in an article from Bloomberg:

Marc Greenberg, a Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. analyst in New York, reduced his target price for Starbucks shares to $32 from $37 today, saying that positive consumer reaction to McDonald’s brew poses a threat to the coffee chain.

Yesterday, Jason West, a Deutsche analyst in Boston, upgraded McDonald’s shares to “buy” from “hold” on its “expanding beverages opportunity.”

Will you be going to McDonalds for your coffee instead of Starbucks?

Related Posts:

• Would You Like a McFrappuccino With That?
• A Bruised Apple in the Age of Speed
• iPhone Campout = "Brand Loyalty Beyond Reason"
• Podcast: How to Profit from the Social Media Groundswell
• Study: Brand Erosion Caused By E-Commerce Friction

It all started when I was doing research on women and images. I read lots and lots of women’s magazines.

I lost my will to live.

Seriously, I just didn’t get it. The models looked bored at best, in pain at worst. Fashion ads were the biggest offenders. Fashion photographers call these women beautiful models. I call them raccoons with a heroin addiction.

But I persevered. I find the study fascinating. So I went to view the Clio awards in print to see what images targeted at women were winning awards.

I lost my will to live . . . again.

Take a look at this award winner:

My first reaction was, “There’s a headless woman with a steel rod though her body. YIKES!” My next reaction was, “So, men are human enough to at least have balloon heads, but women are objects that don’t even deserve balloons?” (Stay with me here. It sounds bizarre, but I’m just giving you first impressions.) But then I thought, “Well, it’s probably a men’s fashion ad, so it doesn’t really matter.”

Then I saw that it is an ad for “womenswear.” This was an ad targeting women? So, I looked closer and realized the woman didn’t have a steel rod jutting through her body, she had a pin coming out of her body. (You simply cannot make this stuff up)

OK - I’m dying to ask - what is the message of this ad? What is the ad saying to women?

“Wear our clothes and pop men’s heads like balloons” (Yeah, you’re right. Too literal.)

“Women who wear our clothes can control men”

“Get men’s attention”

“You’re in charge”

“Look sharp”

I honestly have no idea what message the ad is trying to convey? What do you think?

Related Posts:

• Will Marketers Keep Their Eye on the Ball?
• Now Available: "The Soccer Mom Myth" by Holly Buchanan & Michele Miller
• The Whopper is dead. Long live the Whopper!
• The 7 Deadly Claims (Part Four) -- "We're #1"
• The 2007 Marketing to Women Awards