|
|
|
|
|
|
by sinaiman
5581 days ago
|
|
|
Sure, you could look at it like that, but this is what marketing is at it's core, really. You run a campaign and you then judge whether it was effective or not. And yeah, when some marketing effort isn't effective, it could be because it was annoying. But, the bottom line is that marketing a product or service is the process of figuring out what works on real people and a really good way of figuring that out is by actually trying it out with a real audience and recording the results, like a real experiment. You can call it purposely annoying users, but I don't see it that way, and for all we know some people might like the option of tweeting about the video they're about to watch... |
|
|
The idea of putting up some sort of "Tweet-wall" before I can watch a video and forcing me to tell everyone I'm watching said video is a bit like coercing a review from someone about material they have never seen. Never mind being incredibly annoying, it's also basically asking the user to lie. You can't have an opinion about something about which you know nothing.
And do the Twitter messages coming from this Tweet-wall really add value? To anything or anyone? To the user having to type the message, it's like they're being asked to generate spam for all their followers.
And does that forced Twitter spam actually benefit the video in the long run? Or does it cast a shadowy pall over the video, the video owner, the person forced to tweet, and ultimately, the technology itself?
I'm fascinated at how many in this thread see this as a good idea. I can't even fathom how someone would come to that conclusion.
[1] http://www.cbc.ca/ageofpersuasion/episode/2009/02/14/season-...