Comments on: “Viral Friend Generator” Video – Horrid, dirty spam

By: Marketing Guy

Marketing Guy — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 12:41:06 +0000

I didn’t say “tell a friend” software was spam. I said faking referrals in analytics logs is spam, which is what was happening **4** **YEARS** ago when I wrote this post.

By: MaryEllen

MaryEllen — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:57:04 +0000

Using a “tell a friend” software, like VFG, to tell a friend about a site you visited and found it good enough to share it with a friend is NOT spam. No matter how you spin it to try to make it out to be spam, it is not. Sites like Face book, My space, etc, etc has all used softwares like VFG to grow their membership base. The Fed has also ruled that using those types of softwares is not considered spam, because the invitation comes from a person that the receiver has communicated with in the past.

By: Marketing Guy

Marketing Guy — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 21:41:33 +0000

Well….this *is* a SEO blog, so there would be a load of SEO related posts here…

And I think you might be missing the point that I wrote this post (coming up on two years ago now!) because VFG was using referral log spam tactics to drive traffic. That’s spam. Justify it by saying you’re just letting people know about your product if you want. It’s still spam.

By: jon

jon — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:57:39 +0000

I think you are missing the point. It’s not designed to spam – it’s there for letting others you know about your produt. The guy who created that product is well known and has made far more than you are ever going to…go figure.

I notice on here there is a lot about that other pointless crap…SEO. Who needs that rubbish…….I get hundreds of sign ups a week and I use no SEO at all…dear oh dear you really do need to come into the 21st century dear boy.

By: Marketing Guy

Marketing Guy — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 12:20:55 +0000

Damn you post hijackers – comment on the right post! Just kidding (wish WP had a feature to move comments to different posts).

Yeh I agree they are both taking pretty good angles (in terms of marketing), although I’d say greed on both parts (mainly Sky) was the factor causing the deal to collapse.

Sky probably bumped up the price because Virgin have moved in on their market share and Virgin have simply refused to bend over.

By: kelvin newman

kelvin newman — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 12:14:43 +0000

I mean I think it’s clever on the both part. Virgin are playing the greedy rupert murdoch angle when they aren’t exactly a tiny little operation. Plus Sky are doing the whole, Virgin are ripping you off thing.

I think the reason the deal never happened is because neither party wanted the deal enough.

By: Marketing Guy

Marketing Guy — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 15:16:36 +0000

Hehe I thought the Sky Snooze change was pretty amusing (just my sense of humour though!).

It’s tough to tell what was going on in the background with the deal – I’d hazard a guess that there was a lot of dirty back room stuff going on to let things get this way in public.

By: kelvin newman

kelvin newman — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 14:41:03 +0000

I really don’t know who’s the bad guy in the sky vs. virgin thing. I think VM were a bit childish with the changing the EPG to Sky Snooze etc. I admit Sky knew that provided they attracted a 100,000 new customers they wouldn’t lose whereas VM has a lot more to lose.