Scary spam quiz from McAfee
Latest posts | Feed | By Mark Brownlow on August 30, 2006
McAfee try very hard (but unsuccessfully) to upsell me on various products and free tools. But this attempt might be the best so far.
The McAfee SiteAdvisor - Spam Quiz presents you with eight pairs of real websites. For each pair, you have to guess which one would send you spam if you submitted your email address to them.
It's an intriguing challenge!
Assuming you don't make the right choices, the incentive is of course to download McAfee's safe browsing tool. Nice idea. Might get plenty of word of mouth (like this blog post).
From an email marketing viewpoint, the quiz is rather frightening. In one case, picking the wrong site would have netted you "1075 spammy e-mails per week."
1075!
Is it any wonder we have problems with email fatigue and mistrust of commercial email?
The McAfee SiteAdvisor - Spam Quiz presents you with eight pairs of real websites. For each pair, you have to guess which one would send you spam if you submitted your email address to them.
It's an intriguing challenge!
Assuming you don't make the right choices, the incentive is of course to download McAfee's safe browsing tool. Nice idea. Might get plenty of word of mouth (like this blog post).
From an email marketing viewpoint, the quiz is rather frightening. In one case, picking the wrong site would have netted you "1075 spammy e-mails per week."
1075!
Is it any wonder we have problems with email fatigue and mistrust of commercial email?
[This post brought to you by Campaigner Email Marketing]
Permalink | Add to del.icio.us | 0 comment(s) - add yours!
Get posts like this: as an RSS feed | as a biweekly newsletter
Permalink | Add to del.icio.us | 0 comment(s) - add yours!
Get posts like this: as an RSS feed | as a biweekly newsletter
Sign-up for the Email Marketing Reports NEWSLETTER
Twice a month, free, packed with email marketing advice and all the posts from this blog.
Twice a month, free, packed with email marketing advice and all the posts from this blog.
0 Comments:
