Comments on: Does “free” really mean free? http://ccmlinks.com/2006/09/22/editorial-does-free-really-mean-free/ Contemporary Christian Music Links Fri, 21 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.2 by: MusicMan http://ccmlinks.com/2006/09/22/editorial-does-free-really-mean-free/#comment-1211 Mon, 05 Mar 2007 15:41:23 +0000 http://ccmlinks.com/2006/09/22/editorial-does-free-really-mean-free/#comment-1211 Aaron: Thanks for your comment! I understand that the email addresses given weren't stored, and that's good to know. Had they been stored, I still wouldn't have had any trouble giving them to Derek. However: I'm not sure you've thought through the idea that email addresses used but not stored aren't actually "given". As I mentioned above, the issue was how one was able to actually GET Derek's album: it was marketed as "free" with the option of helping spread the word...but the option was actually mandatory. Let's change the scenario a bit. Let's make it a more manual process... "Get Aaron's new album "Jesus Totally Rocks" for FREE! All you have to do is send an email to everyone in your address book, and send a copy to CCM Links. When it's clear that you've done our marketing for us, we'll give you the album". How's that? No email addresses would be stored at CCM Links, so (in your words) it could be said that they weren't given. Isn't that the same thing? In the end, Derek and NoiseTrade gave away an album in exchange for some viral marketing. I don't mind...in fact, I participated more than once by blogging about it more than once. I promoted it as a good idea, suggested that others get involved, and (hopefully) drove a good amount of traffic their way. I like the idea, and it obviously worked. The problem is that perception is often reality...and some people perceived this marketing effort at not-quite-truly-honest, and that's a shame. With a small amount of foresight, it could have been a winner for everyone. Your thoughts? Aaron:

Thanks for your comment!
I understand that the email addresses given weren’t stored, and that’s good to know. Had they been stored, I still wouldn’t have had any trouble giving them to Derek.

However: I’m not sure you’ve thought through the idea that email addresses used but not stored aren’t actually “given”. As I mentioned above, the issue was how one was able to actually GET Derek’s album: it was marketed as “free” with the option of helping spread the word…but the option was actually mandatory.

Let’s change the scenario a bit. Let’s make it a more manual process…

“Get Aaron’s new album “Jesus Totally Rocks” for FREE! All you have to do is send an email to everyone in your address book, and send a copy to CCM Links. When it’s clear that you’ve done our marketing for us, we’ll give you the album”.

How’s that? No email addresses would be stored at CCM Links, so (in your words) it could be said that they weren’t given. Isn’t that the same thing? In the end, Derek and NoiseTrade gave away an album in exchange for some viral marketing. I don’t mind…in fact, I participated more than once by blogging about it more than once. I promoted it as a good idea, suggested that others get involved, and (hopefully) drove a good amount of traffic their way. I like the idea, and it obviously worked.

The problem is that perception is often reality…and some people perceived this marketing effort at not-quite-truly-honest, and that’s a shame. With a small amount of foresight, it could have been a winner for everyone.

Your thoughts?

]]> by: Aaron Greene http://ccmlinks.com/2006/09/22/editorial-does-free-really-mean-free/#comment-1201 Mon, 05 Mar 2007 06:29:45 +0000 http://ccmlinks.com/2006/09/22/editorial-does-free-really-mean-free/#comment-1201 the information required for downloading the album, 5 email addresses, was not stored in any database. a personal message from the person who offered their addresses was sent by email to them with the recommendation that they might enjoy getting this free album. If that personal information was not stored, it could be said it wasn't given. So, i'm not sure you have all the loose ends in full view. the information required for downloading the album, 5 email addresses, was not stored in any database. a personal message from the person who offered their addresses was sent by email to them with the recommendation that they might enjoy getting this free album. If that personal information was not stored, it could be said it wasn’t given. So, i’m not sure you have all the loose ends in full view.

]]>