From people like you perhaps. In which case, knock yourself out.
I do agree that TWIST maintains a high quality of guests tho.
649 karma · joined March 29, 2009
Contact - ericvorheese@gmail.com
My top color is 0099ff.
From people like you perhaps. In which case, knock yourself out.
I do agree that TWIST maintains a high quality of guests tho.
groupon.com
match.com
pandora.com
When Mr. Kitty was asked for comment, he hid under the bed.
-
P.S. Don't they normally reserve crunchnotes for this sort of irrelevant petty bullshit?Just keeping in mind that at some point, you will have to hand over all the data to an accountant.
We're planning on sending 1 daily email to each subscriber. Let's say we want to be prepared for sending 100,000+ per day.
We're currently on rackspace's cloudservers, so we have no problem spinning a separate instance for a mail server. Just needed some guidance in terms of setting up the server and start mailing.
Can you point me to a resource where I can do some reading and educate myself a bit more?
Another reason is the cost. Once email lists get into the tens of thousands, it becomes expensive to have someone else like Aweber handle them. I have a feeling it'd be cheaper to run it in-house. I don't really have any hard data to prove this of course, just assuming based on the fact that most startups do it this way.
Finally, based on the little bit that I've read, it's the initial setup (servers, IPs, subscribe/unsubscribe requests) that takes effort. But once it's automated, things will be humming along nicely, provided there's regular periodic monitoring of course.
I'm pretty sure startups run email delivery in-house for the reasons above and more. Take Groupon for example - I'd be willing to bet they do it in-house.
How much?
You got an unwanted piece of email? Take a second to mark it as spam and be done with it. Sweet mother of god, you got it via HN?? Once again, take the exact same second to mark it as spam and be done it. But don't assume that it affects the big scheme of things concerning HN, because it doesn't. A single company trolling for emails is orthogonal to the evolution/erosion of HN.
P.S. You're feeling 'sad'? This is all it takes to make you feel sad? Jesus.
More so than the fact that it's your own kid? I'd think that that would be the ultimate motivation for parental involvement...
Citation? Not being confrontational or anything, just really curious.
A flawed comparison. Goldman is an investment bank that needs to pull in incredible returns percentage wise. Safebank is a watchman guarding a vault. Basically, Goldman needs to pay out bonuses to attract top-shelf talent, while Safebank doesn't.
Aside from this, anyone else like the name hab.la much better than olark?
He has basically made it clear that his only goal is to drive readers to subscribe to his newsletter (so that if they stop coming to his blog, he can still chase after them in their inboxes) and through the newsletter, get them to sign up for some of the most useless crap under the sun and collect commissions.
Darren Rowse aka Problogger on the other hand, seems to genuinely want to offer info that can help ppl generate money online. What sets him apart from the rest of the 'me-too' probloggers is his standards. He rarely has any aff links in his posts and when he does, it's usually for something that he's personally used and wants to recommend.
If the problem is money however, then that's a valid issue. Because all of the above cost significant amounts of money.
Any research to back that up? I always thought that was a subjective thing, in that it varies for everyone.
Cutting off access to aggregators - Mark feels that this somehow makes the content more valuable and convince readers to come directly to the site. Bullshit. If a site blocks access to a particular news story for an aggregator, the aggregator will simply link to another site that has another article on that same news story (Breaking news? more like leaking news. It takes a grand total of about 2 min for someone else to write up the same story).
The whole point of staying on top of aggregators is that when readers follow a link from an aggregator, they will stick around and go deeper into the site - thats where money can be made. Instead, if they let the aggregators link to other sites, they just took another giant leap towards extinction.
John Gruber said it best - the way for newspapers to make money is to cut the bloat. As opposed to the current model where the editorial staff makes up only a fraction of the total head count at major newspaper and magazine companies, they should become lean and mean organizations with little or no management bureaucracy. Operations where nearly every employee is working on producing actual content. Gruber cites the example of Talking Points Memo (which is profitable and hiring) and I wholeheartedly agree.
Welcome the aggregators to link to you. Keep your organisation wire tight. Those are the first 2 steps newspapers should be taking.
P.S. Reuters has the right idea - http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2009/08/04/why-i-believe-...