Today In Stunt Marketing: FATTY FATTY FAT FAT

Print This Post

You may also like...

14 Responses

  1. Zack says:

    *facepalm*

    It's not so much all the ways this can go wrong, but how in the HELL was this supposed to ever go RIGHT? I can't conceive of anyone who would react positively to that sort of marketing.

  2. ShelbyC says:

    Comparative advantage. If 1% of people respond favorably to this technique, but <1% of firms use it…

  3. BCP says:

    Relax, man, he's a brother Seamus.

  4. Al I. says:

    Geez, that sounds to me like a deceptive subject line, which would be a violation of CAN-SPAM.

  5. Adam says:

    But did Nelson end up pulling your pants down?

  6. MZ says:

    You should call their office, ask to speak to someone in charge. Hearing how their marketing is turning away potential customers can't make things worse.

    Or call them out by name online and mock them.

  7. SKT says:

    Osama 3
    Obama -1

    I think we should call this game on account of darkness.

  8. En Passant says:

    Al I. wrote Aug 20, 2013 @12:20 pm:

    Geez, that sounds to me like a deceptive subject line, which would be a violation of CAN-SPAM.

    Disclaimer: I don't practice civil in CA, and never did. Or anywhere else either.

    But I can read. And I detest spammers.

    Deceptive subject line is among the things banned by CA's anti-spam statute. CA B&P Code Sect. 17529.5 (a)(3):

    (a) It is unlawful for any person or entity to advertise in a commercial e-mail advertisement either sent from California or sent to a California electronic mail address under any of the following circumstances: …

    (3) The e-mail advertisement has a subject line that a person knows would be likely to mislead a recipient, acting reasonably under the circumstances, about a material fact regarding the contents or subject matter of the message.

    CA's law's statutory damages are $1000 per email plus reasonable attorney fees and costs.

    So, if a recipient sues under CA statute, and convinces the court that the subject line is deceptive to a reasonable person, and the email otherwise qualifies as spam under CA law (which I won't conjecture here), the sender will at best get to appeal.

    I won't conjecture whether a CA court would find the subject line deceptive. But I think black belt civil litigator who was sufficiently unhappy about being targeted by the spammer could have some fun finding out.

    And some spammers won't stop until they lose a suit. Because Hitler.

  9. En Passant says:

    Well, d'oh, I forgot why Al I.'s comment Aug 20, 2013 @12:20 pm jogged my poore brane to mention CA's law in the first place.

    So I should note that CAN SPAM preemption would be defeated by the act's own terms. The CAN SPAM act preempts state law "except to the extent that any such statute, regulation, or rule prohibits falsity or deception in any portion of a commercial electronic mail message or information attached thereto."

  10. RQM says:

    "the subject line was intended as an attention-grabber, referring to the street name of a character in the possibly-true story"

    It'd be hard to say it was deceptive, when the relevance could be argued. I once received a resume that was written in a similar fashion. It went in the trash; if you're going to try that sort of thing, proofreading is essential.

  11. Fasolt says:

    He's not fat, he's fluffy.

  12. the other rob says:

    @ Fasolt

    Ah, you've met my cat, Zevon, I see.

  13. Merissa says:

    Maybe this is like that pick-up strategy where you start out by insulting the female to make her feel insecure and eager to please? Or something.

  14. NickM says:

    I just (well, yesterday morning) got an email from someone trying to sell me (according to the email title) Web Devlopment Services.

    Yeah, that inspires confidence.

    I was tempted to respond in the style of a Nigerian scammer wanting a website.