The phenomenon of paid comment spammers, who pose as Real Live Commenters with more or less success to leave "cleverly" camouflaged advertising in blogs, recently
came up again at ML, and by a curious coincidence I dowsed up a probable instance of it going on in the wild, concerning the movie (which I didn't know was being made) of Susan Cooper's
(
Read more... )
The only reason they can get away with it is that they're not paying print/paper/postage costs, or even webpage space, like ordinary advertisers - it basically costs them nothing, so *any* return is a gain. But in terms of effectiveness? It's so hostile an environment for spam that legitimate companies have gotten slammed in public opinion for doing things that even *seem* like spam (like default opt-in newsletters when you download software) let alone actually going out and spamming out of stupidity. Spam is about as popular, even if it's as common as, *mosquitos.*
Frex, did anyone here on LJ go see "Passion of the Christ" because they comment-spammed journals with gushing reviews of it? (leading iirc to the institution of captcha boxes on LJ) To the best of my knowledge, people were only motivated to loathe Mel Gibson et al the more...
Reply
The pseudo-spammers just do not understand that they are spamming. If they happen to leave a valid e-mail address they are going to find out pretty soon, but with blog spam they don't get that kind of instant feedback which seems to be best for training puppies and marketing drones away from making messes. They do not bother to learn about what they are doing, or to whom, much less check for effectiveness, and probably believe that their masquerade is not only working, but is really clever.
Reply
Leave a comment