Great Circle Associates List-Managers
(March 1999)

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: no universal system, no 'get a real client
From: "Karen Lopez, I.S.P." <KarenLopez @ infoadvisors . com>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 11:24:03 -0500
To: <List-Managers @ GreatCircle . COM>
Importance: Normal
In-reply-to: <>
Reply-to: <karenlopez @ infoadvisors . com>

Rich wrote:
>I see nothing wrong with insisting that subscribers avail themselves
of suitable resources to serve their own needs.

I would hope that your statement has an implied "for my lists".  The
point of my original post is that it is up to each list
owner/administrator to analyze his/her objectives for hosting a list,
target "customer", fee structure, and desired outcomes to determine
how s/he runs a list.

In my case, my goal is to get my domain (company) name in front of as
many database and architecture professionals as possible.  My target
customer is an IT professional in a shop with an IT budget in the tens
of millions of dollars.  This target audience frequently leads to
shops that have very specific and closed standards for what e-mail
clients a subscriber can use.  For instance, one client of mine, for
whatever reason, is still stuck in a Windows 3.1, very old cc:Mail
environment.  They are forbidden from using any other client on a
company machine.  Another shop forbids attachments.  Yet another
forbids e-mails with the word "list" in the address line or header.
Another forbids e-mails with more than 10 recipients.

I could do all the nudging, pleading, and demanding that I wanted to,
but they will not be able to change.  I have made a decision based on
cost, benefit, and risk to not exclude them from my lists or to
implement features that might automatically exclude them.  Do I think
their shop standards are crazy? Yes!  Do I want to exclude them? No.
Do I want them to have to s*bscribe from a free account from home? No,
I want my message right there in front of them at work, where their
demand for services exists.  Other list administrators may take a
different approach because they have different goals and outcomes.

My lists are no charge to the s*bscriber.  Yes, it costs me dearly in
time, mostly, to run these lists.  But just one "sale" down the road
can recover my costs, tenfold.

OTOH, Michelle's lists are directed to individuals with a common
interest related to food and recipes.  In general, I would imagine her
goal for the lists was not to make money from subscribers, but to
provide a method for sharing information about a specific food diet
(not dieting, per se). I'd guess she started this because there
weren't any lists out there to do so.  So now she has added revenue
streams to her site that help her offset the costs for providing the
service, as she has no expectation of generating "sales" from these
members directly.

On the one hobby list (It's A Wonderful Life List), I take a
completely different approach to moderation because 1) I don't have
any direct monetary gain from it. 2) I administer the list because no
one else wants to. 3) Most of my users are not constrained by
corporate or other external standards. 4) Most are actually willing to
read the FAQ and instructions.

Again, my point was not to comment on the specific original topic,
subject line munging, but to comment on the ability of s*bscribers to
change software or settings on a whim.  I just wanted to make sure
that we addressed the issue of client changes, not to defend the
standards being set by these corporate administrators.

ListMistress to Way Too Many Lists for the Time Available to Me.

Indexed By Date Previous: Re: subject tagging or not
From: murr rhame <>
Next: Re: no universal system, no 'get a real client'
From: Adam Bailey <>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: subject tagging or not
From: Adam Bailey <>
Next: Re: no universal system, no 'get a real client
From: "Michael C. Berch" <>

Search Internet Search