What you are describing is not what this person experienced. Weebly sent an email a day, for a week. I understand one email, maybe even two after a few days. But every day for a week is too much.
And on every single email the person had the following options:
1. Click the unsubscribe link.
2. Mark it as spam in his/her email client.
3. Actively follow-up and publish his/her site.
4. Ignore it and move on with life.
5. Collect it as an example of excessive lifecycle emails, then write a laborious article decrying the company's marketing practices.
The OP is tech-savvy and knows about each of these possible choices. He/She chose #5 each and every time. I argue that the resulting anger is non-constructive.
Yes, it does. They can't possibly know if they are bothering you or not, if you won't even click that link.
If I ask you every five minutes if I'm bothering you and you don't say anything, then later you write a blog post about how I won't stop talking, who acted passive-aggressive?
> They can't possibly know if they are bothering you or not
Really? Take off the programmer hat and put on your human hat for a second. #include <empathy.h>
How would you feel getting a vaguely aggressive message every day from some random company? I can't imagine there are very many people who would appreciate it. In fact, I can't imagine there're very many people on the planet who would think it's a good idea.
The only way anyone ever thinks some stupid thing like this is a good idea is if they're blindly following the results of their A/B testing without taking a look at the big picture. The kinds of people who do this are the same people who play D&D as minmaxers, rule-lawyers and metagamers, then get confused when the gaming group falls apart. You might be measuring conversion rates (or XP and magic items gamed), but conversion rates are not your business. The point of a business is to make something people want to buy, just as the point of a D&D session is to have fun.
By blindly following the numbers without thinking about the people involved, you optimize yourself into the ground.
> the same people who play D&D as minmaxers, rule-lawyers and metagamers
Bank managers do this, realtors do this all the time: if the prospect doesn't say "I'm not interested", assume he's busy and try again later. This is just regular hustle. Now if you tell me not to contact you again and I do, then we are in creepy territory.
The disconnect in the article comes from the company assuming the OP is a potential customer (a valid assumption, since most people that do give their email create a site).
They can possibly know if they may other people by using their imagination and a little empathy. If I get to the point that I hunt around - and I often do have to hunt around - for the unsubscribe link, your company has failed.
I agree with you and I wouldn't like getting all those emails, but I imagine all this has been tested and this produced the best results. If that is the case, we can't really say this is too much.
Yes we can. Spam produces good results too, for the spammer. Even if the every-day email volume tested well in the short term, it will still likely have long-term business consequences. And even if it works well for them in the long term, it is still a net negative to society.
