ANYone who uses this 'tactic' is crossing the line...

119 replies
Using "RE:" in the subject line.

It signals the crossing over from being a help to your list, TO trying to 'put one over' on them.

It's a SCAM, and ONLY meant to DECEIVE. Pure + simple.

-- TW
#crossing #line #tactic
  • How do you figure? "RE:" simply means "regarding."

    I can testify that it gets my attention. Of course, I immediately recognize whether it's a response to an email I sent out or not, but I often at least read the headline where otherwise I might not.
    Signature

    Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy, and good with ketchup.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[954580].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author JeremyHoover
      Originally Posted by thegoddessofeleven View Post

      How do you figure? "RE:" simply means "regarding."

      I can testify that it gets my attention. Of course, I immediately recognize whether it's a response to an email I sent out or not, but I often at least read the headline where otherwise I might not.
      I agree. I often use Re: to indicate the content of an original message (not a reply) to another person, or even a group.

      I understand the point, and have received some messages from some marketers that are clearly intended to get you thinking they replied to one of your messages. I don't like that approach, although it is effective in getting my attention, which means it must work.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[954609].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author CmdrStidd
      I have seen it used quite effectively by many online marketers.

      For example: one marketer I know of was planning a launch of his new product on a particular date. The day before the launch he sent out an email with the subject line of "RE: Launch scrubbed..."

      It got my attention and when I read the email he was informing everyone that he was pushing back the launch date because there were problems with part of the offer and he wanted everything perfect for the launch.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[954648].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Steven Wagenheim
        Would you have a problem with the following email subject?

        "Regarding The Recent Amazon.com Affiliate Marketing Tax Changes?"

        There is nothing wrong with the letters RE per say, unless you are trying
        to infer with the rest of the subject that you are responding to an email
        that the person sent to you such as...

        "Regarding your email to me"

        That is just a flat out lie and yes, would get me to unsubscribe.

        But the first one WOULD get my attention and WOULD get me to read it,
        especially if I was an affiliate for Amazon products.

        You have to look at the context of the whole subject and not just the
        RE:
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[954670].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author CmdrStidd
          Originally Posted by -- TW View Post

          There is ONLY one purpose in doing it -- to ***DECEIVE*** the recipient (or attempt to).

          That is the very definition of crossing the line.

          It is a smug-based SCAM.

          Thats' all.

          -- TW
          I am sorry but you are way off base here. There are times and situations that having that as a subject line is perfectly legit even if it is a first contact situation. I gave one in my previous statement and now Steve has given another, and chances are, neither of us had to think long and hard about it to get a good example.

          Show me where the marketer was being outright deceptive when his subject line read "RE: Launch Scrubbed..."? If you can show me where he was being deceitful then I will accept your argument but if you cannot then you need to realize that no rule is absolute, not even yours.

          Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim View Post

          Would you have a problem with the following email subject?

          "Regarding The Recent Amazon.com Affiliate Marketing Tax Changes?"

          There is nothing wrong with the letters RE per say, unless you are trying
          to infer with the rest of the subject that you are responding to an email
          that the person sent to you such as...

          "Regarding your email to me"

          That is just a flat out lie and yes, would get me to unsubscribe.

          But the first one WOULD get my attention and WOULD get me to read it,
          especially if I was an affiliate for Amazon products.

          You have to look at the context of the whole subject and not just the
          RE:
          I have forgotten how well you could frame your arguments. You always have great logic and solid examples. I am glad to see you are back with us.

          That said, I have to agree with you, Steve, this is yet another example of proper use of the RE in the subject line for a first contact. You are not saying here that the receiver ever contacted the sender for the information but rather what is contained in the email is specific to that one topic and that one topic only.

          It is kind of like a one sentence outline of the emails contents.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[954701].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Steven Wagenheim
            Originally Posted by CmdrStidd View Post

            I am sorry but you are way off base here. There are times and situations that having that as a subject line is perfectly legit even if it is a first contact situation. I gave one in my previous statement and now Steve has given another, and chances are, neither of us had to think long and hard about it to get a good example.

            Show me where the marketer was being outright deceptive when his subject line read "RE: Launch Scrubbed..."? If you can show me where he was being deceitful then I will accept your argument but if you cannot then you need to realize that no rule is absolute, not even yours.


            I have forgotten how well you could frame your arguments. You always have great logic and solid examples. I am glad to see you are back with us.

            That said, I have to agree with you, Steve, this is yet another example of proper use of the RE in the subject line for a first contact. You are not saying here that the receiver ever contacted the sender for the information but rather what is contained in the email is specific to that one topic and that one topic only.

            It is kind of like a one sentence outline of the emails contents.

            Thanks. I'm glad to be back as well.

            The problem is, many people think that RE means responding to. It doesn't.
            It means regarding.

            But I agree, RE with a subject like "your email to me" would have me
            opt out so fast that the person's head would be spinning. But for the
            OP to make a blanket statement like this just doesn't make any sense.

            However, and this is the ironic part, it doesn't matter what we think. If
            this is how HE sees RE then any time he sees it, regardless of the context,
            he's going to opt out of the list.

            Having said that, you can't manage your list emails by this one opinion.

            Test a subject like this (with a legitimate use such as the example I gave)
            and see how your list responds. If you get massive unsubscribes, you
            might want to think about using it again. If not, don't worry about it.

            Just make sure you use RE responsibly.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[954723].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author John Durham
      Originally Posted by thegoddessofeleven View Post

      How do you figure? "RE:" simply means "regarding."

      I can testify that it gets my attention. Of course, I immediately recognize whether it's a response to an email I sent out or not, but I often at least read the headline where otherwise I might not.
      A BOLD young Goddess indeed.Would he prefer that we use the whole word "regarding"?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[954676].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Karen Blundell
      Originally Posted by Razer Rage View Post

      Actually, it means "reply" to most people. They think they're replying to an email that they never sent in the first place.

      I agree with the OP. Using "RE:" or "Oops, messed up the link", or any other misleading title is lame. It shows a lack of skill in marketing and a lack of quality on the part of the marketer.

      If you want a responsive list, then build trust with them by GIVING them high quality information WITHOUT selling them anything.

      Then, when you do sell your list anything, MAKE SURE it WILL help them and provide helpful, useful, and relevant information to what they are trying to do.

      All those "sneaky conversion tricks" are worthless. Word gets around about them pretty quickly once they become popular, so they become useless.

      When it comes down to it, there is no substitute for quality and buyer's trust. High conversions with your list must be earned. They do not happen overnight with the latest "sneaky conversion trick".

      English Grammar 101: "Re" means and has always meant "Regarding"...

      Usage Example: I reply to ad in the paper for a job. So I send off a cover letter along with my resume. In my cover letter I include something like this:
      Re: Your Ad in the Toronto Star classified dated July 7, 2009, for the position of Web Developer.

      capiche?

      in short, I disagree with the OP that using Re is meant to deceive unless the sender writes: Re: your Recent Order, or Re: your recent email, when I clearly had no prior communication with the marketer
      Signature
      ---------------
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[955272].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ExRat
        Hi Karen/Amy,

        Your responses make me think of my current favourite made-up word that I chose recently, to describe what so often happens when one is wombatting, but it backfires -

        womback

        The classic one is when someone wombats someone else about their use of 'bad grammer.'

        ..................

        Hi Onslaught,

        Don't blame us, blame Paul Myers.

        If you sign up to his list - here - best marketing newsletter (no aff link)

        You get some good freebies, including -

        If you don't laugh out loud at the wombat story, you need a humor transplant. Seriously
        Signature


        Roger Davis

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[955277].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimGross
          Ah, another thread of marketers talking to marketers about what they don't like about other marketers.

          Time well-spent.

          It's awesome how the original poster talking about deception doesn't post using his actual name.

          re: Waste of time
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[955302].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Karen Blundell
        Originally Posted by Razer Rage View Post

        ...and, Re: is usually ONLY used in a reply. I.E. when you make a reply, it usually has "Re:" in the title. Therefore, "Re:" in the title would indicate that the email in question is a reply, when it is fact, not.

        Sorry, but being technical about the definition can not divert the fact that it is meant to be deceptive in making the reader think it is a reply to an email they sent.

        Why else would they add "Re:" to the title? Normally, a conversation starts without it, and continues with it.

        I really can't see how anyone could be confused about what is meant by including it. It's obviously an attempt to get the readers attention by making it appear to be a reply.

        Of course, whenever I get an email like this, I simply delete it. I can tell right of the bat that there is nothing of value in that email if it has "Re:" in it if I did not start the conversation.
        Razer,
        did you not read Steven Wagenheim's usage example above? Re is not used ONLY in a reply. Perhaps you have never encountered other usages for the term, but that doesn't mean there aren't any.

        Back to the whole point of this thread - i.e.: deception. I don't like deception either. To me, though, there is a difference between clever marketing tactics and deception. I can usually tell the difference.
        Signature
        ---------------
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[955364].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Tina Golden
          [DELETED]
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[955453].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Tina Golden
            [DELETED]
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[955487].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author ExRat
              Hi Razer Rage,
              When a scanner "scans" an item, it does not pick up small bits of information randomly, as humans do when they skim bits of text, but it gathers ALL bits of information, carefully going over the entire document.
              You're basing that on the one definition of scanner - the one that scans a document.

              What about radio scanners?

              Sonar scanners?

              Radar scanners?

              How do they fit your description quoted above?

              I'll answer - they don't - except the radio one that does both.

              A radar scanner looks at the whole picture and shows a tiny amount of info on each finding (a dot).

              A bit like when you scan through email headings in a list.

              Unlike -

              "The verb "to scan" means to examine intensively."
              And those scanners existed well before your scanner.

              I have to add that I see you arguing in another thread (the porn one), laying down absolutes with no logical reasoning to back up your view, but if I was bothered to reply in it I would disagree with you there too.

              There are many people here who seem to believe that because something is their opinion, it must be a fact.

              At any rate, the topic of "scan" is waaaaayyyy off-topic here, we were discussing using "Re:" in the titles of your emails (which is a very stupid thing to talk about, when I think about it).
              And who exactly was the wombat that caused this enlightening diversion from the topic?

              (PS I'm not using wombat as an insult, but rather a term of friendly jest - but you know that, you used it first. Just trying to lighten the mood - no need for 'there's a good lad' - that IS insulting).
              Signature


              Roger Davis

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[955534].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author ExRat
                Hi Razer Rage,

                Ok, have it your way, kid gloves off.

                You said to Amy -

                you are very immature
                ...and you are way too emotional when proven wrong - a classic symptom of immaturity, therefore also a case of pot & kettle.

                Wiki answers - lol. That proves it then, right?

                You assume far too much, Rat. For your information, I was referring to the type of scanner that scans papers.
                I love the way people shorten my name to Rat. It's a sign that I'm right, they are wrong, and they can't deal with it.

                Um. I too, was relating to paper scanners when I referenced 'your' scanner. Re-read the post without blinding yourself with Rage and you might learn something (IE you are incorrect).

                And for another thing, in the adult thread. Please. It's common knowledge what porn does to a person
                As I said - seeing opinion as absolute fact. The most common example of sloppy thinking on this forum and a particularly unusual thing for a good marketer to do.

                How could you possibly help someone by exposing them to pornography?
                a) if they are mentally ill and a sexual predator, but the pornography removes their urges to harm

                b) if they are disabled to such an extent that they need a solution, but the only other alternative is to use a real human (a prostitute) rather than a real human who poses for photographs (a model)

                c) there are many more, but the two are enough to refute your points thoroughly. If you take these extreme examples, water them down a bit into less extreme, everyday situations, you will get the other answers I could have given, and the reason why porn is undeniably, universally more popular than it is not.

                Porn can cause problems too. Many things in life have not-so-wholesome uses and twists away from their common, positive uses. Take poppys (IE morphine) - they provide uncalculable relief for those who are dying a painful death, and those close to that person who have seen enough suffering. Yet, poppys can also be used inappropriately to manufacture a similar drug, that can cause suffering and death.

                But at least I know when to stop
                It's funny how often people make this claim in a variety of circumstances, just after being taught a lesson for not realising that they probably shouldn't have started in the first place.
                Signature


                Roger Davis

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[955564].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Rod Cortez
                  Using "re:" is an outright "scam"? You've got to be kidding me. Whoever said it's all about context is absolutely right. Though I personally don't care for this tactic, it's not going to keep me from opening an e-mail if I'm interested in it. After all, I did opt into the list for a reason. Now the "payment received" subject headings, those really chap my hide!

                  RoD
                  Signature
                  "Your personal philosophy is the greatest determining factor in how your life works out."
                  - Jim Rohn
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[955584].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Ken Strong
                  Originally Posted by ExRat View Post

                  I love the way people shorten my name to Rat. It's a sign that I'm right, they are wrong, and they can't deal with it.
                  Would it be more accurate to call you ExExRat in those cases? Is there a toggle switch on the back of your neck that turns your ratness on and off?
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[955892].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author ExRat
                    Hi Ken,

                    Would it be more accurate to call you ExExRat in those cases? Is there a toggle switch on the back of your neck that turns your ratness on and off?
                    For once (amazingly) I literally have no comeback for that. Must be bedtime - it's nearly light :confused:

                    Just - lol.
                    Signature


                    Roger Davis

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[955932].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author CmdrStidd
                      Originally Posted by ExRat View Post

                      Hi Ken,



                      For once (amazingly) I literally have no comeback for that. Must be bedtime - it's nearly light :confused:

                      Just - lol.
                      Mark this date and time on the calendar!!! Exrat is speechless!!!

                      Sorry there but I could not help myself. It happens to you so infrequently.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[956176].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Jason Dolman
            Originally Posted by TMG Enterprises View Post

            PS. I think if you polled respondents by age you would see that the younger crowd sees re: as reply while the older, before email crowd sees re: as regarding.
            You might be onto something there. I'm 32 and would probably fall into the middle of the younger-older segment you suggest, so maybe I can be the debate settler

            My 2 cents - I see re: as regarding and don't get the big deal even if it was as reply.


            Jason
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[955551].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author AndrewCavanagh
          If I get an email starting with "RE:" in the subject line and it's obviously not a reply to an email I sent or an update on an email they sent previously I usually:

          # 1: Unsubscribe from that list.

          # 2: Delete the email.

          If I really want to stay on the list I'll just delete the email.

          I never read those emails.

          Kindest regards,
          Andrew Cavanagh
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[957008].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author genietoast
          If it's not RE: to an email I originally sent, it's a putz way of attracting attention.

          Spammers are getting craftily wackier. I guess being the FBI director, the Nigerian Reverend in need of charity, Australian millionaire dying of cancer got boring, and winning the uK lottery got boring.

          It's like paparazzi for internet marketers.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[957078].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author ExRat
            Hi Steven,

            Would you have preferred splattered?
            I'm a lot more comfortable with that.

            Although, technically, it would be prudent to just leave it that the ground got in the way of his intended journey to the centre of the earth.

            As for the safe -

            If a safe landed on him just as he was hitting the pavement, he'd most
            certainly be squashed
            The safe was in a rush to get to the centre of the earth before the man, but the ground got in the way of both of them.
            Signature


            Roger Davis

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[957090].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
              Roger,
              I'm a lot more comfortable with [splattered].
              Why did I just hear John Cleese saying, "This is an EX rat?"


              Paul
              Signature
              .
              Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[957099].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author JVManna
    It should depend on the context. If it's simply a way to goad the user into open the email -- absolutely, that is shameful.

    But, if it's a follow-up message 'regarding' a previous message, it's acceptable. All depends on what the end user experience is like.

    Do it with ethics, finesse and style; not cunning tricks.

    ~Joe
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[954597].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Scott Ames
    Originally Posted by -- TW View Post

    Using "RE:" in the subject line.

    It signals the crossing over from being a help to your list, TO trying to 'put one over' on them.

    It's a SCAM, and ONLY meant to DECEIVE. Pure + simple.

    -- TW
    These are the ones that get me upset if they are just a pitch:

    NOTIFICATION OF PAYMENT

    URGENT!

    Your order has shipped

    You Won!

    Congratulations !


    Using RE: gets opened because it implies they are responding to something I sent. I'm not as upset with that one however. Perhaps I should be.
    Signature

    Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm. -Winston Churchill

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[954614].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author nuz
      I have a small question... How is it deceitful if you know you never sent them an email to reply to in the first place?

      Just wondering.


      Originally Posted by Scott Ames View Post

      These are the ones that get me upset if they are just a pitch:

      NOTIFICATION OF PAYMENT

      URGENT!

      Your order has shipped

      You Won!

      Congratulations !
      Now this I totally agree with.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[955404].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Sean Kelly
        "RE:" is an email term.

        If email never automatically put this at the beginning of a REPLY we would NEVER use "RE:".

        We would use "Re."

        We abbreviate words with a DOT not a COLON.

        Example:
        "mister" is abbreviated as "Mr." not "MR:"

        People associate "RE:" with an email reply or forum post reply and not the word 'regarding' which was the original intent of "RE".

        The understood use of "RE:" is "in reply to" something when it comes to email and forum posts.

        Forget the semantics where "oh look, RE means regarding", thats not the point, the POINT is the meaning people automatically take away from seeing "RE:"

        Using "RE:" in an email to me that was NOT in reply to something I sent is misleading.

        This is ok though:
        RE-OPENED: Eban Pagan's Home Study Course (Today Only)


        Sean
        Signature
        http://javadocs.com - Javadocs
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[957232].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TimothyW
    There is ONLY one purpose in doing it -- to ***DECEIVE*** the recipient (or attempt to).

    That is the very definition of crossing the line.

    It is a smug-based SCAM.

    Thats' all.

    -- TW
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[954666].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Clark
      Originally Posted by -- TW View Post

      There is ONLY one purpose in doing it -- to ***DECEIVE*** the recipient (or attempt to).

      That is the very definition of crossing the line.

      It is a smug-based SCAM.

      Thats' all.

      -- TW
      Hey TW, are you deceiving and scamming us here 'cause you just used Re: in the subject line of your Re:ply?

      Good times.

      Cheers!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[954744].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Robyn8243
        Originally Posted by Clark View Post

        Hey TW, are you deceiving and scamming us here 'cause you just used Re: in the subject line of your Re:ply?

        Good times.

        Cheers!
        Just what I was thinking Clark.

        Re: is commonly used in all business correspondence to indicate what a letter
        is regarding.

        I really don't get how you arrive at the conclusion that the only
        reason to use re: is to scam people.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[954808].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Karen Blundell
      Originally Posted by -- TW View Post

      There is ONLY one purpose in doing it -- to ***DECEIVE*** the recipient (or attempt to).

      That is the very definition of crossing the line.

      It is a smug-based SCAM.

      Thats' all.

      -- TW
      you are, of course, entitled to your opinion. as we all are. What seems like a scam to you may be perfectly fine to someone else. Personally, I think there are far worse deceptive marketing tactics.
      Signature
      ---------------
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[955243].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Floyd Fisher
      Originally Posted by -- TW View Post

      There is ONLY one purpose in doing it -- to ***DECEIVE*** the recipient (or attempt to).

      That is the very definition of crossing the line.

      It is a smug-based SCAM.

      Thats' all.

      -- TW
      Obviously you've never had any military experience.

      RE: is used in message subject to indicate 'regarding'.

      So is the entire military a scam?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[955687].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MichaelHiles
    I just recently caught one in Barracuda from a .cn domain that said, "WHY DON'T YOU RESPOND A$$HOLE?"

    Cute. Too bad I suppress all .cn email.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[954683].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author AmyBrown
    As you can tell from the responses the line isn't absolute. FWIW it crosses a line for me as well. I have a pretty low tolerance for shenanigans so I'll generally unsubscribe from a list if that subject line is used.
    Signature
    "Test fast, fail fast, adjust fast."
    Tom Peters

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[954711].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ShawnC
    Really it's just to the point that ANY headline is just like the headlines from Viagra and Pharmacies and Jewelry and whatnot.

    It feels no matter what headline I use, it can simply be taken as spam.

    If someone actually double opted-in to my list, I think it's okay to us RE: to get their attention. However, another way to look at it is they'll read it when and if they want, knowing that's it's valuable because they recognize me in the 'from' field.

    Shawn
    Signature

    + Sample Memorandum of Understanding Templates -- Get it in writing, without involving a lawyer.
    + Mobile Game Design Template -- When you're going to create a mobile game, you need a well thought out and structured Game Design Document. This makes it simple.
    + IgnitionDeck Sales Plugin -- Fund Projects Your Way.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[954753].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ExRat
      Hi,

      Lots of people saying it 'upsets' them and that it's 'shameful.' Lots of powerful emotions being discussed.

      Whether the method is right/wrong, good/bad, brilliant/shameful why not find some kind of positive from this? I found one.

      If a marketer is the type who would do those shameful things, which would in turn illicit an emotional response from you of a negative nature, which of these scenarios is better for you? -

      1) they are not quite so smart, and they give you a glaringly obvious, giveaway, unmissable signal that you need to take the appropriate action - unsubscribe and avoid.

      2) they are much smarter than that. They realise that it's much wiser to build rapore and trust slowly but surely, suck people in, maybe get a few small commitments off them to qualify them as someone who has accepted the rapore and trust and is ready to buy, and then when the time is right - bang! - hit them hard with the 'shameful' side of their marketing and take them to the cleaners for a whole bunch of money.

      They realise that using their most shameful tactics to get better open rates is not as wise and powerful as playing it nice and trying to appear to be what you want them to be and saving that 'demonstration of shameful behaviour' to extract as many gains as possible at one strategically planned point in time.

      Would you prefer that marketers who have the capacity and intention to do something within their marketing that in your eyes is 'shameful' stop doing 1) and start doing 2) instead?

      By NOT unsubscribing, particularly if you also continue to buy, you are actually giving them stats that tell them that it works. You are encouraging them to annoy you more.

      I don't say it to sound smug, but to help - I don't get upset about email titles and content as much as others around here. Perhaps that's because I only see annoying ones from a particular person once?

      Signature


      Roger Davis

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[955121].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TimothyW
    I know it means regarding. I still contend it is only typed for the sole purpose of tricking the recipient into thinking it is a reply from a previously sent email.

    Then there's the 'innocent' "OUT" of, "well I only meant it to mean [insert excuse here]."

    In most cases, it is typed to deceive. Any excuse falls flat, imo.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[955102].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Steven Wagenheim
      Originally Posted by -- TW View Post

      I know it means regarding. I still contend it is only typed for the sole purpose of tricking the recipient into thinking it is a reply from a previously sent email.

      Then there's the 'innocent' "OUT" of, "well I only meant it to mean [insert excuse here]."

      In most cases, it is typed to deceive. Any excuse falls flat, imo.
      I just want to make sure I understand you.

      So if I were to send out an email with the subject:

      "RE: Amazon's Change To Tax Rates For Affiliate Marketers"

      I'm trying to deceive my subscribers?

      Okay. :confused:
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[955199].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author AmyBrown
        Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim View Post

        I just want to make sure I understand you.

        So if I were to send out an email with the subject:

        "RE: Amazon's Change To Tax Rates For Affiliate Marketers"

        I'm trying to deceive my subscribers?

        Okay. :confused:
        What does "Re:" add to the message in your subject line? I've never seen a use for it other than trying to get someone who is scanning subject lines to stop and at least briefly wonder if it's a personal reply.
        Signature
        "Test fast, fail fast, adjust fast."
        Tom Peters

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[955247].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ExRat
          Hi,

          Not everyone is fooled by the deceptive use of RE. I'm not entirely sure why, but I process my emails differently to many others here. I quite often look at the sender, which email of mine it is sent to and quite often the content - before I read the headline.

          I tend to scan the whole thing at once, but the one thing I would miss is if RE is in the subject line.

          I guess it's something to do with my manual spam checking process.

          Hi Razer Rage,

          Blimey. That's severe wombatitis :-)
          Signature


          Roger Davis

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[955263].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author AmyBrown
          Originally Posted by Razer Rage View Post

          If they were scanning subject lines, adding "Re:" wouldn't make the slightest difference as they would be examining each subject line intensively.

          I personally just skim through my subject lines, thank you very much.

          [/wombat]

          (Sorry, I have few other vices than being strict about being grammatically correct, and for some reason misusing the word "scan" bothers me more than any other, save for chatspeak.)
          I'm the anti-wombat but I don't believe I'm misusing the word:

          • examine minutely or intensely; "the surgeon scanned the X-ray"
          • examine hastily; "She scanned the newspaper headlines while waiting for the taxi"
          Consider your wombat card revoked
          Signature
          "Test fast, fail fast, adjust fast."
          Tom Peters

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[955264].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author AmyBrown
            Originally Posted by Razer Rage View Post

            Quoted straight from google define, I'm sure.

            But I assure you, that is not the correct definition for the word scan. Donald J. Sobol, in a popular mysterious series, debunks this myth in his book:

            "The verb "to scan" means to examine intensively."

            In fact, misusing the word "scan" is actually one of the most common errors in the English language. Most semieducated persons thinks it means "to skim" in reading, which it doesn't.

            My point being, Google can hardly be considered a reliable dictionary.
            Yes, I'm guilty of using Google as a dictionary. It hasn't failed me for common usage but apparently the jury is out for use around wombats. Unfortunately dinner calls so I won't be able to further research the correct usage of "scan". However, I'm calling womback on semieducated.
            Signature
            "Test fast, fail fast, adjust fast."
            Tom Peters

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[955321].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Karen Blundell
              Razer, what about deceptive sig lines? Do they bother you at all?

              Just wondering.
              Signature
              ---------------
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[955451].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Karen Blundell
                Originally Posted by Razer Rage View Post

                You are so predictable.

                First part: 7 dollar secrets; the name of the product.
                Second part: How to make $3000 in 7 days; a description of the product, or a benefit.
                Third part: + Bonus; a bonus which is offered in the review.

                How is that in any way deceptive?

                But seeing as it bothers you, I'll remove it just for you.
                You did not have to remove it, and it really didn't offend me. I was just trying to make a point and amusing myself at the same time.

                I'm quite familiar with the product - 7 Dollar Secrets, so you are not "teaching" me anything new.

                In my opinion, (I don't expect you to agree) any title that states you can make (insert amount here) in X amount of time is deceptive.

                Your response to Tina, by the way, cracked me up and was very revealing.
                Signature
                ---------------
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[955524].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Karen Blundell
                  Originally Posted by Razer Rage View Post

                  But you have revealed one thing to me; you are very immature. Good day.

                  @Amy: WikiAnswers - Is 'persons' the correct plural form of the word 'person'
                  and you're a pompous a**
                  good day to you too!
                  Signature
                  ---------------
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[955544].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author AmyBrown
                  Originally Posted by Razer Rage View Post

                  Good for you. I suppose you missed the sarcasm.

                  I'm sure you found it amusing. I don't see how it was revealing. But you have revealed one thing to me; you are very immature. Good day.

                  @Amy: WikiAnswers - Is 'persons' the correct plural form of the word 'person'
                  This is becoming tiresome. As previously noted, I don't have the time or resources at the moment to debate your usage of persons. Cooking and computing generally don't mix. I've stated from the outset that I'm not a wombat. I'll defer to Roger and/or Paul M. as to whether a non-wombat is entitled to womback. I may well be out-of-line there and will surrender my womback card upon request. You sir, may want to invest in a spell checker before continuing on further wombat quests.
                  Signature
                  "Test fast, fail fast, adjust fast."
                  Tom Peters

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[955578].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Dan Riffle
            Originally Posted by Razer Rage View Post

            Quoted straight from google define, I'm sure.

            But I assure you, that is not the correct definition for the word scan. Donald J. Sobol, in a popular mysterious series, debunks this myth in his book:

            "The verb "to scan" means to examine intensively."

            In fact, misusing the word "scan" is actually one of the most common errors in the English language. Most semieducated persons thinks it means "to skim" in reading, which it doesn't.

            My point being, Google can hardly be considered a reliable dictionary.

            Post edited because Tina cleared it up while I was typing.
            Signature

            Raising a child is akin to knowing you're getting fired in 18 years and having to train your replacement without actively sabotaging them.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[955507].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Black Hat Cat
      Banned
      Originally Posted by -- TW View Post

      I know it means regarding. I still contend it is only typed for the sole purpose of tricking the recipient into thinking it is a reply from a previously sent email.
      His target must be dumb people then. I'm guessing you fell for it.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[956499].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[955153].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TimothyW
    Hi Roger -- I'm not sure what you mean. Please clarify. Thanks. PS: I'm not saying 'marketing' is shameful. Quite the opposite. As you know, I'm into sell-sell-sell! -- I'm saying marketing *designed to deceive* is shameful.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[955154].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ExRat
      Hi --TW,

      Hi Roger -- I'm not sure what you mean. Please clarify. Thanks. PS: I'm not saying 'marketing' is shameful. Quite the opposite. As you know, I'm into sell-sell-sell! -- I'm saying marketing *designed to deceive* is shameful.
      Yes I know you are sell-sell --TW

      Well without going into the specific differences between persuasion and deception (see Blair Warren for that one) I would say that in many ways it's a thin line between the two, many seem to find it easy to slide across

      Post three said -

      that is shameful.
      I just picked up on that word to demonstrate that it causes an emotional response in some of the marketers discussing it here. Others get 'annoyed' by it.

      In a nutshell, I'm saying, if they use RE in a deceptive way -

      Don't complain about them giving you such an obvious signal that it's time to unsubscribe. It could be worse (see 2] in my previous post for an example).

      Hi Sven,

      So, now I'm going to stop complimenting your for your clever views on marketing and start thinking about how to put this info to use in my own marketing efforts.
      Cheers again! That's exactly what I would like someone to do if my post helped them. That, along with realising that there are lessons everywhere, sometimes right in front of our noses, and often they are found by taking a negative and turning it positive, but they are also found by taking a step back, looking at things from a different angle and asking - 'what is the lesson here?'

      I'm saying the lessons are - weigh up each list and try to find the point in the process where you want to 'hit them hardest' (using that term loosely) and risk losing them. Is it the subject line, the initial content, or later on in the relationship?

      Also, don't allow other peoples' marketing to cause an emotional response. It tends to happen when one is thinking as a consumer rather than a marketer. Spend less time in that zone - it's cheaper, and the lessons are easier to find because one is less busy ranting about it (and only attracting others who agree) which leads nowhere except to ending up feeling like an annoyed consumer. Instead, one could be focused on finding the lessons.
      Signature


      Roger Davis

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[955194].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Goatboy
    Is the complaint really abour RE: or is it about what comes after?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[955204].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author susanm
      I agree with the OP. I know what RE: is supposed to mean, too. But when it comes to email, unless it is in response to an email I sent previously, 99.999999% of the time, it IS just trying to trick me into opening it.

      It used to piss me off, too. Now I just delete it unread, regardless who it's from. If I miss the greatest deal of the century by doing so, well, I am willing to risk it.

      Susan
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[955217].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ExRat
        Hi susanm,
        It used to piss me off, too. Now I just delete it unread
        I'm repeating myself, but if you do that rather than unsubscribing, you will get more emails that have to be deleted, you might get new tricks that piss you off again, and you're not doing anything to discourage the practice, whereas an unsubscribe might.

        Can anyone here give me a good (IE logical or beneficial) reason why they prefer to stay on a list when someone sends stuff that makes them either get pissed off, or delete it immediately - with the exception of 'they sometimes send great stuff, but sometimes the bad stuff too'?
        Signature


        Roger Davis

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[955229].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Trader54
    Has anyone tested it and have stats?

    If it works then people that receive the email do not feel they are being scammed.

    If one feels they are being scammed then usually they won't buy or they will even unsubscribe, that is what I do.

    How can one just come out and make a blanket statement based on your own feelings if you have no stats to back it up.

    Real stats will quickly tell you what your subscribers think of your emails, whether you use Re: in the subject line or not.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[955211].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mark Sandquist
    Funny... I just had a Skype conversation with a few junior marketers about this exact subject.

    One of them asked me if I thought it was "morally OK" to use "Re:" in the subject line of a broadcast email that was not a personal reply.

    (There are a few email marketing teachers who are teaching people to use this as a way to increase open rates - it works because people generally don't pay attention to detail and skim even subject lines, rather than read them, and don't notice that it's not a subject line that they ever wrote)

    My reply was pretty much what Steven has said here... It means "regarding".

    The fact that email client programs plunk it into the beginning of the subject line of a reply by default doesn't change its meaning to "This Is A Reply To Your Personal Email". The intent of the email client doing this is to say "Regarding..."

    Then the junior marketer asked me, "what about all the complaints I will get from people who are pissed off that I tricked them into thinking it was a reply to their email just so they'd open it, and then unsubscribe"?

    My reply to that was simply,.. If they'd turn against you so easily for something as silly as that, you're probably better off without them on your list anyway. Someone that hot-headed, unobservant and bitter would not likely ever buy anything from you and that's the reason you have a list... to have a captive audience to sell to.

    Additionally, if they only openned your email because they thought it was a reply to theirs... what in blazes are they even subscribed to your list for in the first place?

    Naturally, he then asked me if "I" use "Re:" in the subject line.

    I told him, "absolutely... I will normally use it when I'm following up on a previous email that I wrote to them... kinda like... "Re: yesterday's email about such-n-such..."

    I have actually never received a complaint about doing this because always begin my subject lines with the personalization token...

    Example: {!firstname_fix}, Re: yesterday's email about such-n-such...

    Notice how the "Re:" is not at the beginning of the subject line... their name is.

    ... but the "Re:" is there to give the reader the indication that this email is about something previously mentioned or discussed, rather than an email about something new all together.

    Obviously, if people go willy nilly about it and use it out of context like...

    "Re: buy my new product just released today!..."

    ... they are going to look like idiots. Kinda like the dopes who keep using, "bad news" in the subject line when the email has no bad news content at all.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[955298].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author captivereef
    The RE thing is stupid IMO and i am not a marketing genius by no means but lately i have gotten so many pathetic emails with such stupid subject lines that I unsubscribed to almost every list i am on except for 3 or 4.

    What happened to a subject line telling you what the email was actually about, and for that matter a marketer who helped you out sometimes with their emails instead of selling every single time!

    There are still a few but they are hard to find nowdays!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[955327].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Steve Wisley
      Personally, when I see that it is in fact a bogus email and not a real reply I delete it. There are so many eye catching headlines to use why take the chance of turning off your list you worked so hard to get with a cheap shot? I think we just tend to get lazy some times. Your list is your most valuable possession and should be treated like they deserve.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[955351].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ExRat
        Hi,

        Wow. So many people who delete rather than unsubscribe. Is that a slip of the tongue, or not?

        Hi Razer Rage/Amy,

        I call double-womback too, but not just for those words -

        Most semieducated persons
        Now I have no idea, so I might womback myself, but it just doesn't sound right to me. I would replace 'persons' with 'people'.
        Signature


        Roger Davis

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[955411].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Karen Blundell
          yes, Roger...I agree. "People" sounds better than "persons" though both are right but not in the context above...I think it should read semi-educated people

          re: delete vs. unsubsribe. I would unsubscribe if an email offended me that much.
          Signature
          ---------------
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[955436].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author AmyBrown
          Originally Posted by ExRat View Post

          Hi,

          Wow. So many people who delete rather than unsubscribe. Is that a slip of the tongue, or not?

          Hi Razer Rage/Amy,

          I call double-womback too, but not just for those words -



          Now I have no idea, so I might womback myself, but it just doesn't sound right to me. I would replace 'persons' with 'people'.

          Persons didn't sound right to me either but not being prepared for the triple-wombat I let it go. "Semieducated" caught my attention. Even the lowly G doesn't have a definition for it. It must be too old.


          However, now I need to know if I'm ever asked to scan the horizon if I should be looking quickly or carefully. I guess it depends on what I'm looking for!
          Signature
          "Test fast, fail fast, adjust fast."
          Tom Peters

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[955525].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author George Wright
    Hi,

    Every business letter you get, if it's "proper," has RE: and it has nothing to do with it being a reply.

    Just because a "non thinking" email program has been programmed to "properly" insert it into the subject line does not mean that a "thinking" person can't us it.

    If I use it or don't use it it's entirely my business and if I use it, it is never meant to deceive. It's meant to be proper and inform my reader what this is "Regarding."

    My email clients are pre programmed to insert my Sig. and the date and If it doesn't I sign it date it myself myself. No harm intended.

    George Wright
    Signature
    "The first chapter sells the book; the last chapter sells the next book." Mickey Spillane
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[955480].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author valerieSONORA
    I've always hated the RE in emails. When I got my first ones I was like, huh? I didn't email that person. They annoyed me so much I automatically deleted them thinking they must be spam. Have never opened one, would never bother. I've gotten used to them by now so they don't bother me anymore. But 99% -100% of them now end up in my gmail spam.
    Signature

    siggy taking a break...

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[955619].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mikemcmillan
    I don't like the use of RE: unless the person is replying to an email I sent them. But here are a couple other similar thingies that stick in my craw.

    I have had a number of emails where the sender claims they are providing me with a free gift and they include a link to a "free video". However, when the link is clicked I find that the video is simply promoting an affiliate product with an affiliate link below it. That's not a free gift in my book--very deceptive.

    Another one is where, especially during a period of a launch or pre-launch for a product, I get an email from a Goober promoting the product. Then, the next day I get another email with a heading such as, Opps Mike, I goofed!

    The con is that the email says that the email they sent out yesterday contained links that many reported were not working. They say they corrected the links (although they did, in fact, work yesterday) and are re-sending the mail as a courtesy. It's not a courtesy, it's just a way to get another email to their list without appearing to be overdoing the email thing. That happens all the time and a lot of Goobers use it.

    So how about something positive about email title lines that you can use? Here is a list of some of the news headlines that rotated on the splash screen on AOL today. Check them out and think about how they are worded.

    New Research Shows Famed Explorer May Have Been Murdered

    Social Security Code Is Cracked
    ID Is at Risk if Born in These States

    Singer 'Fighting for Life' in Hospital

    Sweetener May Prevent Tooth Decay

    Pro Tennis Player, 24, Found Dead

    Former Ice-Skating Champ Arrested

    Restaurant Chain Files Bankruptcy

    Five-Time Boxing Champ Back Behind Bars

    Notice how each of these teaser lines gives you some info, but each lacks the one thing you want to know about the topic. Notice the one about the Social Security code being cracked. They mention five states but don't tell you what those five states are. It pulls you in and you want to know if you live in one of those states.

    That is exactly what a good email subject line should look like. No deception. No con job. Just a tag that makes the reader want to click to learn more. That's good marketing.

    Rant completed.
    Signature

    I'll help you create a reputation-building evergreen product in any niche and launch it successfully!
    Check it out here.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[955670].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Ken Leatherman
      Originally Posted by mikemcmillan View Post

      New Research Shows Famed Explorer May Have Been Murdered

      Social Security Code Is Cracked
      ID Is at Risk if Born in These States

      Singer 'Fighting for Life' in Hospital

      Sweetener May Prevent Tooth Decay

      Pro Tennis Player, 24, Found Dead

      Former Ice-Skating Champ Arrested

      Restaurant Chain Files Bankruptcy

      Five-Time Boxing Champ Back Behind Bars

      Notice how each of these teaser lines gives you some info, but each lacks the one thing you want to know about the topic. Notice the one about the Social Security code being cracked. They mention five states but don't tell you what those five states are. It pulls you in and you want to know if you live in one of those states.

      That is exactly what a good email subject line should look like. No deception. No con job. Just a tag that makes the reader want to click to learn more. That's good marketing.

      Rant completed.
      Hey Mike,

      Not Fair! Not Fair!

      You teased me with the headlines and now I have to go find them and read the stories.

      Now you have brought this conversation up on a level where it is indeed positive and helpful. I appreciate you doing that.

      Ken Leatherman
      The Old Geezer

      P.S. Re: above post. Please don't wombat me for implying you other folks did not make a good post, but then again ..........
      Signature
      Ghost Writing Services Coming Soon


      So Check Out My WSO
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[957102].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TimothyW
    Originally Posted by MrSonic View Post

    A well-written, compelling headline without tricks will get opened if you target your audience correctly. Professional marketers don't need tricks.

    Dave
    Amen, Sonic.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[955680].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TimothyW
    I understand it means regarding. I never (until this thread) even THOUGHT it could mean 'reply.' But, in emailese, it SIGNIFIES that someone is responding to an email you sent them. Even if the letters were XZ, it would SIGNIFY the same thing. And, if a marketer uses that convention to DECEIVE the recipient into believing the email is a reply to one he/she sent out, then that's a scam, imo.

    The fact that it HAPPENS to be "RE," which are also the first two letters in the word "reply," is completely beside the point.

    At ease.

    -- TW
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[955726].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Ben_Curtis
    Are we done yet? I didn't know two little letters could spawn 50,000!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[955785].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
      The use of Re: at the beginning of a subject line is, assuming the part that follows is the (or a) primary subject of the message, grammatically correct. It is also proper business practice, as has been pointed out several times.

      Yes, it's a safe bet that some people use it to get attention. It's just as safe a bet that some folks remember their 6th grade English and high school Business Communications classes and are doing things the way they were taught is correct.

      When you can read their minds, you can say whether that one signifies inappropriate intent. Again, assuming the content relates to what follows the Re:.

      The suggestion to unsubscribe if something offends you that much was correct. You don't need to explain your personal preferences to anyone. I would add that one should try not to be so easily offended.

      In response to Amy's remark: Yes, a womback is usually appropriate.

      Re: the discussions of persons vs people... The generally accepted usage is for 'persons' to refer to a fairly limited group of individuals (the persons involved in Saturday's robbery), while 'people' normally refers to a broader and/or less defined group (people who like cheese).

      That is not a hard and fast rule, but it will provide useful guidance in choosing which of the two to employ in a given circumstance.

      Razer,
      Actually, it means "reply" to most people.
      RE:ally?

      Hey, if they flunked English, that's a problem. Just not MY problem. (I could see that mistake for ESL speakers, mind you.)

      The word "scanning" was appropriate in the use you corrected. If you're going to wombat, get it right. Otherwise, you leave yourself open to being corrected for incorrectly correcting someone's correct usage.

      If you wish to accuse me of being semi-educated, feel free. I suggest taking a look at Merriam Webster's list of definitions before jumping off that cliff again, though.

      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scan

      Or, if you wish a more authoritative source, please note the first definition in the online version of the Oxford English Dictionary:

      http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/scan

      Feel free to wombat the editors of the OED. I'm sure they, too, will feel chagrined to discover their woeful definitional shortcomings.

      Think about what you're saying before you challenge someone on such small things in the future, eh? There's a good lad...

      'Skim' is also technically correct, by the way, but not as precise in connotation.


      Paul (Onslaught),

      Re: "What the hell is a wombat?" It all started in 4th grade...

      http://www.talkbiz.com/wombats


      Paul
      Signature
      .
      Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[955860].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TheDebtEliminator
    When I receive a Re from anyone other that a known friend or company, it gets deleted immediately.

    They are trash most of the time
    Signature
    Freedom from Credit Debt for All in USA … Credit cards, medical bills, student loans, etc. .................... Plus your credit scores at the bureau can be raised when your debt relief is completed.

    This is available for individuals with more than 10-K of debt and only by phone to start your debt analysis ... PM Me Your Phone Number and best times to call.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[956275].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Thamisgith
    Were I writing a memo or body text for an e-mail then I may use "re:" to mean "regarding" or "with reference to".

    However, "Re:" is automatically inserted into the title of e-mails when replying by many of the main e-mail software programs in use. The inappropriate use of it in this manner became quite popular with many gurus (quite) a few years ago and it is a clear attempt to get people to open an e-mail based upon the fact that they may think of it as a response to an e-mail which they themselves originated.

    It could be considered as slightly deceptive or manipulative. It's not a scam (my opinion).

    Personally, whenever I receive an e-mail with Re: in the title which is not a genuine response to a previous communication, I immediately unsubscribe from whatever list it was sent out to. Not because I think it's a scam or morally wrong - just because it's so old, tired and lame.

    On the other hand, if anyone used Re: in their opening paragraph or elsewhere in the body of their text I would just view it in the traditional sense and keep reading.
    Signature

    Best Regards,

    Hamish

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[956364].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Martin Luxton
      Well, that was a rollercoaster ride!

      First of all, what Razer Rage said here

      Using "RE:" or "Oops, messed up the link", or any other misleading title is lame. It shows a lack of skill in marketing and a lack of quality on the part of the marketer.
      I wouldn't do this myself but I don't see how it shows a lack of marketing skill. A subject line that converts way better than any other will get used by a lot of people, regardless (should that be re:less?) of whether it is misleading.

      It is about business models. Some marketers go the churn and burn route. They get loads of unsubscribes and replace them with fresh cannon fodder every day. To them it's a numbers game and developing a relationship is not on their agenda.

      However repugnant that model is, it doesn't mean people using it are lacking in marketing skills.

      I'll have to take issue with Paul Myers here

      I could see that mistake for ESL speakers, mind you
      re: ESL/EFL speakers who have gone through formal courses.

      Many foreigners know English grammar better than native speakers.

      In the days before I was a teacher a German guy asked me

      "Would that be a gerund or the present participle?"

      "Ugh, yeah, er . . . the first one . . . ?"

      I had no bloody idea because at school my whole grammar education consisted of "a noun is a naming word, a verb is a doing word and an adjective tells us more about the noun".

      One of the reasons British people have difficulty learning a foreign language is because they have no idea about grammar. In many other countries, learning the grammar of the language is a top educational priority.

      That's not to say you should become anal about grammatical correctness. Grammar fiends find it almost impossible to learn a foreign language well because of analysis paralysis.

      Any student who has reached pre-intermediate level will know about 'scan' and 'skim'. It is a fundamental reading skill that is taught in all modern ESL/EFL coursebooks. Generally, students are told to 'read for gist' (skim) and then 'scan' for specific information.

      This definition is in all the literature of ETS (based at Harvard University) ETS: Educational Testing Service ? Home and University of Cambridge Cambridge ESOL: Exams

      Yes, the meanings or usage of words change over time and they don't always have the meaning we think they have.

      In Shakespeare's day, "nice" also meant trivial as in

      Why are people getting so het up about something as nice as the meaning of "re:"?

      Before the late Michael Jackson "bad" meant the opposite of good.

      If you have an interest in the changing meaning and usage of the English language you should check out the British National Corpus

      [bnc] British National Corpus

      Over 100 million words of real, spoken and written English
      Results of your search

      Your query was
      scan
      Here is a random selection of 50 solutions from the 663 found...



      A19 863 One way to handle different bit mapping schemes is to include in the header details such as the number of bit planes, bits per pixel, pixels per scan line, and the number of scan lines.�



      B7M 348 The world relies for much of its weather data on a network of satellites, which are either stationed in a fixed position above the equator or which travel over the poles to scan the globe.�


      CR7 1736 And although a certain number of eager thirty-something listeners will scan the radio dial in search of Mr Branson's yuppie rock, more will discover the channel gradually, perhaps by accident.�



      CRE 1994 From the shadows of a doorway on 79th Street, Pie'oh'pah watched John Furie Zacharias emerge from the apartment building, pull the collar of his jacket up around his bare nape, and scan the street north and south, looking for a cab.�



      FPF 56 She let him scan her face for whatever it was he sought there and said, `;Yes, but beautiful evenings at home, you know.�
      Researchers using the corpus actually found that some things taken as gospel by grammar books were not how people actually used the language.

      Language changes all the time and just because somebody uses a word differently doesn't necessarily mean they have "slaughtered the term".

      There are so many Englishes in the world today, and new ones developing all the time. Who's to say which one is 'correct'?

      I had students in London who refused to have an American, Irish, Scottish or Australian teacher because they "didn't speak correct English".

      Maybe they didn't speak 'correct' English (), but they spoke an English that could communicate with another English. They used some grammar and words differently but they weren't incorrect, just not British English.

      Getting way off topic. Time to stop.

      Martin
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[956520].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author BIG Mike
        Banned
        [DELETED]
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[956571].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Martin Luxton
          Originally Posted by BIG Mike View Post

          My wife, whose native language is Greek, knows rules of English grammar so obscure I think she got them out of some ancient, lost scrolls somewhere, LOL. She rocks
          Mike, the funny thing about all those rules is they usually come with the disclaimer "with some exceptions" and it takes more time to learn the exceptions than it would to just learn everyday examples and apply them.

          Originally Posted by BIG Mike View Post

          And I agree wholeheartedly - students learning EFL tend to know far more grammar than their native speaking counterparts. I've often wondered just how well American and British students would fair on the Cambridge or Michigan lower exams compared to EFL students.
          When I first started teaching, I took a TOEFL exam and only got 76%. That was a real shock to the system and a very humbling experience! Those exams are so much about practice and technique. Now I can get 50 - 60% on the listening comprehension without even listening to the tape.

          I would make all your new native speaker teachers take a TOEFL and IELTS test 'cold' just so they can see how much more there is to language teaching than just being a native speaker.

          Martin
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[956590].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author rapidscc
    What?

    Using re: is crossing the line? And it's a tactic?

    Well we control what we read..We are the ones clicking to open the mail..

    I suggest that if you see an email with re: at the subject line and you don't know who it came from then simply don't open it...

    Then you don't have to say that somebody is "Crossing the line"....

    oMar
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[956593].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ExRat
      Hi,

      At very real risk of repeating myself for the third time, multiple people are still suggesting that the way to 'control what we read' is to either 'not open' an email, or to 'delete it.'

      I suggest that if you see an email with re: at the subject line and you don't know who it came from then simply don't open it...
      When I receive a Re from anyone other that a known friend or company, it gets deleted immediately.

      They are trash most of the time
      I have never seen such a compelling argument for running an opt-in newsletter and have to admit that I never realised that there was such an aversion to using the unsubscribe button - which in turn makes it even more illogical that we get so many threads complaining about the content of opt-in emails.

      Is it because people enjoy complaining so much, that they are scared to remove the source of the complaint from their lives?

      {goes off to make some stickers for my bedroom door and ghetto-blaster - 'unsubscribing is not a crime'}
      Signature


      Roger Davis

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[956740].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kishor Karsan
    Hi

    Just want to point out that every thread here from everyone on this forum has "Re:" in it...

    So are we all scammers and scamming each other ? Are all our threads just scams?

    Kishor
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[956756].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimothyW
      Originally Posted by Kishor Karsan View Post

      Hi

      Just want to point out that every thread here from everyone on this forum has "Re:" in it...

      So are we all scammers and scamming each other ? Are all our threads just scams?

      Kishor
      Ahhh, Kishor -- that is absolutely not true.

      The only posts in this thread that have "re:" in them are the ones that *ARE* truly (legit) responses (replies) to the OP.

      Therefore, the only re's in this thread are LEGIT re's, therefore they are NOT scams. Note: The op does NOT have re in it.

      So, actually your post proves my point for me -- by showing the *difference* between legit re's and scam re's.

      Cheers.

      -- TW
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[957011].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Creative Thinker
    If I really believe that my subscribers would gain a lot of value from my email, I wouldn't mind using Re:

    They will forgive me for using that tactic when they see the good content in the email.

    If they don't, let them unsubscribe.

    THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS WRONG. THERE ARE ONLY PERCEPTIONS.

    AND PERCEPTION IS REALITY.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[956759].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ExRat
      Hi Kishor,

      Just want to point out that every thread here from everyone on this forum has "Re:" in it...
      What, even this one?
      Signature


      Roger Davis

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[956811].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
      THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS WRONG. THERE ARE ONLY PERCEPTIONS.

      AND PERCEPTION IS REALITY.
      That's crap. It's a crutch for lazy thinking and evasion.

      It's also illogical. If the OP perceives it as wrong, that must be reality, based on your comments. Therefore, you've proved yourself... wrong?

      Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy. And it ignores the fact that we deal with others who have their own perceptions, which may conflict directly with our own, and thus affect our "realities."

      There is nothing "creative" about an epistemological blank.


      Paul
      Signature
      .
      Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[956818].message }}
      • Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

        That's crap. It's a crutch for lazy thinking and evasion.
        I have to disagree, Paul. I firmly beleive that the way you choose to feel about the situations you encounter will directly influence the nature of the experiences you'll encounter in the future. I realize that not everyone subscribes to the philosophies of the law of attraction, but that's what it's centered around and I've seen it proved true time and time again in my own life. Miracles happen when you choose to stubbornly focus on the positive. I'm a career optimist for that very reason, choosing to constantly look for the "good" that can be taken from any situation.

        It's also illogical. If the OP perceives it as wrong, that must be reality, based on your comments. Therefore, you've proved yourself... wrong?
        No. Reality is subjective, and that's the point. If the OP is so offended by a marketer's use of "RE:" in the subject line that he will unsubscribe from their list, "reality" for the OP is that it's wrong and deceitful. Personally, I'm not bothered by it at all. The use of "RE:" in the subject line is perfectly acceptable to me. I don't feel deceived or connived in any way. That is "reality" for me. Whether the marketer intended to deceive isn't the point. It's all about how the situation is interpreted by the recipient.

        But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

        Signature

        Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy, and good with ketchup.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[956957].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ExRat
          Hi thegoddessofeleven,
          That's crap. It's a crutch for lazy thinking and evasion.
          I have to disagree, Paul.
          I don't think you realise that the points you have made are not actually any reason to disagree with Paul's assertion.

          1)
          I firmly beleive that the way you choose to feel about the situations you encounter will directly influence the nature of the experiences you'll encounter in the future
          2)
          Miracles happen when you choose to stubbornly focus on the positive
          (sidenote - you can class the things that happen when you do this as miracles, or an entirely logical outcome - same thing, different words, your version (miracle) is usually used to sell more books, it's the sizzle)

          It's entirely possible to believe in what you have said in 1) and 2) above, without disagreeing with Paul when he says that this -

          THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS WRONG. THERE ARE ONLY PERCEPTIONS.

          AND PERCEPTION IS REALITY.
          is crap.

          I think you are confused. And personally, I find it easier to avoid that confusion when I refuse to 'subscribe' to any neatly compartmentalised set of rules which have been presented in that fashion purely to sell more products -

          I realize that not everyone subscribes to the philosophies of the law of attraction
          Instead, just subscribe to these -

          a) you can influence and improve your own life (and that of others) by the actions that you take and the decisions that you make as well as your underlying attitude

          b) being and staying stubbornly positive is a very good idea

          In my opinion, if you leave all 'laws' and talk of miracles out of it, then it all becomes easier to digest, live by, and stay unmuddled about. Those things (laws, talk of miracles) are historically proven to complicate issues, and to be the tools of the mass-manipulator.
          Signature


          Roger Davis

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[956996].message }}
          • Originally Posted by ExRat View Post

            Hi thegoddessofeleven,

            I don't think you realise that the points you have made are not actually any reason to disagree with Paul's assertion.
            I'm afraid you're going to have to clarify this statement for me. My opinion conflicts with Paul's. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that's the very definition of "disagreement." I don't believe the statement is crap-- I believe it's a very basic element of the way this universe functions. If that's not a reason to disagree with Paul's assertion, I don't know what is.

            (sidenote - you can class the things that happen when you do this as miracles, or an entirely logical outcome - same thing, different words, your version (miracle) is usually used to sell more books, it's the sizzle).
            Without knowing what specific incidents I'm referring to when I say, "miracles," I don't think you can accurately make that statement-- unless, of course, you believe that there's no such thing as a "miracle" and that all occurences, no matter how abnormal, supernatural, or seemingly impossible are "logical outcomes." If that's the case, I'll concede the point.

            It's entirely possible to believe in what you have said in 1) and 2) above, without disagreeing with Paul when he says that this - is crap.
            My entire point is that I do not believe the statement is crap.
            Signature

            Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy, and good with ketchup.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[957028].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author ExRat
              Hi,

              Blimey.

              Thanks for this Paul. Recognised it many times, but didn't know the correct word to use.

              Hi Steven,

              John Doe's perception of reality is that he can jump off of the top of a 100 story building, land head first onto the concrete below him and live.

              He proceeds to do this and is squashed like a bug.
              Sorry to be a pedant, but I take issue with the use of 'squashed' to describe what happens when he hits the concrete. The person moves towards and hits the floor, not vice-versa

              Hi thegoddessofeleven,

              I'm afraid you're going to have to clarify this statement for me. My opinion conflicts with Paul's. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that's the very definition of "disagreement." I don't believe the statement is crap-- I believe it's a very basic element of the way this universe functions. If that's not a reason to disagree with Paul's assertion, I don't know what is.
              Clarification - I didn't state that you weren't disagreeing with him, I stated that -

              I don't think you realise that the points you have made are not actually any reason to disagree with Paul's assertion.
              Bolded for emphasis.

              ............

              Without knowing what specific incidents I'm referring to when I say, "miracles," I don't think you can accurately make that statement-- unless, of course, you believe that there's no such thing as a "miracle" and that all occurences, no matter how abnormal, supernatural, or seemingly impossible are "logical outcomes." If that's the case, I'll concede the point.
              You did provide a specific context for me to comment upon - that context being that the miracles are directly related to and the outcome of 'stubbornly focusing on the positive'. See here -

              Miracles happen when you choose to stubbornly focus on the positive. I'm a career optimist for that very reason, choosing to constantly look for the "good" that can be taken from any situation.
              On that basis, yes I see a positive outcome from 'stubbornly focusing on the positive' as being much more of a logical outcome, than anything resembling a miracle. Although I have met many people for whom finding a positive outcome from any form of action themselves, would be miraculous ;-)

              ..........

              My entire point is that I do not believe the statement is crap
              It might be now, but it most definitely wasn't in your last post, the one I commented upon.

              ..........

              I suspect that my opinions on the nature of the universe are of little interest to the majority of the forum
              Interesting conclusion. But one that is commonly assumed by someone who cannot/doesn't want to deal with logical arguments against those opinions.
              Signature


              Roger Davis

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[957057].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Steven Wagenheim
                Originally Posted by ExRat View Post


                Hi Steven,

                Sorry to be a pedant, but I take issue with the use of 'squashed' to describe what happens when he hits the concrete. The person moves towards and hits the floor, not vice-versa.
                If a safe landed on him just as he was hitting the pavement, he'd most
                certainly be squashed.

                Would you have preferred splattered?
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[957071].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author John Taylor
                  Steven,

                  Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim View Post


                  Would you have preferred splattered?
                  I preferred Splattered so much I built
                  a social bookmarking site around it.

                  I really wanted to create a tomatoe
                  splattering site, but I couldn't find a
                  suitable script.. ask Paul - he'll "get"
                  the reference.

                  John
                  Signature
                  John's Internet Marketing News, Views & Reviews: John Taylor Online
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[957118].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
                    John,
                    I really wanted to create a tomatoe
                    splattering site, but I couldn't find a
                    suitable script.. ask Paul - he'll "get"
                    the reference.
                    Blast. You've reminded me of one of the great disappointments of the past few months. They took the thing down.

                    No more pelting Puddy with produce. [sigh]


                    Paul
                    Signature
                    .
                    Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[957129].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author ExRat
                      Hi Paul,

                      Was that the 'slowburn' and 'chainsaw' one? I enjoyed that site too. I seem to remember it being used as a bonus for anyone who unsubscribed with a rant?

                      Hi --TW,

                      He does get squashed. Every action has an equal + opposite reaction. (or should I say, "RE:action"). So, in effect, the concrete IS squashing him -- he is being 'squashed' by the concrete.
                      Some would say that rather than the concrete 'squashing' him, the equal and opposite reaction is that the concrete is resisting his attempts to pass and therefore absorbing his potential energy and redistributing it sideways - which is still nothing like 'squashing'
                      Signature


                      Roger Davis

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[957146].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
                        Roger,
                        Was that the 'slowburn' and 'chainsaw' one? I enjoyed that site too. I seem to remember it being used a bonus for anyone who unsubscribed with a rant?
                        Yep. NetDisaster.com.

                        I had a picture of me that nettled folk could "throw tomatoes" at, if it made them feel better.

                        It was much more fun belting Bob with beefsteaks...


                        Paul
                        Signature
                        .
                        Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[957162].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author ExRat
                          Hi Paul,

                          I had a picture of me that nettled folk could "throw tomatoes" at, if it made them feel better.

                          It was much more fun belting Bob with beefsteaks...
                          After our many early discussions, I found that my preference was to use all available methods to commit atrocities upon your image - although slowburn was a particular favourite, as I derived extra feelings of power from destroying you through an act of careless absent-mindedness - IE -

                          'I knew I shouldn't have left my cigarette resting on Paul Myers. Now I've got to light another one...'



                          Hi Suzanne,

                          It doesn't really bother me when someone uses "Re:" in the subject line of an email.

                          The one that does bother me is when someone adds "(personal)" or "personal" to the subject line and it is clearly not a personal email, it is a broadcasted message to everyone on their list. I've had at least 3 of these in the last 24hrs.
                          As an email marketer, there's an easy way to indemnify yourself from subscriber-wrath when using this trick.

                          Simply change {first_name} for {first_insult} and any good autoresponder will do the rest for you automatically.

                          For example -

                          Dear Fatty
                          No subscriber can sensibly accuse you of not being personal in the email
                          Signature


                          Roger Davis

                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[957177].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
                            Roger,
                            After our many early discussions, I found that my preference was to use all available methods to commit atrocities upon your image - although slowburn was a particular favourite, as I derived extra feelings of power from destroying you through an act of careless absent-mindedness
                            [chuckle] Only the old-timers will get that one.

                            Sorry. I need snooze, or I'd abuse you with another apt assemblage of alliterative allegory.

                            The sleep gods beckon...


                            Paul
                            Signature
                            .
                            Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[957196].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author ExRat
                              Hi Paul,

                              another apt assemblage of alliterative allegory
                              Nice!

                              Only the old-timers will get that one
                              Possibly, but bearing in mind our public personas, comments and differing lengths of attendance and experience of forums, I imagine many could predict the nature of our initial conversations - and hence, why I burned you after them. (Although I am actually joking about the atrocities - I found more suitable victims. Joking again actually).

                              Hi thegoddessofeleven,

                              It seems that you've made the assumption that, because I attribute these miracles (or "incidents," if you prefer) to "stubbornly focusing on the positive," that they can't actually defy traditional laws of nature.
                              I haven't made an assumption, it's more of a personal opinion. And I didn't come to it because of your attribution.

                              Different people have different perspectives, obviously. Some like to find more logic if they can, whereas others are more comfortable seeing more miracles than logic. I think it's a grey area that's best left grey, and left for the individual to decide upon.

                              BUT in the specific circumstances, I don't find it that difficult to see way more logic in the assertion that 'stubbornly focusing on the positive' is likely to cause positive outcomes. To me that's really logical.

                              RE - (pun intended)
                              Interesting conclusion. But one that is commonly assumed by someone who cannot/doesn't want to deal with logical arguments against those opinions.
                              Although I respect your desire to not drift off topic, I still don't agree.

                              I can see the logic (pun intended) in your explanation, but when you say -
                              I suspect that my opinions on the nature of the universe are of little interest to the majority of the forum
                              ...it seems of little relevance, except if someone is trying to demonstrate indirectly that they have taken 'umbridge.'

                              I say this because I feel the same about my own opinions on this subject, yet regardless, I still foist them upon everyone whether they like it or not, as do many others. :rolleyes:

                              Therefore, in this 'climate', why would you be so self-conscious of your own opinions on this matter, if not to demonstrate that 'umbridge' has been taken?

                              I'll concede on this point to you though, that it would be best if I took my philosophical theories and put them in my pipe and ignited them. Sorry for the hijack everyone.

                              HOWEVER, if someone here is actually interested in getting the blow-by-blow breakdown of my personal beliefs (which would be necessary to explain my response to the "jumping off a building" scenerio), I'd be willing to have that discussion. Probably not in THIS thread, though... it sounds like a topic more suited for the "Mind Warriors" board.
                              Yeah, that sounds like fun. If you start the thread in there, PM me and I'll jump in.

                              Hi John,
                              I don't want people seeing smoke where there is no fire.
                              Was that ending to the second part of your post, an intended pun on the first part?

                              Can I get some of what you're smokin'?
                              If not, it was still pretty fitting.
                              Signature


                              Roger Davis

                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[957280].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author John Taylor
                          Paul,

                          Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post


                          I had a picture of me that nettled folk could "throw tomatoes" at, if it made them feel better.
                          I hereby declare the "Splat John Page" open!



                          John
                          Signature
                          John's Internet Marketing News, Views & Reviews: John Taylor Online
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[957323].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author Martin Luxton
                            Originally Posted by John Taylor View Post

                            Paul,



                            I hereby declare the "Splat John Page" open!



                            John
                            John,

                            You bought the wrong tomatoes - they are too firm. They should be soft and rotten and drip everywhere.

                            Martin
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[957350].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author ExRat
                              Hi John,

                              I hereby declare the "Splat John Page" open!




                              Hi Onslaught,

                              I think that's a resounding 'No!' from here
                              Signature


                              Roger Davis

                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[957376].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
          Eleven,
          I have to disagree, Paul. I firmly beleive that the way you choose to feel about the situations you encounter will directly influence the nature of the experiences you'll encounter in the future.
          That is a very different statement than the one I challenged. I would completely agree with this - as written.
          No. Reality is subjective, and that's the point.
          No. Perception is influenced by subjective filters, which affect our actions, which in turn influence the results we obtain.

          Reality simply is. It is what exists regardless of what we think about it.
          "reality" for the OP is that it's wrong and deceitful.
          Tautological argument. "Reality is subjective, and his opinion is thus-and-such, therefore it's reality."
          That is "reality" for me.
          That is your opinion. And that opinion is not something I would question or attempt to deny, as a guide for personal behavior.

          Opinion is a judgment based on one's interpretation of one's perceptions, as filtered through the accumulation of habit arising from previous relevant judgments, which is a damned long way from reality.

          The fact that we believe our opinions to be based on sound judgment and accurate perception is normal. It's also a cause for lots of subjective opinions being stated as absolute truth. An error you did not make, tankeweverrymutch.


          Paul
          Signature
          .
          Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[957009].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Steven Wagenheim
          Originally Posted by thegoddessofeleven View Post

          I have to disagree, Paul. I firmly beleive that the way you choose to feel about the situations you encounter will directly influence the nature of the experiences you'll encounter in the future. I realize that not everyone subscribes to the philosophies of the law of attraction, but that's what it's centered around and I've seen it proved true time and time again in my own life. Miracles happen when you choose to stubbornly focus on the positive. I'm a career optimist for that very reason, choosing to constantly look for the "good" that can be taken from any situation.
          Okay, let's take this example as it relates to what you just said.

          John Doe's perception of reality is that he can jump off of the top of a
          100 story building, land head first onto the concrete below him and live.

          He proceeds to do this and is squashed like a bug.

          His perception of reality may have very well been that he will survive
          the fall, but the actual reality is that he's dead.

          I'm sorry, but IMO, perception is not good enough an excuse to call
          something a reality.

          Yes, some things in life are subjective, such as the statement, "Chocolate
          ice cream is the best ice cream on the planet."

          To some people, probably many, that is a true reality. But to others,
          chocolate ice cream would make them gag, or worse.

          Trying to convince a chocolate hater that chocolate ice cream is great
          is futile.

          However, let's take the jumping off a 100 story building scenario.

          If we can show the person who believes that he can jump and survive
          50 videos of people who did just that, and all died, we might (note the
          word might) be able to convince him that he's wrong about his
          perception of reality and may even get him to change his mind about it.

          I'm not arguing that people will believe what they want to believe and
          that in their mind, that makes it real.

          But that doesn't make the thing itself real.

          If that were the case, every institutionalized person in this world would
          be out walking the streets.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[957027].message }}
          • LOL.

            Okay... it wasn't my intention to turn the thread in a philisophical direction, but I accept responsibility for doing so. I suspect that my opinions on the nature of the universe are of little interest to the majority of the forum, but I would be happy to discuss the "jumping off a building" scenerio if anyone indicates an interest in proceeding down that rabbit hole.

            In regard to the subject at hand, whether the use of "RE:" in the subject line of an email is dishonest seems much more like one of those things about which "people will believe what they want to believe and that in their mind, that makes it real." The OP has drawn a firm line and stated flatly that it's dishonest. "Perception is reality" seems like a very apt point in this case, and I see no reason to disagree with such a statement.

            Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim View Post

            Okay, let's take this example as it relates to what you just said.

            John Doe's perception of reality is that he can jump off of the top of a
            100 story building, land head first onto the concrete below him and live.

            He proceeds to do this and is squashed like a bug.

            His perception of reality may have very well been that he will survive
            the fall, but the actual reality is that he's dead.

            I'm sorry, but IMO, perception is not good enough an excuse to call
            something a reality.

            Yes, some things in life are subjective, such as the statement, "Chocolate
            ice cream is the best ice cream on the planet."

            To some people, probably many, that is a true reality. But to others,
            chocolate ice cream would make them gag, or worse.

            Trying to convince a chocolate hater that chocolate ice cream is great
            is futile.

            However, let's take the jumping off a 100 story building scenario.

            If we can show the person who believes that he can jump and survive
            50 videos of people who did just that, and all died, we might (note the
            word might) be able to convince him that he's wrong about his
            perception of reality and may even get him to change his mind about it.

            I'm not arguing that people will believe what they want to believe and
            that in their mind, that makes it real.

            But that doesn't make the thing itself real.

            If that were the case, every institutionalized person in this world would
            be out walking the streets.
            Signature

            Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy, and good with ketchup.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[957056].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author John Durham
          Originally Posted by thegoddessofeleven View Post

          I have to disagree, Paul. I firmly beleive that the way you choose to feel about the situations you encounter will directly influence the nature of the experiences you'll encounter in the future. I realize that not everyone subscribes to the philosophies of the law of attraction, but that's what it's centered around and I've seen it proved true time and time again in my own life. Miracles happen when you choose to stubbornly focus on the positive. I'm a career optimist for that very reason, choosing to constantly look for the "good" that can be taken from any situation.



          No. Reality is subjective, and that's the point. If the OP is so offended by a marketer's use of "RE:" in the subject line that he will unsubscribe from their list, "reality" for the OP is that it's wrong and deceitful. Personally, I'm not bothered by it at all. The use of "RE:" in the subject line is perfectly acceptable to me. I don't feel deceived or connived in any way. That is "reality" for me. Whether the marketer intended to deceive isn't the point. It's all about how the situation is interpreted by the recipient.

          But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

          You are not wrong. Reality is absolutely subject to observation and perception. Hasn't any one read Schrodinger's Cat?

          that being said: when I "perceive" that someone is trying to manipulate me into thinking I had written to them and they are responding to me (and it isnt true) the "reality" is that I delete them.

          Unless they realize or care that they have been deleted, this doesn't effect them, and they continuing to go on sending other people emails entitled "re:".

          While in my own "perception" I have avenged myself... it is only because I "observed the vengeance..." if they observed it as well by chance, then maybe to them it's not "vengeance" at all, but rather "attrition..."

          So the definition of the outcome of that situation is, once again, subject to the observers perspective.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[967416].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Tyrus Antas
    TW: does your post has anything to do with hotels?

    Tyrus
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[957075].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TimothyW
    Ex Rat ---

    He does get squashed. Every action has an equal + opposite reaction. (or should I say, "RE:action"). So, in effect, the concrete IS squashing him -- he is being 'squashed' by the concrete.

    -- TW
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[957120].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jamesburchill
    A thought:

    Socially acceptable "lines" are defined by group consensus. What was unacceptable a few years ago (like rock and roll) is now acceptable and considered almost quaint today!

    The lexicon of email is morphing and changing constantly. After reading this thread it seems to me the underlying issue is not so much the choice of words, rather the intent.

    To add fuel to the fire you could argue that using "FW:" my also cause issues.

    Bottom line, if you BAIT & SWITCH - no matter how you present it - you will ultimately suffer. Tricks are not required in the long run.

    Just my 2-cents worth.

    Finally, I suspect this thread was "sparked" intentionally. Fun that it is, ultimately the way you write email is a personal choice. To unilaterally declare "right or wrong" leaves you open to looking goofy when the lines move. And move they will...
    Signature
    James Burchill ~ Bestselling Author & Coursepreneur
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[957135].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Suzanne Morrison
    It doesn't really bother me when someone uses "Re:" in the subject line of an email.

    The one that does bother me is when someone adds "(personal)" or "personal" to the subject line and it is clearly not a personal email, it is a broadcasted message to everyone on their list. I've had at least 3 of these in the last 24hrs.

    Cheers,
    Suzanne
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[957169].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
      Suzanne,

      On that one, I will second the motion, and move to smash the offenders with a large mallet, on their most sensitive parts.

      That is an outright lie, and deserves pain.


      Paul
      Signature
      .
      Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[957181].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
      Geez, catch a few hours of sleep and look what happens...

      Originally Posted by -- TW View Post

      Ummm -- John -- I did no such thing. Subject line of op never did contain RE:

      Can I get some of what you're smokin'?
      TW, it must have been second hand smoke, but what ever it was must have been strong. It muddled my brain into seeing something that wasn't there.

      Factor that in, and the post never did make any sense, so I've deleted it. In the words of Maxwell Smart, "Sorry about that, Chief..."

      Originally Posted by -- TW View Post

      I understand it means regarding. I never (until this thread) even THOUGHT it could mean 'reply.' But, in emailese, it SIGNIFIES that someone is responding to an email you sent them. Even if the letters were XZ, it would SIGNIFY the same thing. And, if a marketer uses that convention to DECEIVE the recipient into believing the email is a reply to one he/she sent out, then that's a scam, imo.

      The fact that it HAPPENS to be "RE," which are also the first two letters in the word "reply," is completely beside the point.

      At ease.

      -- TW
      Given the content of this thread, I don't think it's possible to say with absolute certainty that anyone using that convention has deliberately intended to deceive anyone. Such intent might be there, and one could collect anecdotal evidence in support of such an argument, yet I still don't believe such a statement can be absolute.

      Perry Marshall just posted a snip of video on his blog where he calls a person's email box a very intimate space. I happen to agree with him. I think it's a large reason why email practices that rub people the wrong way elicit such emotional responses.

      I'm one of those 50+ types who was taught to use "Re:" in business correspondence to telegraph the subject of a business letter. Given the intimacy of email and the common practice of client developers to use "Re:" on any reply, I will probably amend my use of the code in the future.

      I don't want people seeing smoke where there is no fire.

      Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim View Post

      If we can show the person who believes that he can jump and survive 50 videos of people who did just that, and all died, we might (note the word might) be able to convince him that he's wrong about his perception of reality and may even get him to change his mind about it.
      Actually, according to some research, that video would likely only be effective if the people who jumped and died were similar to the potential jumper.

      If you showed a middle-aged man with the notion he could fly videos of women, teens, or children hitting the ground, his brain would very likely tell him that it didn't matter; he was different. Show him videos of other middle-aged men painting the concrete, and the message very likely would get through.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[957252].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimothyW
      Originally Posted by Suzanne Morrison View Post

      It doesn't really bother me when someone uses "Re:" in the subject line of an email.

      The one that does bother me is when someone adds "(personal)" or "personal" to the subject line and it is clearly not a personal email, it is a broadcasted message to everyone on their list. I've had at least 3 of these in the last 24hrs.

      Cheers,
      Suzanne
      I once received the snail mail equivalent of that -- and it made me chuckle...

      It was a POSTCARD marked "CONFIDENTIAL."

      Cheers.

      -- TW
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[957482].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
        Originally Posted by -- TW View Post

        I once received the snail mail equivalent of that -- and it made me chuckle...

        It was a POSTCARD marked "CONFIDENTIAL."

        Cheers.

        -- TW
        That's even better than the one I got yesterday marked "Urgent and Confidential"...

        Addressed to "Current Resident" and sent bulk mail.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[957708].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Diana Lane
    Re: The effects of jumping off a very tall building

    He who jumps is not squashed. He is dispersed.
    Signature

    Plot short fiction, long fiction, even outline non-fiction * Edit the question prompts to suit your genre * Easily export text and image files for use with your word processor or Scrivener.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[957178].message }}
  • Originally Posted by ExRat View Post

    Clarification - I didn't state that you weren't disagreeing with him, I stated that I don't think you realise that the points you have made are not actually any reason to disagree with Paul's assertion.
    Brief recap:
    Creative Thinker: Perception is reality.
    Paul: That's crap. It's a crutch for lazy thinking and evasion.
    Me: I have to disagree, Paul. I firmly beleive that the way you choose to feel about the situations you encounter will directly influence the nature of the experiences you'll encounter in the future. [...] Reality is subjective, and that's the point.

    I concede! I can see that the way I chose to word my post made it unrelated to both Creative Thinker and Paul's posts. The thought was there, but the obvious statement/response relationship was not. I suppose I was operating under the assumption that "reality is subjective" tied back to "perception is reality" firmly enough to warrant the rest of the post. I can see that that's not the case, and the entire post was, in fact, an unnecessary tangent.

    You did provide a specific context for me to comment upon - that context being that the miracles are directly related to 'stubbornly focusing on the positive'.
    It seems that you've made the assumption that, because I attribute these miracles (or "incidents," if you prefer) to "stubbornly focusing on the positive," that they can't actually defy traditional laws of nature.

    thegoddessofeleven: "I suspect that my opinions on the nature of the universe are of little interest to the majority of the forum"

    Interesting conclusion. But one that is commonly assumed by someone who cannot/doesn't want to deal with logical arguments against those opinions.
    You are glossing over the fact that, in the same breath, I also stated:

    I would be happy to discuss the "jumping off a building" scenerio if anyone indicates an interest in proceeding down that rabbit hole.
    I'm not trying to back down from the discussion... I'm trying to respect the fact that the forum isn't intended for philosophical discussions and that people may not want to read (and, in fact, may be offended by) a 50 post discourse about "Stephanie's Opinions Regarding Life, The Universe, And Everything." (Side note: admittedly, I probably shouldn't have even made that first post, for that very reason. I jump the gun sometimes, and reply before considering such things. )

    I took Steven's post to be a rhetorical example and not an actual request for an in-depth discussion of metaphysics. HOWEVER, if someone here is actually interested in getting the blow-by-blow breakdown of my personal beliefs (which would be necessary to explain my response to the "jumping off a building" scenerio), I'd be willing to have that discussion. Probably not in THIS thread, though... it sounds like a topic more suited for the "Mind Warriors" board.
    Signature

    Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy, and good with ketchup.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[957192].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Diana Lane
    Oops! I forgot!

    I forgot to mention that 'Re:' does not bother me. Unlike 'Oops! I forgot!'
    Signature

    Plot short fiction, long fiction, even outline non-fiction * Edit the question prompts to suit your genre * Easily export text and image files for use with your word processor or Scrivener.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[957194].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ahlexis
    I know this sounds crazy, but perhaps they're right.

    In most cases, it is typed to deceive. Any excuse falls flat, imo.
    Key word? TYPED.

    Most of the time when you click on "reply" to respond to a previously sent email, you don't type. The software or email service inserts this for you.

    However, you as the recipient of the email would not know that...until you open the email.

    Semantics? Perhaps.

    Re: = Reply, or Re:= Regarding. Does not matter.

    Do you care about the response of your emails? Then test, test, test. That is the only way to know for sure. It's just like the graphic headline on the sales letter. Maybe it reduces results, maybe it doesn't...your mileage may vary, only way to know for sure is to test it. Or maybe try asking your list. A lot of marketers have tried things that get on my last nerve. Like someone mentioned above, the following annoy me a lot more than the "regarding":

    NOTIFICATION OF PAYMENT

    URGENT!

    Your order has shipped

    You Won!

    Congratulations !
    Especially when their only intent is to deceive me into opening an email I would not otherwise think I need to open right away.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[966271].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author netkickstart
    Time to lobby the email client developers to use a new prefix on replies. Then we'd really know whether someone was being sneaky or using a shorthand of Regarding in order to fit the rest of the subject within the viewable area.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[966376].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author indexphp
    Wow OP... I don't know why you are so sensitive to this. Deceit is a powerful word and I think going a bit too far. If you don't like it, get out of marketing, because I can think of tons of things off the top of my head that would cause you to pull your hair out.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[966413].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Sfrew
    IMO, the use of RE without more is not inherently evil. If the reference is not accurate, then we are getting into less acceptable conduct, etc.

    Now, I do NOT use that tactic. I am not advocating using it.

    My point -- If the worst thing someone ever did was use RE inappropriately, then I don't have an issue with them. In fact, I think there are probably a lot more constructive issues for folks to get all hot-and-bothered about and that could do more for the reputation of IM than wasting emotion and time on this on a professional forum.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[966448].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kevin Riley
    E-mails with RE: in the subject line which are just marketing ploys and not a true RE: get my attention. I automatically unsubscribe from that list.
    Signature
    Kevin Riley, long-time Warrior living in Osaka, Japan

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[966472].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author CaribbeanDream
    Banned
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[966484].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Lance K
      Getting technical and stating that RE: simply = Regarding is cute and all...BUT in email land it means someone is replying to a message you sent to them. Survey 1,000 people and see what they say. I'd wager that 95+% would agree.

      I mean honestly, that's the purpose of a subject line isn't it? To tell you what the message is about. So there is NO NEED to include RE: in the subject line if it isn't a reply.

      So to me the technical definition of RE: doesn't matter. Because in email land it is taken to mean a reply to a message you sent.

      And if it's not truly a reply, it is so OBVIOUSLY a PLOY. Tricking people is ALWAYS harmful to the long term health of any enterprise.
      Signature
      "You can have everything in life you want if you will just help enough other people get what they want."
      ~ Zig Ziglar
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[967003].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author SullyUI
        I think the only appropriate use for "RE:" is in a sales letter, otherwise in an email it's a definitely deceptive marketing ploy. And, it doesn't work because I'm sure a lot of people will unsubscribe after seeing it.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[967025].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
        Lance,
        Getting technical and stating that RE: simply = Regarding is cute and all...BUT in email land it means someone is replying to a message you sent to them. Survey 1,000 people and see what they say. I'd wager that 95+% would agree.
        You may be right on the stat for all I know. Question: What percentage of businesspeople with offline experience would see it that way?

        I'm betting it's a lot lower than 95%.

        Are some people using it to trigger recognition skills that say, "That's an answer to an email I sent?" Sure. No doubt. And that's sneaky, if a very mild form. I don't care for it, but there's enough of the other group - people who take their business correspondence classes seriously - to make me wonder and leave some room for doubt.

        I'm not defending being sneaky. I'm not saying what anyone should do about it if they suspect it. That's not my business. I'm just pointing out that there is a very real and sensible explanation that has roots in serious business practice and which explains it in some cases.

        As Razer and a couple of others pointed out, that's likely to be done more by "older" folks, relative to the online environment. If you see a 20-something using that, it's slightly more indicative of a gimmick.

        I don't like it much, but it's a pretty small character in the pantheon of questionable marketing ploys.


        Paul
        Signature
        .
        Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[967031].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author luvmijaz
    Yes, that is something that can get vastly irritating. I would think that unless you get mass amounts of emails, you would be able to figure out if this was a reply to an email you sent or not.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[967437].message }}

Trending Topics