Difference between revisions of "Talk:1327: Mobile Marketing"
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
It is also worth noting that sending a message to turn on the news to random numbers is very unlikely to drive people to CNN in particular as there are many other competing news channels that they could choose. {{unsigned ip|162.158.7.28}} | It is also worth noting that sending a message to turn on the news to random numbers is very unlikely to drive people to CNN in particular as there are many other competing news channels that they could choose. {{unsigned ip|162.158.7.28}} | ||
:Even if only 10% tuned in to CNN, that would still be a significant bump in their viewership. [[Special:Contributions/146.70.174.163|146.70.174.163]] 16:04, 12 February 2026 (UTC) | :Even if only 10% tuned in to CNN, that would still be a significant bump in their viewership. [[Special:Contributions/146.70.174.163|146.70.174.163]] 16:04, 12 February 2026 (UTC) | ||
| + | :Specifically mentioning "CNN" may have reduced effectiveness. Some recipients would say "why, I never watch CNN" and others could guess that CNN themselves was behind the spam. He could adjust the outcome a little bit, by sending the messages at times when the broadcast news wasn't available in those markets. Without broadcast news, the viewers would reach for a national 24/7 outlet, and the majority would split between FOX and CNN. [[User:Elizium23|Elizium23]] ([[User talk:Elizium23|talk]]) 16:14, 12 February 2026 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 16:14, 12 February 2026
The sad thing is that when I saw the name "CNN", and then the title text, I knew exactly what this comic was referring to. https://twitter.com/waxpancake/status/426390907038887936
And ohhhh dear, looking at the latest news/results for this, they've somehow messed up even WORSE than before. https://www.google.com/search?q=cnn+the+news+will+shock+you http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/wp/2014/02/05/dear-cnn-please-be-careful-about-copying-our-headlines-sincerely-upworthy/
But, I think ironically the best part is how practically everyone that's piling onto CNN for this is also doing the same manipulative, emotive, Upworthy-style headline bait tricks as well. (Looking at you, Slate, Salon, Washington Post, The Atlantic, BuzzFeed, ThinkProgress...)
Mudkip3DS (talk) 07:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- BTW I'm not sure how exactly I would phrase this, so I'm not going to add it, but I think one of you should add a reference to those two incidents (the "murder shock" and "rape surprise" ones; though the first one is what I remember making more news, the latter is very recent). It almost seems clear, looking at the comic and text, that it's referring to them. Mudkip3DS (talk) 07:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Ah, and from the first panels, I thought it was going to refer to NBCNews.com's new site redesign. CNN hired Blackhat to redo NBC's website to drive visitors from there to CNN... I mean, who /watches/ the news anymore? 108.162.221.57 07:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
It is also worth noting that sending a message to turn on the news to random numbers is very unlikely to drive people to CNN in particular as there are many other competing news channels that they could choose. 162.158.7.28 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
- Even if only 10% tuned in to CNN, that would still be a significant bump in their viewership. 146.70.174.163 16:04, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- Specifically mentioning "CNN" may have reduced effectiveness. Some recipients would say "why, I never watch CNN" and others could guess that CNN themselves was behind the spam. He could adjust the outcome a little bit, by sending the messages at times when the broadcast news wasn't available in those markets. Without broadcast news, the viewers would reach for a national 24/7 outlet, and the majority would split between FOX and CNN. Elizium23 (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
