> Do you believe that e-gold should keep it's growth rates slower
> than they can be?
No, but there better ways of increasing the growth rate (currently @
~30%/month) than polluting the spend page with advertising.
> Untargeted ads is what's needed.
Then create a TV ad, take out full page ads in the major newspapers of the
world, or put banner ads up on DoubleClick/Yahoo/etc. Leave the spend page
clean of advertising.
> They could (and it looks like they already have) alienate serious
> businesses who want to use e-gold *if* they can communicate with
> most e-gold users, which they cannot do now.
As I mentioned in another post, why should MegaCorp be alienated when it
cannot directly contact the existing ~95,000 funded account holders? It
has a consumer base of millions that it can push an advertising campaign
of "a new & exiciting way to buy our product/service without a credit
card" on.
> Do they have what it takes to succeed and compete in the long
> run? That's another whole story. It's not clear to me at all.
Advertising on the spend page is the solution to this? The reason users
put up with advertising is that they are getting something for free. I'm
not getting anything for free from e-gold. I pay storage charges and pay
to receive payments.
> Is e-gold running scared, looking over it's shoulder at it's
> competition? Not that I can see.
Not that I can see either. Which is another reason why I diagree with
putting ads on the spend page.
Another thing to consider, somebody else mentioned it earlier, is the load
time associated with banner ads. The spend confirmation page is a pretty
simple, fast-loading page. People on slow (i.e dial-up) connections will
probably not wait for the ads to finish loading before moving on.
Viking Coder
________________
Worth Two Cents?
http://www.two-cents-worth.com/?VikingCoder
---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
