Bluebottle False advertising?

[rbpickup]

Originally Posted by drew

Elvey, thanks indeed for the link.
I don't like the "challenge" system BB use. Creates too much trouble for those writing to me. Unpolite to demand of somebody writing to me to go through such rituals as answering an email first.

Hi Drew, I just wanted to point out that Bluebottle's challenge/response system is an optional (it is active by default) feature.

Robert

[drew]

Hi Robert, yes that is an opt out as we say here. But by using it I change what BB was set up to achieve so it kind of makes BB into something else does it not.

But to be fair one should mention opt out features too.

Drew with an apology to the creators and owners of BB.

If you change hotmail to 120 days then I mention the opt out too.

[David]

Originally Posted by rbpickup

David, the sentence you have highlighted refers to the three Bluebottle accounts being spam-free, not free of charge.

Robert: It says 'other free email/anti-spam email providers' - the free relates to the providers, not to the spam. Bluebottle is comparing itself to those (providers) but all three Bluebottle accounts are not free.

[xmailer]

Originally Posted by David

Robert: It says 'other free email/anti-spam email providers' - the free relates to the providers, not to the spam. Bluebottle is comparing itself to those (providers) but all three Bluebottle accounts are not free.

While the line you quote might be seen as very vaguely ambiguous if one chooses to see it that way, given the fact that the prices of all services compared seem to me to be very clearly indicated in the chart, this stikes me as little more than nit-picking over the phrasing of a sentence, as I seriously doubt that any intelligent potential customers would be confused for long if they bother to actually look at the chart at all.

Edit: Interestingly, you appear to go out of your way to spit hairs over the above-mentioned quote, but not at all with the line which says:

"Trusted Delivery Anti-Phishing/Anti-Spoofing"

...a very specific reference. This splitting hairs over one sentence while seemingly ignoring a specific reference in the other might almost lead one to suspect a biased interpretation of both.

[David]

Originally Posted by xmailer

While the line you quote might be seen as very vaguely ambiguous if one chooses to see it that way,

I see the line as a carefully constructed clever attempt at deception; an innuendo if you please. Do you really see it otherwise xmailer

[xmailer]

I see it as advertising, David. And, as I said, I see your seeming near-obsessive hair-splitting over a line in that advertising, on a page which a careful reading of shows no blatantly false statements, as strongly suggestive of bias on your part. But to answer your question directly, no, that particular line doesn't appear to me to be intentionally deceptive.

[David]

Originally Posted by xmailer

I see it as advertising, David. And, as I said, I see your seeming near-obsessive hair-splitting over a line in that advertising, on a page which a careful reading of shows no blatantly false statements, as strongly suggestive of bias on your part.

Perhaps you are correct xmailer; perhaps I am biased against Bluebottle (because I consider C/R to be a not acceptable practice) but looking at the bigger picture; your earlier post indicated that you do not really expect advertising to conform strictly to the truth, but just how far should companies veer from the truth, and what should be the limits; or should there be no limits? What other companies (that we regularly discuss and use here) apply these kinds of tactics when advertising? Fastmail and Tuffmail (the only two paid companies I have used) don't do that, at least as far as I know. If Fastmail did start to compare themselves (unfairly) with other email companies (by using misleading advertising) I would seriously consider leaving them. In the end your credibility is all you have. When you attempt to twist the truth, even if you do so in such a fashion as to conform to existing societal standards, you lose that credibility (imo)

[xmailer]

"Twisting the truth" does not seem to itself be an objective statement of fact at all, but rather an opinion based on your subjective interpretation of two lines from the web page in question, both of which interpretations are themselves suspect, IMO.

Do these two other services do what Bluebottle does? No, AFAIK they don't advertise in exactly the same way Bluebottle does, as most services advertise in their own way. But I'm not sure how that fact by itself makes Bluebotle guilty of "false advertising". I've seen other services which do compare themselves to other services. The fact that those two services don't really has no particular importance as far as I can see. But certainly most services make statements which are open to question; such as the one on Fastmail's main page which says:

""The world's best email service provider"

Is that an objective fact? Basically, it appears to me that you've gone out of your way to make the most negative possible subjective interpretation of two lines on Bluebottle's advertising page, then accused Bluebottle of "twisting the truth" based on your own highly questionable (IMO) interpretations. Do you view Fastmail's advertising with this same kind of negative bias? It would appear not.

[David]

You could not find any other email companies xmailer, who employ these kinds of deceptive tactics? Notwithstanding how you regard the truth of Fastmail's advertising, the reality is that they are not trying to get ahead by pushing their competitors down (in a deceptive manner) You talk about my subjective interptitation (of Bluebottle's ad) but it is not only my own interpretation - indeed, it is the very topic of the thread! And (if you care to read it) you will notice that I am not the only one with this supposedly subjective opinion

[xmailer]

Originally Posted by David

You could not find any other email companies xmailer, who employ these kinds of deceptive tactics? Notwithstanding how you regard the truth of Fastmail's advertising, the reality is that they are not trying to get ahead by pushing their competitors down (in a deceptive manner) You talk about my subjective interptitation (of Bluebottle's ad) but it is not only my own interpretation - indeed, it is the very topic of the thread! And (if you care to read it) you will notice that I am not the only one with this supposedly subjective opinion

"Could not" find? Let's just say that I feel I have far more interesting, if not more important, things to do with my time than scouring the Internet looking for lines in email services' advertising to nit-pick in order to try to prove a false claim.

As for your not being the only one doing this, I'll just say, by analogy, that the sheer number of people who subjectively believe in extraterrestrial visitations has little bearing on the quality of the objective evidence in support of their claims.

[David]

Originally Posted by xmailer

"
As for your not being the only one doing this, I'll just say, by analogy, that the sheer number of people who subjectively believe in extraterrestrial visitations has little bearing on the quality of the objective evidence in support of their claims.

xmailer: Let me close close by saying, that I am of the opinion, that the reality of Bluebottle's success, is a sure indication that anything I have said (before) is not really all that important, regardless of if you agree with what I said (or not) - at least to the majority of users, who won't read this, and who would have not a care (if they did) You do a good debate xmailer: catch you later - bye bye

[The Storm]

Gosh, for a moment there I thought I had stepped away from EMD and onto the set of Judge Judy or Law and Order!

Both coherent and well explained sides of the story, but my subjective interpretation is that its making my head hurt

[The Storm]

Originally Posted by xmailer

As for your not being the only one doing this, I'll just say, by analogy, that the sheer number of people who subjectively believe in extraterrestrial visitations has little bearing on the quality of the objective evidence in support of their claims.

LOL! Oh but what about ET? His feelings are going to be ever so hurt by the fact you don't believe in him! ET go home indeed!

[xmailer]

Originally Posted by The Storm

LOL! Oh but what about ET? His feelings are going to be ever so hurt by the fact you don't believe in him! ET go home indeed!

If that hurts his feelings, I wonder how he'll feel when I file suit against him for false advertising?

[drew]

Apology for not reading though the thread.

I read on the BB home page that they say that Yahoo has pop3 for free.

Maybe I fail or read it as they intended. look here:
http://mail.bluebottle.com/compare.php

The compare begins on the main page but they make a more detailed one at link I gave.

Doesn't it look like they say that yahoo has pop3.

Access
SMTP BB yes Y! yes
POP BB yes Y! yes

But when I log in to my yahoo.com account it says the following.

Premium Services
Mail Plus
POP access and forwarding, and more great features for just $19.99/year - that's less than $2/month.

So how did BB come to that conclusion? Am I missing something here?

PS I want yahoo.com to have free pop but in my Options it doesn't allow me to. Should I try anyway. Maybe they forgotten to change the option page?