I suspect the catalyst for this acquisition was due to one thing: their blog has an easily identified link to their product site. Startups should take note of this oft overlooked detail.
I didn't downvote you, but I think whoever did assumed that you were mocking Bufferbox or being sarcastic. I'm not sure how prominently linking to your site from your blog, while generally good advice, would directly lead to an acquisition.
OP here -- the numbers are in no way bogus, all sourcing information and methodologies are listed on the page itself (see the bottom left * on each 'slide').
Would love to understand what gave you that impression, as we work hard to build content like this, and hate to see it shrugged off.
"Custora's research shows that stores on average lose roughly 1.75% of revenue every year due to unsubscribes."
This is remarkably similar (in amount) to loss through shrinkage at bricks and mortar stores, which is estimated at 1.7% (according to one source I bothered to find) [1] - but while retailers take steps to reduce shrinkage, there is a cost/benefit balance in play and a certain amount is inevitable, maybe the same is true of unsubscribe
I'm more curious about how that 1.75% compares from other sources of lost revenue; how does it compare to the cost of processing returns, or fraud, or just basic transaction costs, &c?
Maybe it's significant, maybe it's noise, but without anything to compare it to, who knows
Maybe it's retconning loss figures to a model they already have. If they can fit online expectations to meatspace loss figures, then they don't have to change their models.
The only opt-in email marketing I've ever been glad to receive, and not soon unsubscribed from, are those that presented an exceptional offer in the very first mailing.
It seems like such an obvious engagement tactic, I'm surprised so many companies don't employ it.
(That said, those same emails will piss me off more than anything else if I've JUST purchased the product for full price. Another seemingly obvious fail.)
You just hire another shlep who can wake up on time to hit the red button. If you can't find a reliable person to hit the button for you, you do the R&D to automate it.
As I understand it, your scenario is how unions justify their continued existence.
You're reading an argument that I didn't make.
If you're not already an American Republican
I'm a libertarian. I believe that if all you can do is hit a button then you shouldn't be surprised that no one wants to pay you very much. You also shouldn't be offended when your job is truthfully characterized as "just hitting a big red button in the morning".
Admittedly, my second two statements are largely digressions. But as to the first...
My basis was that the button pusher was critical to your business and automation was not feasible, since you would have done that from the beginning. I don't know which economic concept this describes, but the idea is that you are compensating the button pusher based on their absolute, objective value (no pushing, no profit) rather than subjectively (skill-less "schlep").
Interesting that a highly transient society has managed to apparently reduce genetic diversity to an observable degree in such a short span of time.
Having recently rewatched Gattaca and falling in the Asperger range of ASD, I can't help but wonder if studies of this nature will nudge us closer to passive forms of eugenics. We're certainly within the realm of feasibility at this point...
I will freely admit that most of what I attempted to read beyond the first few pages was over my head (and certainly my attention span), but the gist of my interpretation would be that humans are increasingly mating with sameness in mind, or as I will henceforth (egotastically--not a typo) call "self-identifying physiopsychological compatibility".
2) Resemble/enhance something people already enjoy.
Because the article's #1 point is entirely valid and thoroughly unnecessary for popularity. And #2? Well, good luck with all that (no, seriously, that's exactly what you need.)
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Of course your app should be useful, but my point in the post is that that's not enough - you have to think a priori about how to make the app spread.
(I can only speak as a user when it comes to native apps, so what I'm getting at may not align with your point of view or context. Please take my tone not as derision, but pragmatism as a paying customer and interested reader.)
You say "Of course your app should be useful", yet your post opened with "Chances are, someone has already thought of your app idea". So to me your post communicates, "Since your app is just another knockoff, polish it up real nice and hope for a media/celebrity mention or a front page link on HN/Reddit."
My tendency would be to say, "Of course your app should have a decent UI" but having owned a few Android devices and an iPhone, my experience is that utility trumps all. It's not unusual for very useful apps to exhibit truly shameful user experience. They may have a high utility factor and even have a polished interface, but be terrible to actually use. (We're going to assume through all of this that we're not even talking about minimal bugs or smooth, consistent performance, those should also be a given.)
Plus half of your first point was really your second point -- in essence, "Getting People to Use Your App" boils down to "Figure out a strategy to get popular."
Look, all I'm trying to say is that surely, with your background, you have more insight to offer than "...make your app high quality. Hike up production value. Make it really good."
While it's not news for a computing device to rely on ignorance in regards to marketing of specs, at what point does it cross the line from casually misleading to intentionally deceptive?
