Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It's used not just by spammers, but by sales reps, too.

Dell recently did this to about half a dozen people on my team. 'Q2 Budget Review', which sounds official, but is really a Dell rep trying to sell you junk that magically pops up on your calendar _even if you mark their message as spam_.

Dirty way to get by executive assistants, too.



> Dell recently did this to about half a dozen people on my team. 'Q2 Budget Review',

If you put this shit on my calendar, I will never purchase a product from you. I will additionally, at my own discretion, use it as proof that you have had a data breach and are unable to keep your accounts safe since no real company would really do this on purpose.


For every one person who vows to never purchase their product, 10 others become useful leads.


Yes, but for every person I tell that they had a data breach causing them to phish their customers through calendar, I can poison 50 people in each organization, then they can poison 50 and so forth... let's call it exponential growth of the DELL-20 coronavirus.


And each of those 10 successes tells 50,

Don’t you get it?! They wouldn’t do it if it didn’t work, and you are vastly outnumbered. It’s not right, it’s bloody annoying, but it’s there and it’s not going away.

Google needs to fix the root problem, so that the spammy behaviour is not possible.


I'm not claiming that you're wrong because I don't have any data to the contrary, but "They wouldn’t do it if it didn’t work" isn't a strong argument. It's only true assuming rational actors and perfect information.

It is quite possible that the successes are more visible than the failures and thus it seems like it works. Or it "works" for the sales rep because he gets more leads and thus a bigger bonus, while hurting the company - but the company hasn't figured that out yet. Or it works in the short term but isn't worth the reputation damage in the long term.

Of course it's also possible that it just works, just pointing out that reality shows that people and companies often do things that are just stupid.


It would stop working if less people said "it will work even if you're difficult!" and more people just took a little time out of their workday to be difficult.


I hear "they wouldn't do it if it didn't work" about many dark patterns. Is there proof to this? I suspect that these kinds of things are easier to measure than less aggressive tactics, leading to a false sense of efficacy.

And what of the efficacy compared to the negative reputation gained from such practices? How do they measure that?


> Yes, but for every person I tell that they had a data breach causing them to phish their customers through calendar

The number of times I've managed to convince someone not to use a service because of data breaches or poor security settings is precisely 0.

If people are OK with banks and retirement accounts that follow poor security standards, they won't really care about Dell.


We had someone try this at a company I worked at previously. The target was so angry they aggressively complained; the company fired the salesman. It boggles the mind why a sales person would do something that is likely to be seen as an invasion to the prospect.


> It boggles the mind why a sales person would do something that is likely to be seen as an invasion to the prospect.

Sales droids don't think the same way regular people do. A lot of them really believe everybody is as extroverted as they are and introverts are just pretending. And that everybody would be as excited about their product as they are, if they only knew about it. The best sales people can adopt the point of view of their prospects; mediocre ones cannot.


That really hasn’t been my experience when working alongside sales people at the companies I’ve worked for.

I definitely wouldn’t call any of them sales droids. Usually they’re just given really tough goals and quotas to hit.

And while none of the salespeople I’ve worked with would book unsolicited appointments, I could see it happening at companies who don’t have a very mature sales org and just throw their account managers to the sharks and expect them to make it rain.

From experience, I suspect that most salespeople who resort to invasive tactics really don’t expect everybody to be excited about their product. They are just desperately trying to keep their heads above water to avoid getting fired - a very human, non droid like thing to do.

That doesn’t excuse it, of course.


That really hasn’t been my experience when working alongside sales people at the companies I’ve worked for.

I'll outweigh your anecdote with mine, because the only two companies where I had to work with sales people, in both places the sales people were exactly as the parent described.

One cheated on his bride-to-be just to make a sale.


How would cheating make you a sale? I don't see the causality.


Presumably they were cheating on their bride with a buyer...


You're equating duplicity with extraversion. That's not the same thing.


The post says "and", not "therefore".


> It's used not just by spammers, but by sales reps, too.

Not sure there's a distinction there.


Spammers don't have the corporate liability protections that allow corporate employees to spam without worry. So really, spammers are better people.


That sounds like an excellent way to make me ban all inbound traffic from that vendor.


It's going directly from the vendor to Google. How exactly would you block that traffic?


You may not be able to block the calendar spam with current tools, but if you're in a decision-making role, you can block e-mails or blacklist the vendor so your purchasing department knows that they cannot order from them.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: