Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | iamacyborg's commentslogin

How’s that working out for Hoover in the UK?

10+ year CRM marketer here.

> Core capabilities: - Visual workflow builder for abandoned cart recovery, win-back campaigns, and post-purchase sequences

For automation to be useful, it’ll need to support a lot more than this.

> Last-touch and multi-touch attribution tracking

This isn’t actually useful for serious marketers in an isolated tool.

> Template management with personalization variables

This only becomes useful if you have a proper templating language, dear first name is not useful personalisation.

> Real-time deliverability monitoring (sent, delivered, opened, clicked, bounced)

Are you removing non-human interactions from these reports?


Here’s an example of a plan I’m working on in CC, it’s very thorough, albeit required a lot of handholding and fact checking on a number of points as it’s first few passes didn’t properly anonymise data.

https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1zo_VkQGQSuBHCP45DfO7...


18East if you want cool shit made in India

You're being unnecesarily pedantic. They might not hire the musicians directly but if they're hiring an agency to do that, it's effetively the same thing. Ultimately they're trying to get generic music for cheap to reduce royalty payments to artists.

> Ultimately they're trying to get generic music for cheap to reduce royalty payments to artists.

1. Spotify doesn't pay artists. Spotify doesn't have direct contracts with artists. Spotify pays rights holder and distributors.

I really wish people who have strong opinions on music industry learned at least the absolute bare minimum about the subject.

2. Again, bringing back to my original comment: where's the evidence for that? E.g. the one and only article everyone links [1] and doesn't bother to understand literally has statements like this:

--- start quote ---

But at the end of the day, [the ghost musician] said, it was still a paycheck: “I did it because I needed a job real bad and the money was better than any money I could make from even successful indie labels, many of which I worked with,” he told me.

...

Epidemic’s selling point is that the music is royalty-free for its own subscribers, but it does collect royalties from streaming services; these it splits with artists fifty-fifty.

--- end quote ---

That doesn't mesh well with the narrative of "Spotify bad, doesn't pay royalties, etc.", does it?

[1] https://harpers.org/archive/2025/01/the-ghosts-in-the-machin...


> 1. Spotify doesn't pay artists. Spotify doesn't have direct contracts with artists. Spotify pays rights holder and distributors.

You are still being unnecessarily pedantic. Most of us understand that there are layers to this, but ultimately, what we care about is how much an artist is paid per stream and what streams are being preferred over others.


For those who miss Spotify connect capabilities and apps, I've been using Roon (self-hosted, but susbcription required) for my music library for a couple years now and it is absolutely excellent. You get full access to stream your own library and the ability to integrate into Tidal and/or Qobuz for any music you want to hear but don't own a copy of. It's really very good.

There’s a definite trend in many HN threads talking about the UK in the last few months that’s trying to push my narrative.

My money’s on Twitter being the source.


Unfortunate typo. that narrative, not my narrative.


Motivation generally follows action, not the other way around.


In the same way that all software engineers are building harmful products, yes, sure.


> What next, gonna complain resolution is too high and you can see costume seams ?

They literally had to invent new types of makeup because HD provided more skin detail than was previously available.

It’s why you’ll find a lot of foundation marketed as “HD cream”.


that's just progress, so get the 60 fps cream next then :)


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

Search: