Noticing a person’s web behavior (e.g. that they publicly bookmarked a link) is a simple observation and probably doesn’t merit contacting them. Even a machine could track this behavior, so there’s nothing special about pitching to that interest. But, if you spent a couple minutes observing not only one bookmarking action but all of them, and then personalized a message, the opportunity to break the ice with that person is much more likely.

I do wonder how this idea scales and if it will be abused? Then again, what channel isn’t abused once it is revealed? I know you warned us up front, but you are preaching to the choir. The bad guys won’t care.

As an aside, remember when Rubel asked to be pitched with the for: tag? I wonder if he still uses it?

In response to your (and Susan’s) concerns:

First, please be sure to refer back to the big-time warnings/caveats that preceded the tactical discussion in this post. I am deadly serious about the fact that this is a potentially dangerous approach.

Next, more to the point, you’ve recognized that this idea is BASED on “sharing links connected to an attention stream,” i.e., it ONLY works if the marketer can make a strong case for the context of their outreach.

Is it all that different from a contextual/behavioral advertising approach (which Google, Overture, et al., have turned into a “respectable” multi-billion-dollar business)? And I am not just talking about typical/anonymous Google searches – don’t forget that Google scours people’s oh-so-personal Gmail accounts to serve up contextual ads!

If a person is using a social/public bookmarking system (and storing their faves in public: don’t forget that people *can* elect to save to del.icio.us “privately”), it’s only going to be a matter of time before marketers see this as a potential channel.

For now, at least, this is a daunting proposition to most all marketers. The approach I am discussing here allows the marketer to narrow their outreach based on identifiable, contextual and (I dare say) legitimate
approaches.

“You publicly saved THIS; you even publicly said WHY you saved it … which makes me think you might like THIS.”

That doesn’t sound so bad… it’s certainly no more nefarious than the targeting techniques that big advertisers, political campaigns, et al. currently use to try to influence people.

“There is no market for messages” – so true. But it’s also true that “Marketing happens.” With a post like this one I am hoping to guide future marketing efforts toward the helpful vs. the harmful.

As always, I could be wrong. That happens, too.

The idea behind edgework is much more than simply distributing messages directly. “There is no market for messages,” still rings true enough. Stuff like this is just old school media outreach by other means.

What keeps this idea on the better side of a fine line is that it is a response to an action taken by your audience, not a scattershot one. If well targeted, and if used with restraint and creativity it has the potential to garner high marks. Some grey (or flaming) hair along the way may be incidental.