Talk:Redbox/Archive 1

External Links

Please do not submit to 'scraper' sites where the sole purpose is to make money with Google AdSense and affiliate links. Any such changes will be disqualified, and your IP address will be banned.

Viral Marketing

"Aside from its ATM-like dispensary format, Redbox is a strong example of a major corporation having generated viral marketing. Redbox launched by sending 'free DVD rental' codes via email to anyone who registered on their site, and encouraging these potential customers to forward said emails to their friends. As such, for the negligible cost of a mass-email, they garnered a response far better than had they spend tens of millions on television and radio commercials." If redbox is mentioned in a business school, it will be because of its Web 2.0 viral marketing campaign. In 20 years, that is probably all redbox will be remembered for. This paragraph was deleted by someone with no attempt at discussing their intentions here. I liked this paragraph and would recommend someone puts it back in. --Mrcolj 06:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The viral marketing aspect should be covered especially since it is a direct part of the redbox experience. This listing has been updated to cover more than the basic listing that 1st appeared and I feel something should be mentioned. If the codes werent such a big part of redbox I surely wouldnt have started freeredbox.com. I saw the need for the site as soon as I saw the machines in Houston and started the site because the 2 other sites werent updated. As great as the plan to give free codes was 9 out of 10 people I see at the machines have no idea there was even a code.

Article Expansion

Mrcolj: Thanks for taking the time create some additional updates for this page; I've been meaning to do it for some time. I took your contributions and added some additional/more-correct information to the article as well. Again, thanks.

It's DVDs, not DVD's

As far as I know, nothing is ever made plural using an apostrophe mark. This is an example of a grocer's apostrophe. FYI. --Mrcolj 14:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, ""For the plural of abbreviations, an apostrophe is widely regarded as incorrect, so CDs is preferable to CD’s." (same article as above.) --Mrcolj 21:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

InsideRedbox.com / RedBoxCodes.com

There have been reverts back and forth as to whether including a link to this site, or any site which exists to public redbox codes, is appropriate. I think it is, as again I believe the codes are the peculiar thing about redbox's success, and these links have not been authored by the website publishers. But who cares what I think--I'd like someone to discuss it here. For some reason few who participate in this topic understand the purpose of the talk page... --Mrcolj 05:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel the link I removed is spam because it seems to meet the criteria. " 1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes a Wikipedia:Featured article. 2. Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources." There are mentions on the website that it has been down since 8-30 and that codes don't even work. In addition the website stands to benefit everytime the link is clicked because of the Google Ads. Perhaps I am misinterpreting the meaning of the Spam definitions, or the website itself but I feel it meets the criteria.--Joe Jklin (T C) 17:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I am with Mrcolj. If the site adds value to Redbox, it should stay. In the case of the site in question (freeredbox.com), this site is a blatant and crass rip-off of another more well known site (redboxcodes.com); additionally, you are hit with pop-up advertisements and other forms of affiliate market advertising. IMHO, this is unprofessional and crass. Content and quality matter. If a site can provide both, then it should stay.

For what's it worth, I also don't object to a single link illustrating the concept of sites that give the free codes. If we can find a site with fewer ads and more information that would be preferable, but for now the redboxcodes.com site is just about ok. Addhoc 23:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You know, I've always used InsideRedbox.com. It looks basically the same as redboxcodes, with just a few ads up top (which doesn't bother me), but it's a much better site, has original content (instead of an RSS of general movie news), rankings of codes, started first, and has always been [more popular]. So I vote we not only leave one link up, but we change the link to insideredbox.com. FYI, I don't work for them and don't know a thing about them. --Mrcolj 19:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

InsideRedbox.com is a good site written from the personal perspective of a redbox user, however it has more than twice as many advertisements per capita as RedboxCodes.com; Currently there are 4 Google AdSense units on InsideRedbox, compared to 2 on RedboxCodes. Furthermore, InsideRedbox has 4 affiliate links, whereas Redbox Codes has none. One last comparison: in order to access the codes, you must click through to a second-level page, only to be served more advertisements; RedboxCodes offers the codes on the front page, without any digging, clicking or scrolling.

In any event, I'm not sure that the link either way will affect either sites traffic, since doing a search for [Redbox Codes on Google] returns RedboxCodes.com in the #1 position, and InsideRedbox in the #2 position.

Here is what I propose; keep the RedboxCodes.com link and update the "Promotional Codes" section on the page here at Wikipedia, listing the most current codes. I would volunteer to check it a few times a week to make sure it's up to date. Any objections to listing codes, with an "As Of"?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.77.78 (talk • contribs)

Regarding choosing the site with fewer ads, I agree. Not so keen about listing codes in the article, unless the format was "for example the following have been used as codes: ..." Addhoc 09:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I have offered to remove all ads from my site. The sole purpose of the site was to let people have free movie codes. The ads are only there to offset the hosting costs. The ad CTR is zero so removing the ads will not bother me one bit. My problem was that if you are going to list one list them all and as far as I know there are only 3 sites directly aimed at giving codes away. As for content, for a site that generates no revenue and is not for profit it is very time comsuming to add forums and other items from the jump. The other 2 sites are in this for profit as can be illustrated by the ads on every page and they way you have to click thru to get to what you really want. Freeredbox.com is 3rd today on google behind insideredbox.com when you search for free redbox. This is more the point than having to have my site listed especially when the goal is to give free codes. I dont see anywhere on there site where they state there site is not for profit. Why cant you list all 3 since there are only 3 sites directly related to free redbox codes. Why not let the user try all 3, they can pick which ones works for them and go from there. One important note is also how does the site load on your cell phone. For most users they use the site on there phone while they are at the box. Try to load the other 2 sites and see how long it takes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pluto459 (talk • contribs)

Adhoc: thanks for categorizing. And glad to see that we're on the same page.

Pluto: Your site has twice as many ads as any of other sites mentioned. Additionally, your header image is a blatant rip-off from a previous version of the redboxcodes.com website; you even did a poor job adding the word "free" to the header image, as it's not even anti-aliased.

One last thought: It looks as if you have 120 other JUNK sites (login might be required to see his other wasteful ad-filled sites) on your server, all of which are registered to YOU Kevin, which hold about as much credibility as your attempt at a promotional codes site does. Honestly it's sad that you're helping to pollute the internet with more junk sites, but please do not attempt to keep adding your site to our external links.

Let's consider this case-closed and move on.

EXCUSE ME!! Let me say this again. Now listen carefully. it seems you didnt read a word i wrote. I created my site before I even found the 2 other sites. When I did they were so out of date it was a joke. The original site was done in drupal and never looked right. How dare you catagorize my sites as junk. I have offered to remove every ad from the site so I am not sure what your problem is. I dont consider this case closed. So now if a site has ads its junk. Hmmm, how does this site stay online? Someone is paying the hosting bill. My site gives free codes and you dont like the way i copied the header, oh well. Feel free to submit to me your redesigned site and I will be more than glad to post it. Redboxcodes has not been updated in months except for more ads placed as entries and the same thing at insideredbox where i get emails for ads. I am confused how when your confronted with a site that will abide by the rules you create to be listed is still not good enough. Why you find it necessary to be the internet content police and decide what is good for people. My site does nothing to distort free codes and everything is spelled out crystal clear on the site and I dont try to email or spam people with ads later.

---

I thought for a while on the best way to respond to your statement and concluded that your post does not even warrant a response; however I have decided to respond to for the sake of his article and for future contributes to Redbox. That being said, I will clarify a few points:

Your website specifically asks visitors to click an advertisement every time they visit the site. Not only is this an asinine request, it is blatantly against Google’s Terms of Service. If your website was reported to Google, you would lose your AdSense account.

You make several contradictory statements in your response. You claim that the site was developed without knowledge of the existence of RedboxCodes.com, however you go on to admit in the proceeding sentences that you stole the header from that very site, which would indicate that you were in fact aware of its existence.

I just checked out RedboxCodes.com, and this site does NOT disguise posts as advertisements. Additionally, there are only two advertisement blocks on this site, compared with your eight or more on yours. Please check your facts before making claims.

Food for thought: Every site on the Internet incurs hosting costs, and yours is no different. As was previously stated, the 120 or so other Spam/Adult/Porn sites that you also host should more than cover the cost.

On behalf of this article and Wikipedia, please feel free to contribute in a progressive and professional manner, or do not participate at all. In closing, I’d like to remind you of points 3 and 4 of Wikipedia’s External Links Policy regarding links that you should not add:

• A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link.

• Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that require payment to view the relevant content, colloquially known as external link spamming.

If you have further concerns, I would advise you to revisit Wikipedia’s guidelines for resolving disputes.

Whoever you are, no one's going to trust you if you don't sign your comments. (Not to mention your pseudo-intellectual illogicisms.) Pluto, which is your site again? --Mrcolj 00:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

illogicisms -- care to expand on this term? All 'pseudo-intellect' aside, of course.

I think I can explain. Plutos site is freeredbox.com, and the previous point being made was that Pluto's website is only one of his many other spam sites that all hosted on his server.

You can do a reverse IP lookup here.

Among the other sites pluto hosts along side "FreeRedbox.com" include domains such as "celebsextapesite.com", "famoustitties.com", "myspaceboobs.com" and DOZENS of other adult-oriented web sites, all with the same look-and-feel of his redbox site. Drshields 01:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Market Leader Source

I recommend finding a more credible source than the competitor itself (see footnote 1). Perhaps an unbiased newspaper article would be better? According to this article (http://www.amonline.com/article/article.jsp?id=17641&siteSection=1) Redbox is the nation's "leader" in online rental services... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.245.125.9 (talk) 02:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

I have contacted somebody who is pretty knowledgeable in this area; he's pretty well connected to the whole industry, in fact. I'll let you know what he tells me about this "The New Release" company. Drshields 00:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)