To add to the parent: Most major marketing automation and email marketing tools are going to add these links automatically in the email builder.
Most WYSIWYG email builders built into these tools are pretty painful to begin with, and especially so when content with links is copied from one tool to another. (Think of the poor marketing person being given various blurbs in Word, Gmail, etc. and told to make a functional email out of them while having to use a shitty WYSIWYG.)
Beyond that, most marketers I know have absolutely zero input into what email platform they use. Many organizations are stuck using antiquated, broken tools (I'm looking squarely at you, Eloqua) because of complex existing integrations they have set up.
I don't see this changing any time soon. Few marketing orgs have the IT budget and/or on-staff knowhow to fix this problem. Nor are they likely to be aware of it. Nor, for that matter, are they likely to prioritize it over the many more pressing things they could be fixing that more directly affect revenue.
Managers should trust their employees to get stuff done, and not micromanage their time. Employees should get stuff done whether their managers are watching their every move or not, and, trust their managers to not be micromanaging their time. We both need to create a trustworthy relationship.
I have no sympathy for employees who do not do work without being forced to any more than I do for bosses who want to micromanage every minute of employee time or every website they visit. You're both hurting all of us.
Here's another perspective: mercenary-leaning personality types may be able to compartmentalize micromanagement, but highly intrinsically-motivated minds are totally disrupted by it. The anxiety of observation lingers even when the boss isn't looking and all work begins to carry the sting of coercion. Effort for these people grows out of aligning personal agency with meaningful production, so forced conformity to arbitrary management practices (or worst of all, counterproductive ones) actively kills all but the minimal output to remain employed and put food on the table.
But personalities who don't experience the world this way interpret it under the simplistic moral judgment of "laziness", thus perpetuating the very incentive structure that causes it in the first place.
I find it highly dubious that there's a significant fraction of humans who are basically not industrious. That just doesn't seem possible or adaptive in the context of a tribe of hunter-gatherers eeking out survival on the savannah. Rather it seems that we're clinging to unsophisticated organizational structures from the Industrial Revolution, which enabled a highly technical society to emerge in the first place but were never iterated to handle things like psychological diversity or the explosion of highly specialized knowledge work. That’s why we have insanities like software designers working factory shifts, in noisy distracting settings, taking marching orders from people who have no idea what they do.
Like all relationships it is reciprocal notably. Demotivated or stressed employees are more likely to "full slack" (not doing any work as opposed to say switching to a lower intensity duty). Bosses who distrust their employees are more likely to micromanage and stress and demotivate.
Proper results oriented approaches can help for both parties. At the end of the day throughput is what matters for productivity not how hard they work. But that is logistically nontrivial to set up and calibrate properly, let alone other temptations and pressure to try to "optimize" beyond the ability to be sustained. Knowledge work in even the lowliest sense isn't optimal like an assembly line.
Making matters worse as usual for any would be reformers are inertia and politics of course. It is the ultimate "dancing monkey" but instead of being between security and the monkey choosing the latter, the choice is practical and wise decisions or politically pleasing ones.
I do SEO work for a large (DJIA component) tech company, so I'm pretty far removed from startup-land, but I'll still share the number one piece of advice I give out internally:
Write high-quality content about topics that people are searching for.
Simple? Yes. But it still seems so hard to get people to do it. Everyone would rather talk about page load time and HTML markup and structure and meta tags and exactly how many characters their headline or URL should be. Yes, you should make common-sense decisions about those things. But no amount of technical optimization is going to make people start Googling something that they couldn't care less about to begin with. Find out where demand exists for answering questions, and give the user a good experience as you answer those questions, and the search traffic will follow.
Absolutely. SEO is content & links. Good (valuable to the searcher) content earns links (over time), low quality content needs various tactics of increasing dodginess to gain links.
Writing good content is hard. If a writer could do it, they are rarely going to be writing it to sell. So gaming the system and writing average content (much easier to produce) and gaming the system is the best way to go.
Real estate prices are priced by mostly by current demand, not future oncoming disasters.
Much waterfront property is _already_ vulnerable (and expensive to insure) today, regardless of whether you believe in consensus climate science, due to storms and flooding in current climatic conditions. That house by the ocean is going to destroyed at some point, the only question is when and how.
I have not yet, however, seen any such research on consensus for the effects of climate change. Is there a large, documented consensus on any estimate of sea level raise?
Sorry, perhaps the emphasis in the way I wrote that comment made it unclear what I was saying.
My point was that real estate market prices are much more heavily influenced by current conditions, and current demand, rather than hypothetical future conditions. The price elasticity of demand has little to do with whether the buyer believes that the property will flood in future decades due to climate change. Someone who wants a beachfront mansion is probably going to buy it for close to the same price whether or not s/he believe it will still be there in 50 years, just as s/he might buy an expensive car that will similarly degrade and need expensive maintenance exceeding the original purchase price over time.
Well, I don't believe in "consensus" [insert field] science because that's an oxymoron.
If you still believed what was once the consensus, you would believe in some crazy stuff. Science is skeptism of the consensus, not the other way around.
Most WYSIWYG email builders built into these tools are pretty painful to begin with, and especially so when content with links is copied from one tool to another. (Think of the poor marketing person being given various blurbs in Word, Gmail, etc. and told to make a functional email out of them while having to use a shitty WYSIWYG.)
Beyond that, most marketers I know have absolutely zero input into what email platform they use. Many organizations are stuck using antiquated, broken tools (I'm looking squarely at you, Eloqua) because of complex existing integrations they have set up.
I don't see this changing any time soon. Few marketing orgs have the IT budget and/or on-staff knowhow to fix this problem. Nor are they likely to be aware of it. Nor, for that matter, are they likely to prioritize it over the many more pressing things they could be fixing that more directly affect revenue.