I see. Framing the problem as my being confused or my not understanding something makes me the one who has something to answer for, right? But that move is so transparent!
The following is what I question as being valid. In fact, I believe that the way you think about giveaways is absolutely invalid.
I'll explain my objection again. In a genuine exchange, both parties are aware, from the beginning, of what is being traded for what. You lead someone to think a product is free, but you have a price secretly in mind. The other person didn't agree to this price and didn't even know about it. You decided all by yourself that what you gave "should" cost money. Then you extract something else from the person as a substitute for the money. You knew the terms of the transaction all along, but the other person didn't know and thus had no chance to decide whether the transaction would be worthwhile. Please tell how this is not fraudulent. Also tell why it makes sense for a person who doesn't want you to have her e-mail address to send you an e-mail.
Focus ... original post content...
Which specific marketing tactic lacks a solid foundation? Which wouldn't work? Which one does human psychology invalidate?