[KLUG Advocacy] Re: And the Spam Wars continue...

[Bruce Smith]

> >> It is the same here. Advertisers ought to take the hinti...
> >> ...won't sell to these people, they'll simply make 'em mad.
> >If they get mad, then they should go to one of the hundreds of other web
> >sites offering similar products or services.
> I think you're working fairly carefully to miss the point. :)

Quite possibly.  Or maybe we have different points.

> I'm attempting to show the folly of "forcing" ads on people, from the point
> of view of the advertiser. You're busy trying to solve the problem (or play
> the role of) the end user, and solving a problem that I'm not so interested
> in discussing.

That's not surprising, we do that all the time.   :-)

> OF COURSE the end users will go elsewhere if they get mad, that's EXACTLY 
> NOT what the advertisers want them to do. The advertisers want them to see
> the ads (banner or popup), absorb the message, and go out and buy, buy, BUY!

Really?  I always wondered the intent of those ads . . .   ;-)

> >But there is a difference.  I've already PAID my hard earned MONEY to
> >rent or purchase the DVD.  That fee should exempt me from having to
> >watch the advertising too.
> Quite an assumption you're making here!

I don't think so!

> Specifically, I'm referring to the notion that you pay once, and are
> then exempted from paying again, or perhaps that you pay money to exempt
> you from watching advertising. Nothing of the sort happens most of the time.

It happens ALL the time.

> You bought your televison, and then you "have to" watch advertising on
> that, all the time... even ads for other televisions! Do you want to be
> exempted from this? How? The broadcast medium is non-selective, newer
> media are not.

Sure I bought my TV, just like I bought my PC.  That has nothing to do
with it.

When I watch "free" broadcast TV, I expect to see commercials.

When I watch HBO/Showtime/MAX/Stars/... premium channels, that I PAY
for, I expect to watch commercial free, and it happens all the time!
I'm currently watching the movie "Ali" on Max, and I haven't seen a
commercial since it started two hours ago.

When I rent or buy a a VCR _tape_ I expect to watch commercial free, and
it has been that way for DECADES that I've been renting videos.  If
there is a commercial in the beginning, the fast forward button has
always worked.  

Until now, when some DVD makers decided to make me pay AND watch
commercials.  If that gave me some advantage over VCR tapes, like
cheaper prices, then I'd be more accepting, but they don't seem to be
any cheaper.

> The Britsh do this, and have since the 1920's. They collect a license fee
> for operating a RECEIVER (something hardly mentioned in US law); it's about
> $170/year per household or business. In exchange for they get the BBC (which
> is funded from license fees, even if the viewers aren't watching the BBC)
> a commercial-free government service.

That's nice, but it's different here, and we are here.

> I'm sure you don't prefer that. I don't. I prefer the NPR/PBS model (actually
> originated by Lewis Hill, with Pacifica, in the late 1940's) where the viewers
> pay for the station operation, and have some voice in what is broadcast.

In some ways it's the same.  PBS stations begging for money between
shows isn't much different than broadcasting commercials.  Just more
direct and to the point.

> >>>I've always figured this is better than the alternative.  I don't want
> >>>to pay a subscription fee to every web site I visit for information. 
> >>I'd MUCH rather see a banner ad on their web pages.
> >>I agree, but hold out that while banner ads are not great, they are better
> >>than paying for every site. Still, we can look for better models for 
> >>this.
> >Then start looking!  That'd be great!
> Um, this thread, or my postings have been doing that, sans any need for 
> cheerleading or gainsaying.

I'm sure all the network / media executives on this list will get right
at it.   :-)

> >But what happens when the next release of Mozilla/Netscape/IE/Opera/...
> >comes out and all people have to do is click a preference to block ads?
> >Or what if that option is set ON by default?
> 
> We have two conflicting commercial interests here; perhaps they need to get
> together and discuss things. On one hand we have the folks who want to use
> the Internet as an advertising medium, and the other we have software devel-
> opers who want to serve the needs and interests of their users, and are mo-
> tivated by competitive pressure to do so.

I doubt the commercial browsers would do that, but Mozilla may be a
different story since it's "open" ...

> >>Many broadcast media stations (Pacifica Foundation, some local univerity and
> >>NPR stations) have opted for a "listener sponsored" approach to financing;
> >>it is usually done for non-profit groups. How this works for a profit making
> >>organizations is a but more nebulous. However, it is on the whole more 
> >>sensible and less annoying.
> >That may work for some sites, but I doubt it'd work universally.
> IMO there's no one "magic bullet". Users may be receptive to advertising on
> some sites, not on others. The notion of conducting more business directly
> over the Internet may subsume lot of advertising, and the number of Internet
> sites may be economically excessive, in any case.

As long as we keep the monopolies from taking control, the users should
end up deciding in the end by their actions.

--------------------------------------------
Bruce Smith                bruce@armintl.com
System Administrator / Network Administrator
Armstrong International, Inc.
Three Rivers, Michigan  49093  USA
http://www.armstrong-intl.com/
--------------------------------------------