Article View: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic
Article #2632Re: About the CGW sex ads whiners
From: sk... Sean Kaye
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 1995 00:00
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 1995 00:00
83 lines
5099 bytes
5099 bytes
Jojo (jo...@xs4all.nl) wrote: > Your argument sounds good, but it has one BIG flaw. I am not > complaining about the contents of CGW. I am not calling them or emailing > them to tell them what's good or bad. If CGW has sex ads, then that's > fine, if CGW does not have sex ads, then that's fine with me too. I want > *them* to decide what to show me. And if I like it I'll buy it. They want > me to see sex ads, and I think that's ok. That's you position and I am entirely comfortable with that... I just have a problem with your attitude of sitting there and waiting for them to show you something... Isn't that one of the problems with TV, its not interactive??? Now, I totally understand your arguement that is you don't like it, don't buy it, but by the same token, if writing a letter and voicing an opinion can bring about positive change in YOUR opinion (subjective issue), then you should write that letter... > That's *completely* different from those whiners who *do* want to > influence the contents of this mag. And I don't want them to do that. I > want them to take it as it is, whether it's with or without the ads. They > don't want to look at the ads. Fine. But they want to get them out of the > magazine, for illogical reasons, which may not be what other people want. Ads are NOT considered content... Ads are just that ads... I do not buy the magazine for the ads, I buy them for the articles... So to appease people ads should be neutral and non-offensive... I mean really, think what you will of the magazine's journalistic quality, but when a raging debate begins over certain types of ads, that is not good... Let's face it, Ads are put in the magazine to increase revenue... Readers pay for their copy of the magazine, this too is revenue... I'm quite sure CGW has no difficulty filling ad space, so to put ads in that some people find objectionable is just plain stupid... If those people who were offended stop buying the magazine, readership goes down, therefore, CGW cannot charge as much for ad space (lower readership does that) and so they are hurting their overall revenue... If however, CGW decides to DROP the XXX ads, they lose a few advertisers that could probably be replaced rather quickly and I don't think any of the readers would stop purchasing the magazine because those ads vanished... Really, dropping those ads is a no-lose situation... Mind you, I am not morally offended by them... I just think its stupid and detracts from the magazine because they simply have no place in there... The stated objective of the magazine is to provide readers with information into what's going on in the realm of Computer Gaming... If these ads were relevant to the objective of the magazine, then you would see reviews of that genre and much more mention of it would be made... The entire GENRE gets no mention by the magazine, so therefore I must assume that in the editorial board's opinion it has no place in the magazine, yet the ads are still there... I think this is what offends me... So call me a whiner if you will, but I have as much right to complain as you have... But really if those ads were no longer in CGW do you think it would bother you??? I think in a round about way you said "no" to that earlier... Something to the effect of (I'm paraphrasing), "I'll take what they give me, if the sex ads are in there or not, I'll buy it if I like it..." > Bill: The commercial breaks. > Oprah: So? > Bill: They had no child molesters in them. > Oprah: Excuse me? > Bill: The commercials had nothing to do with your program. > There was one about a car, about a dish-washer, about a magazine, > but no commercials for child molesters. > Oprah: Are you kidding me? > Bill: No, I want you to get rid of those commercials. > Oprah: Go play with yourself, idiot. Oprah doesn't pick her commercials... She picks her sponsors though, and I don't think we'll be seeing a sponsorship by the Klan anytime soon... She knows better than to offend some members of the viewing audience by wrecklessly picking sponsors... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sean Kaye 2nd Year Arts Carleton University Email address: sk...@chat.carleton.ca ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<DD1BC8.4Fu@cunews.carleton.ca>Path:
mbox-mo1.pugleaf.net!unknown!not-for-mailReferences:
<402b12$lur@news.xs4all.nl> <95080611001411716@hq.com> <4031u7$bco@spool.cs.wisc.edu> <404jsd$3c2@news.xs4all.nl> <405ej6$367@spool.cs.wisc.edu> <4068lo$76q@news.xs4all.nl> <407rl5$144j@locutus.rchland.ibm.com> <408use$sqj@news.xs4all.nl>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
From: sk...@chat.carleton.ca (Sean Kaye) Subject: Re: About the CGW sex ads whiners Date: 1995/08/09 Message-ID: <DD1BC8.4Fu@cunews.carleton.ca> X-Deja-AN: 107750974 sender: ne...@cunews.carleton.ca (News Administrator) x-nntp-posting-host: agora.carleton.ca references: <402b12$lur@news.xs4all.nl> <95080611001411716@hq.com> <4031u7$bco@spool.cs.wisc.edu> <404jsd$3c2@news.xs4all.nl> <405ej6$367@spool.cs.wisc.edu> <4068lo$76q@news.xs4all.nl> <407rl5$144j@locutus.rchland.ibm.com> <408use$sqj@news.xs4all.nl> organization: Carleton University newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit