|
|
Re: intro to anthropology
Danny Yee (danny@STAFF.CS.SU.OZ.AU)
Tue, 2 Aug 1994 17:10:58 +1000
I think I stand with Richard Wilk and Elizabeth Dunn on the
advertising issue, but I'm not 100% sure. Rather than a blanket ban
on advertising, I'd prefer that "good" advertising be permitted; the
problem being to decide what qualifies as "good". So the information
about the HRAF that was distributed earlier this year was definitely
an ad (it mentioned a price, I believe), but aroused no complaints.
In that case I believe that the produce was important enough to
make the ad acceptable (and I believe the sellers are a non-profit
organisation). So I'm not terribly annoyed with Jeff Iverson for
advertising his product, but I wholeheartedly approve of Richard
Wilk's letting us know his opinion of the product.
My particular worry is that book reviews come close to being
advertising. (There have been complaints in alt.books.reviews about
people reviewing their own books, or books they have published.)
I'm looking at a pile of books sent to me by Routledge to review,
so the question is rather immediate.
> Of course we could publicize the name of the company involved in
> Elizebeth's post. The offender will either be censured, or given a
> promotion for initiative.
Net advertising will only work in certain restricted areas; basically
small companies selling specific products to a narrow range of people
(ie Green Card lottery assistance). For broader products and more
public companies, alienating 90% of the audience to attract 1 or 2
percent would just be suicide. (So you don't see Microsoft spamming
USENET.)
Danny Yee.
|