|
the_pirate
Feb 18, 2005, 6:32 PM
Post #76 of 209
(6425 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2003
Posts: 3984
|
Dingus had no red text in his post. You have been found guilty of misquoting him and will receive the maximum punishment allowable by TOS.
|
|
|
|
|
epic_ed
Feb 18, 2005, 6:32 PM
Post #77 of 209
(6425 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 4724
|
TIm and Dingus -- good points. How about this scenario, and this is pretty much how it was explained to me:
Stock clerk at Walmart despises Huffy bikes (do they even exist anymore?). In fact, said clerk owns and has owned many Huffy bikes in the past, but his recent bikes have been letting him down for a variety of reasons. In fact, his most recent and newly purchased bike just fell apart and now he's really pissed. In recent conversations with other Huffy owners, the clerk finds out that he's not alone in his disappointment with the quality of Huffy bikes in recent years.
Irony or ironies, he finds out a reporter is doing a feature on the recent decline of the Huffy Corporation and the reporter contacts him to ask his opinion. His comments are blunt, mean, and insulting, but not untrue. He speaks only of his experience and his opinion of Huffy bikes. The story gets published, and gets a lot of publicity.
Unknown to our lowly stock clerk, the management and marketing department at Walmart has been in negotiations with Huffy for months to start distributing their products, and as a result of finding out that the stock clerk is employed with Walmart, the business relationship is strained and becomes a point of contention in their business negotiations.
What's the issue here? Who is at fault? What should the consequences be? Does the stock clerk get canned? Reprimanded? What about other products? Has the cleck, by virtue of his association as an employee of Walmart, forever given up his right to express his dissatisfaction with not only the products that Walmart carries, but any potential product line/manufacturer?
Ed
*Hear that? That's the distinct sound of a can of worms being opened...
|
|
|
|
|
the_pirate
Feb 18, 2005, 6:35 PM
Post #78 of 209
(6425 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2003
Posts: 3984
|
In reply to: The story gets published, and |
|
|
|
|
epic_ed
Feb 18, 2005, 6:45 PM
Post #80 of 209
(6425 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 4724
|
Oh crap. I really did call you Tom. :shock:
But how has said employee discredited his employer? He was asked a question about a product he has experience with -- he's a Huffy customer -- and it's not even a product that Walmart carries.
Ed
|
|
|
|
|
epic_ed
Feb 18, 2005, 6:46 PM
Post #81 of 209
(6425 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 4724
|
Oh crap. I really did call you Tom. :shock:
But how has said employee discredited his employer? He was asked a question about a product he has experience with -- he's a Huffy customer -- and it's not even a product that Walmart carries.
Ed
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Feb 18, 2005, 6:49 PM
Post #82 of 209
(6425 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: Now, on to the subject of *potential* Advertisers... A month and a half ago, I sent emails to top Staf members about an add contract for a company that I was marketing. I included my full contact info to include email and phone numbers, but to date, No response has ever been received. From a marketing standpoint ( and I'm a Marketing Consultant) that has created a level of negative advertising on the part of RC, that will be difficult to overcome, because my client has not been amused by the lack of responses.
We're adrift in a sea of threads here, but no matter.
You solicited rc.com on behalf of a client for an ad contract and you received no response. And the client blames rc.com? I guess I don't understand what a marketing consultant does then.
In reply to: At this point, I think it's very safe to say that "Selective Operations" are the overiding factor here, because if paying advertisers were the main priority/obligation/concern, one might think that the ink would have long been dried on the add contract that I was trying to produce for RC! :idea:
I'm curious, how do you know what the reasons are?
I do to recall a stated desire of rc.com to limit advertising to climbing related companies. I think they had to let that slip some, but clearly they *wanted to be selective* from the git go? Is your client in the climbing business?
I hope to god they continue to be selective in their ads! Highly selective in fact.
Cheers man, and good luck with your client, but I'm not the guy to discuss ads with.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Feb 18, 2005, 6:55 PM
Post #83 of 209
(6425 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
I don't know about all this Huffy shit, employee rights and the purrfect analogy.
I do know this... if a customer of Walmart walked into a store holding up a huge sign saying, "Huffy Bikes Blow Chunks" management would remove the sign very quickly.
I'm pretty sure that's true. Even if it meant said customer would never come back. I really don't think Walmart cares about any individual consumer at all.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
tgreene
Feb 18, 2005, 7:02 PM
Post #84 of 209
(6425 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 7267
|
Yes, this particular client is VERY MUCH in the climbing business! :?
The fact that RC never even responded to the quote request, was not a good sign to the overall well being and administration of this particular corporate entity.
|
|
|
|
|
yanqui
Feb 18, 2005, 7:56 PM
Post #85 of 209
(6425 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 24, 2004
Posts: 1559
|
In reply to: I do know this... if a customer of Walmart walked into a store holding up a huge sign saying, "Huffy Bikes Blow Chunks" management would remove the sign very quickly. DMT
Ha. Huffy bikes way suck. And so does Walmart.
Is it really necessary that this site aspire to the ideal of a Walmart selling Huffy bikes? That's certainly not why I spend my valuable time posting information on climbing in Argentina or answering e-mails and giving free advice to people who contact me through this site.
Fuck, I don't know what the hell I expect from this joint, but it sure ain't Walmart and it sure ain't Huffy bikes. One thing's for sure: it's nice to have a few posters around who really know something about climbing. Fuck, I'm just pissed that Curt got chased away. He's a thick-skinned guy, who took more insults than most. He doesn't run easy. It smells like something's rotten in Denmark.
|
|
|
|
|
epic_ed
Feb 18, 2005, 8:04 PM
Post #86 of 209
(6425 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 4724
|
In reply to: Is it really necessary that this site aspire to the ideal of a Walmart selling Huffy bikes? That's certainly not why I spend my valuable time posting information on climbing in Argentina or answering e-mails and giving free advice to people who contact me through this site.
You're missing the point. I was trying to make an analogy with some other stuff that is going on with the site right now. It was a bit too much of a thread drift. Sorry. Carry on.
Ed
|
|
|
|
|
amber
Feb 18, 2005, 8:10 PM
Post #87 of 209
(6425 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 15, 2004
Posts: 708
|
although the analogies are interesting, i'm not convinced that they're completely accurate. rc.com is NOT a retail outlet. rc.com is a website that sells ad space and forms business relationships based on the number of people who regularly visit this site.
what's more, it's not clear what rc.com's overall objective is. as camhead stated earlier, the site seems to be caught between wanting to be a business and wanting to be a grassroots climbing resource.
honestly, i think the site had more to offer when advertisers werent calling the shots. the more rules that are placed on the community per advertisers and the more threads that are edited or skirted away behind the curtain, the more that users will become disgruntled and fins other sandboxes to play in.
if the site plans to be more about commercialism than it is about providing a sense of community for climbers, then that's management's decision - but my guess is that they will not continue enjoying a solid base of mainstay climbers. rather, they will have a revolving door of people who come and go, which leads to a lack of loyality, which ultimately makes that group less useful to companies on tight marketing budgets.
advertisers, especially advertisers in the climbing segment, are looking for the most efficient way to communicate with their intended audience. moreover, it's commonly accepted that the more passionate a person is about the medium in which they encounter advertising, the more likely it is that they will not disregard the advertisement as 'noise' and WILL consider a purchase from said advertiser.
think of it this way, you're really excited about a small business and want to do what you can to help them out vs just being 'there' and not really caring if they survive or not - which is a more important consumer attitude for advertisers? 98% support of advertisers because we really like the medium where we encounter advertising or 28% support because people just dont care. (btw, numbers are FPO - duh)
treating users like crap in favor of advertisers is counter-productive on multiple levels. a) it's makes those of us who actually like the mainstay member who was recently shat upon less likely to have favorable opinions about said advertiser. b) it makes us much less enthusiastic about the organization (rc.com), thereby reducing the likelihood that we'll pay attention to ads on the site, muchless make a purchase from them .. and since rc.com's defense seems to be all about the bottom line, they should keep in mind that they, too, are a little fish in that game. if we're not buying stuff from advertisers because we're tired of being used as part of a numbers game, that well, too, will eventually dry up.
from my own personal experience, there was a point in time where i LOVED rc.com and would go out of my way to purchase from advertisers. things around here have changed, and mgear is the only advertiser (aside from gear manufacturers) that i will buy from, and that's mostly because i'm of the opinion that mgear kicks ass.
finally, would R&I tell a loyal reader and contributor of three years to piss off because said reader/contributor didnt like the products of one of their advertisers? what if said reader wrote a letter to the editor for climbing that got published? would they tell that reader that they could no longer subscribe, or would they attempt to work out an amicable situation between reader and advertiser? my guess is that they would work diligently to build a bridge for the reader/contributor and advertiser, instead of telling the reader/contributor to stop being a piss ant.
|
|
|
|
|
sauron
Feb 18, 2005, 10:43 PM
Post #88 of 209
(6425 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 1859
|
I love all the analogies who try to blame rc.com management for Curt's decision to leave.
I only have one thing to say to Curt regarding this:
If you can't take the heat, don't play with fire.
- d.
|
|
|
|
|
unabonger
Feb 18, 2005, 11:32 PM
Post #91 of 209
(6425 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 8, 2003
Posts: 2689
|
In reply to: I also think it's lame that an advertiser would complain about users and staff for voicing unfavorable opinions about their product. If honest opinions about their product are hurting business, then maybe they should consider improving their product instead of silencing those who arent psyched on it. Finally, it's incredibly unethical to allow advertisers to determine content in a content-driven medium. People should be allowed to express honest opinions without fear of discipline for disliking the products of someone who advertises here.
Well said.
The thing about advertising on this site is that if I was able to name a single brand, it would be an utter accident. Sort of ineffective if you ask me.
|
|
|
|
|
one900johnnyk
Feb 18, 2005, 11:35 PM
Post #92 of 209
(6425 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 23, 2002
Posts: 2381
|
In reply to: I love all the analogies who try to blame rc.com management for Curt's decision to leave. I only have one thing to say to Curt regarding this: If you can't take the heat, don't play with fire. - d.
my beef is with the idiot who tarpitted a user organzing what should be a large rally to save a local crag for the sake of saving face in front of some bs advertiser.
and for as much as i enjoyed reading his posts, and the advice he gave i hope he stays away..
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Feb 18, 2005, 11:57 PM
Post #93 of 209
(6425 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: My beef isnt about Curt's decision to leave so much as it's about rc.com tarpitting a user because an advertiser got pissed about what the user had to say about the advertiser's product.
Then you have no beef because that is not why he was tarpitted.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
elvislegs
Feb 19, 2005, 12:09 AM
Post #94 of 209
(6425 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2002
Posts: 3148
|
hey, while we're all gathered here, i'd just like to mention something important to me...
CHECK OUT THE HONDA RIDGELINE IT'S LIKE OUR CAROLLA HATCHBACK, ONLY....OMG IT'S A TRUCK!!11!141 :D HONFDAA!!1 :D :D
and also... magnetic climbing walls blow goat dick.
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Feb 19, 2005, 12:20 AM
Post #95 of 209
(6425 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: In reply to: I also think it's lame that an advertiser would complain about users and staff for voicing unfavorable opinions about their product. If honest opinions about their product are hurting business, then maybe they should consider improving their product instead of silencing those who arent psyched on it. Finally, it's incredibly unethical to allow advertisers to determine content in a content-driven medium. People should be allowed to express honest opinions without fear of discipline for disliking the products of someone who advertises here. Well said. The thing about advertising on this site is that if I was able to name a single brand, it would be an utter accident. Sort of ineffective if you ask me.
Same here. The only thing I remember about ads on RC.com is that there were some fucking annoying flash-based ones. I honestly don't have any clue what those ads were for, however.
Furthermore, personally, I never click on banner ads... ever. If I actually want to go to the site in question, I'll take the effort to type in the address so they don't get see an Http-Referrer. They have no place on the internet, as far as I'm concerned, and I won't contribute to that style of business model, no matter how much I like the site in question.
|
|
|
|
|
macherry
Feb 19, 2005, 12:23 AM
Post #96 of 209
(6425 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2003
Posts: 15848
|
puts fork into thread........................
is it done yet???
|
|
|
|
|
amber
Feb 19, 2005, 12:26 AM
Post #98 of 209
(6425 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 15, 2004
Posts: 708
|
In reply to: In reply to: My beef isnt about Curt's decision to leave so much as it's about rc.com tarpitting a user because an advertiser got pissed about what the user had to say about the advertiser's product. Then you have no beef because that is not why he was tarpitted. -Jay
Then perhaps management should organize a better response and stop being so damned secretive about everything.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Feb 19, 2005, 12:27 AM
Post #99 of 209
(6425 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: Is it really necessary that this site aspire to the ideal of a Walmart selling Huffy bikes?
Whoa sorry there buckaroo, didn't mean to spin your brain counter clockwise. Why is such an important dude wasting his time in community anyway? Entering in some Argentinian gossip or something?
Curt got in a huff (get it ... huff??? Hah! Sometimes I just kill myself) and left. That makes him huffy. I bet the boy even shops walmart too. So there you have it... a mystic connection of monumental unimportance.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
maculated
Feb 19, 2005, 12:29 AM
Post #100 of 209
(6425 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 23, 2001
Posts: 6179
|
Seems to me like everyone should quit speculating unless they know the whole story. I'm fairly surprised that this thread is allowed to continue, but I see that as a positive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
