[8403] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
On speaking to a subset of a list
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel P Dern)
Wed Nov 17 22:51:40 1993
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1993 22:49:53 -0500
From: ddern@world.std.com (Daniel P Dern)
To: cni-modernization@cni.org, com-priv@psi.com
Cc: ddern@world.std.com
Sheesh, go out of town and off the net for a mere two days and see what
happens... :-) Anyway, as editor of another of them Internet rags (the
first magazine, and the affordably-priced offering), I thought I'd
pitch my two cents in, now that, in the words of Walt Kelly, the tumult
and shouting are over. I'm posting this to these two lists because
that's where the original message seems to have gone, and tried to draw
some moral from this so it isn't just more incident-bashing. Anyway:
Michael Strangelove posted (to com-priv and cni-modernization, that I
know of):
> Attention Subscribers of Internet Business Report or Internet Letter
What, not the Cook Report, GNN or Internet World? I'm shocked.
Shocked.
> Flushed with their continued international success,
I'd be curious for substantiation of any of the implied facts here.
> and since then continues to set the standard for reporting on
> Internet business opportunities and resources.
Set and sustain the standard? Uh, I don't think so. Since I haven't
seen recent issues, this is not a value judgement on what's in tIBJ.
If anyone set that standard, I'd guess it was Chris Locke and Jayne
Levin... not to mention John Quarterman, Sharon Fisher, Gary Anthes,
Laurel Nelson-Rowe, John Markoff, Paul Gilster, Adam Gaffin, Ed Krol,
Scott Bradner, Peter Deutsch, and yours truly... many if not most of
which probably haven't seen tIBJ regularly. I _do_ wonder how all the
other authors, journalists etc. covering the Internet feel about this.
> The editor of THE INTERNET BUSINESS JOURNAL, Michael Strangelove,
...who's posting the note ...
> explains the reasoning behind this bold free offer,
We want you to give your money to us instead of them and don't think
you're willing to buy both.
> "We have a product that is guaranteed to be simply the best, and
And if it isn't? And in whose opinion?
> When it comes to price, focus, content, and quality, we continue to
> set the standard. Success is always imitated...
No comment.
Anway: If the offer was not extended to all readers of the list(s), it
has no business on them; it is unsolicited junk mail to the rest of the
readers, except to the extent it's an example of how NOT to use email
lists, per recent discussions in cni-modernization.
Within the past few weeks, Mr Strangelove announced his intention to
provide us with a book on "how to advertise and promote via the
Internet"; actions like this, along with bush-league PR, control
characters in text and .sig entries, sure ain't encouraging signposts
of ability to cover the Internet.
Like R.A.Lafferty said in one of his stories ("Narrow Valley," I
think), who's kidding who?
Given the typical dynamics of newsletters, I'd think there'd be a
bigger market in folks who aren't currently subscribing to one -- and
surely many will buy two, perhaps three, rather than miss that one item
they needed to see. I may be off base here. Unlike, say, the comic
book or cigarette markets, the Internet newsletter market hasn't
saturated yet to the point the only prospects are already customers
somewhere.
And then Gordon Cook commented:
> Maybe I'll do a review of the three newletters in my January issue of
> the COOK Report? <smile>
Don't forget to call, email or write for your free trial issue of
Internet World, too. Unless you're only covering newsletters.
And I agree that Chris was utterly justified in setting the record
straight in the same public forum; retractions all too often get buried
on the back pages.
Daniel Dern (ddern@world.std.com) Editor-in-chief, Intenet World magazine
(1-800-MECKLER) & author, The Internet Guide for New Users (McGraw-Hill,
1.02 kg) (for more info, see the enews.com gopher)
