[553] in Public-Access_Computer_Systems_Forum
Advertising on the Net
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Public-Access Computer Systems For)
Mon Jun 22 11:20:28 1992
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1992 10:10:19 CDT
Reply-To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
From: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <LIBPACS%UHUPVM1.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list PACS-L <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
4 Messages, 128 Lines
*-----
FROM: AXPBBGS --UICVMC
From: Bernie Sloan
Subject: Advertising on the Internet
Since I started this latest "advertising on the Internet" thread, I
kind of feel obligated to put in my two-cents-worth.
I'm not going to use a hypothetical example to state my case. I'll
use a recent, real-life example:
1. I posted a notice to PACS-L about a series of columns I
was writing for a Meckler journal. The columns were related
to a topic that had drawn considerable interest on PACS-L
(in fact, the columns were inspired by the discussions on
PACS-L). The journal isn't indexed in any of the standard
indexes that librarians usually check when doing literature
searches, so I thought it would be helpful to alert people
to the columns.
2. Earlier this week I posted a note to PACS-L about an article
in the Chronicle of Higher Education that dealt with another
topic that had been discussed on PACS-L. As a lot of librarians
I know don't subscribe to the Chronicle, I thought it would be
helpful to alert people to this article.
I get paid by Meckler to write the columns. My only connection with
the Chronicle is as a subscriber. If I'm to understand the recent
notes on "advertising on the Internet", I'm suspect in the first case,
and being a responsible professional in the second case, even though
the intent and end result are the same?
Shouldn't common sense enter into the equation somewhere? Not every
commercial operation is inherently bad, and not everything done in
the name of the public interest is inherently good. As network activity
matures, I don't think we can afford to maintain the simplistic notion
that "commercial is bad" and "non-commercial is good". We have to learn
to judge cases on their individual merits (which, of course, requires a
little more work).
Bernie Sloan
*-----
From: Ivy Anderson <ANDERSON@BRANDEIS>
Subject: RE: Advertising on the Net
My American Heritage Dictionary gives two principal definitions of the
verb advertise: (1) "to ...proclaim the qualities or advantages of (a
product or business) _so as to increase sales_" [emphasis mine], and
(2) "to call the attention of the public to a product or business."
I think it's the first sense, i.e. the use of laudatory language by a
less-than-disinterested party coupled with the intent to promote sales,
that people find objectionable. It's a gray area, admittedly -- a vendor
may consider itself to be posting information to the net with the intention
solely to inform -- but if the sender stands to profit financially from
the announcement, propriety would seem to suggest that the better course
would be to refrain from the appearance of conflict of interest. On the
other hand, Oxford University Press used to post periodically to the
Humanist list when last I looked, to no ill effect. Tone and
context influence this perception -- it's a judgement call.
In the case of a private or non-profit, it's not so much the stigma of
advertising in sense one above that's the problem, but more the glut of
unwanted information. Many of us are already overloaded with email, but
one man's poison is another man's meat (apologies to the gender-neutral
set). Posting to 20 lists is the equivalent of direct mail to thousands
of individuals. A useful check, and a natural courtesy in the
case of a list to which one is not a subscriber, would be to send this
kind of announcement to the list owner and let them decide whether to
post to the list or not.
Ivy Anderson
Brandeis University
*-----
From: Ivy Anderson <ANDERSON@BRANDEIS>
Subject: RE: Electronic Postings
Lee Jaffe's comments on network advertising generally echo my own,
(actually since his posting appeared first (as did others) mine will be
the echo--sorry!), but I'd like to disagree slightly with one of his
points, which suggested that it is more appropriate to respond to a
question individually than post to the list. I find I have learned a great
deal from lists that I subscribe to by reading the replies to other
peoples' questions. It's fine to have theoretical conversations
and treatises on the net, and I applaud and enjoy them, but it's also
extremely useful to know what hardware/software solutions other people have
found to particular problems we all encounter, what kind of policies other
libraries have developed to address similar service issues, etc. Obviously
judiciousness is called for -- a survey-type question that will call forth
100 replies had best go to the asker, and then I hope they'll compile the
results and post them -- and certain questions come round on some lists
like clockwork as new users join with the same novice questions we had when
we were network-young -- etc. etc. -- but I think most of us can judge when
a reply is really only relevant to one person and when it might be of more
general interest. I vote for a good mix.
Ivy Anderson
Brandeis University
*-----
From: guedon@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Guedon Jean-Claude)
Subject: Re: Electronic Postings
I appreciate Dan Marmion's presentation of the quandary in that he
exemplifies instances of the general question that is a classic in
communication theory -- namely Who speaks? To Whom? and with What intent?
Internet is a channel, a support for communication, a medium. As such
it does affect the nature of communication (The "medium is the message"
theorem), but it is not the sole factor affecting it. The three
questions raised above reach well beyond the "medium is the message"
line of thought. And this suggests an ethical rule all users of
internet should strongly advocate: I may state whatever I want as long
as I clearly state ALL my institutional and social settings, all of my
intents and whom I address. In other words, Internet could accomodate
factual and editorial statements as long as they are clearly identified
as such, thus building on the long tested tradition of good journalism.
Any flaw in this line of reasoning?
Jean-Claude Guedon
Professor
Dept of Comparative literature
Universite de Montreal
Co-editor, Surfaces -- an electronic research service on
cultural studies
guedon@ere.umontreal.ca
