Audio Asylum Thread Printer
Get a view of an entire thread on one page
|For Sale Ads|
In Reply to: RE: you must be new school posted by Joe Murphy Jr on October 6, 2011 at 21:45:12
> I sometimes wonder with the more outrageous claims if the people making them aren't inadvertently telling us how they'd go about things if given the opportunity.
If someone feels wronged by this statement they should try to be more considerate before making knowingly outrageous claims. After all, if they didnít knowingly make them the quote wouldnít apply.
Either neither one of you understands what I typed or both of you are committed to making my point.
Does it increase the odds that I, or others reading this thread, will spend any time at the new site after this exchange? Does this exchange increase traffic to the new site? What would advertisers think about this exchange and its affect on their ROI?
> Does it increase the odds that I, or others reading this thread, will
> spend any time at the new site after this exchange?
I think it will increase the odds, now that it is clear that the site's
content is not affected by advertising.
> Does this exchange increase traffic to the new site?
I believe it will.
> What would advertisers think about this exchange and its affect on their
Why would that matter?
"I think it will increase the odds, now that it is clear that the site's content is not affected by advertising."
Advertising $ for good reviews wasn't my contention, nor did I ever suggest it. You must have me confused with someone else.
Coming to this forum and suggesting that members here are immoral and unethical because a few of them have directed such comments at Stereophile for such a practice isn't good business PR. The strategy of defending your integrity by suggesting people here are immoral/unethical is not a winning strategy.
"I believe it will."
Only based on your misunderstanding of my point above.
"Why would that matter?"
Because those who would advertise on your site expect that their investment pays off in such a way that it generates sales for them. If the representatives of the site that they're investing in, through advertising, are pissing off potential site visitors by insulting them, the return on that investment would tend to drop due to a decrease in potential visitors.
In general, for advertisers, an increase in visitors = an increase in sales and a decrease in visitors = a decrease in sales.
Based on past experience any mention on any forum increases traffic. No matter the nature of the exchange.
That said, I registered and entered this discussion to respond to a few questions that only I was in a position to answer.
Let's piss off some people at AA by suggesting they're immoral/unethical so we can generate some traffic to our site. You actually think it's moral and ethical to use this forum to direct traffic to your site for free. Wow. You take the cake and the box it came in.
Maybe these people should ask for the same discount that you're getting.
The link to the site was included in the first post (which I had nothing to do with). I chose to participate here for the reason I already stated - to answer specific questions relating to the site that only I was in a position to answer.
Joe, do you think (and I ask this in all seriousness, not as a wind up) that Michael's site will live or die with the attraction, or lack of it, of AA readers? I wouldn't think it would make a jot of difference.
There's no reason to "use this forum to direct traffic to your site for free". The traffic will come, regardless of what AA members think.
If this site and its members truly won't make a jot of difference in traffic, JA's initial post wouldn't have made it to this site in the first place.
As long as it was OK with Rod, I have no problem with JA announcing the new site on AA. However, #1 neither rep should have pissed in this pool and #2, the "admission" that stirring the pot, if necessary, was (possibly) a premeditated action is appalling.
"If this site and its members truly won't make a jot of difference in traffic, JA's initial post wouldn't have made it to this site in the first place."
I think that post was a courtesy, not a necessity.
Many posts were negative from the start. The pot stirring started long before JA commented.
> I think that post was a courtesy, not a necessity.
I posted the announcement in this forum because I thought that those
passionately interested in PC audio would welcome another, complementary
source of information to the Asylum's PC Audio forum. People shouldn't
read anything more into this fact and my thanks to the moderators for
allowing me to make that post.
> Many posts were negative from the start. The pot stirring started long
> before JA commented.
And my comments to which some have taken great offense were specifically
aimed at those I called "cynics," who see unethical agendas at work in the
activities of those of us professionally involved in audio publishing. Yes,
perhaps I should recognize that when you are in a hole, it might be best to
stop digging. But to judge from the recent "Yikes" post, the baseless
accusation that our editorial decisions are based on advertising concerns
seems to be taken for granted in some quarters. Which is why I felt some
sort of clarification was in order.
> the "admission" that stirring the pot, if necessary, was (possibly) a premeditated action is appalling.
Your quotes and parentheses illustrate very clearly that you know you're reaching for these conclusions. And you have to reach for them because they are not true. You made them up.
And you refuse to take me at my word and apparently would rather twist and interpret them so you can continue to be pissed off and appalled. I feel like I'm talking to some guy in a bar who's just pissed off because the lights are going to come on any minute.
The quotes were for emphasis (maybe not the best choice to show emphasis) and the parentheses around the word "possibly" were put there because you didn't outright say that it was premeditated, though one of your comments above did imply it was an option if need be.
Since you are not willing to put any effort into understanding why the comment JA made, and you agreed with, is wrong, it makes no sense to continue this exchange.
But you can have the last word.
sounds arrogant. Attract readers attract Ads???
When you put it that way, sure it does. But that's not what I said or how I said it.
Readership. Ratings. Advertising.
It all boils down to bottom line. Magazines (and television and radio) rely on advertising revenue. They're businesses after all...
journalists and reviewers who have a degree of humility, and those who think they are 'superior' to their readers.
I ignore the latter, who don't attract a broad base of readers but who may appeal to some advertisers.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: