To: SI Brad who wrote (35 ) 6/21/1999 7:30:00 PM From: Tom_ Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 72
To Brad and SI/GNET: Please take this as another "valid concerns" letter, from a member who cares, and who very much appreciates what you have created and have worked to maintain. But who doesn't feel therefore proscribed from submitting honestly-felt feedback. I am pleased that SI/GNET has responded publicly to the concerns of various members about the advertising issue. I am disappointed in several aspects of those responses. In the main, I feel the responses can be made more full and forthright. (I am not referring to Russell's response. It appears, to me, he walked unwittingly into a hornet's nest.) The words "bombard" and "solicitation" have been ignored, or danced around. I can understand the avoidance, because the Datek link is so obviously a solicitation to visit Datek, and the crux of this whole matter is the "promise" (your word, not mine) that "We will not bombard you with...forms of solicitation." Your position is that one small advertisement, repeated on every single member message page, is not a "bombardment." I hope you can see how reasonable people could very, very strongly disagree with that. You state, positively: "No banners. No bombardment." No mention of solicitations. I am concerned about possible plans to place "button" ads on the member message pages, in the top area where the Datek link is placed. Jeff chose to insert a reference to "button" ads in one of his reply posts. He didn't have to, but he did. And then you post saying that the space above the member's message boards is fair game for "tasteful" ads. The impression is left that button ads are an actively considered option. However, when I asked directly about buttons ads, silence. And you state "No banners. No bombardment." No mention of buttons. The Green Slime dominated the screen (I must assume purposefully so) because of its color; the eye could not help but go to it; it ignited the firestorm-reaction on the Welcome to SI thread. It's been changed, good, but I'm not sure it is at all appropriate to describe it as an "unintrusive" ad. I mention all this for the following reason. SI members have a legal right, IMO, only to hold SI/GNET to is what is posted on the homepage: "As a full member ($60 semi-annually), you can...Elect to permanently turn off advertising banners." That being the case, it comes down, again in my opinion, to a matter of ethics. My hope is that you folks will act in the future in the spirit of your previous acts and statements, which I believe to be that you will strive to minimize the intrusions of advertising on the splendid vehicle for conversation between members that you have created. That's why such responses, and non-responses, cause me concern. Thank you for listening. Best wishes, Tom