Comments on: Does the end justify the means? http://bunnyears.net/dan/?p=318 It's Dan's Self-Indulgent Webpage 2.0 Sat, 21 Aug 2010 06:10:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Vidgames http://bunnyears.net/dan/?p=318&cpage=1#comment-20867 Vidgames Sun, 23 Dec 2007 18:13:42 +0000 http://bunnyears.net/dan/?p=318#comment-20867 Yeah, I think you're putting too much of this on yourself. This is like when I started in magazines, and learned that red covers pop off the newsstand better, so you want high-profile issues to have a bright red cover to help it sell. (Though you don't want to back-to-back covers to look similar, lest you risk that a shopper will glance at it and think he already bought it.) You use the red cover to highlight and enhance what should be already strong contents. Yes, you went with a pithy headline as a red cover, and maybe went a bit "sarcastic" to spice up the entry. But the gist of it is sensational all by itself, no matter how you wrote it, that a separate division of Sony turned down the opportunity to let you showcase its wares *to an audience that the section is targeted toward* and **to an audience that asked for it**, which would have basically been an "advertisement" of sorts for the price of shipping a set to a legitimate media outlet in what they claim is some sort of solidarity. The real issue isn't that your write-up might have been cheeky (it wasn't overly so; it was on the mark, in my view), but that Sony turned down the chance to exchange $100 in shipping to expose its products to thousands of potential consumers simply because the main product you cover (which, as you noted, is compatible with its own) comes from a competing company. I'll say it again: You're taking too much of this on your shoulders. You're just the messenger of what is a pretty dumb marketing decision, despite whether you wrapped it in straight-up reporting or took a few spicy jabs at Sony's decision in the course of it. Yeah, I think you’re putting too much of this on yourself. This is like when I started in magazines, and learned that red covers pop off the newsstand better, so you want high-profile issues to have a bright red cover to help it sell. (Though you don’t want to back-to-back covers to look similar, lest you risk that a shopper will glance at it and think he already bought it.) You use the red cover to highlight and enhance what should be already strong contents.

Yes, you went with a pithy headline as a red cover, and maybe went a bit “sarcastic” to spice up the entry. But the gist of it is sensational all by itself, no matter how you wrote it, that a separate division of Sony turned down the opportunity to let you showcase its wares *to an audience that the section is targeted toward* and **to an audience that asked for it**, which would have basically been an “advertisement” of sorts for the price of shipping a set to a legitimate media outlet in what they claim is some sort of solidarity. The real issue isn’t that your write-up might have been cheeky (it wasn’t overly so; it was on the mark, in my view), but that Sony turned down the chance to exchange $100 in shipping to expose its products to thousands of potential consumers simply because the main product you cover (which, as you noted, is compatible with its own) comes from a competing company.

I’ll say it again: You’re taking too much of this on your shoulders. You’re just the messenger of what is a pretty dumb marketing decision, despite whether you wrapped it in straight-up reporting or took a few spicy jabs at Sony’s decision in the course of it.

]]> By: MitchyD http://bunnyears.net/dan/?p=318&cpage=1#comment-20864 MitchyD Sun, 23 Dec 2007 07:21:49 +0000 http://bunnyears.net/dan/?p=318#comment-20864 I thought the headline was not only attention grabbing, but appropriate. It makes the point clear, but at the same time it begs for assumption. I still thought that the text, should anyone have read it, justified it entirely. I wonder if Sony will reconsider in the future if this bangs out enough attention. I thought the headline was not only attention grabbing, but appropriate. It makes the point clear, but at the same time it begs for assumption. I still thought that the text, should anyone have read it, justified it entirely.

I wonder if Sony will reconsider in the future if this bangs out enough attention.

]]>