Rex Ballard wrote:
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> > HP told WSJ to, 'Go say nice things'
> >
> > ,----[ Quote ]
> > | We've always wondered how elite reporters at publications such as the
> > | Wall Street Journal handle their communications with public relations
> > | drones. Thanks to HP's savvy investigators, we must wonder no more.
> > `----
>
> Remember, I used to work for Dow Jones. I remember at least one
> incident when Walt Mossberg, the technology columnist, wrote an article
> singing the praises of Solaris, or Linux, or some competitor to
> Microsoft.
>
> Microsoft called one of the owner/executives, told them that since WSJ
> liked Solaris so much, they could let Sun buy all the ad space that
> Microsoft was about to pull. They not only pulled their own full page
> ads at $250,000 per page, but they also pulled the ads of several
> OEMs, claiming that they didn't want their logo misused.
>
> Over less than a week, WSJ had something like $2 million in lost
> revenue. That would have been right after Solaris was released. About
> 1993.
Sorry Rex but you're either a habitual liar or a total psycho because
this story is pure bullshit. For starters anyone who's ever dealt with
advertising knows that the scenario you just described is pure fiction.
If Microsoft or any other company were running "full page ads at
$250k/page" they would not be paying for these ads on a daily basis.
This would all be done under contract where MS/company pays up front
for N-many ads to run in X-many issues. Advertising space is reserved
well in advance and is not paid for or negotiated on a daily basis.
As far as MS pulling the ads of several OEMs... more bullshit. The OEMs
pay for their ads and MS has no authority what-so-ever to pull or
modify any ads that an independent OEM wants to run. Under contract
OEMs have the right to use the Microsoft/Windows logo in their
advertisements and MS is powerless to call a paper or magazine and
cancel ads that Dell, IBM or Gateway want to run.
> In another even more grizzly situation: While working for McGraw in
> 1995, one of the magazines, Byte, was giving positive coverage to
> Microsoft's competitors, and not being as nice to Microsoft as they
> wanted - especially with reguard to their coverage of NT 3.x and
> Chicago previews.
>
> Microsoft again tried the "squeeze play", but the editor responded in a
> public declaration, reminding readers and owners alike that Byte was
> dedicated broad and unbiased coverage of the entire industry, not like
> some of it's competiitors who had just become publicity rags.
>
> Microsoft took more drastic measures. They began pulling full-page ads
> from several other of the 172 McGraw-Hill publications. The pressure
> was intense, and eventually Terry McGraw solved the problem by selling
> Byte to C-Net. C-Net couldn't handle the pressure either, and
> eventually Byte was taken out of print. The columnists still
> contribute to the Byte web site, but the great magazine that was once
> sold by the millions in stores all over the United States and Europe,
> now gets only a few million visits a month.
>
> > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/03/wsj_tam_hp/
> >
> > One similar example, among many more:
> >
> > Bill Gates lends cash to buy newspapers
> >
> > $350 million to MediaNews
>
> Keep in mind that Microsoft's direct advertizing budget is over $4
> billion per year. In addition, Microsoft controls placement and
> content of all ads featuring the Microsoft trademarks and logos,
> including all ads placed by the big OEMs like HP, Dell, Sony, and
> Gateway. That's another $20-40 billion in advertizing that can be
> pulled almost instantly, or over excruciating months.
Not even remotely feasible. These OEMs are under contracts which give
them the right to sell Microsoft products and to use their logos. No
way, no how can Microsoft "pull ads" that Sony, Dell or IBM are
running. When the contract comes up for renewal MS can elect not to let
these OEMs sell their products or use their logos but it is impossible
for MS to pull ads that these OEMs are running.
Grow up Rex. These lies of yours are becoming increasingly ridiculous.
> > ,----[ Quote ]
> > | Gates involvement has been very behind the scenes. In fact many of
> > | those involved in the deal didn'teven know he was one of the investors.
> > | It was carried out through the Gates Foundation, the world's largest
> > | philanthropy outfit.
> > `----
>
> Gates is a $billionaire. He needs to shield his investment activities
> to keep speculators from cashing in on his activities. Gates has
> frequently used shell corporations, holding companies, and other
> indirection and misdirection to prevent such speculation. Of course,
> these investments and secret deals may also involve some interesting
> "side deals", but those are covered by strict nondisclosure agreements
> which can't be discussed except with law enforcement agencies.
>
> > http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33849
> >
> > Is it at all surprising that OEM's and newspapers rarely mention GNU/Linux?
>
> Actually, what's surprising is the amount of coverage that Linux DOES
> get. On the other hand, what makes Linux newsworthy is that, with
> almost no capitialization, no formal organization to speak of, and yet
> has become the biggest threat to the richest man in the world. The
> irony is that the real leader from the other side wasn't Linus, it was
> Richard Stallman, and the "battle" began about 22 years ago, in 1984.
>
> Bill Gates announced that his true goal was "world domination". Most
> people just laughed it off, but Richard, who was very familiar with
> usenet, application software, and the potential for gaining control of
> the world's information - took the threat very seriously. He saw that
> it was actually possible for Bill Gates to implement his plan, and
> worked out the countermeasures, and published them in his "GNU
> Manifesto".
>
> Stallman wasn't the first to publish Open Source Software, he wasn't
> even the biggest player. He was the first to use Microsoft's own
> weapon, the copyright license, as an effective deterrent.
|
|
