schwartz@latour.colorado.edu (Mike Schwartz) (01/28/91)
In article <156215@felix.UUCP> asylvain@felix.UUCP (Alvin "the Chipmunk" Sylvain) writes: >Don't be so all-fired-up certain they're *not* doing a public service. >When you have a family of four to feed (as I do), you appreciate learn- >ing about bargains and getting coupons... I have nothing against making the information available. What I don't like is having it forced on me. If, for instance, advertising went to an intermediary electronic bulletin board service that people like you could browse, people like me wouldn't have to be subjected to it. (This would also reduce the amount of glossy junk mail that fills our land fills.) Of course, this wont happen, because another purpose of advertising is to convince people to buy things they don't need. - Mike Schwartz Dept. of Computer Science Univ. of Colorado - Boulder
ald@garth.UUCP (Al Date) (01/30/91)
In article <1991Jan27.164332.22205@csn.org> schwartz@latour.colorado.edu (Mike Schwartz) writes: >In article <156215@felix.UUCP> asylvain@felix.UUCP (Alvin "the Chipmunk" Sylvain) writes: > >>Don't be so all-fired-up certain they're *not* doing a public service. >>When you have a family of four to feed (as I do), you appreciate learn- >>ing about bargains and getting coupons... > >I have nothing against making the information available. What I don't >like is having it forced on me. If, for instance, advertising went to >an intermediary electronic bulletin board service that people like you >could browse, people like me wouldn't have to be subjected to it. (This >would also reduce the amount of glossy junk mail that fills our land >fills.) Of course, this wont happen, because another purpose of >advertising is to convince people to buy things they don't need. It would be more accurate to say that one of the purposes of advertising is to get people to *try* something that they may not *think* they need. Sometimes people discover that indeed their lives are enhanced unexpectedly. Other times, they never buy the product again. No amount of advertising will get people to repeatedly buy something that they dont really want, or the Yugo would've succeeded. Another great example was the failure of New Coke, in spite of record amounts of advertising (at the time). As long as there is open competition, laws against fraud, and easy access to consumer information, the consumer is still sovereign. Some advertisers engage in blatant "business propaganda," but freedom of speech must apply even to the most obnoxious, or it has no meaning. Let the buyer be a-ware. With regard to the glossy junk mail that fills our landfills (and our mailboxes), I wonder how much of that would go away if there was open competition in First Class mail? The way it is now, the users of First Class have no choice but to subsidize the users of Third Class, through the monopoly pricing structure of the US Post Office.
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (01/30/91)
If you want to conserve paper, junk mail is actually a plus. When you consider that the alternative to a 10,000 piece junk mailing is an ad in a 500,000 circulation magazine... (The ratio isn't as strong as this, since the direct mailing probably uses 5 pages of paper and the ad only uses 1/2 of one. But for those concerned about wasting paper, the better the targeting of the junk mail, the less paper used. Yes, electronic media are the ultimate answer to saving such resources, but that's down the road. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
asylvain@felix.UUCP (Alvin "the Chipmunk" Sylvain) (01/30/91)
In article <1991Jan27.164332.22205@csn.org> schwartz@latour.colorado.edu (Mike Schwartz) writes: > In article <156215@felix.UUCP> asylvain@felix.UUCP (Alvin "the Chipmunk" Sylvain) writes: > > >Don't be so all-fired-up certain they're *not* doing a public service. > >When you have a family of four to feed (as I do), you appreciate learn- > >ing about bargains and getting coupons... > > I have nothing against making the information available. What I don't > like is having it forced on me. Ah, my friend, I beg to differ! It is definately not forced on you! It's only placed in your mailbox! I wouldn't consider it "force", unless the mail carrier brought a gun along to make certain you read everything. > If, for instance, advertising went to > an intermediary electronic bulletin board service that people like you > could browse, people like me wouldn't have to be subjected to it. Actually, that's not a bad idea. I could get the Pollo Loco coupons that I want, and ignore those silly Pizza Hut coupons! (Gadz, *every* week, Pizza Hut, Pizza Hut! >>>gag!! hack!! choke!!<< ) > (This > would also reduce the amount of glossy junk mail that fills our land > fills.) That's a slightly different issue. We simply need to convince advertis- ers of the economy of using recycled paper. Even glossy paper can be made this way, I understand. Write them letters, they do want to know your opinions. After all, they need your good graces in order to sell you something. Then, we need to convince consumers to put the stuff into a recycling bin instead of the trash. This is probably harder than the first part. Consumers don't give a damn whether you like them or not. > Of course, this won't happen, because another purpose of > advertising is to convince people to buy things they don't need. Don't sell advertisers that short. There are also things that people *want*, regardless of *need*. I *want* a Porsche Car and a Charbroiled Chicken, but I sure don't *need* them. OK, I'll likely never see a coupon for the Porsche (and if I did, I probably still couldn't afford it), but those chicken coupons certainly come in handy! I have sworn off KFC forever. This is thanks in part to Pollo Loco advertising. Also, there are things people *do* need, and are advertised regularly in this junk mail. Supermarkets are forever letting us know that if we shop there *this* week, we can save $$$ on bread and eggs. Well, actu- ally, you still don't *need* bread or eggs, but I think you get my point. My point is simple. Companies sell products. Consumers buy products. Without advertising, ne'er the twain shall meet. There is no way to perfectly target advertising to *only* the individuals who are 100% interested in it. With the coupons and information found in much of this junk mail, my family regularly saves around 20% off our grocery bill. That's money that can go into *true* necessitities! ... like floppies ... > - Mike Schwartz -- asylvain@felix.UUCP (Alvin "the Chipmunk" Sylvain) =========== Opinions are Mine, Typos belong to /usr/ucb/vi =========== "We're sorry, but the reality you have dialed is no longer in service. Please check the value of pi, or see your SysOp for assistance." =============== Factual Errors belong to /usr/local/rn =============== UUCP: uunet!{hplabs,fiuggi,dhw68k,pyramid}!felix!asylvain ARPA: {same choices}!felix!asylvain@uunet.uu.net
hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) (01/31/91)
In article <1991Jan29.210008.6535@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: }If you want to conserve paper, junk mail is actually a plus. When you }consider that the alternative to a 10,000 piece junk mailing is an ad in }a 500,000 circulation magazine... }But for those concerned about wasting paper, the better the targeting of }the junk mail, the less paper used. The Los Angeles Times claims to be printed on 80% recycled paper stock. Further, 100% of the daily edition and about 90% of the Sunday edition is recyclable itself. None of the junkmail I receive daily claims to be printed on recycled stock. Most of it can't be recycled because of treated paper or other impurities. Further, most of it isn't targeted beyond bulk delivery to a block of addresses. I'd rather the junk mailers bought space in the Times than filled my mailbox with useless trash. -- The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@ttidca.tti.com) Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp(+)TTI Illegitimis non 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 450-9111, x2483 Carborundum Santa Monica, CA 90405 {rutgers|pyramid|philabs|psivax}!ttidca!hollombe
dalamb@avi.umiacs.umd.edu (David Lamb) (02/01/91)
This is getting pretty far from the Electronic Frontier, but I can't resist reacting any more than anyone else, so... In article <156343@felix.UUCP> asylvain@felix.UUCP (Alvin "the Chipmunk" Sylvain) writes: >That's a slightly different issue. We simply need to convince advertis- >ers of the economy of using recycled paper. Recycling is the 3rd R. Reduce is the first (followed by reuse). Getting junkmail on recycled paper is better than on new paper, but not getting it at all is even better. Sorry to pick on you, but lots of people seem to think that "recycling" is somehow a magic solution. Paper can only be recycled so many times (with current technology at least), because the cellulose fibres get broken up more each time, reducing the quality of the paper. -- David Alex Lamb internet: dalamb@umiacs.umd.edu
arielle@taronga.hackercorp.com (Stephanie da Silva) (02/01/91)
In article <23016@ttidca.TTI.COM>, hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) writes: > In article <1991Jan29.210008.6535@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: > }If you want to conserve paper, junk mail is actually a plus. When you > }consider that the alternative to a 10,000 piece junk mailing is an ad in > }a 500,000 circulation magazine... > > }But for those concerned about wasting paper, the better the targeting of > }the junk mail, the less paper used. In the recent cover article on junk mail in TIME magazine, the advertisers claimed that smaller packages of junk mail don't do well. People like big bulky junk mail. Go figure. -- Stephanie da Silva arielle@taronga.hackercorp.com Cute saying under construction. (713) 568-0381 All suggestions are welcome.
hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) (02/05/91)
In article <E011PYB@taronga.hackercorp.com> arielle@taronga.hackercorp.com (Stephanie da Silva) writes: }In article <23016@ttidca.TTI.COM>, hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) writes: }> In article <1991Jan29.210008.6535@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: }> }If you want to conserve paper, ... [ further comments deleted ] } }In the recent ... [ further comments deleted ] Please watch the attributions. Nothing quoted in the above article was written by me. -- The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@ttidca.tti.com) Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp Illegitimis non 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 450-9111, x2483 Carborundum Santa Monica, CA 90405 {rutgers|pyramid|philabs|psivax}!ttidca!hollombe
hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) (02/06/91)
In article <1991Feb04.032243.23362@chinet.chi.il.us> ward@chinet.chi.il.us (Ward Christensen) writes: } P.S. my village (Dolton, IL) doesn't recycle at all! I'm bummed, tossing }milk, pop bottles, and glass in the trash! The recyclers don't come to my door, either. When my containers of sorted trash get full I haul them to the nearest recycling center myself. -- The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@ttidca.tti.com) Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp Illegitimis non 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 450-9111, x2483 Carborundum Santa Monica, CA 90405 {rutgers|pyramid|philabs|psivax}!ttidca!hollombe
henry@garp.mit.edu (Henry Mensch) (02/07/91)
hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) writes: |> The recyclers don't come to my door, either. When my containers of sorted |> trash get full I haul them to the nearest recycling center myself. oh. you must have a car to do this with. not everyone does ... -- # Henry Mensch / <henry@garp.mit.edu> / E40-379 MIT, Cambridge, MA # <hmensch@uk.ac.nsfnet-relay> / <henry@tts.lth.se> / <mensch@munnari.oz.au> # via X.400: S=mensch; OU=informatik; P=tu-muenchen; A=dbp; C=de
dione@ajax.lpl.arizona.edu (Matt Cheselka) (02/07/91)
In article <5135@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> henry@GARP.MIT.EDU (Henry Mensch) writes: >hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) writes: >|> The recyclers don't come to my door, either. When my containers of sorted >|> trash get full I haul them to the nearest recycling center myself. > >oh. you must have a car to do this with. > >not everyone does ... > Yes, but SOMEONE you know must have one! Recycling should be a community effort! Talk to lawmakers in your city! Write to the Waste Management council in your area! Write to that place in Boulder, CO (consumer information) to find out how you can set up community efforts to recycle. You said before that you feel really bad tossing all this stuff away. My answer to you is to start doing good by doing SOMETHING. It only takes one domino to get things going. Matt Cheselka
parilis@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Gary Parilis) (02/08/91)
In article <23111@ttidca.TTI.COM> hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) writes: > In article <1991Feb04.032243.23362@chinet.chi.il.us> ward@chinet.chi.il.us (Ward Christensen) writes: > } P.S. my village (Dolton, IL) doesn't recycle at all! I'm bummed, tossing > }milk, pop bottles, and glass in the trash! > > The recyclers don't come to my door, either. When my containers of sorted > trash get full I haul them to the nearest recycling center myself. Or bring them with you to school or work or whatever, if they have recycling recepticles (sp?) there. When I first moved into my town, about 6 months ago, I didn't know how their recycling program worked, so for the 1st few weeks, I took all of my recyclables to campus with me about once a week, and dumped them into the appropriate dumpsters.