[Previous] [Next] - [Index] [Thread Index] - [Previous in Thread] [Next in Thread]


Subject: UKNM: RE: UKNM Digest V1 #242
From: John Braithwaite
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 18:03:02 +0100

Marketing - they still have some work to catch up with Marketing Week.

eBay - still highly valued, but dropping every time the servers go down
(they have had over a day's downtime in the last couple of months -
which is suicide for a 'live' auction site!).

BT / Dreamcast - If you look at the last three products that Sega has
produced: 32X, Mega CD and Saturn... it doesn't look too good. Customers
(or ex-customers) don't forget too easily!
Could on-line gaming be their saviour? Problem is that with a low
price-point and loss-leading product - they need to sell games to get
the money back. Trouble is that on-line gamers tend to stick to their
games and Playstation 2 and 'Project Dolphin' are on the way.

BBC - ok - stop the licence fee, get the adverts in (and sponsorship)
and watch it churn millions. After all, some of the ex-public
institutions that we have set out on the commercial paths are now our
trailblazers abroad (BT, British Gas, Electrics firms, Water firms
etc.). It has to be either the licence fee or adverts.
Personally I would prefer to pay 300 p.a. and get no adverts or
interruptions on any channels - but that's just me!

-> Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 12:36:21 +0100
-> From: Sam Michel <samatchinwag [dot] com>
-> Subject: UKNM: Branding Hell...
->
-> I was leafing through last week's copy of Marketing, as you
-> do, and noticed
-> how many Internet-related stories were featured. Perhaps
-> it's been a while
-> since I last saw an issue, and they've been beefing up their
-> coverage of
-> new meeeja issues. Interesting, but not the reason for this email.
->
->
-> Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 12:58:24 +0100
-> From: "Tim Ireland" <timatdesignercity [dot] com>
-> Subject: Re: UKNM: Funmail - The 'Big Yellow Envelope' Theory
->
-> - ----- Original Message -----
-> From: Emma Jones <ejatyalplay [dot] com>
-> To: <uk-netmarketingatchinwag [dot] com>
-> Sent: 09 August 1999 08:45
-> Subject: RE: UKNM: Funmail - The 'Big Yellow Envelope' Theory
->
-> > I have to confess I never even look at the email address.
-> We take the first
-> > correct entries and then any other emails that come in
-> after we have our
-> > required number of winners go straight into a delete
-> file. So to guarantee
-> > a win you have to surf the site on a daily basis to make
-> sure you get in
-> > there first!
-> >
-> > Emma
->
-> An excellent tip, as seen at Jason's site:
-> http://www.loquax.co.uk/wwwcomp/faq3.htm#when
->
-> Tim Ireland
-> Senior Copywriter
-> DESIGNERCITY LIMITED
-> Email: timatdesignercity [dot] com
-> URL: http://www.designercity.com

-> Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 17:54:24 +0100
-> From: Chetan Damani <chetanatimano [dot] com>
-> Subject: UKNM: The Give Away Spree
->
-> People giving away set top boxes and people giving away
-> PC's.....why dont
-> they combine the two and give that away...i.e a set top box
-> for digital tv
-> and to access the net..
->
-> And wouldn't it be good if they gave away the sega
-> dreamcast...if they are
-> getting ready to really kill of the competion they are
-> getting from sony
-> with the playstation...e.g you buy one game you get the
-> dreamcast free..I
-> mean if you rate each Net user at 500-1500 (what ever any
-> one values them
-> at) thats worth it..
->
-> if it was me...I would say..give me your playstation and hardcode my
-> homepage on to the system...and its yours for free..
->
-> but its not me...so nothing I can do..
->
-> but if BT are going to partner Sega on this venture , and if
-> Sega sell 1
-> million units in the UK..thats going to give BT a lot of
-> people..who can't
-> churn or can they ???
->
-> The give-away spree worked for Mobile Phones...
->
-> how about we do that in the New Media Industry and give away
-> our services,
-> but what could we get in return
->
-> Chetan Damani
-> Imano plc - Built for the Web
-> Tel: +44 1923 210631
-> http://www.imano.com

-> Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 19:21:41 +0100
-> From: "Ray Taylor" <tayloratnmcadplan [dot] com>
-> Subject: Re: UKNM: Re: 324 tax on digital TV?
->
-> Phil Gyford <philatgyford [dot] com> said:
->
-> >I'd say the license fee as it stands is incredibly unfair
-> and should be
-> >means-tested in some practical way,
->
-> I don't think there is anything wrong with the licence fee
-> as it stands,
-> other than perhaps a need to reduce it by at least 50% for
-> blind and deaf TV
-> owners. But I can't see why there should be this bizarre, medieval
-> assumption that all new inventions (in this case digital TV
-> broadcast)
-> should be allotted to a government-protected monopoly, or in
-> this case for
-> the monopoly to be given a 56-per-customer helping hand.
->
-> How come it's okay to subsidise "public-service TV"
-> (whatever that means)
-> when British coal mining, for instance, is destroyed rather
-> than cushion a
-> short-term price depression? Come the next oil crisis or
-> nuclear reactor
-> disaster I'd rather have a thriving fossil fuel industry,
-> than an army of
-> state-sponsored TV executives.
->
-> Of course, the coal industry did not have access to unlimited free TV
-> advertising to fight it's corner in the 80s, unlike the BBC,
-> which certainly
-> spares no expense to tell us what good use it makes of our money.
->
-> The licence fee should now be frozen, and eventually phased
-> out (perhaps).
-> The BBC should learn from its competitors and reserve a part
-> of its massive
-> income for investment in new technologies.
->
-> By what right does a British government impose such a charge
-> anyway? Rupert
-> Murdoch may well be an ugly rich bastard, but is that any
-> reason to impose a
-> commercial fine of 24 per customer on Sky Digital? And why
-> can't I have 24
-> for everyone who opens a freeserve account? I would be happy
-> to provide
-> minority web content as part of the deal.
->
-> The question of whether you like BBC programmes better than
-> ITV or not is
-> irrelevant. TV is now such a huge market that there really
-> is no need for
-> the taxpayer / licence fee payer to pay any more for it.
->
-> And Phil, I was only kidding when I said the BBC and the
-> Royal family should
-> be stuffed. I'm afraid I never bothered to learn the smiley
-> code, and I
-> don't think there is a smiley that properly represents my
-> twisted sense of
-> humour anyway.
->
-> Ray Taylor
-> Campaign to make the Royal Family and the BBC work a bit
-> harder for their
-> living

-> Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 20:23:56 +0100
-> From: "G. Jefferson" <Garethatsmarta [dot] com>
-> Subject: UKNM: eBay's paper worth
->
-> Anyoone here know how much eBay is currently supposed to be
-> worth? I read
-> somewhere, some weeks back that they're worth more then
-> Sainsbury's and a
-> figure of $27 billion was bandied about, but that can't
-> possibly be correct,
-> can it?
->
-> Gareth.

-> Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 10:24:11 +0100
-> From: "Matt Barker" <mattatdigital-outlook [dot] com>
********************
UKNM is sponsored by Excite UK, visit us at http://www.excite.co.uk.
Email Khalil Ibrahimi khalilatexcitecorp [dot] com (mailto:khalilatexcitecorp [dot] com) to advertise on Excite.
********************
Change your UKNM subscription use http://www.chinwag.com/uknm.html



Replies
  Re: UKNM: Re: 324 tax on digital TV?, Tim Ireland

[Previous] [Next] - [Index] [Thread Index] - [Next in Thread] [Previous in Thread]