>> >In particular, how would he feel about his shopping cart containing an ad
>> >for a direct competitor? Coke could advertise on Pepsi's shopping cart.
>> >
>>
>> This precisely and exactly happens right now.
>>
>> (1) in a supermarket, the rolling-baskets have ads on them for Pepsi
>> -- even though Coke may be sitting in the basket of a customer!
>
>That's not the same thing at all. The rolling-basket is not Coke's domain. A
>better analogy would be if Coke were actually required to print ads for
>Pepsi on the Coke can itself.
A resonable point, but ...
>The spend confirmation page, because of the
>way the SCI works, becomes an integral part of the merchant's shopping cart,
NO --- "A is A", the SCI is owned by Douglas Jackson's mind. It is
part of e-gold. The URL is
https://www.e-gold.com
It is owned by e-gold and is part of e-gold.
Douglas can do anything he wants there. He can have an animation of
his naked ass on that page, if he feels that will bring more power to
his creations.
In fact:
>>> (1) in a supermarket, the rolling-baskets have ads on them for Pepsi
>>> -- even though Coke may be sitting in the basket of a customer!
>>
>>That's not the same thing at all. The rolling-basket is not Coke's domain.
That is wrong, really.
Products *do pay* for their shelf space in supermarkets.
The supermarket is a very good equivalent of the e-gold spend page;
the super market is a "mechanism" - owned by someone else - that Coca
Cola chooses to use as part of the process of selling it's product.
You're right that the presence of Pepsi to Coke in supermarket is
wildly annoying. :)
>so putting ads on it is effectively the same as putting ads on the
>merchant's web site.
>
>>
>> (2) i might do a superbowl ad for Miller beer -- and there'll also be
>> an ad running for Bud ... perhaps even back to back with it.
>
>Here again, Bud would pay for the Bud slot, and you would pay for the Miller
>slot. You'd both own your own space. If your Miller ad were altered without
>your knowledge and consent so that it prominently featured people drinking
>Bud, _that_ would be like a competitor's ad on the spend page, again because
>the spend page becomes an integral part of the merchant's shopping cart.
>
>>
>> (3) It would generally be considered preposterous, perhaps
>> anti-free-speech, if a magazine or paper only took ads from "first in
>> category" each issue, and denied other advertisers
>
>Again, not the same thing. A magazine is not typically owned by its
>advertisers, nor is it typically devoted explicitly to one advertiser's
>product. A merchant's web page _does_ exist for the sole purpose of hawking
>that merchant's goods and/or services, and the merchant pays to develop and
>maintain that web site. If Coke started publishing _Coke_Drinker_ magazine
>it most certainly would not have ads for Pepsi.
>
All true, but as with the examples above, on the "e-gold spend page",
each corporation could "do it to the other" as well; it's a shared,
open, and competetive annoyance.
>> >If the NRA starts accepting e-gold, should I see an ad for
>> Handgun Control,
>> >Inc. on the page where I'm making a donation?
>>
>> Absolutely -- no question.
>>
>> The NRA is rational, and can withstand attacks from whining panderers.
>
>I wasn't suggesting that a potential donor would suddenly change his mind
>upon seeing the gun-grabber ad, merely that the NRA pays for its own web
>site and shouldn't see something like that appear in its shopping cart
>interface.
The SCI is not part of their web site -- it is part of Douglas Jackson.
They can use or not use it at their choice.
Purely IMHO, it would be better for e-gold if there WAS such an ad there ...
... you point out an excellent "con", some merchants might whine that
it's annoying having a competitor's ad there.
You're right, that "con" may put off some merchants .. just as it may
put off some users (like say Viking Koder)
(Oracle would probably just go right to their Senator, and have
Douglas Jackson pay for all their development as penalty for having a
competitor's ad there :) )
IMHO, on balance, it is (much) better to have it there. But, that's just MHO.
(Imagine if e-gold offered TARGETTED advertising: as an advertiser,
you can specify RECEIVING ACCOUNTS tahat you wish to put an ad on the
spend page of :) Metalproxy would run ads on Bananagold-related
spend pages; other casinos on thegoldcasino's spend page.
I for one would like it of course .. I'm a brutal competitor.
As a consumer, I'd love it. One is using that shitty, amatreurish
Bananagold site -- and you see right there a spend page an advert
letting you know that buy.com now accepts e-gold directly.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Advertising is commercial grease, oil, silicon
spray to commerce." - Bob Nugent
---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
