On Sat, 13 Sep 2003, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Sat, 2003-09-13 at 03:46, Levi Ramsey wrote: > > On Fri Sep 12 21:41 -0400, Brant Fitzsimmons wrote: > > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/wimbledon_2003/photo_galleries/3038554.stm > > > > 2nd picture. > > Oh, right, on the speedometer. I thought the meant the back wall itself.
I am sure there was an IBM logo on the side wall too. > Well, I guess the justification is that it's an IBM product :). Like the net or net posts (I seem to remember one of them had an IBM logo on). > Sure, > they're bending the rules a bit in the interest of commerce, but this is > actually a good illustration of my proposal that MDKsoft publish a > definitive statement of what they won't do. Because Wimbledon has long > said that it will not accept advertising, even though it now obviously > wants to all it can do is comparatively minor rule-bending like this. So, it's better to have a public policy on advertising, and break it, than to not have one? Or is it the fact that the advertising is unobtrusive? If so, we can't judge Mandrakesoft's actions until we see the adverts. And I am quite sure any advertising will also be more relevant than IBM at Wimbledon. > So > you see the odd corporate logo while watching - on the speedo, on the > drinks fridge, whatever - but because they're constrained from breaking > the original commitment entirely it's nowhere near as bad as the other > tournaments, with advertisers' logos draped all over the backdrops, the > stands and everywhere else... Just because we only have photographic evidence of the speedo and the clock doesn't mean that's the only places there was advertising. I am quite sure there was more, but I don't see the need to go hunting around for it all ... but I have found a few more: Slazenger written on umpire's chair: http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39248000/jpg/_39248110_serena_win_pa300x300.jpg Looks like their logo here on the back wall: http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39247000/jpg/_39247870_serena_afp300x200.jpg Another one on the umpire's chair: http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39220000/jpg/_39220226_anoyi_net300.jpg IMHO, gaining revenue from the advertising in the installation is a good idea (unless you would prefer MS-style propaganda as to why Windows 2003 is better at everything, more secure, never crashes, etc etc). And, if you hit the "details" button (about the only reason you would actually want to watch the installation), you won't see the advertising. I wouldn't mind seeing IBM advertising Lotus Domino or DB2, or HP advertising desktops, or Dell advertising servers, or MySQL advertising support contracts, or SUN advertising Star Office, or Sophos advertising their AV stuff, or maybe even a bank advertising that their online banking is full-featured on Linux, expecially if it's going to help fund more developers. Did the webpage actually say that the adverts were going to be for Viagra etc??? Or did the news sites jump to conclusions, or did the posters jump to conclusions? Regards, Buchan -- |----------------Registered Linux User #182071-----------------| Buchan Milne Mechanical Engineer, Network Manager Cellphone * Work +27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x121 Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering http://www.cae.co.za GPG Key http://ranger.dnsalias.com/bgmilne.asc 1024D/60D204A7 2919 E232 5610 A038 87B1 72D6 AC92 BA50 60D2 04A7 ***************************************************************** Please click on http://www.cae.co.za/disclaimer.htm to read our e-mail disclaimer or send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for a copy. *****************************************************************
