I think I understand Lynn's response in this. To his mind everything
is great. His new service/company/whatever gets cool publicity, can
piggyback on an existing brand, and it's even legal. To him there's no
dilution of anything, just additions to his stick.
Personally, normally I do hear of publisher vs creator issues only
from the gaming and music industry. Based on that I'm quite worried
about this. When I see "Paramounts best artist special edition", or
"Vivendi puzzle game collection" I seldom get the impression that
these "best artists" and puzzle coders where very successful in their
respective businesses.
Because of that, I'm not really interested in Lynn's take on re-
branding Rev to Myrrh Rev (only in selected markets, as long as
supplies last). What I really am interested in, is:
Why does RunRev agree to be the mount in this deal? Normally
publishers who omit names or change the product of a programmer do pay
him/her to create work for them, did Lynn pay RunRev anything? Why is
it always only Lynn who reacts to any PR related issue? Who is
responsible for public relation and advertising strategy at RunRev?
Who is responsible for any communication strategy at RunRev?
Obviously most of these question will never be answered, because
that's not how RunRev does it's business. Too bad.
have fun
Bjoernke
--
official ChatRev page:
http://chatrev.bjoernke.com
Chat with other RunRev developers:
go stack URL "http://homepage.mac.com/bvg/chatrev1.3.rev";
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[email protected]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
