Questions for CGC and the Liason Committee

[nearmint]

I suppose I could put you on ignore.

 

That would be awesome!

[FFB]

I suppose I could put you on ignore.

 

That would be awesome!

 

Actually, I'll take one of those too if there's more than one available.

[mica]

I suppose I could put you on ignore.

 

That would be awesome!

 

Actually, I'll take one of those too if there's more than one available.

Not for you. You entertain me. And I agree with you 87% of the time.

[FFB]

I suppose I could put you on ignore.

 

That would be awesome!

 

Actually, I'll take one of those too if there's more than one available.

Not for you. You entertain me. And I agree with you 87% of the time.

 

I'll take one anyway.

[mica]

I suppose I could put you on ignore.

 

That would be awesome!

 

Actually, I'll take one of those too if there's more than one available.

Not for you. You entertain me. And I agree with you 87% of the time.

 

I'll take one anyway.

When's your birthday?

[esquirecomics]

Whose perception is reality? And who are the "everyone" you refer to? I certainly see no concensus on this issue.

Nor would a guy who doesn't concern himself with perception.

And if you did stumble upon some concensus you wouldn't care to perceive it.

 

This is a loop. I'm sure it's blissful for you, but again, you don't care what my perception is of your state.

 

So you see a concensus on this issue? Or do you just like the sound of your own keyboard?

Fact: You don't care about the perception....

But at some point you do care about certain perceptions otherwise the melody of your own keyboard wouldn't be such sweet music to your ears.

 

You say you don't care but your continuance says otherwise.

 

The presence or lack or presence of a concensus is NOT a perception. Reading through this thread, there is obviously NOT a concensus. That's a REALITY, and I do care about the reality, as I said. I challenged you to make the argument that there is a concensus, and you chose not to, so I can only assume that you agree.

 

No one can reasonably determine whether the comments in this thread indicate a consensus (not concensus ) of anything other than within this very thread. That is virtually wortheless given the small number of posters. And even if the posters in this thread would be indicative of anything it is that a sizable enough percentage take issue with CGC's position (certainly more than 1/3 as I note, perhaps up to half).

 

If you're going to correct spelling with a you should proof your own stuff better.

 

Touche, though this was one typo error and I haven't repeated it after numerous people spelled it the correct way. I didn't say anything until multiple posts repeated the error. But we digress.

 

You also misspelled "existence" a few posts back ("existance"). You see my point, I am sure, about correcting spelling on here. It doesn't really add anything to the debate and we're all guilty at one time or another so why single it out with a .

 

Cause I should have added a

 

Looks like this overall discussion about CGC's policies and perceived bias has run its course. I've said my peace.

[ciorac]

What I'm saying is that if CGC doesn't cater to their customer's perception, then their business will suffer. That's why companies have PR campaigns.

 

Until the day a serious competitor arrives on the scene, CGC can and will do anything they pretty much want. Right now there is no serious motivation for them to cater to anyone they don't wish to.

 

They are it, right now. Take it or leave it.

 

The concepts of "third party" and impartiality sound great in a press release, but in the real world, it's not going to happen. If CGC were independently funded and had no monetary interest in catering to larger customers, then we could seriously discuss levels of impartiality.

 

I don't think CGC is particularly impartial. I do think they cater to their bigger clients. It would make sense wouldn't it? I don't think they're any more ethical than the average company. They're a simple profit-seeking entity. All the altruistic talk about being for "the good of the hobby" is just buzz. They want to make money. Nothing wrong with that.

 

As long as the average customer understands that, and knows that it isn't a level playing field, then that's about the best you can hope for at this stage.

 

From the quagmire rises the triumphant voice of reason!!

 

Red Hook, I had to look twice to make sure it was you who wrote this.

 

This is the single most relevant, salient, logical, impressive comment made in this thread or about this topic since I have joined the Boards.

 

My faith has been restored in you RH! The clarity of your statement is truly refreshing. I was trying to craft the words to make this point and you did it for me.

 

Extremely well done!

[ciorac]

Maybe their business model is moving away from impartiality and towards building lasting mutually beneficial partnerships that drive revenue sources. Not a bad idea, most companies do that. Successful ones anyway.

 

From the CGC web site:

 

"CGC is the only expert, impartial, third-party certification service."

 

Either they are impartial or they are not and according to them they are.

 

Not to be rude Old Guy, but quoting that tenet of theirs is a preposterous argument against advertising deals!!

 

So, they can't impartially grade because they allow only Matt to be a featured partner for restoration advertising? The very line you quoted states "impartial GRADING service", plain and simple. They can impartially grade AND sell featured ad space for Pete's sake.

 

The Henny Penny drama gets tiresome.

 

WTF are you talking about? You're the one that said "Maybe their business model is moving away from impartiality". Did you not say that? Now read what I posted again. Get it?

 

You sure did read a lot into my post that wasn't there. You seeing things that aren't there is what is getting tiresome. Stop creating drama where there isn't any.

 

Mr. Pot..meet Mr. Kettle...

[ciorac]

What I'm saying is that if CGC doesn't cater to their customer's perception, then their business will suffer. That's why companies have PR campaigns.

 

Only in the face of true competition. Do you think eBay cares what you and I perceive?

[action1kid]

Why on earth should a Monopoly care what you think?

[mica]

There’s a whole lot of perceiving going on.

[ciorac]

Website advertising is one thing. The perceptions being that all are welcome to participate.

 

A sole-source FAQ recommendation is something entirely different. The result, predictably, has been to undermine the perception of impartiality and fairness, rather than to promote it.

 

So if you are a General Contractor are you going to recommend the best subcontractor to your developer? Or in the interests of impartiality and fairness, are you going to either abstain from making a recommendation? Or say, "Hey here is a list of all of them, you choose."

 

No, you do your due diligence and recommend someone you have experience with and a good business relationship. That is how trust and good business gets built, and buidings that don't collapse.....

 

Your analogy is good if you're in the construction business. CGC is not.

 

In keeping with your comparison, however, CGC has not set themselves up as a general or sub contractor, but as a construction Inspector.

 

As with any city, state, federal, or self-employed inspection operation charged with conducting examination to ensure compliance with standards, they must remain an impartial third-party to prevent compromise of applicable construction codes and specifications.

 

Any unduly familiar relationship between a construction contractor and an inspector has the perception of comprised impartiality. Whether the nature of that relationship is in fact unduly is not the question. Perception has already cast the shadow of doubt.

 

The case is no different in this situation.

 

But MC, they are not inspectors, they are a grading company that encapsulates funny books, so others can sell them at a profit. That is what they do.

 

And for the record, I do know something about the construction industry to, I am a senior executive at a GC that has been in business for over 50 years. We understand integrity and making sound judgements on alliances. Our reputation is linked to our subs.

 

So, CGC feels their best option for pressing service recommendation is Matt, I agree. That is a sound business decison on their part.

[ciorac]

Why on earth should a Monopoly care what you think?

 

That's exactly my point. They choose to care (CGC), they provide these Boards, a liaison committee, make themselves available at shows and forum dinners, they don't have to do that.

 

But in the final analysis, they have no real competition, so to expect them to behave the way some would like them to in an altruisitc way, is an unreasonable expectation. They are not a non-profit, government funded organization. They are a business, plain and simple.

[Red Hook]

Why on earth should a Monopoly care what you think?

 

That's exactly my point. They choose to care (CGC), they provide these Boards, a liaison committee, make themselves available at shows and forum dinners, they don't have to do that.

 

But in the final analysis, they have no real competition, so to expect them to behave the way some would like them to in an altruisitc way, is an unreasonable expectation. They are not a non-profit, government funded organization. They are a business, plain and simple.

 

Which is fine. I just wish they'd finally give it up on the altruistic "good for the hobby", "what's good for the collector" line of blah blah. It's over. Nobody who's been paying the least bit of attention over the last three years believes it anymore.

[divad]

Why on earth should a Monopoly care what you think?

 

That's exactly my point. They choose to care (CGC), they provide these Boards, a liaison committee, make themselves available at shows and forum dinners, they don't have to do that.

 

But in the final analysis, they have no real competition, so to expect them to behave the way some would like them to in an altruisitc way, is an unreasonable expectation. They are not a non-profit, government funded organization. They are a business, plain and simple.

 

plain and simple But hey, they're only comics fergawdsake!

[Red Hook]

They choose to care (CGC), they provide these Boards, a liaison committee, make themselves available at shows and forum dinners, they don't have to do that.

 

Of course they do. These boards have provided more buzz for CGC than money could buy. And their availabity at shows and forum dinners is simple business promotion. CGC doesn't provide the liason committee, they tolerate it.

[divad]

Looks like this overall discussion about CGC's policies and perceived bias has run its course. I've said my peace.

 

Peace?

[ciorac]

They choose to care (CGC), they provide these Boards, a liaison committee, make themselves available at shows and forum dinners, they don't have to do that.

 

Of course they do. These boards have provided more buzz for CGC than money could buy. And their availabity at shows and forum dinners is simple business promotion. CGC doesn't provide the liason committee, they tolerate it.

 

Now be nice, I gave you major props on the preceding page!

[Red Hook]

Who are you again?

[ciorac]

Who are you again?

 

Nobody in particular. Just a comic geek who stumbled in from the cold, looking for a warm place to discuss funny books....