Questions for CGC and the Liason Committee

[Monstro]

The impartiality aspect extends to other areas as well. For example, a game review magazine sells their cover to a company and that cover ends up being a game positively reviewed in that particular issue. Impartial?

 

This has been going on for a long time.

 

 

it really is a sad thing. you just can't trust anything these days.

 

cash is king, but cash is evil

[drbanner]

And from another thread:

 

The banner advertising is nothing but a minor way to defray the costs of providing you folks online resources that are beneficial to the community while helping customers to connect with resources.

 

Then how about listing all of the resources available to the customer, and not limiting the choice to one? That's no choice at all.

 

Thanks

Tracey Heft

www.eclipsepaper.com

 

Have you approached CGC about purchasing a banner ad for the top of the page? Might be a good idea!

[arexcrooke]

And from another thread:

 

The banner advertising is nothing but a minor way to defray the costs of providing you folks online resources that are beneficial to the community while helping customers to connect with resources.

 

Then how about listing all of the resources available to the customer, and not limiting the choice to one? That's no choice at all.

 

Thanks

Tracey Heft

www.eclipsepaper.com

 

Have you approached CGC about purchasing a banner ad for the top of the page? Might be a good idea!

I don't disagree that it wouldnt be a bad idea on buying advertising space.

However, I think Tracey has a very valid point about the CGC site listing Matt as the only choice for resto services.

[ciorac]

And from another thread:

 

The banner advertising is nothing but a minor way to defray the costs of providing you folks online resources that are beneficial to the community while helping customers to connect with resources.

 

Then how about listing all of the resources available to the customer, and not limiting the choice to one? That's no choice at all.

 

Thanks

Tracey Heft

www.eclipsepaper.com

 

Have you approached CGC about purchasing a banner ad for the top of the page? Might be a good idea!

I don't disagree that it wouldnt be a bad idea on buying advertising space.

However, I think Tracey has a very valid point about the CGC site listing Matt as the only choice for resto services.

 

Perhaps they have an agreement or partnership of sorts in place. I don't know, but that would certainly be in their rights to do. It happens all the time, one fast food joint only sells Coke products, the other Pepsi. What is the big deal with that? It's free enterprise for crying out loud. They don't owe us an explanation on everything they do, or every deal they cut, unless you are a major stockholder, and I don't any of us are.

[arexcrooke]

And from another thread:

 

The banner advertising is nothing but a minor way to defray the costs of providing you folks online resources that are beneficial to the community while helping customers to connect with resources.

 

Then how about listing all of the resources available to the customer, and not limiting the choice to one? That's no choice at all.

 

Thanks

Tracey Heft

www.eclipsepaper.com

 

Have you approached CGC about purchasing a banner ad for the top of the page? Might be a good idea!

I don't disagree that it wouldnt be a bad idea on buying advertising space.

However, I think Tracey has a very valid point about the CGC site listing Matt as the only choice for resto services.

 

Perhaps they have an agreement or partnership of sorts in place. I don't know, but that would certainly be in their rights to do. It happens all the time, one fast food joint only sells Coke products, the other Pepsi. What is the big deal with that? It's free enterprise for crying out loud. They don't owe us an explanation on everything they do, or every deal they cut, unless you are a major stockholder, and I don't any of us are.

Last time I check though, McDonald's isnt a business that promotes its impartiality. CGC does. But when they openly endorse Nelson over anyone else (heck, they dont even mention anyone else) it smacks of partiality.

[ciorac]

And from another thread:

 

The banner advertising is nothing but a minor way to defray the costs of providing you folks online resources that are beneficial to the community while helping customers to connect with resources.

 

Then how about listing all of the resources available to the customer, and not limiting the choice to one? That's no choice at all.

 

Thanks

Tracey Heft

www.eclipsepaper.com

 

Have you approached CGC about purchasing a banner ad for the top of the page? Might be a good idea!

I don't disagree that it wouldnt be a bad idea on buying advertising space.

However, I think Tracey has a very valid point about the CGC site listing Matt as the only choice for resto services.

 

Perhaps they have an agreement or partnership of sorts in place. I don't know, but that would certainly be in their rights to do. It happens all the time, one fast food joint only sells Coke products, the other Pepsi. What is the big deal with that? It's free enterprise for crying out loud. They don't owe us an explanation on everything they do, or every deal they cut, unless you are a major stockholder, and I don't any of us are.

Last time I check though, McDonald's isnt a business that promotes its impartiality. CGC does. But when they openly endorse Nelson over anyone else (heck, they dont even mention anyone else) it smacks of partiality.

 

But the point I am trying to make is they are not required to be impartial. Perhaps they cut an exclusive deal wiht Matt.. I really don't know if they did, but if they did, then they are certainly within their rights to do so.

 

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.

 

I am just offering alternatives, I have no inside information, just guessing.

[Silver Surfer]

On one hand I can see how CGC would want to make business alliances like the one they did with BCE but to do it with a company that can potentially manipulate grades by working on books (not saying this is right or wrong but it sure has sensitive issues associated with it) is kind of like Marlboro sponsering a high school track event, or Heritage employees bidding on their own auctions.

[innocuous]

I can't imagine that CGC would want us thinking they are moving away from being impartial. That kills the whole concept of independent grading.

[divad]

I can't imagine that CGC would want us thinking they are moving away from being impartial. That kills the whole concept of independent grading.

 

Damn Yankees! All over again

[divad]

On one hand I can see how CGC would want to make business alliances like the one they did with BCE but to do it with a company that can potentially manipulate grades by working on books (not saying this is right or wrong but it sure has sensitive issues associated with it) is kind of like Marlboro sponsering a high school track event, or Heritage employees bidding on their own auctions.

 

you of sardonic wit . . .

[DeeDee-migration]

On one hand I can see how CGC would want to make business alliances like the one they did with BCE but to do it with a company that can potentially manipulate grades by working on books (not saying this is right or wrong but it sure has sensitive issues associated with it) is kind of like Marlboro sponsering a high school track event, or Heritage employees bidding on their own auctions.

 

I agree with what you're saying, but business is business and CGC is in business to make a profit not to cater to every mickey mouse collector. If people are genuinely convinced of CGC's partiality, they'll stop using their services, correct? I'm much more disturbed with heritage's practices and wizard's ethics, and thats why I no longer give them my money. If enough people are upset about this and stop sending CGC their business, profits will decrease and CGC will change its approach, until then nothing will change.

 

I personally don't care about the "featured partner" titles and who's endorsing who, as long as CGC continues to accurately grade books, thats all i care about, and so far there's been no evidence that CGC is giving special or better grades to "featured partners" or otherwise.

[topofthetotem]

On one hand I can see how CGC would want to make business alliances like the one they did with BCE but to do it with a company that can potentially manipulate grades by working on books (not saying this is right or wrong but it sure has sensitive issues associated with it) is kind of like Marlboro sponsering a high school track event, or Heritage employees bidding on their own auctions.

 

stop sending CGC their business

Strike comming in 3....2....1....

[DeeDee-migration]

On one hand I can see how CGC would want to make business alliances like the one they did with BCE but to do it with a company that can potentially manipulate grades by working on books (not saying this is right or wrong but it sure has sensitive issues associated with it) is kind of like Marlboro sponsering a high school track event, or Heritage employees bidding on their own auctions.

 

stop sending CGC their business

Strike comming in 3....2....1....

 

i said "if"

 

troublemaker

[topofthetotem]

On one hand I can see how CGC would want to make business alliances like the one they did with BCE but to do it with a company that can potentially manipulate grades by working on books (not saying this is right or wrong but it sure has sensitive issues associated with it) is kind of like Marlboro sponsering a high school track event, or Heritage employees bidding on their own auctions.

 

stop sending CGC their business

Strike comming in 3....2....1....

 

i said "if"

 

troublemaker

[bluechip]

And from another thread:

 

The banner advertising is nothing but a minor way to defray the costs of providing you folks online resources that are beneficial to the community while helping customers to connect with resources.

 

Then how about listing all of the resources available to the customer, and not limiting the choice to one? That's no choice at all.

 

Thanks

Tracey Heft

www.eclipsepaper.com

 

Have you approached CGC about purchasing a banner ad for the top of the page? Might be a good idea!

I don't disagree that it wouldnt be a bad idea on buying advertising space.

However, I think Tracey has a very valid point about the CGC site listing Matt as the only choice for resto services.

 

Perhaps they have an agreement or partnership of sorts in place. I don't know, but that would certainly be in their rights to do. It happens all the time, one fast food joint only sells Coke products, the other Pepsi. What is the big deal with that? It's free enterprise for crying out loud. They don't owe us an explanation on everything they do, or every deal they cut, unless you are a major stockholder, and I don't any of us are.

Last time I check though, McDonald's isnt a business that promotes its impartiality. CGC does. But when they openly endorse Nelson over anyone else (heck, they dont even mention anyone else) it smacks of partiality.

 

But the point I am trying to make is they are not required to be impartial. Perhaps they cut an exclusive deal wiht Matt.. I really don't know if they did, but if they did, then they are certainly within their rights to do so.

 

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.

 

I am just offering alternatives, I have no inside information, just guessing.

 

I have plenty of complaints about CGC and some of them go right to the heart of imparitiality. But I have to agree that when it comes to giving their seal of approval to a restoration expert, even one with whom they may have an advertising deal, it's not necessarily a sign of impartiality. At least not in a way that necessarily would affect their treatment of the average customer.

 

Now, if they were to grade or label books using different standards based on who restored them, slightling a book not because of the quality of work but because they didn't have a deal with them, that would be imparitality. And all you can do is watch to see that all are treated fairly. If somebody does as good a job as Matt Nelson, you should expect to see their books treated with the same standards and labeled the same way.

[divad]

you should expect to see their books treated with the same standards and labeled the same way.

 

One should expect all books to be graded with the same standards . . .

[Silver Surfer]

Well some would disagree with your last statement but this is not the time and place to start that discussion again nor do I have the energy and the will to do so. I'm sure you already know by one of CGC's major shareholders is also a senior official at Heritage. CGC can do whatever they want and to their credit have changed certain business decisions in the past due to overwhelmingly negative responses from members in this forum.

[DeeDee-migration]

Well some would disagree with your last statement but this is not the time and place to start that discussion again nor do I have the energy and the will to do so. I'm sure you already know by one of CGC's major shareholders is also a senior official at Heritage. CGC can do whatever they want and to their credit have changed certain business decisions in the past due to overwhelmingly negative responses from members in this forum.

 

I am aware of all that, but as they say in the car business: "no likey? ride bikey".

Nobody is forced to use CGC's services.

[Aman619]

thats just an obvious statement of fact (that business does as it sees best) . and reads like someone just pointing out how cynical the world is, and, placing a bet of some kind to be in the "right" when this discussion dies down and CGC changes nothing. (the odds are in your favor to be on the "winning side.")

 

But, CGC listens to protestations here and has often enough seen the light when persuasive arguments are made --- and moved their chips elsewhere on the board to seek their riches. They know that obvious money-grabbing moves that are widely preceived as unseemly or gratuitous can hurt them in the long run, and adjusted their stances.

 

so please dont be so quick to throw in the towel on this one.

[Silver Surfer]

Well said Aman.