Questions for CGC and the Liason Committee

[tth2]

Will this be the first time a pinned thread is locked, or will Arch just go through and start deleting everything in sight?

[awe4one]

Will this be the first time a pinned thread is locked, or will Arch just go through and start deleting everything in sight?

 

My bet's on deletion...

 

Unless the Liaison committee is thinking of making a call in the near future to calm the concern...how often are the "Calls With Steve" supposed to occur?

 

Jim

[drbanner]

Unless the Liaison committee is thinking of making a call in the near future to calm the concern...how often are the "Calls With Steve" supposed to occur?

 

Accoring to Brian's 1st post (the one that started this thread), weekly. I may be missing something, but is there anywhere to see a transcript/summary of these calls? Has a call actually ever occurred? Has Steve provided any answers to some of the questions posted earlier?

 

This thread has been totally derailed...but on the subject of the derailment, I have no problem with CGC recommending the services of their advertisers, especially if they are considered to be top shelf in what they do (BCE, Matt Nelson, whoever).

[Red Hook]

I haven't spoken to Brian, Scott or Steve in weeks.

 

Lawyers and company heads are busy people you know.

 

 

I'm sure we'll speak again when CGC is ready to roll out something else.

 

[OldGuy]

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.

 

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.

[trevorlsmith]

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.

 

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.

 

Well, that settles it then.

[Aman619]

who, me? aw shucks.

[FFB]

Will this be the first time a pinned thread is locked, or will Arch just go through and start deleting everything in sight?

 

My bet's on deletion...

 

Unless the Liaison committee is thinking of making a call in the near future to calm the concern...how often are the "Calls With Steve" supposed to occur?

 

Jim

 

We already discussed this with Steve the first go-around. I told him that people would complain about this very issue and for the same reason that has been discussed here the past few days. I believe I even posted his response to my statement.

 

But if it makes you feel better, I can call Steve again and say "I told you so." I don't think that there's anything CGC is going to say that will "calm the concern" among those who are bothered by it, however. Unless they stop accepting advertising, which isn't going to happen.

[Red Hook]

I agree with Scott on this one. The advertising is here to stay. If Heft wanted to get on board I'm sure CGC would let him.

 

It's like the NY Times accepting advertising from publishers whose books they review.

 

As far as Matt and CGC's relationship, it's been easy for me to read between the lines that they do have a business relationship in place. It may be casual in nature, but it's there.

[Harvey Dude]

These and other services are available from Classics Incorporated. They may be contacted directly as follows:

 

Classics Incorporated

1440 Halsey Way (Venture Building)

Suite #114

Carrollton, TX 75007

Web: www.classicsincorporated.com

Email: comics@classicsincorporated.com

 

That is quite a bit of information provided to one source for restoration. I wonder if Classics Incorporated was tasked with providing the FAQ.

 

This revelation coupled with the fact that some CGC employees are co-authoring a pedigree book with subject does work against CGC as being completely impartial. At least in how I perceive the issue.

[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.

 

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.

[MasterChief]

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.

[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.....

[DeeDee-migration]

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.

 

I'm not throwing in the towel on anything, as of now, I'm satisfied with CGC's services... the slabbed books i own appear to be accurately graded... why should i complain?

 

This isn't about being on the "winning side" as you put it, its about recognizing CGC's right to do what they like. Its their company.

What i find amusing is how some people whine about CGC's partiality and continue to use their services... doesn't make much sense. If I don't like a company's product, i just stop using it.

 

Thats probably not what you want to hear, but to persist in complaining about something thats obviously good for the company, seems unrealistic and fruitless. The ads are benefical to CGC and they aren't hurting me, so I don't care.Thats all I'm saying.

 

On a side note, if anyone has concrete, tangible evidence (NOT hearsay) that CGC is unfairly giving certain parties better grades, either present it or stop with the insinuations.

[qualitycomix]

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.....

 

Bad analogy. The General Contractor is not under any obligation to be impartial in any form of their business. CGC must remain above the fray because if any favoritism is implied then that affects the reputation they have worked hard to build.

 

Think of it as CGC is more of a judge or an arbiter between all parties. Favoritism cannot be overt imho. Advertising is fine because anyone can pay the money and get on board. Endorsements are a separate matter.

[qualitycomix]

And for the record, I sincerely like CGC and their services. Very professional outfit, and I want to see them succeed and that's why I offer constructive criticism. Everyone's business can use that.

[FFB]

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.....

 

Bad analogy. The General Contractor is not under any obligation to be impartial in any form of their business. CGC must remain above the fray because if any favoritism is implied then that affects the reputation they have worked hard to build.

 

Think of it as CGC is more of a judge or an arbiter between all parties. Favoritism cannot be overt imho. Advertising is fine because anyone can pay the money and get on board. Endorsements are a separate matter.

 

What reputation? They've only been grading books since 1999, and judging from the thousands upon thousands of posts I've seen in this forum, they've been doing nothing right since at least 2002!

[esquirecomics]

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.....

 

I am not directly responding to the above but just using these posts in general.

 

As I said when I first raised this issue in the now locked thread elsewhere, it is not the advertising at all that is at issue. I see nothing wrong with accepting advertisements or likely even promoting their advertisers.

 

But what we are talking about here is not an advertisement. In fact, I don't believe I have even seen a paid advertisement on the CGC website that would constitute such from Matt (anyone know differently? Did I miss an advertisement?).

 

The FAQ is simple blatant promotion that is biased (and I am not using the term in a negative sense but rather as a simple fact). Is there anywhere else within the CGC website where CGC promotes a comic book dealer whose grading is better than the rest? Whose prices are better than the rest? Whose inventory is better than the rest? Whether advertiser or not? Not to my knowledge.

 

And lets not forget that Matt is a comic book dealer as well. Now, at the moment I do not advertise on the CGC website. For me, at this time, it is cost prohibitive and the benefit does not outweigh the cost. Of course I primarily sell CGC products. But if I were paying for advertising on the site as a comic dealer I would be somewhat personally annoyed that another comic dealer's website is being singled out and promoted by CGC as a recommended service.

 

This is completely different than a paid advertisement and I believe CGC should remove the reference so that the perception is fair. My personal opinion.

[Bullet123]

Hi Everyone

 

In response to this:

 

While we know that Matt is not the only one performing this service, perhaps he is the only one who is willing to admit he performs the service and have it in black and white for all to see

 

He is NOT the only one who admits performing the service. I have had announcements in Scoop, links on my site and if you do a search engine search for comic book pressing you will find www.eclipsepaper.com at the top of most lists. While I might not be at the top of most collectors lists, I haven't disappeared.

 

Is there a business out there that feels slighted that he is the only one mentioned as performing this service that would like their name and number posted there also?

 

Short answer, yes. I would appreciate a link to my business. But I also understand that CGC is going to promote those companies that in-turn promote CGC (especially advertisers that have bought banner space). It is their site, their board, their rules.

 

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

 

Tracey

 

I am sure that if you bought ad space they would be more than happy to promote your services as well. That is the way it works in other businesses. I would have a problem if CGC did not offer you the same airtime as Matt if you were to do the same. Other than that, why should they promote your business for free when others are willing to pay for it?

[Silver Surfer]

Why does every reaction have to be "well don't use them" if I have a small issue with this topic. Its that kind of narrow minded approach that doesn't foster a healthy debate. Why even bother with having this thread? So we can only talk about stuff that we like?