Re: Some interesting economic facts

["Matt Deatrick" <mattd@shocking.com>]

	I don't want you to think that I beleive ALL information should be free.
Marketing information is weird in my mind. We give it away at nearly no
cost most of the time and it is used to invoke our consumer habits.
Essentially, it is used against us. This intimate knowledge of the consumer
profile for whatever demographic group we're talking about escapes logic.
In the book "Age of Propaganda" by a renowned psychologist he gives the
following tale:
	"Some years ago, CBS aired the film CRY RAPE. Essentially the story made
it clear that a rape victim who chooses to press charges against her
attacker runs the risk of undergoing an ordeal that may be as harrowing as
the rape itself. In this case the rapist, exuding boyish innocence,
presented a convincing argument that he had been seduced by the woman.
During the next few weeks, there was a sharp decrease in the number of
rapes reported by victims to the police- apparently because victims, taking
their cue from the television movie, feared the police would not beleive
them."
	You might think this an isolated or rare example, as you did my satellite
example. But I say that if you really look into what is going on, look to
the sources that are non-mainstream, look in-between the lines of mass
media, you will find everywhere a victim of the information age. 
	Matt

----------
> From: Katharine M.J. Osborne <kosborne@rocketmail.com>
> To: Matt Deatrick <mattd@shocking.com>
> Cc: Multiple recipients of list AM-INFO <am-info@essential.org>
> Subject: Re: Some interesting economic facts
> Date: Wednesday, April 22, 1998 10:43 AM
> 
> Let me first clarify that I think that these cases would
> be rather rare.
> 
> Take for instance a company that accumulates demographic
> information. Later, they use a specific set of this
> information to develop a product that is tailored to a
> certain demographic in a very competitive market. Yes,
> other companies are probably collecting similar
> information for the same purposes and the original source
> of the information is of course free, but it costs real
> money to collect this information especially since it
> expires so quickly. These companies will want to protect
> their investment by keeping competitors away from their
> information. Often, the first competitor to market with a
> viable product will when that market.
> 
> Now, let's say that these two companies are NBC and CBS.
> They have idependently collect information on
> 18-24-year-old males, the prized TV viewing demographic.
> Both companies want to develop products that appeal to
> this group, and capture a market that recycles itself
> twice a year. Will forcing these companies to release
> their information to the public domain lead to more
> creative TV shows? What is most likely to happen is that
> the two networks no longer have a means to remain
> competitive, and we end up with even more banal TV shows.
> 
> My whole point is that the world is way to complicated to
> make sweeping assumptions and assertations to say that
> 'all' information has to be free that does not directly
> result from a creative process likely to spawn further
> creative processes.
> 
> ---Matt Deatrick <mattd@shocking.com> wrote:
> >
> > > 
> > > Perhaps a better definition of the problem is defining
> > > whether that raw information will lead to a creative
> > > process (perhaps at the most basic level that creative
> > > process is the financial growth of a business), and that
> > > that creative process is best served if it exclusively
> > > carried out within the confines of the owner.
> > 
> > 	Is it? How so? I am unsure of what you mean. 
> > 	Matt
> > 
> -snip-
> _________________________________________________________
> DO YOU YAHOO!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>