roundtable: Re: Anybody selling ads (sponsorship) on a community net?

roundtable: Re: Anybody selling ads (sponsorship) on a community net?

Re: Anybody selling ads (sponsorship) on a community net?

W. Curtiss Priest (BMSLIB@mitvma.mit.edu)
Wed, 31 May 95 09:21:47 EDT 

Message-Id: <9505311324.AA01819@a.cni.org>
Date:  Wed, 31 May 95 09:21:47 EDT
From: "W. Curtiss Priest" <BMSLIB@mitvma.mit.edu>
To: Telecommunications Policy Roundtable <ROUNDTABLE@CNI.ORG>
Subject:      Re: Anybody selling ads (sponsorship) on a community net?


A true life story about ownership

Curtiss Priest
<bmslib@mitvma.mit.edu>

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Date:         Tue, 30 May 1995 23:34:43 -0700
From: Tres English <tres@PRIMENET.COM>
Subject:      Re: Anybody selling ads (sponsorship) on a community net?
To: Multiple recipients of list COMMUNET <COMMUNET@UVMVM.UVM.EDU>


Peter questions whether a community network needs to be concerned
about the contol of content by economic interests.  From my
experiences in Tucson, I would say this is a virtual certainty, and 
a grave concern.

In Tucson there are various groups that have opposed major
developers/developments/development policies for years.  It is the
feeling of most activists that few issues ever reach the public thru
the local media. The question is why?

While most of the reason is undoubtly contained in the basic
imperative of any commercial media - to bring readers/viewers to
advertisers - some of the reasons are a little bit more direct.

In Tucson, about 80% of the ad revenues for our two general
circulation newspapers come from two or three department stores, two
auto dealerships, and real estate advertising.  The owners of the two
car dealerships are major developers.  Any sustained attack on the
public subsidies or other issues that would threaten those specific
individuals and business concerns would threaten the basic survival of
the local media.

I think that every effort should be made to avoid/minimize commercial
sponsorships.  The idea of charging fees for services is the way to
go, whereever possible.

Tres

>We've kicked this around in Leon County (Tallahassee) with regard
> to the >County and the local Free-Net.  TFN only really pushes phone
> line >sponsorships.  One grave issue with commercial underwriting in
> virtually any >form is the capacity sponsors have to control
> content.  ...  As to the issue of control over content I don't think
> it is wise to give a commercial sponsor any sort of authority in
> this regard.  All authority and responsibility for content and
> conduct on your system should rest with the local governing body.
> If a sponsor pulls out because of a controversy, then you may be
> best off letting them go.  However, if you have them under contract
> per year and they pay up front and there is a no refund for content
> controversy clause in that contract, your system's budget will not
> be negatively impacted in the short term.  >It is for this >reason
> that I do not advocate this option to the point beyond which
> sponsors >could have enough clout to begin infringing on first
> amendment rights.  The >examples are legion about advertisers
> bringing pressure to effectuate what >they consider to be proper
> content, and, if they don't get their own way, >they take their bat
> and ball and go home.  > >Do you see this as an issue, and, if so,
> what mitigations do you plan?  It is reasonable to speculate that a
> group of sponsors could band together to bring pressure on a
> community system.  Is this a risk your Board is willing to weather
> through?  Tough issues.  Peter

Tres English
tres@primenet.com
902 N Bryant, Tucson AZ 85711 USA
1-520-881-8712  Fax: 1-520-881-7151

[CNI Home Page]