Cynicor wrote:

Tony Polson wrote:
Cynicor wrote:

ASAAR wrote:
http://www.adorama.com/catalog.tpl?o...num=01060 7-1

http://www.popphoto.com/popularphoto...1925-2008.html

That's a great loss to the photographic community.

Although honestly, last time I looked Popular Photography was filled
with bait-and-switch Brooklyn dealers, no matter what their code of
conduct says.


Rule #1 in publishing:

"Do not bite the (advertiser's) hand that feeds you."

Yeah, but sometimes you gotta bite the hand. Especially if an
advertiser's presence lowers trust and value for the publication and
other advertisers.

But "Bait and Switch Monthly" has never bitten the hands of
advertisers it should long ago have excluded from the magazine.

I just left the magazine business after 12 years, and
we simply had certain acceptability guidelines for ads. And it was
easier for us, because we had a wide range of ad types. A magazine like
PopPhoto basically has one type - low-cost camera gear. If you're B&H
and an ad for BaitSwitch photo appears right next to yours on a folio
with half price deals, it makes B&H look expensive instead of honest.

I think the only effort "Bait and Switch Monthly" made in this
direction was to make sure that shady ads were kept apart from B&H and
Adorama's where possible.