Re: [AGA-mcm] Milwaukee walks from TAG

["S. Hieber" <shieber@yahoo.com>]

I don't think there is any way to be confident that the
person deciding on the ads at a particular company will be
the same person a few months later -- heck some don't even
have the same address. I'd rather give them notice with
each invoice. I'll get the names for each company from Phil
and send sales people a copy, clearly marked as a COPY,
when I send out each bill. Seachem stuff already goes
directly to Dr. Morin.

sh

--- Erik Olson <erik@thekrib.com> wrote:

> Hey, this stuff happens all the time.  The long-term
> relationship 
> importance was one of the reasons Kathy explicitly called
> or wrote each 
> advertiser at the start of the year to confirm they
> WANTED to renew. 
> Contrast this with ACA's policy for Buntbarsche Bulletin,
> for instance, 
> which is to just keep running and billing the advertisers
> until they 
> tell them to stop.  On the one hand, they realized some
> short term gains 
> because the billing department often doesn't talk to the
> advertising 
> department.  On the other hand, they ticked off and lost
> some longterm 
> sponsors that way.  I think it would be a good idea to
> verify things with 
> the advertisers from time to time -- I think that's what
> Phil is doing 
> anyway.
> 
>    - Erik
> 
> On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, S. Hieber wrote:
> 
> > Just got a call from Milwaukee who said they only
> agreed to
> > 4 TAG ads (for 2004). First I heard of this, but the
> > arrangement was verbal and arranged back in 2003, so I
> > assume that *was* their understanding. Whether or not
> it
> > was ours seems a little beside the point.
> >
> > Anyhow, they paid for TAG 18-1 which they view as an
> extra
> > ad. So I told them we would call it even at that, not
> > charge for 18-2, and take the ads out of future issues
> --
> > until they're ready to come back. I couold have argued
> that
> > when they saw the bill for 18-1 they should have
> realized
> > that they needed to say something if they wanted to
> stop
> > the ads. However, I felt like the long term
> relationship
> > was worth more than the ad. There's not much point in
> > arguing with a customer if we want to protect the long
> term
> > relationship. Besides, they've been good to AGA.
> >
> > I am going to add a line to all invoices from now on
> that
> > ad purchases are automatically renewed each quarter
> unless
> > other arrangments are provided.  Or proide a line that
> can
> > be checked off saying "we wish to place no further
> ads."
> >
> > Mil's issue is that they have to spread or move their
> > advertizing budget around in diff markets and can'y
> keep it
> > in the same ones continously. That sounded like a
> possible
> > door to picking them up again inthe future. If we can't
> woo
> > them back soon, hopefully we can keep up a relationship
> and
> > get them back eventually. I don't know if some kind of
> deal
> > would make them change their minds -- I didn't try
> since
> > that's not my skill area.
> >
> > I suppose this also means they are less likely to give
> > support to a convention. Don't know but we aren't
> having
> > one this year anyhow.
> >
> > [Sigh] That's $1,200 per year or 67 membership
> equivalents!
> > I have to sign off now -- I'm going to cry.
> >
> > sh
> > _______________________________________________
> > AGA-mcm mailing list
> > AGA-mcm@thekrib.com
> > http://lists.thekrib.com/mailman/listinfo/aga-mcm
> >
> 
> -- 
> Erik Olson
> erik at thekrib dot com
> _______________________________________________
> AGA-mcm mailing list
> AGA-mcm@thekrib.com
> http://lists.thekrib.com/mailman/listinfo/aga-mcm
> 

_______________________________________________
AGA-mcm mailing list
AGA-mcm@thekrib.com
http://lists.thekrib.com/mailman/listinfo/aga-mcm