I've had the face-fuzz since I got out of Uncle Sugar's service in
1981. And for some strange reason none of my old military clothing
fits anymore - it's shrunk multiple sizes. Must be that poor quality
government cloth....
John Hairell ( snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com)
Apparently, Dockers and Wrangler are the contractors, 'cuz I've been having
the same problem for years. ;-)
WmB
To reply, get the HECK out of there
snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net
worth
I can understand that. My world is Earth; Reality. Yours is Utopia;
Fantasy.
Do you own any sort of insurance?
Do you pay into or withdraw from a pension?
Do you pay taxes?
If the answer to any of these is 'yes', you are participating in a system
that uses money as the unit of measure to make decisions about far ranging
things that otherwise would be incomparable. These systems assign different
values to different people, without exception. As much as it may be
repulsive to you, you are powerless to do anything about it, and completely
unable to remove yourself from the system.
Sorry,
KL
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
And snipped-for-privacy@spamoffukonline.co.uk (Jonathan M) opened up and
revealed to the world wrote
Jonathan,
You've hit the nail on the head. I mean just look at the "reality"
TV shows like Monster House, Monster Garage, and Overhaulen. On
Monster House Steve Watson the hosts mentions several times
throughout the show what the bulders are working for tools from
Mikta, and Esaub, and the same tools can be seen in use during the
build.
And on Monster Garage, and Overhaulen when they're given freebies the
company who gave them the freebies name is mentioned. Let's also not
forget that along with the FREE PR that giving equipment to the shows
they also get a nice tax right off on the donated goods.
Its all about marketing, and the companies that provide tools, and
equipment know this and are willing to do so because they know that
it get's their product out to thousands IF not millions of viewers
here in the US alone.
How much would it cost for say Esaub to actually go out and buy an
hours worth of air time? But by donating their tools to Monster
House they get an hours worth (more or less) of PR for free.
Digital_Cowboy
- --
Live Long and Prosper
. + . + . . .. .. .
______________________. . . . __ .
\_______NCC_1701______|) .______.---'--'---.________
|| || /-------.__________.-------/
/============/___/ '--'
. \==\_____________|(- + . .
+ . . . . .
+ + .. . + . . +
. . . . .
. . + . .
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.3
iQA/AwUBQR+xvB/i52nbE9vTEQKfWQCeNT7FICGz/4SBTp0dx9QuOnjeca0AoK+Z
My2D3DUSwa9tHBuMDj3NtJ1H
=YvSu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Have you considered the following:
A) The person watching a home improvement show is likely to already own some
tools and likely to purchase more in the future.
B) The person building a model kit likely does not own an aircraft nor are
they likely to purchase an aircraft in the future.
C) The person building a model kit likely has not chosen an air carrier
based upon the markings on a model aircraft nor are they likely to choose an
air carrier on this basis in the future.
D) The person owning a model railroad likely has not purchased petroleum
products based upon the markings on a piece or rolling stock nor are they
likely to choose a petroleum product on this basis in the future.
Do you guys understand that the marketing of consumer goods is different
from the marketing of industrial goods? Haven't you ever wondered why you
only see Boeing commercials during the Sunday morning talk shows? Ever
wonder why they don't advertise during Saturday Night Live, Monday Night
Football, or Days of Our Lives? Did you ever notice that you don't see ads
for Pampers in Aviation Week, or BWXT Nuclear Fuel Services in People?
Where is the product placement for $350,000 computer controlled machining
centers? How come the people who make blast furnaces don't buy ads on the
Cartoon Network?
Is it possible - JUST POSSIBLE - that the airplane companies have made the
correct decision about marketing when deciding to ignore scale modeling?
Naah. Obviously they are all wrong and it is you marketing geniuses who are
correct.
Sure. That's got to be it.
KL
Then explain why Boeing had to spend millions (and I forget just how
many millions it was, but it was several) just to come up with the
simple combination of the McDonnell "bug" and the Boeing name in the
"proper" font after the so-called "merger" as it's new Corporate logo?
And just why did the company bother to do so?..
...or spend all that money on PBS and network ads hawking the ISS?
Hmmmn...I think I want to buy one of those after all, now...
Probably because it was to their benefit in the long run to link the two
legacies. This isn't a "New Coke" class decision we're talking about, guys,
if that's what you are thinking. It may take awhile to recoup that expense,
but do you think they lost any customers over the logo?
You aren't the target audience for those commercials any more than you are
the target for a Tampax commercial during a Friends episode you watched.
Charity is a combination of a tax deduction and a moral sop to those who
feel the need to address "good corporate citizenship". The people who make
those $150 million/item decisions watch the Sunday talk shows. Putting the
issue in their head before their Monday meeting with the AIA lobbyist is a
very profitable exercise. Making a bunch of 45 year-old glue sniffers happy
doesn't do shit for them, and ignoring them doesn't do any harm.
You're a military pilot or the like, right? You above anybody on here has
actual hands-on experience with product in question. Would you shade - even
unconsciously - an evaluation report of a new plane to slight Boeing because
you're pissed that they stopped helping Revell? Would you be happy to learn
that you're flying a second rate aircraft because the guy making the
decision was stoked about his latest model being design with the cooperation
of Boeing? My guess is that you hope to hell that the planes you fly are
simply the best with procurement decisions unaffected by marketing or even
cost impacts. That being so, how can you support Boeing having anything to
do with the COMPLETELY unrelated business of model kits, except to satisfy a
selfish desire to have a cooler looking or more detailed model to put on
your shelf? I would think you'd want an end to ALL "marketing" activities
relating to military hardware, INCLUDING cooperation with kit companies.
KL
I wonder how much the companies pay for copyright on Hot Wheels, Corgis,
Hongwells, etc.?
Diecast cars sell far more than plastic kits, so aybe they can afford it.
Tom
Also, Boeing is sitting on about half of the aviation business in this
country. One of these days we'll hear that they or Lockheed-Martin have
bought out the other. Is there much left after that? The result will
be a monopoly.
It galls me that a company that never had anything to do with a design
is trying to milk it for money. Losing that order to Airbus must have
really hurt.
Bill Banaszak, MFE
The way around it is simplicity itself...go to NARA, get the
unclassified plans of the original, use the EXACT nomenclature on the
plans and no company can touch you. Why? Simple again, you got plans
from the government of a government owned "item" that is in the public
domain. Note-this does not always apply to photos and/or films, some of
the collection at NARA is in fact copyrighted to the original
photographer and the copyrights on the images are still in force.
Some of the fallout of these actions have already hit the hobby.
You'll notice that few kit boxes carry the manufacturer's name. For
example, you usually won't see "Lockheed Martin F-16" just "F-16" on a
kit box. Company logos are also protected by trademark and can be
licensed. Since the designation "F-16" is assigned by the U.S.
Government (and implicitly paid for by U.S. taxpayer money), it can't
be trademarked or copyrighted. However, certain U.S. Govt. logos CAN
be copyrighted. For example, you need permission to use and reproduce
the CIA's logo.
I believe that model manufacturers had a problem in the '80s with
NASCAR kits and the reproduction and use of the massive amount of
advertising that appeared on NASCAR racers. I also believe that
NASCAR worked out an agreement with car sponsors so that model
manufacturers would not have to pay outrageous licensing fees to make
the decal sheet.
There is also current talk in the model train community about the
Union Pacific Railroad protecting all of it's trademarks even
extending (or so i've heard) to the color of their engines and cars.
This would force any use of Union Pacific designs, logos, etc. to
reqwuire payment of a licensing fee. This move is interpreted as
Union Pacific's desparate attempt to generate revenue in any way
possible.
Personally, I wouldn't worry about it. The revenue stream from model
kit licensing has to be an insignificant amount for a company like
Boeing and if we can't build Boeing airliner models, well that just
leaves the market wide open to Airbus. Hey! Maybe Boeing is
attempting to run the airliner model industry the same way they seem
to be running their airliner sales! ;^)
Martin
In theory, Disney could sue people who use the military unit badges they
designed for the US and other nations during WW2. This includes the swooping
tiger they created for the AVG "Flying Tigers" (which was modified by the 23rd
FG and subsequently the 14th AF). I saw this on the side of one of Hasbro's
Transformers toys (and it was probably used in the G.I. Joe toy line too) and
wondered how much in royalties Hasbro should be paying Disney.
Stephen "FPilot" Bierce/IPMS #35922
{Sig Quotes Removed on Request}
Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.