Swatch sponsorship all bad?
This is from a post on April 4, 19991 by Paul Williamson, KB5MU to the AMSAT-BB listserv.
Is it really so terrible that Swatch is sponsoring an amateur radio satellite? We need innovative ways to pay for satellites, and direct commercial sponsorship is one we haven't used before (to my knowledge).
Now, I certainly agree that Swatch appears to be stepping over the line, by selecting messages that contain the keyword "beat" from their advertising campaign. But really, that's not very far over the line. They don't appear to be transmitting any direct advertisements mentioning the company name or their products.
There are other aspects of the program that I find somewhat distasteful. Naming the satellite and claiming credit for it, based on a solely financial contribution, for instance -- but we shouldn't get too upset about that, since there is precedent within our own AMSAT-NA spacecraft programs. Their apparent lack of respect for the Amateur Radio and Amateur Satellite Services is distressing, but we should be used to it by now, and in any case the attitude alone doesn't justify action. It's a cultural thing anyway, and we should face the fact that most of us are not part of their target audience.
My opinion is that we should take the position of inviting Swatch to be a better citizen, rather than going out of our way to vilify them. We would have a better chance of changing their plans with such a moderate approach than with aggressive boycotts and such. This is doubly true, since it seems quite clear to me that we don't have the numbers or the influence to succeed (or even be noticed) with such a power play. But more important, by using our least friendly tactics right away, we would create an environment that seems quite hostile to commercial sponsorships. This could close the door on important opportunities for future satellite projects.
Please note that I am stating my own personal opinion here, and not speaking for anybody else (including AMSAT).
73 -Paul
kb5mu@amsat.org
Read Steven Bible's, N7HPR, response
Footnotes
-
Original page wrote "199" ↩