[ssf] Re: [imc-sheffield] Sheffield Radical Newsletter fingy

[Chris Malins]

Is it possible to draw up a constitution for a type of advertising that 
we see as constructive. It is easy to see the various adverts that go 
round trying to make you buy more things in stupid ways, without giving 
you any useful information about the stuff or place being advertised, 
and these are in a pure consumerist model. But simply letting people 
know about the availability of, say, organic food, or a local farmers 
market, or whichever other local 'ethical' service, could actually be 
quite a positive measure, and if it helps fund a publication so much the 
better.

So, we could maybe say no advertising promotions, no images which have 
nothing to do with the purpose of the business advertised and are only 
meant to grab attention, no adverts which don't give a proper 
explanation of the service on offer. But written more clearly.

Or would that not work for either the advertisers or us?

Chris

Dan wrote:
> Hia,
> 
> Some thoughts:
> 
> "I have not seen a single piece of media [web, audio, video, radio or 
> print] that has accepted advertising."
> 
> Here's one that does:
> 
> http://print.maineindymedia.org/adinsert.htm
> 
> Not that 'look! Someone else does it!' makes it OK.  I mean, these guys 
> actually give commission to anyone who gets ads!
> 
> I personally think that if you're getting money from ads for local 
> businesses, organic or ethical businesses, it a) gets you dosh and b) 
> gives them some blessing.  I'm into this coz of my own notions of 
> supporting local trade (and locally circulating money) over larger 
> national and international trade and corporations.  This isn't to say 
> the all local traders are ethical, but most of 'em are hard-working and 
> aren't buying two houses on the coast of Spain.  (Although some of them 
> are...!)
> 
> I quite understand if people think this is *absolutely not* the route 
> that IMC should go.  So there are two other options:
> 
> 1. I'd just go ahead and do the project anyway - and then, if it 
> happened to make any money, it could just donate it to IMC anyway.
> 
> 2. The other much more obvious and fluffy way is that we approach 
> certain organisations, saying:
> 
> 1. Give us some money.  You've got loads, we've got none, and we want to 
> print a filthy radical newsletter, and we want to run workshops to 
> support it.  (I think WEA may well be up for this.)
> 2. But we won't promote you.  Sorry, it's in our guidelines.  Now giz 
> the dosh.
> 
> This leaves us in the 'backed by three organisations' situation that I 
> mentioned could be a problem that a wide advertising base solves.  But 
> it's kinda swings and roundabouts, really.  I guess Sheffield IMC might 
> be the laughing stock of radical folk if we started taking advertising.  
> One has one's reputation to think of....
> 
> ... the other option there is open affiliation: a wider list of people 
> who we *do* mention on the backsheet, in name only, who have contributed.
> 
> Anyway, worth talking about, eh???  This may well give enough money to 
> do a monthly print-run.  Shall we try that first?  Easy, really, when 
> you think of it.
> 
> I wonder if such a thing counts as art?  If so, an Arts Council app 
> might be appropriate.
> 
> I also wonder, following r7, if it could be a pennines thing - 
> Sheffield, Leeds, Bradford, Manchester?
> 
> Didn't Sheffield Digger get a bit of funding from a union at one point?
> 
> Cheers 4 feedback,
> 
> Dan
> ----
> 
> r7 wrote:
> 
>> quoting Dan:
>>
>>  
>>
>>> At the SSF meeting on the 17th, I hope to make a start on this 
>>> radical newsletter thingy.  Just get something started.
>>>   
>>
>>
>> some general thoughts and then some specifics. these are from an 
>> indymedia
>> perspective and has no real bearing on how the social forum should 
>> interact
>> with these ideas. i have, as a courtesy copied [ssf] in this email.
>>
>> any one who has read this list for any length of time will know that we
>> periodically whinge about not having enough material on the website 
>> and more
>> specifically folks who are willing to write features. dan certainly 
>> recognizes
>> this and has, to his credit, tried some things to try and improve this
>> situation [notably the writers workshops]. i would ask you to bear in 
>> mind this
>> fact while thinking about dan's ideas below.
>>
>>  
>>
>>> Target date for first edition: either end of March or just after the 
>>> lantern festival so's we can have a story and piccie of that on the 
>>> front to begin with.  (Maybe end of March, with piccies from previous 
>>> lantern carnival, promoting the next...)
>>>   
>>
>>
>> might be a bit previous my friend. we need to discuss more.
>>
>>  
>>
>>> But a little bit of planning is needed!  After having looked at some 
>>> other ones around the globe (IMC ones mainly...), here's some 
>>> thoughts.    
>>
>>
>> what similarities/differences to each other did you notice dan? and 
>> perhaps more
>> tellingly what similarities/differences between them and the project you
>> propose?
>>
>>  
>>
>>> I intend to run hardcopy / writing etc workshops on the 2nd and 4th
>>> Thursdays of the month.
>>>   
>>
>>
>> writers workshops are cool [though don't need the experience myself]. 
>> a way of
>> encouraging writing for indymedia is ok by me.
>>
>>  
>>
>>> 1. Ideally I'd personally like this to be a joint IMC / SSF project.  
>>> Why? To tie in a political and cultural events listing, writing, 
>>> teach-ins and locally led research etc into one hardcopy a month.  
>>> Also because, collectively and co-operatively, maybe we'll get some 
>>> dosh coming in to both through this project. There's probably some 
>>> problems with this - what are they?
>>>   
>>
>>
>> erm... what is this money? this is not explicitly stated. the two that 
>> occur to
>> me from a print publication point of view are: advertising revenue and 
>> revenue
>> from sales.
>>
>>  
>>
>>> 2. All labour voluntary?  All funds raised cover printing costs etc. 
>>> only?  I don't think this is a hard and fast rule - my personal aim 
>>> is to get something of Sandman size once a month, and voluntary work 
>>> may not achieve this.  This is where we need to work out whether it 
>>> could be a separate entity, not-for-profit, which put it's surplus as 
>>> per No.3 below - but let's wait and see how things go.  (E.g. it may 
>>> just be another one of my hare-brained e-mail rants that never comes 
>>> to anything!)
>>>   
>>
>>
>> question: how many person hours does it take to produce sandman? does
>> imc-sheffield [or ssf for that matter] have that many person hours 
>> surplus to
>> requirements to put into a project that isn't it's primary function. 
>> if we did
>> have them [which i see no evidence of], wouldn't they be better spent on
>> producing media for our website?
>>
>>  
>>
>>> 3. Any money above and beyond costs covered goes to Sheffield IMC and 
>>> SSF on a 50/50 basis.  (You never know, there might be some profit!)
>>>   
>>
>>
>> how?
>>
>>  
>>
>>> 4. We can get not only ad revenue
>>>   
>>
>>
>> i would be *really* unhappy about having imc's name on any publication 
>> that had
>> advertising in it. i mean *really* *really* unhappy. i have not seen a 
>> single
>> piece of media [web, audio, video, radio or print] that has accepted
>> advertising. do i need to explain why?
>>
>>  
>>
>>> 5. It adheres to the recently amended IMC guidelines  (see below)
>>>   
>>
>>
>> and where did the editorial guideline about advertising go? we hide 
>> this stuff
>> on the website [our primary function], but it should help provide us with
>> income with our print publication? anyone see a glimmer of 
>> inconsistency here.
>>
>>  
>>
>>> 6. Ties in to the online version of IMC Sheffield - e.g. 'go to the 
>>> online story to add comments.  Next month we'll digest the best...'.
>>>   
>>
>>
>> we need more content on the site, but i think that we do that by 
>> encouraging and
>> enabling people to use the site.
>>  
>>
>>> Previously, I think I'd be for changing 'anti-capitalist' to social 
>>> justice, just for the purposes of the hard copy, and only because of 
>>> common misconceptions.
>>>   
>>
>>
>> i have not a clue where this comes from. from the imc-uk mission 
>> statement:
>>
>>   http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/static/mission.html
>>
>> "Inherent in the mainstream corporate media is a strong bias towards
>> Capitalism's power structures, and it is an important tool in 
>> propagating these
>> structures around the globe. While the mainstream media conceal their 
>> manifold
>> biases and alignments, we clearly state our position. Indymedia UK 
>> does not
>> attempt to take an objective and impartial standpoint: Indymedia UK 
>> clearly
>> states its subjectivity."
>>
>> that sounds anti-capitalist to me.
>>
>>  
>>
>>> But perhaps the alternative to this is to start the first one
>>> with some points of view on what anti-capitalist means -  e.g. 'well, 
>>> we make
>>> a profit, but it goes into the community!  And then there are others 
>>> who say
>>> we should trash the money system altogether...'
>>>   
>>
>>
>> a good analysis for the newswire piece perhaps.
>>
>> i could go on [and may have to write more perhaps], but my basic 
>> position is
>> this:
>>
>> do i want to see imc-sheffield involved in a print publication? yes.
>>
>> do i think this is the way to do it? no.
>>
>> is the way perhaps to foster links and provide mutual support with 
>> other imcs,
>> perhaps in the form of a collaborative "offline for the north" that we 
>> work on
>> with leeds/bradford, manchester and liverpool imcs? might be an idea 
>> worth
>> discussing.
>>
>> dan's ideas [though i disagree with much of what he's written] are 
>> useful in
>> helping develop what we want to do as an imc. thanks for the input 
>> [though less
>> of the benevolent dictator/school teacher stuff if you don't mind -- 
>> or i may
>> have to come round and give you a slap with a wet fish :-)]
>>
>> r7
>>  
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ssf mailing list
> ssf at lists.aktivix.org
> http://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/ssf
>