Questions for CGC and the Liason Committee

[Silver Surfer]

Will this be the first time a pinned thread is locked, or will Arch just go through and start deleting everything in sight?

 

My bet's on deletion...

 

Unless the Liaison committee is thinking of making a call in the near future to calm the concern...how often are the "Calls With Steve" supposed to occur?

 

Jim

 

We already discussed this with Steve the first go-around. I told him that people would complain about this very issue and for the same reason that has been discussed here the past few days. I believe I even posted his response to my statement.

 

But if it makes you feel better, I can call Steve again and say "I told you so." I don't think that there's anything CGC is going to say that will "calm the concern" among those who are bothered by it, however. Unless they stop accepting advertising, which isn't going to happen.

 

I don't think anyone is asking them to stop advertising just questioning how they go about it. If its your opinion based on the discussions you have already had about this issue that CGC will probably just ignore it and carry on then that would be dissapointing (I'm not trying to put words in your mouth Scott).

[mica]

Why does every reaction have to be "well don't use them" if I have a small issue with this topic. Its that kind of narrow minded approach that doesn't foster a healthy debate. Why even bother with having this thread? So we can only talk about stuff that we like?

Good post.

[Sal]

i kind of fall under the "Occam's Razor" principle here. i imagine that Borock and co are well aware that if any proof ever surfaced that CGC had ever awarded a higher grade to any customer in exchange for special financial renumeration, their entire business would be kaput, not to mention the reputations of all involved.

 

i further imagine that Borock & Co. are well aware of collectors' prediliction for seeing things in a negative light wrt favouritism, and would try their damnedest to walk as straight a line as humanly possible behind the scenes, even if they weren't able to share all the information with their customers.

 

and so, i feel pretty comfortable that, while it's not the best public relations move - something that surprises me not in the least - there's nothing shady going on by having Matt Nelson being an advertiser, or even a close friend or preferred vendor of CGC

[DeeDee-migration]

i kind of fall under the "Occam's Razor" principle here. i imagine that Borock and co are well aware that if any proof ever surfaced that CGC had ever awarded a higher grade to any customer in exchange for special financial renumeration, their entire business would be kaput, not to mention the reputations of all involved.

 

i further imagine that Borock & Co. are well aware of collectors' prediliction for seeing things in a negative light wrt favouritism, and would try their damnedest to walk as straight a line as humanly possible behind the scenes, even if they weren't able to share all the information with their customers.

 

and so, i feel pretty comfortable that, while it's not the best public relations move - something that surprises me not in the least - there's nothing shady going on by having Matt Nelson being an advertiser, or even a close friend or preferred vendor of CGC

 

What? No conspiracy? Say it ain't so.

[MasterChief]

Website advertising is one thing. The perceptions being that all are welcome to participate.

 

A sole-source FAQ recommendation is something entirely different. The result, predictably, has been to undermine the perception of impartiality and fairness, rather than to promote it.

 

So if you are a General Contractor are you going to recommend the best subcontractor to your developer? Or in the interests of impartiality and fairness, are you going to either abstain from making a recommendation? Or say, "Hey here is a list of all of them, you choose."

 

No, you do your due diligence and recommend someone you have experience with and a good business relationship. That is how trust and good business gets built, and buidings that don't collapse.....

 

Your analogy is good if you're in the construction business. CGC is not.

 

In keeping with your comparison, however, CGC has not set themselves up as a general or sub contractor, but as a construction Inspector.

 

As with any city, state, federal, or self-employed inspection operation charged with conducting examination to ensure compliance with standards, they must remain an impartial third-party to prevent compromise of applicable construction codes and specifications.

 

Any unduly familiar relationship between a construction contractor and an inspector has the perception of comprised impartiality. Whether the nature of that relationship is in fact unduly is not the question. Perception has already cast the shadow of doubt.

 

The case is no different in this situation.

[Aman619]

thats just an obvious statement of fact (that business does as it sees best) . and reads like someone just pointing out how cynical the world is, and, placing a bet of some kind to be in the "right" when this discussion dies down and CGC changes nothing. (the odds are in your favor to be on the "winning side.")

 

But, CGC listens to protestations here and has often enough seen the light when persuasive arguments are made --- and moved their chips elsewhere on the board to seek their riches. They know that obvious money-grabbing moves that are widely preceived as unseemly or gratuitous can hurt them in the long run, and adjusted their stances.

 

so please dont be so quick to throw in the towel on this one.

 

I'm not throwing in the towel on anything, as of now, I'm satisfied with CGC's services... the slabbed books i own appear to be accurately graded... why should i complain?

 

This isn't about being on the "winning side" as you put it, its about recognizing CGC's right to do what they like. Its their company.

What i find amusing is how some people whine about CGC's partiality and continue to use their services... doesn't make much sense. If I don't like a company's product, i just stop using it.

 

Thats probably not what you want to hear, but to persist in complaining about something thats obviously good for the company, seems unrealistic and fruitless. The ads are benefical to CGC and they aren't hurting me, so I don't care.Thats all I'm saying.

 

On a side note, if anyone has concrete, tangible evidence (NOT hearsay) that CGC is unfairly giving certain parties better grades, either present it or stop with the insinuations.

 

 

you're confusing the issue being discussed. Its not the ads or CGCs right to sell them. Its nothing to do with their gradng integrity or favoritism. This discussion is simply about CGC showing favoritism by recommending Matts services in the FAQs.

[FFB]

thats just an obvious statement of fact (that business does as it sees best) . and reads like someone just pointing out how cynical the world is, and, placing a bet of some kind to be in the "right" when this discussion dies down and CGC changes nothing. (the odds are in your favor to be on the "winning side.")

 

But, CGC listens to protestations here and has often enough seen the light when persuasive arguments are made --- and moved their chips elsewhere on the board to seek their riches. They know that obvious money-grabbing moves that are widely preceived as unseemly or gratuitous can hurt them in the long run, and adjusted their stances.

 

so please dont be so quick to throw in the towel on this one.

 

I'm not throwing in the towel on anything, as of now, I'm satisfied with CGC's services... the slabbed books i own appear to be accurately graded... why should i complain?

 

This isn't about being on the "winning side" as you put it, its about recognizing CGC's right to do what they like. Its their company.

What i find amusing is how some people whine about CGC's partiality and continue to use their services... doesn't make much sense. If I don't like a company's product, i just stop using it.

 

Thats probably not what you want to hear, but to persist in complaining about something thats obviously good for the company, seems unrealistic and fruitless. The ads are benefical to CGC and they aren't hurting me, so I don't care.Thats all I'm saying.

 

On a side note, if anyone has concrete, tangible evidence (NOT hearsay) that CGC is unfairly giving certain parties better grades, either present it or stop with the insinuations.

 

 

you're confusing the issue being discussed. Its not the ads or CGCs right to sell them. Its nothing to do with their gradng integrity or favoritism. This discussion is simply about CGC showing favoritism by recommending Matts services in the FAQs.

 

I have a couple of serious questions for anyone who doesn't think they should recommend Matt Nelson only, but who doesn't mind if they recommend more than one person. In other words, this is only for those who don't have any philosophical objection to CGC listing more than one provider, but who also think that CGC should not single out Matt Nelson as the only recommended provider.

 

1) Who else should they recommend for pressing services?

 

2) What experience do you have with that person (or those persons) that gives you confidence that they can press books without damaging them?

[DeeDee-migration]

thats just an obvious statement of fact (that business does as it sees best) . and reads like someone just pointing out how cynical the world is, and, placing a bet of some kind to be in the "right" when this discussion dies down and CGC changes nothing. (the odds are in your favor to be on the "winning side.")

 

But, CGC listens to protestations here and has often enough seen the light when persuasive arguments are made --- and moved their chips elsewhere on the board to seek their riches. They know that obvious money-grabbing moves that are widely preceived as unseemly or gratuitous can hurt them in the long run, and adjusted their stances.

 

so please dont be so quick to throw in the towel on this one.

 

I'm not throwing in the towel on anything, as of now, I'm satisfied with CGC's services... the slabbed books i own appear to be accurately graded... why should i complain?

 

This isn't about being on the "winning side" as you put it, its about recognizing CGC's right to do what they like. Its their company.

What i find amusing is how some people whine about CGC's partiality and continue to use their services... doesn't make much sense. If I don't like a company's product, i just stop using it.

 

Thats probably not what you want to hear, but to persist in complaining about something thats obviously good for the company, seems unrealistic and fruitless. The ads are benefical to CGC and they aren't hurting me, so I don't care.Thats all I'm saying.

 

On a side note, if anyone has concrete, tangible evidence (NOT hearsay) that CGC is unfairly giving certain parties better grades, either present it or stop with the insinuations.

 

 

you're confusing the issue being discussed. Its not the ads or CGCs right to sell them. Its nothing to do with their gradng integrity or favoritism. This discussion is simply about CGC showing favoritism by recommending Matts services in the FAQs.

 

I'm not confused. Read the last few pages, some (including the person i was responding to before you posted) are clearly insinuating that the relationship between CGC and Matt is improper because of the ads and recommendation in the FAQ, and implying that Matt's books are given special consideration. Thats what this is really about. My response to that was clear, either present evidence or drop it.

[Harvey Dude]

The FAQ is simple blatant promotion that is biased (and I am not using the term in a negative sense but rather as a simple fact). Is there anywhere else within the CGC website where CGC promotes a comic book dealer whose grading is better than the rest? Whose prices are better than the rest? Whose inventory is better than the rest? Whether advertiser or not? Not to my knowledge.

 

And lets not forget that Matt is a comic book dealer as well. ... This is completely different than a paid advertisement and I believe CGC should remove the reference so that the perception is fair. My personal opinion.

 

[nearmint]

Any unduly familiar relationship between a construction contractor and an inspector has the perception of comprised impartiality. Whether the nature of that relationship is in fact unduly is not the question. Perception has already cast the shadow of doubt.

 

I couldn't care less about perception. The reality of the situation is all that matters to me. I expect CGC to treat all books that come in for grading the same. To me, THAT'S impartiality. They can make any recommendations or endorsements they like. They may have very good reasons for not recommending others.

[DeeDee-migration]

Any unduly familiar relationship between a construction contractor and an inspector has the perception of comprised impartiality. Whether the nature of that relationship is in fact unduly is not the question. Perception has already cast the shadow of doubt.

 

I couldn't care less about perception. The reality of the situation is all that matters to me. I expect CGC to treat all books that come in for grading the same. To me, THAT'S impartiality. They can make any recommendations or endorsements they like. They may have very good reasons for not recommending others.

 

hit the nail on the head

[qualitycomix]

Any unduly familiar relationship between a construction contractor and an inspector has the perception of comprised impartiality. Whether the nature of that relationship is in fact unduly is not the question. Perception has already cast the shadow of doubt.

 

I couldn't care less about perception. The reality of the situation is all that matters to me. I expect CGC to treat all books that come in for grading the same. To me, THAT'S impartiality. They can make any recommendations or endorsements they like. They may have very good reasons for not recommending others.

 

hit the nail on the head

 

Perception is reality Jeff. If everyone perceives something to be true, it is. To dismiss people's perceptions is irresponsible.

[nearmint]

Any unduly familiar relationship between a construction contractor and an inspector has the perception of comprised impartiality. Whether the nature of that relationship is in fact unduly is not the question. Perception has already cast the shadow of doubt.

 

I couldn't care less about perception. The reality of the situation is all that matters to me. I expect CGC to treat all books that come in for grading the same. To me, THAT'S impartiality. They can make any recommendations or endorsements they like. They may have very good reasons for not recommending others.

 

hit the nail on the head

 

Perception is reality Jeff. If everyone perceives something to be true, it is. To dismiss people's perceptions is irresponsible.

 

Whose perception is reality? And who are the "everyone" you refer to? I certainly see no concensus on this issue.

[mica]

Whose perception is reality? And who are the "everyone" you refer to? I certainly see no concensus on this issue.

Nor would a guy who doesn't concern himself with perception.

And if you did stumble upon some concensus you wouldn't care to perceive it.

 

This is a loop. I'm sure it's blissful for you, but again, you don't care what my perception is of your state.

[qualitycomix]

What I'm saying is that if CGC doesn't cater to their customer's perception, then their business will suffer. That's why companies have PR campaigns.

[awe4one]

I have a couple of serious questions for anyone who doesn't think they should recommend Matt Nelson only, but who doesn't mind if they recommend more than one person. In other words, this is only for those who don't have any philosophical objection to CGC listing more than one provider, but who also think that CGC should not single out Matt Nelson as the only recommended provider.

 

1) Who else should they recommend for pressing services?

 

2) What experience do you have with that person (or those persons) that gives you confidence that they can press books without damaging them?

 

Valid point...and where does the recommendations stop? There will always be someone excluded. That's why they shouldn't overtly recommend anyone...

 

Jim

[Red Hook]

What I'm saying is that if CGC doesn't cater to their customer's perception, then their business will suffer. That's why companies have PR campaigns.

 

Until the day a serious competitor arrives on the scene, CGC can and will do anything they pretty much want. Right now there is no serious motivation for them to cater to anyone they don't wish to.

 

They are it, right now. Take it or leave it.

 

The concepts of "third party" and impartiality sound great in a press release, but in the real world, it's not going to happen. If CGC were independently funded and had no monetary interest in catering to larger customers, then we could seriously discuss levels of impartiality.

 

I don't think CGC is particularly impartial. I do think they cater to their bigger clients. It would make sense wouldn't it? I don't think they're any more ethical than the average company. They're a simple profit-seeking entity. All the altruistic talk about being for "the good of the hobby" is just buzz. They want to make money. Nothing wrong with that.

 

As long as the average customer understands that, and knows that it isn't a level playing field, then that's about the best you can hope for at this stage.

[FFB]

I have a couple of serious questions for anyone who doesn't think they should recommend Matt Nelson only, but who doesn't mind if they recommend more than one person. In other words, this is only for those who don't have any philosophical objection to CGC listing more than one provider, but who also think that CGC should not single out Matt Nelson as the only recommended provider.

 

1) Who else should they recommend for pressing services?

 

2) What experience do you have with that person (or those persons) that gives you confidence that they can press books without damaging them?

 

Valid point...and where does the recommendations stop? There will always be someone excluded. That's why they shouldn't overtly recommend anyone...

 

Jim

 

This is a good example of why I directed my question to those who are not of the opinion that they shouldn't overtly recommend anyone. I already know how you guys feel about it. I am asking my questions of those who seem to be saying that it's ok to recommend more than one person, but not to recommend Matt only because it detracts from the image of impartiality.

[nearmint]

Whose perception is reality? And who are the "everyone" you refer to? I certainly see no concensus on this issue.

Nor would a guy who doesn't concern himself with perception.

And if you did stumble upon some concensus you wouldn't care to perceive it.

 

This is a loop. I'm sure it's blissful for you, but again, you don't care what my perception is of your state.

 

So you see a concensus on this issue? Or do you just like the sound of your own keyboard?

[awe4one]

I have a couple of serious questions for anyone who doesn't think they should recommend Matt Nelson only, but who doesn't mind if they recommend more than one person. In other words, this is only for those who don't have any philosophical objection to CGC listing more than one provider, but who also think that CGC should not single out Matt Nelson as the only recommended provider.

 

1) Who else should they recommend for pressing services?

 

2) What experience do you have with that person (or those persons) that gives you confidence that they can press books without damaging them?

 

Valid point...and where does the recommendations stop? There will always be someone excluded. That's why they shouldn't overtly recommend anyone...

 

Jim

 

This is a good example of why I directed my question to those who are not of the opinion that they shouldn't overtly recommend anyone. I already know how you guys feel about it. I am asking my questions of those who seem to be saying that it's ok to recommend more than one person, but not to recommend Matt only because it detracts from the image of impartiality.

 

Understand...but even overtly recommending more than one doesn't make sense in my opinion. Who to say, and I'm not implying or suggesting Nelson is doing this, that one of their recommendations, be it one or many, decides to go the Ewert route and gets caught? The guilt by association, whether justified or not, would be disasterous for the company. That is a situation from a business standpoint that could be mitigated to a large extent beforehand by not putting themselves in the position.

 

Jim