The uninonymous Rob suggests in a comment that perhaps there aren’t enough people out there to support The American Debater primarily because the VCA is so small. I’m not sure I follow that logic. And I will point out that the VCA is small compared to some things, but not compared to others. I mean, I’ve got enough soldiers to suggest that, while we can’t necessarily attack Rippin’ full-on, we could do pretty good in a sneak attack, at night, if they forgot to lock the back door on their way out. I’m sure WTF gets much bigger numbers than I do, but that’s because so many people can’t get enough of who’s taking what course from whom at their camp. But above and beyond even that, there are quite a few debaters out there in the country who are served by the problematic Rippin’ to some extent or other but not by any of us bloggers, who represent a rather special niche with collateral interests if not quite convergent opinions. There are thousands of debaters in the country, and a niche publication could be successful on one or two counts, namely, selling advertising and/or selling magazines. All commercial publishing works this way. If someone wants to sell something to the audience being reached, they pay the publication for advertising space. If someone likes the content being published, they buy the publication. Sometimes you make all your money on one side, sometimes you make it all on the other, but usually you make it on a combination of the two. This model works for print, and versions of it are being adopted by web-based publishers. Of course, on the extreme ends are books, which are all content and no ads, and the Pennysaver, which is all ads and no content. Anyhow, I trust that the TAD folks have been working on their marketing plan, and aren’t simply walking off the publishing plank, so to speak. As for Uninonymous Rob’s suggestion that those of his recently graduated ilk ought to be courted by the publication, mebbe, mebbe not. The market would appear to be people in the game, not people who used to be in the game. Focused marketing is very important for a publication, especially starting out. Debating debaters looks like a good start; anyone else would come later. Of course, TAD can correct me if I’m wrong on this.
I made the mistake of going into a pretty good bookstore last night, and emerged weighted down and way less flush. A book I didn’t buy that they had was Moral Clarity, because I was already too far committed to other stuff, but I thumbed through it and it looked great. In the next Amazon order, probably. I’m enjoying The First Word immensely, but I do have to admit that as much as I enjoy theories of linguistics, lately my mind has been circling a lot around issues of morality. The concept of right and wrong, of ethical action, keeps taking me deeper and deeper into issues of epistemology and ontology where I don’t particularly want to go, but at the point where you begin defining terms, i.e., Point A, it’s hard to get around the subjectivity of existence. Nevertheless, if you wish to outline moral imperatives of any sort, no matter how minor, then that subjectivity must be gotten around. The relativistic universe is a difficult one to navigate. I may start writing some of this stuff up, possibly in aid of a podcast. We’ll see.
No comments:
Post a Comment