Discussion in 'Feadship Yacht' started by taksan, Dec 5, 2007.
Have Feadship stopped building yachts ?
I don´t think so, but they have become more secret about it. I think they have launched four yachts this year, two of the 45 m semicustom series and two other, the 67 m "Anna" and a 61 m with the name "Secret"...
You wouldn't know it from reading these forums. All references to Feadship have simply disappeared from this whole site. What's going on? The #1 Builder of motoryachts in the world no longer exists?
They may have been #1 at one time, but now there are many builders delivering yachts of exceptional quality. We are not obligated to provide a forum for, or coverage for any builder. I think the builders that support YF deserve some exclusivity because they have vision. More importantly, they are genuinely nice people to work with that appreciate the coverage YF is providing; the topics our members discuss and the traffic that results from the collective knowledge among you.
Alive and kicking! The Feadship Group probably has Holland's longest Job Vacancy list! So much to build; too little people to build them with!
Old Henk was here!
Didn't Henk, the Head of Feadship, post a big deal on the semi custom line not too long ago!! Seemed like a generous free coverage for Feadship provided by YF. Seems that a little support in return would be not too much to hope for or even request. That stated I don't have a clue how the e-world actually functions. Does seem like Carl puts in a lot of effort here with his helpers, and 10,000 members that also seems pertinent, not to mention people who look but don't join. Maybe the boss of Feadship is on the cheap. Many very rich people are in my experience. Hard to believe as that may seem. I would be curious to know what it would cost to advertise with a banner like the one for Christensen or Broward. Peace.
That you do not have to provide a forum for each builder might be true except that Feadship is the ONLY builder that is not represented. You don't see many of the builders that are listed here advertising here. Yet they all have a forum except for Feadship. As you previously did have a Feadship forum with many threads in it you must have specifically removed it so therefore its fairly obvious that you having something against Feadship. Further evidence lies in the fact that you even removed Feadship from the list of builders completely. I think in the interests of transparency and public confidence you should disclose the reasons for your negative bias against Feadship.
Feadship forums were here long before you are I were members here. I think Carl put the summation as to why it is what it is quite clearly and it should have satisfied your query.
Hardly ... most builders are not advertisers yet they still have forums. If there is a specific reason for the complete wiping of feadship from this forum then it should be made public.
Although you are trying to twist this into something sinister, it is not. I don’t believe it is appropriate to discuss confidential communications publicly. However, I will tell you this… I have been under pressure, for quite some time I might add, to reduce exposure to builders that do not support YF. I have fought battles over this. If Feadship wishes to join YF, then we welcome their participation.
I'm not saying its sinister.... what I am saying is the ONLY major Yacht builder that doesn't have a forum is Feadship. Feadship used to have a forum and now does not while all the other builders still do and you have not explained why is ISN'T sinister. If what you are saying is true about reducing exposure to non sponsors then all the other builders who do not advertise should have their forums removed as well. New media is considered suspect by PR departments precisely because it does not follow the accepted practices of journalistic integrity that old media does. Could you see print publications refuse to cover major players in the industry because they do not advertise? It doesn't happen and thats because they follow guidelines designed to separate advertising from editorial. Of course lines are blurred and advertisers are often given preference but not to the extent of having their existence completely removed such as you have done with Feadship.
I simply do not believe that because Feadship does not advertise you do not cover them and remove their forums because you do not do this to others who do not advertise.
I think there is more to it then that.
Maybe Feadship themselves do not recognize this site as a traditional media outlet to be given access to information (in which case their exclusion is both legitimate and also should be made public in order to show them the error of their ways) which is not sinister at all OR Maybe a competitor to Feadship who IS a sponsor has pressured you into removing them which is extremely sinister and would destroy this sites credibility completely.
I do not consider you have explained your position on this issue openly enough to remove any suspicions about your actions motives.
I make no judgments on the facts as I am unaware of the facts because of your refusal to disclose them however looking at it from outside it smells fishy and I think its important to keep matters such as this out in the open in order to avoid any possible claims of bias.
Doesn´t happen? Oh yes it does, on this I could give you a million examples. Regardless if you are advertising or not, no private publication has to cover anything or give the readers any explanation about it. At least not in my world, and I have spent three decades with two of the worlds largest groups in advertising. Why should PR agencies exist if such obligations existed?
I am still experiencing this every day, now as a producer trying to get coverage in our major media...
On inclusion of advertorial content certainly it occurs and its common as I said but this is a complete exclusion policy and I've never seen anything like it both to this extent and so blatantly and obviously so I'd be very interested if you could provide any examples in the wider media of such a policy of exclusion directed towards one particular industry player. If it was a minor industry player then one could overlook it but we are talking about a major builder here that is considered the best in the world by many. Its like having a publication that purports to be about lets say for example German luxury cars and having Mercedes excluded. It is quite frankly unfathomable for a site that claims to be all about luxury yachts to expunge all traces of the most famous brand of luxury yachts without explanation. Removing editorial content due to some dispute is understandable but removing all traces including user generated content is bizzare in the extreme.
It's very simple; if you think it's sinister, or that the forum is hiding info or up to something, just log of and don't come back.
You seem to be trying to dig up something that may or may not be there. Carl runs a good site, and he has reasons for doing things with his business like we all have with our own businesses. We choose to be here, if any of us don't like it, we get out.
You obviously have difficulty in comprehension if you regard your response to be at all relevant to my quite legitimate queries.
Coming from you, that means absolutely nothing.
If you can't appreciate other folk's opinions, then why should we even read yours?
Before you fire a shot over the bow, you best be prepared for the Bismark.
Your demeanor and accusations are deplorable. I’m not going to address your comments about traditional and new media practice. Your rant is so far from reality, it doesn’t warrant response.
We are working very hard behind the screen to make this medium fair and equitable for everyone. I’m one of the founding members of a group of webmasters that is pooling our proceeds, hiring lobbyists and working to bring ethics to the Internet. Why are we doing this? Because of the “traditional” media you hold in such esteem. Those are the real crooks.
FYI… more than 20 builders have been excluded from the front-page list. In addition, several forums have been closed for quite some time. I recently re-activated a couple of them, including Perini… but I didn’t hear you griping about that. Which begs the question… what do you have at stake here? Really… your response is very “vested” in nature. It’s almost transparent.
With all undue respect, I have given you an explanation. Either way, an advertiser will not sway our media. It’s not about money… it’s about community.
Its appears you cannot tell the difference between a question, a answer, a statement and a opinion.
Only those that cannot debate or comprehend resort to personal abuse to score points which I deem completely off topic and unworthy of comment.
pot, kettle, black
I have no vested interests whatsoever nor do I hold traditional media in high esteem particularly in this industry or on Ethics (I remember a few years back seeing glowing reports about a certain huge yachts quality in every magazine when the reality was the opposite). Now you mention Perini as well and I'd make similar observations about their exclusion being the largest sail boat builder as well. My interest in the Feadship question was very specific because to me that really stood out as a glaring omission to me and resulted in my questions. I make and have made no accusations whatsoever. I only seemingly dared to ask the question of why? If thats deplorable then so be it.
Traditionally forum owners on the internet respond to being scrutinized by saying "If you don't like it leave" or "Its my place and I'll do as I wish" however you have not done that which I am grateful for however you have not really responded to my questions either. I was under the impression that Feadship's relationships with several media sources was somewhat strained recently and you may have been caught up in that. But I have no vested relationship to Feadship or any other builder and certainly do not wish to give the impression that I am on team Feadship or any other team for that matter.
Now you have made me aware of other builders that have been "excluded" I'd like to know what criteria you use for inclusion/exclusion as being a sponsor clearly isn't necessary for inclusion but something else is. Would it be fair to suggest that certain builders take websites with a grain of salt and do not allow access to information that they would for a print publication and therefore simply exclude themselves by their ignorance?
This is quite a serious issue for new media in the car industry and I suspect it applies here as well.