It's no more and no less discriminatory than charging for videos or CD's. For
impatient people who can't afford the £15 (or £7 pbk) it's an option to queque
jump, which if handled properly shorten's the queque for the can't pays.
Let's not pretend we don't already offer enhanced services for those willing to
part with small amounts of cash
BM Williams
"Aran Lewis" <[log in to unmask]> on 27/06/2000 12:16:18 PM
Please respond to "Aran Lewis" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "Laurie Fenwick" <[log in to unmask]>, "Robert Gent"
<[log in to unmask]>, "'George Kerr'"
<[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask]
cc: (bcc: Bethan Williams/LH/WarksCC)
Subject: Re: Bestsellers
Laurie Fenwick refers to "Robert who suggests that the scheme is inevitably
going to
disadvantaged those who either cannot or will not pay for the service."
Going back to Robert's message, I note that he made no reference whatsoever
to "those who will not pay." He said "I don't see how you can describe a
service which favours those who can pay and disadvantages those who can't
can be described
as anything but discriminatory." Neither do I. Laurie neglects to mention
how it can operate in a non-discriminatory fashion. Over to you, Laurie...
Aran Lewis.
|