HHO VIP Morally Bankrupt?

[pootler]

I have seen a few health related articles that are part of the VIP section eg 'Vets Urge Owners to be Aware of Atypical Myopathy Signs'. There have been other articles that have been 'VIP'd' that I can't remember to give examples of but are about serious health issues that owners should be aware of.

I think that HHO is wrong to make them part of the VIP section, I have seen VIP headlines that provide information that could mean the difference between life or death or career ending/curtailing injuries for our horses. Only those that can afford to pay can access these articles. Surely they should be a public service announcement rather than pay to view?

For what it is worth I am tech savvy enough to access these articles without paying but I strongly feel that health related articles should either not be posted on VIP or should be free to all to access.

harumph

 

[*hic*]

No useful comment but I'm loving a thread asking whether the owner of the articles you are keen to state you are accessing without paying for them is Morally Bankrupt.

 

[tallyho!]

It's not as if that sort of info is not available elsewhere. HH morals aren't exactly perfect.

 

[slumdog]

I'm less impressed with them publishing something in their magazine that they got from this forum without asking the poor owner first.

 

[pootler]

I said I am tech savvy enough to access the information if I want, however, I don't access it as I have morals!

 

[AdorableAlice]

The magazine certainly isn't what it used to be and is way too expensive.

I have to admit the VIP attached to the veterinary article took my eye, my thoughts were 'own goal' or shot themselves in the foot.

 

[tallyho!]

I said I am tech savvy enough to access the information if I want, however, I don't access it as I have morals!

Eh?

 

[pootler]

Tallyho, it would be immoral for me to access the information without paying, so I don't. My point was that it is possible to access it without paying so those who can could.

 

[tallyho!]

Tallyho, it would be immoral for me to access the information without paying, so I don't. My point was that it is possible to access it without paying so those who can could.

Ah. Your sentence above implied that you don't access the information because "it" was immoral no matter what format. What you meant was you don't access the VIP (referred to as "it" in your sentence) as it would be immoral... right?

 

[attheponies]

I get really irritated by the VIP section and for this reason I visit H&H less and less now. I'm only on at the moment because OH is watching the rugby!

 

[Broodle]

What a bizarre viewpoint. Would you feel it to be 'morally bankrupt' fot h&h to only include such information in it's paid-for paper magazine? Really don't see why h&h has any obligation, moral or otherwise, to make public service announcements.

 

[stormclouds]

Not really - they're a business and they have to create new business models to stay ahead of a sinking industry. Barely anyone buys paper magazines anywhere, so it's in their interests to find new ways of making a profit. Like others have said, this information is available elsewhere.

However as raised before, not on to cover stories without asking the permission of the owner first

 

[Red-1]

However as raised before, not on to cover stories without asking the permission of the owner first

Sorry, help, which story? I did notice a lack of story about the poor horse shot, which story online did I miss?

 

[stormclouds]

Sorry, help, which story? I did notice a lack of story about the poor horse shot, which story online did I miss?

Not sure if it's online or just in the paper version, but the story about Prophet's Star/Pea, one of the Diamonds in the Rough horses. They took the story off their Facebook without asking if it was ok, very inconsiderate and insensitive, regardless of whether it was in public domain or not.

 

[Red-1]

Not sure if it's online or just in the paper version, but the story about Prophet's Star/Pea, one of the Diamonds in the Rough horses. They took the story off their Facebook without asking if it was ok, very inconsiderate and insensitive, regardless of whether it was in public domain or not.

Ah, thank you, I did see it. I agree they were insensitive if the owners did not know it was going to be featured.

AS to the VIP stuff, I don't see HH as being a public service. If everything was available for free who would buy the magazine? I have been thinking about cancelling anyway, and the clincher may have been that two of the biggest "stories" over the past 2 weeks (horse shot at the GG centre and concerns re horse rearing and falling at HOYS) have not been commented on (other than mentioning the GG centre on "topic of the week". The week before the "topic of the week" was not mentioned at all.

Even if there is controversy and legal actions I would have thought to just acknowledge the essence of the situations would have been necessary for completeness? Especially as both instances were already in the public domain. Or did 2 pages get stuck together?

 

[Mrs B]

I can understand the initial irritation that something you want to read isn't immediately available for you at the click of a mouse. I understand that you may think that because it's about something which could harm your horse, you should be able to access it without charge.

BUT
As others have pointed out, such info about the dangers of sycamore seeds/seedlings is widely available on the www already.

Every article you read here online is written by a real person for whom writing is a living. They are able to assimilate, understand and then meld information into something that others find easy, informative and pleasurable to read.

It takes skill and it takes talent. It's their job and it earns them rent, food, shoes for their children, a birthday cake and (very occasionally) a holiday.

Paying writers for their talent on top of producing and printing a weekly, colour magazine in the digital age is becoming financially unviable, even with the income from adverts for horses for sale and bling bridles to buy. Revenue from ads has dropped like a stone in recent years. If you have a product to sell, how many more outlets are there to chose from now? Multiple TV channels, the whole of the www, via FB, QR codes, even Siri ...

HHO VIP is just a small way to try to claw back a bit of money from users to keep the show on the road.

When's the last time most here on HHO went to the newsagents/PO and shelled out actual pennies for HH magazine? I haven't bought the mag (i.e. actually contributed to the cost of keeping this show on the road) for about 9 years.

So now. Back to the article in question: Why should the writer's talent ie their job and their living be worth nothing?

 

[stormclouds]

So now. Back to the article in question: Why should the writer's talent ie their job and their living be worth nothing?

This, exactly. When HH first released their VIP service, I couldn't believe the stick they got. I'm a writer, and it never fails to surprise me that people assume we'll do this for free (or next to nothing). It's a tough job with rubbish hours and low pay. I doubt many other people would offer to do their job for free, or take it lying down if someone assumed they should - so it's no different for writers, regardless of what they're writing about.

If you see a topic raised online that you aren't aware of, it's not hard to pop it into Google and find out for yourself, if you're not willing to pay for the time someone else has spent collating and simplifying it!

(not meant to come across grumpily - after ten hours in the office writing for difficult clients, this has touched a nerve tonight!)

 

[doriangrey]

Not sure if it's online or just in the paper version, but the story about Prophet's Star/Pea, one of the Diamonds in the Rough horses. They took the story off their Facebook without asking if it was ok, very inconsiderate and insensitive, regardless of whether it was in public domain or not.

I disagree, you can't have it both ways.

ETA: Excellent post from Mrs B.

 

[orionstar]

If you put a story in the public domain regardless of what means, then you put the story in the public domain.

 

[stormclouds]

Hmm, when it's the loss of a well-loved horse, it's discourteous to not check with the owner first, especially when using a quote. At best it's lazy journalism, at worse it's disrespectful. H&H isn't meant to be a trashy celeb mag, so you'd think there'd be some sort of fact-checking/correlating with the source. It would be really not on at my work for citing hearsay on social media without going to the source of the story firsthand, let alone a national mag. Pretty off topic though, either way.

Would understand a thread of people commenting on lowered journo standards, but can't argue with a company trying to make money.

 

[AmyMay]

Didn't even know there was such a thing as a vip section.

 

[teapot]

So now. Back to the article in question: Why should the writer's talent ie their job and their living be worth nothing?

It depends on whether you count what's written as 'talent' - there are better written posts on here than some of the VIP pages I've read...

 

[Mrs B]

It depends on whether you count what's written as 'talent' - there are better written posts on here than some of the VIP pages I've read...

That's as may be but as free guests, we can't dictate the standard of talent employed to keep the ship afloat if we want it to remain above the plimsoll line.

 

[Queenbee]

No useful comment but I'm loving a thread asking whether the owner of the articles you are keen to state you are accessing without paying for them is Morally Bankrupt.

In defense of the op, my approach whenever researching an item is to identify a number of sources, read them all and draw a conclusion. In one such instance (not long after HH implemented this approach I was required to research a subject and one of the sources that came up was HH VIP. It was the first time I had come across this PPV service, I was unsure of their content and as such its relevance to my need, value for money etc. It was very easy to decipher a way around it and my conclusion: none of the information stood out as being worthy of value - in the sense that I could get exactly the same information in any number of articles that are free for use on the net with the same search terms and no extra effort. None of the information went above and beyond this remit. Now, if I read these articles and ascertained that the information within them was a little bit extra - that bit more informative, I may very well have subscribed but it wasnt. The information as I said was the same as you could get for free from other individual source, and the same as I had in the past expected from HH without payment. Moreover, to see the existence of an article and be expected to pay without any qualification of the level of its content is in my opinion wrong and preying on essentially the stupid and gullible. There is no content within their PPV articles that is worthy of a fee IMO, bearing in mind they provide no additional detail than all the free articles. When they started charging, I expected that the articles would be extra detail, go into more depth... this is not the case, its not just a case of being morally wrong, by charging they actually are not depriving you of any detail you could not easily find elsewhere, its more of a sting, charging you for information you could obtain through any other channel for free.

 

[Queenbee]

Ah. Your sentence above implied that you don't access the information because "it" was immoral no matter what format. What you meant was you don't access the VIP (referred to as "it" in your sentence) as it would be immoral... right?

I think the point is that when the link comes up on google, you automatically click on it and it opens... it opens the article, after a time delay you lose the article and get a big old warning vip sign if i remember correctly. Tech savvy or not it doesnt take a genius to ascertain that you can screenshot the content before the warning sign. However, my point is that there is no need to bother there is nothing in their content worth paying for and nothing you can not read in as much or more detail elsewhere legitimately for free. I used the above method once, and their article shed less light on an issue than any of the articles I had read that were freely available online.

 

[Queenbee]

What a bizarre viewpoint. Would you feel it to be 'morally bankrupt' fot h&h to only include such information in it's paid-for paper magazine? Really don't see why h&h has any obligation, moral or otherwise, to make public service announcements.

Not really - they're a business and they have to create new business models to stay ahead of a sinking industry. Barely anyone buys paper magazines anywhere, so it's in their interests to find new ways of making a profit. Like others have said, this information is available elsewhere.

However as raised before, not on to cover stories without asking the permission of the owner first

Hmm, not sure... whilst in an ideal world some of the points you make are reasonable. The fact remains that they are suddenly charging for articles that used to be freely available with them. More importantly they are charging for articles that are mediocre at best and have no value over other articles available in plentiful numbers on the net for free. This is the most appalling marketing tactic I have come across. From a naive perspective its all well and good standing back and saying they are a business and need to make money, but this is an approach that actually risks them losing more money than they stand to make through their charges by alienating readers. Marketing and business is not about 'where can we make a quick buck' its about where can we improve our image and reputation and sustain growth in profit long term.

 

[Queenbee]

So now. Back to the article in question: Why should the writer's talent ie their job and their living be worth nothing?

Why should people be expected to pay for an article for which they have no knowledge of content, or quality and that spouts out the same old blah blah that is available for free. Why should they have to pay for something, just to find out it has no value, tells them nothing new and reiterates what they have ascertained for free??

I am all for paying for a service and information, but that service must stand out to be worthy of paying for.

 

[Queenbee]

Didn't even know there was such a thing as a vip section.

you so haven't missed anything x

 

[Queenbee]

It depends on whether you count what's written as 'talent' - there are better written posts on here than some of the VIP pages I've read...

amen!

 

[Queenbee]

That's as may be but as free guests, we can't dictate the standard of talent employed to keep the ship afloat if we want it to remain above the plimsoll line.

Right, you will all be glad to see that this is my last post (for now) on the matter, but do I have the wrong end of the stick or are you actually saying that an employer cant dictate the talent of his staff and the quality of the work they produce??? Im not entirely sure what world you live in, but every employer I know makes that one of their top priority tasks!