I don't think he means to start new threads all the time; I think he is just clicking on the wrong thingie.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][b]Queen Archivist wrote:[/b]
I think I receive 250-350 emails every week from Queen fans[/QUOTE]
Man, I get about that many a week about increasing the size of my you-know-what.
You think we're on a weird email list or something?
I think I receive 250-350 emails every week from Queen fans[/QUOTE]
Man, I get about that many a week about increasing the size of my you-know-what.
You think we're on a weird email list or something?
Greg's "question of slander" is like the pot calling the kettle black.
QPL is the only company that I know of that tacitly approves the public trashing of rude customers by an employee or consultant.
QPL is the only company that I know of that tacitly approves the public trashing of rude customers by an employee or consultant.
As the internet is considered a printed medium it would be libel not slander (note no capital letter) but a "researcher" should know that.
The discussion about the singles box set is a no win situation. EMI,Jim and the accountants are looking for maximum return on minimum investment.
We are looking for maximum content at REASONABLE COST.
Even if we had got Greg's proposed set there would have been a few here complaining that it was too expensive.
Like all of us the Queen organisation and EMI are looking at what will hit their bank accounts at the end of the day so if the marketing guys forecast xxx sales for this and only xx sales for the original plan at a significantly higher profit margin the accountants will recommend the one that gives the max return.
The discussion about the singles box set is a no win situation. EMI,Jim and the accountants are looking for maximum return on minimum investment.
We are looking for maximum content at REASONABLE COST.
Even if we had got Greg's proposed set there would have been a few here complaining that it was too expensive.
Like all of us the Queen organisation and EMI are looking at what will hit their bank accounts at the end of the day so if the marketing guys forecast xxx sales for this and only xx sales for the original plan at a significantly higher profit margin the accountants will recommend the one that gives the max return.
[QUOTE]
[b]scallyuk wrote: [/b]
As the internet is considered a printed medium it would be libel not slander (note no capital letter) but a "researcher" should know that.
The discussion about the singles box set is a no win situation. EMI,Jim and the accountants are looking for maximum return on minimum investment.
We are looking for maximum content at REASONABLE COST.
Even if we had got Greg's proposed set there would have been a few here complaining that it was too expensive.
Like all of us the Queen organisation and EMI are looking at what will hit their bank accounts at the end of the day so if the marketing guys forecast xxx sales for this and only xx sales for the original plan at a significantly higher profit margin the accountants will recommend the one that gives the max return.
[/QUOTE]
Assuming a reasonable ROI (return on investment), a reputable company would strive to maximize customer satisfaction and release both items, and not have an unwarranted obsession about not flooding the market.
[b]scallyuk wrote: [/b]
As the internet is considered a printed medium it would be libel not slander (note no capital letter) but a "researcher" should know that.
The discussion about the singles box set is a no win situation. EMI,Jim and the accountants are looking for maximum return on minimum investment.
We are looking for maximum content at REASONABLE COST.
Even if we had got Greg's proposed set there would have been a few here complaining that it was too expensive.
Like all of us the Queen organisation and EMI are looking at what will hit their bank accounts at the end of the day so if the marketing guys forecast xxx sales for this and only xx sales for the original plan at a significantly higher profit margin the accountants will recommend the one that gives the max return.
[/QUOTE]
Assuming a reasonable ROI (return on investment), a reputable company would strive to maximize customer satisfaction and release both items, and not have an unwarranted obsession about not flooding the market.
What would have made the most sense was to have released the original planned version in addition to a boxset of replica 7" singles. They must have some idea how many of each they could shift.... so they could then market them as limited editions giving them an air of presudo collectability.
Isn't it interesting that for the same money, you can buy the Queen singles vol 1 box, which consists of 13 CD singles or the Kinks pye albums box consisting of 10 CD albums - both sets released in the same year.
Isn't it interesting that for the same money, you can buy the Queen singles vol 1 box, which consists of 13 CD singles or the Kinks pye albums box consisting of 10 CD albums - both sets released in the same year.
Why does Greg actually come on here? Does he give us exclusives or the like? Or does he just cause even more resentment and make himself look like a tool?
Greg, unless you've got something informative to tell us, why don't you go back to QPL and do work on the anthology, dvd's that we actually want to see, and not abuse your position by talking shite.
I wonder, does Dr May know about your ramblings?
Greg, unless you've got something informative to tell us, why don't you go back to QPL and do work on the anthology, dvd's that we actually want to see, and not abuse your position by talking shite.
I wonder, does Dr May know about your ramblings?
[QUOTE]
[b]Panchgani wrote: [/b]
Assuming a reasonable ROI (return on investment), a reputable company would strive to maximize customer satisfaction and release both items, and not have an unwarranted obsession about not flooding the market.
[/QUOTE] Define reasonable , lol.
Agreed but for EMI/Parlophone Queen are no longer a major band. they have a great back catalogue but the market for new stuff especially since the best known "face" is dead and cannot promote it is limited.
As far as customer satisfaction goes hardcore Queen fans who would buy the big box set represent a miniscule amount of their overall customer base so they don't need to give a monkeys about what we feel.
It's not like we're going to say "if I can't buy a big Queen box I'll never buy anything else from one their other artists again", is it.
"We" aren't important in terms of overall customer satisfaction.
[b]Panchgani wrote: [/b]
Assuming a reasonable ROI (return on investment), a reputable company would strive to maximize customer satisfaction and release both items, and not have an unwarranted obsession about not flooding the market.
[/QUOTE] Define reasonable , lol.
Agreed but for EMI/Parlophone Queen are no longer a major band. they have a great back catalogue but the market for new stuff especially since the best known "face" is dead and cannot promote it is limited.
As far as customer satisfaction goes hardcore Queen fans who would buy the big box set represent a miniscule amount of their overall customer base so they don't need to give a monkeys about what we feel.
It's not like we're going to say "if I can't buy a big Queen box I'll never buy anything else from one their other artists again", is it.
"We" aren't important in terms of overall customer satisfaction.
[QUOTE]
[b]scallyuk wrote: [/b]
Define reasonable , lol.
Agreed but for EMI/Parlophone Queen are no longer a major band. they have a great back catalogue but the market for new stuff especially since the best known "face" is dead and cannot promote it is limited.
As far as customer satisfaction goes hardcore Queen fans who would buy the big box set represent a miniscule amount of their overall customer base so they don't need to give a monkeys about what we feel.
It's not like we're going to say "if I can't buy a big Queen box I'll never buy anything else from one their other artists again", is it.
"We" aren't important in terms of overall customer satisfaction.
[/QUOTE]
I agree, but even though they are not as huge as they were, Queen's legacy surely means that they would still far outsell a lot of other artists who get comprehensive, interesting, well thought out, good value career spanning box sets?
[b]scallyuk wrote: [/b]
Define reasonable , lol.
Agreed but for EMI/Parlophone Queen are no longer a major band. they have a great back catalogue but the market for new stuff especially since the best known "face" is dead and cannot promote it is limited.
As far as customer satisfaction goes hardcore Queen fans who would buy the big box set represent a miniscule amount of their overall customer base so they don't need to give a monkeys about what we feel.
It's not like we're going to say "if I can't buy a big Queen box I'll never buy anything else from one their other artists again", is it.
"We" aren't important in terms of overall customer satisfaction.
[/QUOTE]
I agree, but even though they are not as huge as they were, Queen's legacy surely means that they would still far outsell a lot of other artists who get comprehensive, interesting, well thought out, good value career spanning box sets?
The idea that a Queen anthology set, featuring previously unreleased material, wouldn't sell that well is frankly fucking hilarious. And how does anyone think it wouldn't be promoted? Of course it fucking would?!!