Well, CQ publications does sell magazines and does
publish the results. If one additional person buys
one mag to check their scores, they've derived a
benefit. Same with QST (sorta)...
73 Rich NN3W
--- Original Message ---
From: "Bob Naumann - W5OV" <w5ov@w5ov.com>
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] WW SSB - the corruptive
influence of packet
>NN3W said:
>>> Yes, and the fact of the matter is that the packet
spotting most
>likely has the effect of increasing overall
participation - a benefit
>to both the sponsor and to contest stations that are
competitive. <<
>
>And earlier N7MAL said:
>>> My prediction is the only loser will be the
sponsor because a
>majority of the scores will be down. <<
>
>Curious. You both think that higher activity levels
or higher scores
>driven by packet spots are a benefit to the
sponsors? This is a
>puzzling conclusion.
>
>No radio contest benefits any sponsor under any
circumstances. They
>are a losing proposition no matter how you look at
it. The small
>amount of publicity they may get likely does nothing
positive. The
>contests cost a fortune to administer and yield no
direct benefit to a
>sponsor. If the people who do most of the
administrative work were to
>be compensated, contests would no longer be
sponsored.
>
>73,
>Bob Naumann - W5OV
>_______________________________________________
>CQ-Contest mailing list
>CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-
contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|