Michael P. Edison wrote:
>
> Message text written by "BP - Telepathic chickenf leave no tracef. Turkey
> lurky goo-bye!"
> >TB is
> trying hard to be a networking clearing house for anyone needing
> specialty items and services in historic preservation / restoration. It
> makes the process of networking between trades, and between trades and
> manufacturers less difficult. Clem has and is being very supportive in
> many ways including providing free photographs and captions in TB for
> anyone (as space allows). <
>
> Has anyone else noticed that TB has, of late, restricted it's directories
> and listings to PAID advertisers only? As a restoration products
> manufacturer we are faced with a multitude of possible directories and
> publications in which to advertise. It is impossible to fund them all. In
> some, we choose to make a bolder statement. In others, we are satisfied
> with simpler listings.
>
> But even Sweets has come to the conclusion that limiting listings to PAID
> advertisers makes their list a less valuable resource, and has included
> compreehensive lists for several years. So what's up with TB?
>
> Mike Edison
===========

Mike:

Interesting observation. I guess the question is, Is Traditional
Building (TB) and Sweets the same type of publication. Sweets and other
source books are published once a year and need the volume of names to
be worth keeping. TB is a different sort of publication.

In your view, what are the advantages and disadvantages to TB and it
readership for the listings you are seeking. This has some validity for
how PTN may market its IPTW efforts.

I look for your response.

Bryan Blundell