Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Yarbles on July 02, 2008, 10:14:39 AM
-
Second Biggest English Speaking Country.
We have History Channel, Uk History Channel and Discovery etc all about military Hardwar and the Monthly subscription costs the same as 2 Big Mac XL meals per month.
How many BIG MAC XL meals can you get for your $15. If its allot more makes AH relatively cheap. ;)
Listn Up HTC
-
I think target markets would be a better/cheaper way of advertising. Setting up a stall at say Duxford on July 12-13th (flying legends), couple of laptops, bring some joysticks. Let people play some offline missions.
you can make the TEA, take some cans of Spitfire. we can have a small meeting place. HTC can pay for the petrol and pitch costs. ;)
-
I think target markets would be a better/cheaper way of advertising. Setting up a stall at say Duxford on July 12-13th (flying legends), couple of laptops, bring some joysticks. Let people play some offline missions.
you can make the TEA, take some cans of Spitfire. we can have a small meeting place. HTC can pay for the petrol and pitch costs. ;)
Sounds Fun but I cant make it this year though I am putting it in the diary for next. I think HTC would do well advertising though because there is no competition here as far as I can see.
-
thats a shame.
If anyone else is heading there for that weekend please PM me as we should have a couple of guys going.
-
Second Biggest English Speaking Country.
We have History Channel, Uk History Channel and Discovery etc all about military Hardwar and the Monthly subscription costs the same as 2 Big Mac XL meals per month.
How many BIG MAC XL meals can you get for your $15. If its allot more makes AH relatively cheap. ;)
Listn Up HTC
Yikes! I can get 3 Big Mac meals for $15. :)
-
Yikes! I can get 3 Big Mac meals for $15. :)
There you go we are getting AH a third cheaper than you now and with mean average income in the UK of $42,000 dollars has to be a good pottential market.
-
Random tidbit, I read somewhere that China has the largest English speaking population in the world. Which would make the US second, probably India third and the UK fourth. Not sure though.
-
Random tidbit, I read somewhere that China has the largest English speaking population in the world. Which would make the US second, probably India third and the UK fourth. Not sure though.
Interesting and they would tend to be the ones who can afford it. No many Indiam or Chinese planes worth adding to the plane set though.
-
I believe it goes, US, India, Nigeria then UK.
-
I believe it goes, US, India, Nigeria then UK.
As usual, Wikipedia to the rescue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_English-speaking_population)...
US has around 260m English speakers.
EU has around 230m English speakers.
India around 90m.
Nigeria 80m.
UK 60m (part of EU).
Many others.... total English speaking world population is somewhere between 500m and 1.8 billion depending on what fluency/literacy level you include.
-
I think HTC should advertise on history ch. instead of military, there are more shows about ww2 dogfights like battle260 and dogfights. :aok
-
Im sure it cost alot more for History than Military.
-
As usual, Wikipedia to the rescue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_English-speaking_population)...
US has around 260m English speakers.
EU has around 230m English speakers.
India around 90m.
Nigeria 80m.
UK 60m (part of EU).
Many others.... total English speaking world population is somewhere between 500m and 1.8 billion depending on what fluency/literacy level you include.
Basing facts off of Wikipedia is about as reliable as "G Dubya" finding WMD's. :D
-
Basing facts off of Wikipedia is about as reliable as "G Dubya" finding WMD's. :D
Sorry, but that's largely a myth. Yes, incorrect stuff gets added - and sometimes biographies get hacked and make headlines - but taken as a whole Wikipedia is of remarkably good quality, due to the "wisdom of the crowd" in monitoring edits and correcting errors. It's also typically pretty up to date.
Interestingly, a study (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4530930.stm) that compared science-related articles on Wikipedia vs. articles on Encyclopaedia Brittanica found that they were of very similar quality, with an equal (low) number of serious errors.
The whole point of Wikipedia is to summarise existing, well-referenced information. A page that doesn't have good sources should not necessarily be trusted, but an article that is well referenced is worth taking seriously, if the sources are good.
To return to the topic, the List of countries by English-speaking population (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_English-speaking_population) Wikipedia article does have references, so if you question the validity of the data, you can go and check the sources yourself.
-
Interestingly, a study (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4530930.stm) that compared science-related articles on Wikipedia vs. articles on Encyclopaedia Brittanica found that they were of very similar quality, with an equal (low) number of serious errors.
You are referring to a Nature study that has been shown to be largely biased. Here is the link to Britannica's rebuttal (http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf).
The errors included:
1) Nature reviewed text that was not even from the Encyclopædia Britannica.
2) Nature accused Britannica of “omissions” on the basis of reviews of article excerpts, not the articles themselves.
3) Nature rearranged and re-edited Britannica articles.
4) Nature failed to check the factual assertions of its reviewers.
5) Nature failed to distinguish minor inaccuracies from major errors.
6) Nature counted “errors” and “critical omissions” that did not exist.
Despite all these errors in methodology, the actual count of errors was 162 in Wiki vs 123 in Britannica (sample source (http://www.iwr.co.uk/information-world-review/news/2152685/britannica-lashes-wikipedi)). I am not sure where else 33% more of anything is considered to be "equal."
This article (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/23/britannica_wikipedia_nature_study/) has some interesting links, including one to the original press release from Nature that accompanied their study. It ends with this paragraph (bold mine) which IMO demonstrates Nature went into the study with an agenda:
Nature would like to encourage its readers to help. The idea is not to seek a replacement for established sources such as the Encyclopaedia Britannica, but to push forward the grand experiment that is Wikipedia, and to see how much it can improve. Select a topic close to your work and look it up on Wikipedia. If the entry contains errors or important omissions, dive in and help fix them. It need not take too long. And imagine the pay-off: you could be one of the people who helped turn an apparently stupid idea into a free, high-quality global resource.
Just saying.
-
I think we're straying waaay off topic here, though that's probably my fault as I took up the Wikipedia-quality argument.
Very quickly: well, Brittanica would say that, wouldn't they? :) Nature formally responded (http://www.nature.com/press_releases/Britannica_response.pdf) (pdf) to Brittanica's objections. See also the Nature point-by-point rebuttal (http://www.nature.com/nature/britannica/eb_advert_response_final.pdf) (pdf). And I'll bet the errors in those particular Wikipedia articles were fixed much faster than those in Brittanica.
-
I have to say I am impressed if Wiki had only 33% more errors than Britanica bearing in mind how up to date wiki is and how quickly its grown.
Anyway Uk and Europe is the next place to Advertise AH then.
-
I have to say I am impressed if Wiki had only 33% more errors than Britanica bearing in mind how up to date wiki is and how quickly its grown.
Anyway Uk and Europe is the next place to Advertise AH then.
i dream of a day when there isnt a "off peak" anymore.
AH in europe would really make more sense as we been fighting wars for like forever...
-
From an older thread ...
The only place I have seen the commercials is on the Military CH, formally Discovery Wings. I do not recall seeing the commercial on any History CH, but I could be wrong. I do agree that the military ch is probably the best demographic audience to recruit players from, however not everyone is able to get that ch, either by cable companys (like my crappy one) or by the specific package from satellite provider.
The newest commercial (as stated before) is an improvement upon the first IMO. Still alot more can be done with it. Stay after it boys.
helbent: We also ran some test adds on the history channel to see what the response rate would be.
We also ran some adds in england to find out what the response rate would be.
HiTech
Do you remember the effect??? just wondering.
Yes I rember viper; But please understand, I paid a fair amount for a test run to get the response rate information. I realy do not care to give that knowledge out for free.