Is it me?

[M4lcs67]

Or does anybody else feel a little uneasy with the fact that the Skywatcher distributor is still using SPM to sell it's products. Whether he thought they were good scopes or not is immaterial in my opinion.   

I subscribe to The Sky At Night magazine and they have a full page ad on the back cover of the mag and I find it incredibly distasteful that they are still using him to promote their products. Or perhaps I am talking rubbish?

On a lighter note I love the half page ad for Stargazers Lounge in the same magazine. 

[knobby]

Fair point Malc !

don't suppose its even occured to them...

If they stopped suddenly they'd probably get a similar reaction 'oh they've dropped SPM from the Skywatcher ads'

Rock and hard place ?

[ronin]

I was in Waterstones at the weekend and they have an Astronomy Yearbook for 2014 that it says Edited by Sir Patrick Moore.

Now he may have done items on the 2013 book. as in preparing items for it before 2013 arrived, butI cannot see much of a possibility on the 2014 option.

[JB80]

I don't know, it's not the first time that people advertise beyond their time.

At the very least there may of been a contract to fill so proceeds from it may be going somewhere good and another way to look at it is beyond his life he in one way or another is still encouraging new folk to the hobby.

I have also got SPM 2014 yearbook of astronomy, I imagine anything his name is put on has been thought through enough so it's not deemed a cash cow.

[M4lcs67]

Agreed everyone. Even though he has been gone for over a year there mere mention of SPM has people reaching for telescopes and also looking up to the sky. That is a good thing, but for the people who are trying to make a fast buck off the back of him, shame on you I say.

[Stridor]

Agreed everyone. Even though he has been gone for over a year there mere mention of SPM has people reaching for telescopes and also looking up to the sky. That is a good thing, but for the people who are trying to make a fast buck off the back of him, shame on you I say.

I totally agree with you; if there is money to be made then there are those who are prepared to stoop ever lower to achieve it.........it`s the way of the world unfortunately

[jnb]

I don't see a great problem with it. They are only claiming that he endorsed their telecopes, which he did. People recognise his name as a well known astronomer and the endorsement is still valid, even if he has since died. It only becomes a problem if their standards drop and they still use the endorsement, but I suspect that in the time scale in which those standards might change they will have moved on to using someone else to endorse their stuff.

[Pete Presland]

Maybe its a contract thing and he will be on there untill a certain date. There is not much that is as distasteful as people making money out of the dead, but i am sure this is not the case.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

[JB80]

I agree with you Malc that nobody should be cashing in on the deceased ever, that is in poor taste and has been seen on some old ebay ads etc..

But, and I don't know the answer to this for certain isn't there a SPM trust set up which I would suspect probably deal with these type of things?

I might of imagined it but isn't Brian May on the board?

That's the good thing about the astro community, it's a rather niche market and it's not easy to pull a fast one on us so people who are involved in advertising and what not have to be on their toes.

[M4lcs67]

The thing that niggles me is that he is no longer here to say whether he is happy for it to continue or not. Sir Patrick has become something of a national treasure and for people to be still using his good name to make money when he is no longer here just doesn't sit right with me.