As far as Glows being linked with lighthouse preservation, I have two comments. One - Glows aren't tax deductible. Two - if you're sincere about lighthouse preservation send a check for $70 to the light of your choice - this is far more meaningful and direct than buying a Glow, half the price of which goes immediately into the dealers pocket. I do think its a *very* clever marketing technique from HL - can't blame them for pulling any trick in the book to get people to buy knicknacks.
Personally, I like to donate to lighthouse preservation in sweat equity, donated tools, equipment and my time.
While it may be a clever marketing technique by Y&A, I still stand by my position that every penny helps. Also, I believe that there are people out there who are unwilling to make a donation to lighthouse preservation or any other organization for that matter. If these people buy a GLOW for a gift, pick one up as a reminder of a trip they made, ect.., then a donation is made that otherwise wouldn't have been made.
This example pushes the envelope somewhat, but the point is the money helps.
Jim Johnston, would you or FORI turn down the money from the sale of GLOW Pottawatomie's? Would the money help the group?
I don't dispute the fact and I agree wholeheartedly that GLOWS hurt the value of LE's. They do serve a purpose however. Should Y&A dump the line? That is not my place to say. If they don't subsidize LE's they must be doing something else to help Harbour Lights or the line would have been dropped already.
My name is Todd. I don't collect GLOWS, but I own two. They hurt the LE's, but they serve a purpose by helping restoration and upkeep. Is this line of thinking a contradiction? Maybe. I'll stand by it.
-Todd[This message has been edited by Todd Shorkey (edited 07-06-2001).]
[This message has been edited by Todd Shorkey (edited 07-06-2001).]
[This message has been edited by Todd Shorkey (edited 07-06-2001).]
