Friday, January 24, 1997
WESTWOOD:
Village businesses unable to keep up with ASUCLA’s advertising
access, influenceBy Gary Avrech
I wish to respond to the Jan. 17 article by Rachel Munoz,
"Merchants decry competition from ASUCLA."
Ms. Munoz misquoted me and misconstrued the purpose of the
petition from Westwood Village business owners and managers.
To set the record straight, I must first acknowledge that the
business owners of Westwood do not blame UCLA or ASUCLA for the
overall demise of Westwood from 1985 to 1994. In fact, we credit
UCLA students and staff for continuing to patronize the village
during these difficult years.
What I told Ms. Munoz was different. I said, "During the last
two years, the flow of people from UCLA into Westwood during lunch
time has died down to a trickle."
By shortening my quote to "The flow of people through Westwood
has died down to a trickle," Ms. Munoz was able to portray our
cause incorrectly and claim that we blame UCLA for all of
Westwood’s troubles, which couldn’t be further from the truth.
Our complaint with UCLA and ASUCLA is that since 1994, UCLA has
expanded its restaurants and retail establishments on campus at an
alarming rate.
By not allowing businesses to advertise on campus except for in
the Daily Bruin, which is owned by the same organization that owns
most of the stores and restaurants on campus, they have created a
monopoly.
Furthermore, because of the enormous advertising budget of
ASUCLA, most local businesses can’t even compete in the Daily Bruin
on the basis of size, price or position of advertisements within
the paper.
In the same article, Arvli Ward, UCLA Student Media director,
said ASUCLA enterprises "get no special treatment over other
advertisers (in the Daily Bruin)."
Take a look at the Jan. 21 edition of The Bruin and tell me that
UCLA advertisements don’t take priority. You’ll find over 15 ads
for UCLA in the first half of the paper. Five of them are full-page
ads, including a double-page spread and a color ad.
Ms. Munoz said, "Other merchants involved with the petition also
claim that they were not presented with all the facts before they
agreed to the petition." She went on to name one business manager
who supposedly wished he hadn’t signed the petition.
That’s one, but who are the others? In fact the owners and
managers of over 105 Westwood businesses signed the petition.
Doesn’t that count for anything?
Finally, I take exception to Carol Anne Smart, ASUCLA director
of retail operations, who said, "Our goal here is to service the
students, faculty and staff of the UCLA campus better than ever
before."
I was unaware that ASUCLA had an obligation to serve the needs
of UCLA’s faculty and staff. Perhaps she needs to review ASUCLA’s
mission statement.