TalkBass Policy Poll

[Brad Johnson]

Disclose whatever connection and then people can take whatever you say with a grain of salt. The funny thing is, they should be doing that anyway

I help a builder out as time allows. Because of that, I'm considered a commercial user even though I don't charge anything for it (I've had people here try to ridicule me because I don't ask for renumeration. Hint: I have a pretty good dayjob). As was already mentioned, I'm a repeat customer of that builder and as such that's the pricing I get, whether I gave him a hand or not. Sounds corny but I'm just trying to help.

If you spend enough time on TB and really research whatever it is you're looking for it becomes pretty obvious who the over-anxious supporters or (maybe unintended) shills are. It goes like this:

"The answer is _____ bass! . What was the question again?"



People that know me know I recommend all sorts of other stuff than the builder I "work" with, I'm very vocal about things I like but I try to temper that with each situation. If I didn't have Brubaker under my name, many would think I work for Elrick/MTD/Fender/Euphonic Audio/Markbass/Thunderfunk/etc.. That kind of behavior can't be forced, way too much wiggle room, way too much moderator effort involved.

Because of the current policy, I have a new personal bass coming that I can't talk about unless asked. I've seen people skirt this rule by having someone else do that and it's usually pretty blatant. I don't do that and I won't.

I say disclosed the connection and then talk about what you know. No outright selling, pricing, etc. as usual.

 

[tr68gt]

I want to hear from everybody. If they have any experience with the gear, I want to hear it. Good and bad. However, if they are associated with a company in any way, shape, or form, it should definitely be required to show that either in the sig or in the user title.

But how do you enforce that?

I agree with that I'd like to hear all. If someone is in some way connected to the company they are endorsing, I'd like to hear that too. It would definitely help in your own evaluation of a product know of any affiliation, but I too, wonder how this can be enforced.

 

[markjazzbassist]

+1

Perhaps even adding a spot in the profile for listing all endorsements, all this above and beyond the requirements in signatures. Just to make it very obvious that there is a business-type relationship.

+1

some standard line and formatting that all endorsees have to use. i've seen people with it written with size 6 font and in some wierd color so its barely legible.

Great idea Paul!

 

[Deleted member 5551]

I think the idea of having the people list their connection via either user title or signature is a good idea/works.

I agree with the other guys about the questioning what point does someone become an endorsing artist. E.g. is there a difference between repeat customer type discounts and artist discounts? IMO, yes, but it's a blurry line. I also think said line varies from company to company.

 

[jmain]

I agree that it is murky (as Mark, Thor, and others have pointed out), but would agree that it should be disclosed. As Brad says (great post BTW), all internet forum research and discussion should be taken with a grain of salt; and I believe most discerning people already excerise a bit of skepticism when reading reviews and such.

I do a lot of internet research for work-related topics, for grad school projects, and for bass gear. It's a great tool, but it is what it is and should be treated as such.

However, I do believe that affiliation should be disclosed in a uniform way as Mark and typlons and others have stated. I do agree with Brad that some discussions are instigated to appear as reviews, but are clearly little more than blatant marketing. But then again, some folks may not get huge discounts but just want everyone to validate their gear choices. Although, if you found the cure for bad tone, wouldn't you want to share it.

 

[Rattman]

I'm thinking a line under their name like this...

Forum Name (SteveC)
Endorsed/whatever by Company whatever

...would certainly be sufficient.

+1 ... There are plenty of world-savvy people/posters here on TB. No need to pussy-foot around with this. FULL disclosure in the signature line should be enough to clear up the 'grey' areas of doubt. Most folks should be able to handle that transparency the right way.

 

[west*coast*bass]

It's hard to police an entire community. I think that for every 10 people who will adhere to the new rule, 1 will not. It's human nature for some to buck the system and we should expect that here as well.

I think that adding a tag in your sig would be sufficient. This could help in other ways as well; if someone has a tag in their signature, another TB'er can easily find them to ask a specific question about a product and take up less band width by starting a new thread.

There are 2 companies that give me special pricing because I have shown much support. I don't overly advertise for either because it's not necessary. I give praise to all the gear I dig and ignore the gear I don't.

 

[Juniorkimbrough]

I voted........."Posting praise/reviews/publicity is cool as long as a disclosure is made in the signature"

but i agree with the above posters that their needs to be a standard font, location, etc. where the endorsers post this info. I think directly under the user name in bold would be a good place since you can see it BEFORE you read their posts.

 

[AxtoOx]

I voted no, I was cool with it till recently when it started going beyond praise and went into slamming other brands and quoting street pricing. There is a certain brand I thought well of till all of this started and now you couldn't pay me to try one.

 

[Blues Cat]

Yea the whole this is my new co and it sounds better than my old co, yet sounds similar, so you guys go ahead and defect so I can get even more favorable deals for bringing you on board is starting to make me ill.

 

[Fuzzbass]

Perhaps even adding a spot in the profile for listing all endorsements, all this above and beyond the requirements in signatures. Just to make it very obvious that there is a business-type relationship.

EXCELLENT idea! Some endorsements are listed in sigs, but I've toggled user signatures off.

I'm OK with endorsers posting opinion as long as their endorsement listing(s) have a high degree of visibility.

 

[Fuzzbass]

Disclose whatever connection and then people can take whatever you say with a grain of salt. The funny thing is, they should be doing that anyway

This is absolutely true! But the grain of salt should usually be bigger for known endorsers. Note that I said "usually", and not "always"! TalkBass has reps/endorsees for whom my grain of salt is amazingly small: I feel they're here to inform rather than persuade. I was going to mention you as an example, Brad, but now that you've said you don't get paid I don't think I have to. (J/K - you list your affiliation, so it's entirely relevant)

If you spend enough time on TB and really research whatever it is you're looking for it becomes pretty obvious who the over-anxious supporters or (maybe unintended) shills are.

This is *generally* true. However IMO the most effective shills aren't shrill, they're subtle: e.g. they'll give what seems to be a dispassionate review of a product, but (intentionally or not) omit or minimize unpleasant details such as excessive hiss, poor fretwork, etc. Or, when reviewing a competitors product, they could say "I owned one, it sounded pretty good" but then lie about a malfunction or bad customer service experience.

The second example is far more unethical and I doubt it's representative of the majority of endorsers. Still, I want to know who has motivation to distort, accidentally or not. Doesn't mean I will discard that user's opinion outright; to the contrary, even an affiliated user can earn my trust (and unaffiliated users also have to earn it).

 

[Fuzzbass]

I voted no, I was cool with it till recently when it started going beyond praise and went into slamming other brands and quoting street pricing. There is a certain brand I thought well of till all of this started and now you couldn't pay me to try one.

I hear you. However preventing endorsers from giving opinions/reviews might cause them to go "underground": i.e. fail to disclose their affiliation. I've no doubt that stealth shills already exist here, but I worry that they'll increase in number.

 

[AxtoOx]

This is absolutely true! But the grain of salt should usually be bigger for known endorsers. Note that I said "usually", and not "always"! TalkBass has reps/endorsees for whom my grain of salt is amazingly small: I feel they're here to inform rather than persuade. I was going to mention you as an example, Brad, but now that you've said you don't get paid I don't think I have to. (J/K - you list your affiliation, so it's entirely relevant)





This is *generally* true. However IMO the most effective shills aren't shrill, they're subtle: e.g. they'll give what seems to be a dispassionate review of a product, but (intentionally or not) omit or minimize unpleasant details such as excessive hiss, poor fretwork, etc. Or, when reviewing a competitors product, they could say "I owned one, it sounded pretty good" but then lie about a malfunction or bad customer service experience.

The second example is far more unethical and I doubt it's representative of the majority of endorsers. Still, I want to know who has motivation to distort, accidentally or not. Doesn't mean I will discard that user's opinion outright; to the contrary, even an affiliated user can earn my trust (and unaffiliated users also have to earn it).

There's another one going now, other brands, pricing, etc. They should have to pay to do this.

 

[moogboy]

i promote Moog products but i dont get payed to do it. so am i in trouble?

 

[Brad Johnson]

I agree that it is murky (as Mark, Thor, and others have pointed out), but would agree that it should be disclosed. As Brad says (great post BTW), all internet forum research and discussion should be taken with a grain of salt; and I believe most discerning people already excerise a bit of skepticism when reading reviews and such.

I do a lot of internet research for work-related topics, for grad school projects, and for bass gear. It's a great tool, but it is what it is and should be treated as such.

However, I do believe that affiliation should be disclosed in a uniform way as Mark and typlons and others have stated. I do agree with Brad that some discussions are instigated to appear as reviews, but are clearly little more than blatant marketing. But then again, some folks may not get huge discounts but just want everyone to validate their gear choices. Although, if you found the cure for bad tone, wouldn't you want to share it.

I found it along time ago... it's called (don't kill me)... practice.


Back to the topic at hand

 

[Brad Johnson]

This is absolutely true! But the grain of salt should usually be bigger for known endorsers. Note that I said "usually", and not "always"! TalkBass has reps/endorsees for whom my grain of salt is amazingly small: I feel they're here to inform rather than persuade. I was going to mention you as an example, Brad, but now that you've said you don't get paid I don't think I have to. (J/K - you list your affiliation, so it's entirely relevant)

Agreed... it would depend on the endorser. I pride myself in the fact that I try to be objective as possible and policy or not, I wouldn't always recommend a Brubaker... it's not always the answer. It's about responding to a particular situation and I think people who know me know that I gloat about a wide range of basses and products in general

This is *generally* true. However IMO the most effective shills aren't shrill, they're subtle: e.g. they'll give what seems to be a dispassionate review of a product, but (intentionally or not) omit or minimize unpleasant details such as excessive hiss, poor fretwork, etc. Or, when reviewing a competitors product, they could say "I owned one, it sounded pretty good" but then lie about a malfunction or bad customer service experience.

IME many are as subtle as a jackhammer. I don't complain about the backdoor type threads or the "one size fits all" guys who may truly think they've found the one thing in life everyone can agree on. If someone comes here looking for a quick answer that they can intelligently base a decision on, it can only be so quick. They'll really need to do a search and get a feel for where the advice is coming from.

My main advice here on TB is usually of the no cost variety... practice. It's amazing how much better it makes gear.

The second example is far more unethical and I doubt it's representative of the majority of endorsers. Still, I want to know who has motivation to distort, accidentally or not. Doesn't mean I will discard that user's opinion outright; to the contrary, even an affiliated user can earn my trust (and unaffiliated users also have to earn it).

Anyone who can't admit that anything besides what they own/like has merit is probably not to be trusted, not necessarily for any nefarious reasons, rather just because they may lack objectivity. Many tend to use the word "sucks" repeatedly

 

[Brad Johnson]

i promote Moog products but i dont get payed to do it. so am i in trouble?

Depends. What are you wearing?

 

[AxtoOx]

Talk Bass has a review section. Why aren't the endorsers restricted to that for rewiews of their own products. Do you really think when they come on and say "this is my review" that they are going to say anything negative about the item? If your going to be an endorser knock off the starting a thread on your own stuff. Let me know you are, if I'm in the market for your product, your welcome to answer me in a inquiry, or I'll seek you out for advice. These are simply unpaid commercials going on now, and the Mfg's way of taking a shot at the competition and claiming no responsibility.

 

[Eric Perry]

My main advice here on TB is usually of the no cost variety... practice. It's amazing how much better it makes gear.

Quote of the day!