Trade Input on AoS: Getting The Balance Right

[Marco]

Hi Alan,

That's a very good point. Thing is, such is the nature of this matter, that there will always be grey areas, in terms of how the new ruling is implemented - and also the opportunity (as ever) to exploit things for one's own ends.

I guess it boils down to folk (traders and members alike) being honest and not taking the piss, along with observing and respecting the guidelines which have just been implemented - and so future product reviews will be monitored and moderated on that basis.

Your own input to date shows no signs of any inappropriate behaviour, so there's no reason now for that to change, is there?

Marco.

[Ali Tait]

Aye, Alan raises a good point. I've just sent his loaner phono stage off to Paul Stewart. Where do people stand about posting their impressions of it?

[YNWaN]

For me, the greater trade issue is that many make no contribution at all other than to update advertorial or make 'now available' statements. Whilst there is nothing wrong with either, I think it is a shame that a more insightful contribution isn't made.

Those traders that are prone to a bit of 'off-topic' promotion tend to do so in a very clear and obvious manner which you can then choose to ignore or act upon armed with the knowledge of where that info originated. What is significantly more insidious is the quality you find on some other forums where trade members misrepresent themselves as 'the average man' and create (or post on existing threads) with the sole purpose of promoting product.

As far as I am aware, I only know of one rep who who admits to being a member of the UK forums - obviously this is not the case. Considering that it's not difficult for a popular thread to have more hits than the entire UK circulation of a hi-fi mag, most of the UK reps will have signed up to one (if not all) of the forums (but surely they are too busy - in their dreams).

For my part I have decided not to retail anything any more and so expect to have trade status revoked.

[Marco]

Aye, Alan raises a good point. I've just sent his loaner phono stage off to Paul Stewart. Where do people stand about posting their impressions of it?

Hi Ali,

My response to Alan pretty much covers it, in conjunction with what I've outlined in post #41 (linked to below), and has been discussed on that thread since then (all of which in due course will be condensed into one post in the Noticeboard and Critics Corner, which will then act as the new ruling): http://theartofsound.net/forum/showt...119#post549119

It's essentially a question of members and traders exhibiting honesty and integrity at all times, which from now on is something we'll be monitoring very closely. In that respect, don't be surprised to be asked by someone in future (a normal member or a moderator), when a review is posted, whether or not that product has been bought yet by the reviewer, or if not, what exactly the situation is in that respect.

The answer given will determine how the review progresses from that point or not.

Marco.

[YNWaN]

I don't think you have to end up buying something to make the review legit - in fact, I don't see the relationship.I suppose if you give a rave review to something you can afford and end up not buying it, that's a bit questionable.

I wrote up my thoughts on the Arkless modified Cambridge phono (though I don't know if he still does these). I thought it pretty good but not as good as my own phono and so didn't buy one (said as much in my write-up). I did a big write-up on the Ryan Sound Lab boards for Naim pre-amps - when I wrote the review I didn't own them but I did buy them later on.

[Marco]

Indeed, Mark. The main thing we'll be preventing in future is traders, who run established businesses, deliberately (in a premeditated way) sending out products to members for review with the intention of generating false publicity for those products and/or their businesses.

If products are to be reviewed on the forum it must be because the reviewer concerned is doing so out of his or her own volition, where no form of personal gain is sought by them, or indeed provided by the seller of said products.

That's it in a nutshell

Marco.

[YNWaN]

Indeed, Mark. The main thing we'll be preventing in future is traders, who run established businesses, deliberately (in a premeditated way) sending out products to members for review with the intention of generating false publicity for those products and/or their businesses.

OK, well I see how they would be seeking to generate publicity - but how is that false publicity? What if the person it has been sent to writes that it's crap? In the magazine world manufacturers always seek to have their equipment reviewed by 'sympathetic' reviewers; for example, you wouldn't send out a new cable to someone who regularly stated that cables cannot make a difference and such a person is very unlikely to invest in a new cable to try for themselves.

If products are to be reviewed on the forum it must be because the reviewer concerned is doing so out of his or her own volition, where no form of personal gain is sought by them or indeed provided by the seller of said products.

If someone sends me something to try (Les W did this to me recently) without me asking for it, if I bring myself to write about it it is at my own volition. Things would be different if it came with a note saying something like 'write something nice and I'll pay you' (which it didn't I may add) - but I don't see how you can police against outright dishonesty.

[Marco]

OK, well I see how they would be seeking to generate publicity - but how is that false publicity? What if the person it has been sent to writes that it's crap?

It would come under that category if there existed an agenda of some sort, i.e. either to 'big up' the product concerned, for some form of personal gain, benefiting the seller or reviewer, or to intentionally attempt to damage the reputation of the product concerned and/or the business of a trade competitor. It applies to both sides of the coin.

If someone sends me something to try (Les W did this to me recently) without me asking for it, if I bring myself to write about it it is at my own volition. Things would be different if it came with a note saying something like 'write something nice and I'll pay you' (which it didn't I may add) - but I don't see how you can police against outright dishonesty.

Indeed. In that instance, were the same thing to happen again, when you posted the review, you'd be asked about the details that surrounded your reasons for reviewing the product, and if all was acceptable within the guidelines of the new ruling, you'd be allowed to continue with the review.

As I've said already, Mark, there are grey areas and people will have to be taken largely at their word. However, at least now we've issued a warning shot across the bows, as it were, to anyone thinking of abusing the forum in order to service an agenda.

I'm not sure there's anything further to add, lest we risk going round in circles, discussing ever more 'what ifs'. It's pretty clear what is required from now on. Therefore, I would ask that everyone respects the reasons for introducing these measures and abides by the new ruling, which will later be posted in its entirety in the appropriate area of the forum.

Marco.