This is what boredom does to you

[AJ6stringsting]

I have a lance tip from one of my Ancestors, he took from a unfortunate Spanish Conquistador, who was on an quest in Texas in the 1580's. I took it to an expert and he said it was made in the mid 1500's in Toledo , Spain .... my ancestors had harsh Immigration policies .... LOL !!!!

[Anderton]

Irony ?

 

No, humor. Did you not read the exchange about sacrifices to the forum gods? In case you took that literally, no, we do not make sacrifices to forum gods. Besides, they don't live in Canada. They live in New Jersey.

 

That's why I put a smiley there.

 

It works terrible.

Inadequate software, daily spam attacks, it's slow, buggy, I can't friggin' post unless I switch browsers, can't see videos, no gets fixed, no place to rant, most of the forums are more dead than alive, It sure is great. The decline is slow and steady, HC will most likely be gone within 2 years from now.

 

Do you honestly think what's happening now is a decline compared to a home page that never changed, content that stopped at February 5th, the marquee picture being a geriatric couple holding guitars, and a CMS where the cursor jumped all over the place when you typed?

 

We've spent the past month identifying and prioritizing bugs (we didn't even have all the "keys" to the site until last week), which involved all the editors, Nucleus Creative, and some helpful people from Gibson. We've also been dealing with domain name transfers so we could do useless little tasks like, you know, email and customer support. We asked for, and had approved, a budget to pay for fixes and enhancements (most of which you identified in your post - we're not stupid, we know there are issues that need to be fixed, or we wouldn't have asked for the budget to fix them). These will be rolled out in the weeks and months ahead. I'm contributing a lot more to the site, several new authors are contributing content, we've set up some content exchanges, Gus is back as a moderator, and advertisers are supporting us again because they want the site to succeed.

 

That's how we spend our time trying to restore the site. We haven't done any big "Harmony Central is Back!" campaign because until we get fixes in place, we'll just end up attracting people like you who complain about it. As I've said, Harmony Central deteriorated for many years, and bringing it back will take time as well.

 

By the way, in September 2013 there were multiple predictions that Cakewalk would be gone in a year. Didn't quite turn out that way...

[Dendy Jarrett]

Bieke:

 

There are a few things that you left out that beneficial regarding harmony centrals use of vB5

 

1) Once we get it dialed in - we'll pretty much have a proprietary user experience. No place else on the web will. And this means no one will hijack our data.

 

2) All or our data is vB native. If we migrate (as have done twice) to another software, we run huge risks of problems unlike any we face currently in vB5.

 

3) Because of this, we would have to customize the User Experience anyway, so why not continue to improve and make customizations to the software we are native to?

 

4) We are here making a difference and trying to to our part to grow the community ... you? We are part of the solution, not part of the problem.

 

5) You are still here posting and making cases for HC and obviously researching stats, and data, which leads me to believe that you care about the place. That said, if there are specific things you would like to see or address, you may e-mail me directly at djarrett at harmony central.com

 

Keep the faith people ... keep the faith.

 

D

[bieke]

yeah well, I'm going to take some time off from the forums

 

of course I care about this place, of course I want to be a contributing member

but as of late, I always revert to venting my frustrations, especially with vB5 yeah

the fact that HC has to spend resources and time and efforts to fix vB5, not cool

and another thing that I cannot seem to handle well is the fact that the slow revival of the HC community is, oh well

it's not that I miss the old days, but I was hoping to see more people returning, and more new members participating

another big frustration, that's why I check stats and stuff, to see if the forums are picking up again

 

its true, there's a lot of good things happening past few months

keep it up

I'll be back

[Goober(s)]

Disclaimer: I do not normally get this upset, but I've been answering the same ridiculous comment from this person for years, and I'm getting really, really tired of it.

 

 

When readers see a “review,” unless they’re informed it’s financially supported by the company under review, they assume – I assume – it’s not.

 

In this case, it is. A company gives you money and you generate text and conversation about their product.

 

As a reader, I’d like to know that, and there’s broad agreement that that ought to be clearly disclosed. However, most readers who come here through a Google link don’t know it.

 

The right thing to do is to tell them, in the words of the FTC, clearly, conspicuously, and with proximity to your content, not through a link.

 

While I am unable to find anyone off this board who doesn’t agree with that, oddly… oddly, you fight this tooth and nail. Even though you have spent your career informing people of things, you’re arguing that in this case, better not to inform them. You’re even offended by the suggestion that they ought to be clearly informed.

 

 

 

I'll explain why, but first things first. THE REALITY OF HOW PRO REVIEWS ARE FINANCED IS NOT "HIDDEN," so that's BS. IT IS IN AN FAQ, posted as a sticky at the top of the forum. If people CHOOSE TO IGNORE a sticky that says "PRO REVIEW FAQ AND FORUM RULES," that doesn't mean it's "hidden," as per the definition:

 

"kept out of sight; concealed"

 

I maintain this is NOT kept out of sight and concealed:

 

 

According to multiple sources, from the FTC to a universe of informed people who write about this very issue, you’re wrong.

 

FTC guidelines and best practices for blogging with integrity is that this information must be “clear and conspicuous” with same page proximity, not available solely through a link. It must follow the content.

 

Some guidance from well-informed sources:

 

“But remember that only hyperlinking to your Disclosure Page without making your disclosure directly in your blog post is not enough.”

 

http://bloggylaw.com/blogger-disclosure-examples-tips/

 

“It’s not enough to make a general disclosure on your About page anymore. The discloser must be contained in the post itself.”

 

http://diannej.com/2012/new-ftc-rules-on-writing-reviews-affiliations-and-sponsored-posts/

 

“The bottom line? Readers need to understand the relationship between a reviewer and the company whose products are being reviewed.”

 

http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/articles/2009/12/01/were_bloggers____we_get_stuff_for_free/?page=2

 

 

Here’s a site that offers advice on how to make such disclosures:

 

http://www.theshelf.com/the-blog/2015/3/13/influencer-marketing-what-you-need-to-know-about-ftc-guidelines

 

 

Next, look up "sponsorship," which is a word you have continued to use incorrectly FOR YEARS based on MY incorrect usage in the Pro Review FAQ (and I'll explain why I did in a bit). This is what sponsorship means:

 

"a person, firm, organization, etc., that finances and buys the time to broadcast a radio or television program so as to advertise a product, a political party, etc."

 

 

My use of the word “sponsorship” is not based on your use of it in the FAQ. I am using it (correctly) in its common usage to mean “financial support received from a sponsor.”

 

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=sponsorship+definition&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

 

Besides, sophistic arguments over defining “sponsorship” are aside the point. The bottom line is you ought to disclose the financial relationship clearly and conspicuously, however you choose to say it.

 

 

Now, explain to me how a Pro Review, which consists of content that can be contributed by anyone - supporters, detractors, companies, competitors, moderators, ANYONE - is an act of "advertising" by the manufacturer who, may I remind you, paid for bandwidth and the time of the moderator, NOT THE CONTENT.

 

 

That’s easy. The company gives you money for a Pro Review, not for time or bandwidth. They can get bandwidth cheaper at GoDaddy, and the Pro Reviewer is not free to do anything they like with their time.

 

In return for the payment, you agree to provide the company with a professional-level review and moderated conversation about their product. That’s what they’re paying for. They don’t have meetings and say “we’re going to give HC money to pay for bandwidth and moderator time and wouldn’t it be great if the moderator happens to write about our product.” They give you money with the clear understanding that a write-up and conversation will be delivered in return. They give you money, you give them a Pro Review.

 

And as you well know, Pro Reviews are part of their marketing strategy, not some vague purchase of “time” and “bandwidth.”

 

 

It's really offensive to me that I went out of my way to create a truly neutral review format that represents the voice of the people, has checks and balances, cannot be censored or altered by the manufacturer, and where no cynic would ever be able to say - as some ignorant people say is the case with all publications - that "advertising buys a favorable review."

 

 

That’s great. Now make them stronger by disclosing the financial relationship up front.

 

Incidentally, I too am part of that checks and balances, and it is mystifying to me why you are fighting the idea of simple disclosure at the start of every Pro Review. I’m not criticizing the Pro Reviews. I like them. I am only criticizing the lack of clear disclosure at the beginning of each one, which I would think you would embrace in the spirit of transparency. Again, such an easy blemish to remedy.

 

 

So go back to reading the blogs that ARE affected by the FTC ruling you cited many threads ago, but which you stopped citing after I read it -- and pointed out that it had nothing to do with how pro reviews are conducted, in terms of either the letter or spirit of the ruling.

 

 

Pro Reviews are affected by the FTC ruling. Here are citations from good sources that support that:

 

“The F.T.C. said that beginning on Dec. 1, bloggers who review products must disclose any connection with advertisers, including, in most cases, the receipt of free products and whether or not they were paid in any way by advertisers, as occurs frequently….

 

“If a product is provided to bloggers, the F.T.C. will consider that, in most cases, to be a material connection even if the advertiser has no control over the content of the blogs,” said Linda Goldstein, a partner at Manatt Phelps & Phillips, a law firm that represents three marketing groups, the Electronic Retailing Association, the Promotion Marketing Association and the Word of Mouth Marketing Association. “In terms of the real world blogging community, that’s a seismic shift.”

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/business/media/06adco.html?_r=0

 

 

“A rare trend among some bloggers is to receive a small fee in exchange for reviewing a particular product or writing a blog post about it. Under the FTC's new rules, all bloggers engaging in this practice would have to disclose that they are receiving a fee for their blog post….

 

Bottom Line: If you receive gifts, money or any other type of compensation from a product manufacturer or service provider you have to disclose it.”

 

http://www.pcworld.com/article/173169/faq_ftc_blog_endorsement_rules.html

 

 

“The FTC will require that writers on the Web clearly disclose any freebies or payments they get from companies for reviewing their products.”

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/05/ftc-bloggers-must-disclos_n_309819.html

 

 

And from the FTC document itself:

 

“when the Endorsement Guides were reviewed in 2009, examples involving blogs were included, to make clear that the FTC Act applies to this then-new form of social media marketing”

 

https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/press-releases/ftc-staff-revises-online-advertising-disclosure-guidelines/130312dotcomdisclosures.pdf

 

 

I used the word "sponsorship" because THERE WAS, AND IS, NO WORD that describes how a pro review works. That's why I had to write an FAQ so that I could explain the process. I then qualified the term as best as I could by saying "sponsorship buys space, not content." It absolutely boggles my mind that you cannot see that distinction.

 

 

“Sponsorship” is the right word, and sponsorship is not simply buying space. If it were, manufacturers would buy space elsewhere where it’s cheaper. They are buying a Pro Review which consists of a knowledgeable person using and writing about their product, and moderating a subsequent conversation.

 

 

HOW IS THE CONTENT CONTRIBUTED BY READERS, WHICH CONSTITUTES THE BULK OF MOST PRO REVIEWS, QUALIFY AS BEING "SPONSORED?" THE ANSWER: IT DOESN'T (unless all those people posting are being compensated under the table, and I don't know about it - which I doubt). YET YOU INSIST I SAY THAT IT IS.

 

 

Reader content isn’t sponsored. Reviewer content is. That spontaneous comments from readers follow a sponsored Pro Review doesn’t relieve HC of its obligation to disclose its own financial relationship with the companies under review.

 

There are many sites that have sponsored reviews followed by reader comments. They’re still considered sponsored reviews.

 

 

Going forward, I'll assume people are as stupid as you seem to think they are, and put at the beginning of every Pro Review "Please read the Pro Review FAQ and Forum Rules before participating." But I flat-out refuse to impugn the credibility of all the people who freely post their own opinions in there by saying that they're being sponsored and providing advertising services for the company that's paying SOLELY for the bandwidth and the moderator's time. That's what you want me to do by saying that "pro reviews are sponsored." The reviews are not. The bandwidth and moderator's time are.

 

 

That’s not a fix, for the reasons explained in the links above. Links to a FAQ are not enough; disclosure must follow the content, have direct proximity, and be conspicuous and clear.

 

Incidentally, it doesn’t matter how you spend the money you receive – you can spend it internally on anything you like and use that to parse the meaning of the word “sponsorship” all day long – the fact is you are receiving payments to generate Pro Reviews which is why they’re considered sponsored.

 

Furthermore, everyone understands that comments made by readers (at least those who are not astroturfing) are not sponsored. Indeed, it’s common for sponsored reviews to be followed by reader comments, so reader credibility is not impugned by your disclosure. You can make that explicit if you like, but you ought not to use reader comments as any kind of reason to get out of your own disclosure obligations.

 

Finally, it’s not about people being stupid. It’s that they come to the Pro Reviews from Google links and don’t realize that you’ve received payments from these companies.

 

If anything, it is you who are assuming your readers are too stupid to be trusted with clear disclosure. You think readers will conclude all sorts of nefarious things about Pro Reviews if you tell them about the financial relationship in a place they will actually see it (you keep assuming I am concluding these nefarious things – I’m not). In fact, by clearly disclosing this relationship, you’re showing that you trust your readers to have this information. In turn, they’ll trust you even more.

 

However, absent clear disclosure, you lose trust, and it dings your reputation, the site’s reputation, and moving forward, Gibson’s reputation.

 

 

If you want to suggest a disclaimer to put at the beginning of each pro review that "fixes things once and for all" by being FACTUALLY ACCURATE, is based on the ACCEPTED MEANINGS OF WORDS, and is much shorter than the FAQ (e.g., one or two lines), be my guest.

 

 

Happy to.

 

I’d write something like this (using, say, PreSonus as a sample):

 

“We are delighted to partner with PreSonus to offer you this Pro Review. Please know that although this Pro Review is brought to you through their support, our opinions are our own, just as your opinions are your own, and we look forward to hearing them!”

 

[AlamoJoe]

I love coming here.

I've been reading Craig Anderton's work since he was writing tech columns in Guitar Player Magazine. Followed him to EM and Recording magazine I still have clippings of some of his columns! (Somewhere).I've bought several of his books, built projects he diagrammed. I found Harmony Central by accident. When I saw his name, that is why I stopped...Checked the place out, and became a member. Since then I've found the place to be a fount of info. Free info. Free.

 

FREE means a helluva a lot to guy like me with limited discretionary funds. I bought a new pickup this last year and it was folks here that gave me the info and feedback I needed to steer me towards the one I ended up with. I'm not, and never have been a professional musician. I dreamt of it long ago, but I'm a hobbist at this whole songwriting/recording/musician thing. I've felt right at home though with these pros, and quite grateful to feel part of this place, and to have the bit of interaction I've had with guys like Craig, Phil, Lee Knight, Dendy, Bluetoblue, Markydesad, Dinkleberg, Buckstudent, Knotty, Voltan, Et. al.

 

If that means Craig or the other gentlemen and ladies that post reviews here review the products that the companies that support the place make....I don't care.....

 

Craig and Phil, to name a few, seem to me to be people of absolute integrity. I don't believe for one minute they would say something was what it was not.

 

I also see that no one gets banned for throwing freakin' molotov cocktails at the people that seem to be working the hardest to keep this place goin', and back to the place everyone sez it used to be. See, I missed all that I guess. I've only been here for a couple of years. I'm a nobody professionally.

 

But I've met so many cool people here. So many talented people...And people that are just fun to be around.

 

Everybody has a right to an opinion to be sure. Guess it just irritates me when some folks feel obligated to take a microscope to the tiny stuff they find, instead of kinda sittin' back and realizing...Hell...this doesn't cost me one cent!

 

 

 

 

[Anderton]

Goobers, I appreciate that you think you're standing for the right thing. But you keep ignoring really salient points.

 

You say: “While I am unable to find anyone off this board who doesn’t agree with that, oddly… oddly, you fight this tooth and nail. Even though you have spent your career informing people of things, you’re arguing that in this case, better not to inform them.”

 

What I’m fighting tooth and nail are your accusations that presenting a full and transparent disclosure in a prominent place is “hiding” things and being deceptive. That is total bull. I’m arguing that I HAVE ALREADY INFORMED THEM IN A CLEAR AND CONSPICUOUS PLACE, AND DESCRIBED THE ENTIRE PROCESS. AND – READ THIS CAREFULLY AND THINK ABOUT IT BEFORE YOU START CLAIMING DECEPTIVENESS – I DID THIS LONG BEFORE THE FTC ADOPTED THE GUIDELINES TO WHICH YOU REFER, AND DID SO VOLUNTARILY BECAUSE I WANTED TO BE TRANSPARENT.

 

I posted that FAQ in 2006. The FTC posted its guidelines about .com disclosures in March 2013. I joined Gibson in February 2013 and after that point, anything I did with HC was to fulfill contractual obligations. The only pro review that started in 2013 was Ableton Live 9, two months after the FTC ruling (which had not been fully disseminated by that point), and the review did not continue because I was no longer with HC.

 

Why is it so hard to understand that you’re complaining about my not doing something BEFORE ANY LAW AFFECTING WHAT I WAS DOING EVEN EXISTED??!?And I took the law into my own hands and described the process transparently even though I was under no obligation to do so because I specifically DID want people to know how the process worked?

 

That’s arguing that it’s “better not to inform them”? Wow. Just…wow.

 

“You’re even offended by the suggestion that they ought to be clearly informed.”

 

That’s also a total fabrication. I’m offended by your accusations of deception in light of the fact that I CLEARLY INFORMED PEOPLE, IN THE MOST PROMINENT OPTION OFFERED TO ME BY FORUM SOFTWARE, HOW PRO REVIEWS WORK EVEN BEFORE THERE WAS ANY OBLIGATION TO DO SO.

 

You accuse me of hiding things and being deceptive. Physician, heal thyself. You are hiding the fact that I went way beyond the norm at the time regarding disclosure, and you are being are deceptive in saying I'm arguing against informing people when I clearly made a point of informing people how pro reviews work.

 

And even though you provided multiple links, you’re overlooking the most obvious problem with your position:

 

1. The FTC can fine both the blogger and the company for not disclosing an arrangement where the company compensates the blogger for a review, positive mention, or sponsored post.
   

 

You are completely missing the point that the blogger (although it’s not a blog, it’s a free and open forum) is not compensated. The SITE is compensated.

 

With your reasoning, EVERY SINGLE REVIEW IN A MAGAZINE would start with “Companies pay for the printing, postage, and whatever fee the reviewer receives for writing this review. Therefore it is sponsored content.”

 

This is absurd and yet the situation is EXACTLY the same here, except for the fact that unlike a magazine review, others can comment as much as they want.

 

If the pro reviews start up again the post-FTC ruling environment, I’ll include something just so you’ll stop your incessant, disingenuous, and accusatory whining. But I’ll make it very clear what the reality of the situation is, JUST LIKE I DO IN THE FAQ, which has virtually nothing to do with the “bloggers get paid to say stuff and try to pretend they’re not being paid” attitude that the FTC ruling so clearly addresses.

 

What I object to is you want to put a disclaimer with the implication of “these opinions are paid for.” That is MUCH MORE MISLEADING than what you claim to be misleading.

 

I also noticed you completely ignored my request: “If you want to suggest a disclaimer to put at the beginning of each pro review that ‘fixes things once and for all’ by being FACTUALLY ACCURATE, is based on the ACCEPTED MEANINGS OF WORDS, and is much shorter than the FAQ (e.g., one or two lines), be my guest.”

 

Well?

 

[Goober(s)]

Goobers, I appreciate that you think you're standing for the right thing. But you keep ignoring really salient points.

 

You say: “While I am unable to find anyone off this board who doesn’t agree with that, oddly… oddly, you fight this tooth and nail. Even though you have spent your career informing people of things, you’re arguing that in this case, better not to inform them.”

 

What I’m fighting tooth and nail are your accusations that presenting a full and transparent disclosure in a prominent place is “hiding” things and being deceptive. That is total bull. I’m arguing that I HAVE ALREADY INFORMED THEM IN A CLEAR AND CONSPICUOUS PLACE, AND DESCRIBED THE ENTIRE PROCESS. AND – READ THIS CAREFULLY AND THINK ABOUT IT BEFORE YOU START CLAIMING DECEPTIVENESS – I DID THIS LONG BEFORE THE FTC ADOPTED THE GUIDELINES TO WHICH YOU REFER, AND DID SO VOLUNTARILY BECAUSE I WANTED TO BE TRANSPARENT.

 

I posted that FAQ in 2006. The FTC posted its guidelines about .com disclosures in March 2013. I joined Gibson in February 2013 and after that point, anything I did with HC was to fulfill contractual obligations. The only pro review that started in 2013 was Ableton Live 9, two months after the FTC ruling (which had not been fully disseminated by that point), and the review did not continue because I was no longer with HC.

 

Why is it so hard to understand that you’re complaining about my not doing something BEFORE ANY LAW AFFECTING WHAT I WAS DOING EVEN EXISTED??!?And I took the law into my own hands and described the process transparently even though I was under no obligation to do so because I specifically DID want people to know how the process worked?

 

That’s arguing that it’s “better not to inform them”? Wow. Just…wow.

 

“You’re even offended by the suggestion that they ought to be clearly informed.”

 

That’s also a total fabrication. I’m offended by your accusations of deception in light of the fact that I CLEARLY INFORMED PEOPLE, IN THE MOST PROMINENT OPTION OFFERED TO ME BY FORUM SOFTWARE, HOW PRO REVIEWS WORK EVEN BEFORE THERE WAS ANY OBLIGATION TO DO SO.

 

You accuse me of hiding things and being deceptive. Physician, heal thyself. You are hiding the fact that I went way beyond the norm at the time regarding disclosure, and you are being are deceptive in saying I'm arguing against informing people when I clearly made a point of informing people how pro reviews work.

 

And even though you provided multiple links, you’re overlooking the most obvious problem with your position:

1. The FTC can fine both the blogger and the company for not disclosing an arrangement where the company compensates the blogger for a review, positive mention, or sponsored post.
   

You are completely missing the point that the blogger (although it’s not a blog, it’s a free and open forum) is not compensated. The SITE is compensated.

 

With your reasoning, EVERY SINGLE REVIEW IN A MAGAZINE would start with “Companies pay for the printing, postage, and whatever fee the reviewer receives for writing this review. Therefore it is sponsored content.”

 

This is absurd and yet the situation is EXACTLY the same here, except for the fact that unlike a magazine review, others can comment as much as they want.

 

If the pro reviews start up again the post-FTC ruling environment, I’ll include something just so you’ll stop your incessant, disingenuous, and accusatory whining. But I’ll make it very clear what the reality of the situation is, JUST LIKE I DO IN THE FAQ, which has virtually nothing to do with the “bloggers get paid to say stuff and try to pretend they’re not being paid” attitude that the FTC ruling so clearly addresses.

 

What I object to is you want to put a disclaimer with the implication of “these opinions are paid for.” That is MUCH MORE MISLEADING than what you claim to be misleading.

 

I also noticed you completely ignored my request: “If you want to suggest a disclaimer to put at the beginning of each pro review that ‘fixes things once and for all’ by being FACTUALLY ACCURATE, is based on the ACCEPTED MEANINGS OF WORDS, and is much shorter than the FAQ (e.g., one or two lines), be my guest.”

 

Well?

 

It is not I who ignored what you wrote, but you who ignored what I wrote.

 

 

Bizarre, really, that you claim I "completely ignored" your request to suggest a disclaimer, when I ended my post with just that.

 

 

If you (re)read my post, you will see that it is there.

 

 

And your claim that you are unable to inform people clearly in the Pro Reviews because of software limitations is equally bizarre.

 

Simply write a sentence or two at the beginning of each Pro Review in italics and you're done. Not sure what software limitation is preventing you from doing that.

 

 

Your other points are also directly addressed in the various links.

 

 

Simply disclose the financial relationship clearly and conspicuously and you're good to go.

 

 

Magazines, incidentally, are also required to clearly disclose when a "review" is sponsored.

 

 

 

I’m arguing that I HAVE ALREADY INFORMED THEM IN A CLEAR AND CONSPICUOUS PLACE,

 

 

According to the FTC and multiple good sources (see my previous post), you are not.

 

 

Why is it so hard to understand that you’re complaining about my not doing something BEFORE ANY LAW AFFECTING WHAT I WAS DOING EVEN EXISTED??!?

 

 

Because it was considered ethical to disclose these relationships clearly and conspicuously even before the FTC issued its guidelines.

 

 

If the pro reviews start up again the post-FTC ruling environment, I’ll include something just so you’ll stop your incessant, disingenuous, and accusatory whining. But I’ll make it very clear what the reality of the situation is, JUST LIKE I DO IN THE FAQ, which has virtually nothing to do with the “bloggers get paid to say stuff and try to pretend they’re not being paid” attitude that the FTC ruling so clearly addresses.

 

 

I disagree -- the FTC guidelines are designed exactly for this situation, where a blogger (aka Pro Reviewer) doesn't know to clearly disclose the relationship absent their guidance.

 

 

"incessant, disingenuous, and accusatory whining" is.... well... not very nice.

 

 

You are doing something that is widely regarded as unethical, and it makes me uncomfortable posting here as a result.

 

 

Please don't make any changes to "shut me up." If you wish to shut me up, make no changes, and you'll see very little of me.

 

 

 

[Anderton]

I have two big problems with your disclaimer. The first is that it doesn't come close to disclosing as much as is in the FAQ and is therefore not accurate but a misleading summary. It doesn't make it clear that the company has no idea of how the pro review will turn out, has to pay to cover the costs in advance of anything being written, has zero control over how the review will progress, that the moderator is NOT being compensated by the company, the manufacturer is invited to participate, and that the purpose of the pro review is to provide a platform that cannot be controlled by the manufacturer. I think all those elements need to be mentioned. By not mentioning them, you are not presenting what I would consider a factually accurate and transparent description of the pro review process. It also leaves out the most important aspects of the pro review, but by putting that in every post, you are discouraging people from doing what they're supposed to do - read the FAQ and the forum rules to get the FULL picture.

 

Your "disclaimer" makes it look like the situation the FTC wanted to address - an author being compensated directly by the company in some way. That is simply not the situation, and hopefully I'll be able to describe it clearly enough a few paragraphs later.

 

The second problem is that you are asking the reviewer to write that. The reviewer does not partner with the company. MF or GC partnered with the company. They contacted the company, got the insertion order in place, took care of the paperwork, provided the bandwidth, provided a moderator, and were the ones directly compensated by the manufacturer. They were the ones who said to me, or Jon, or Phil that a company wanted to do a pro review and asked if we had the time. The only "partnership" I had with the reviewer was that if they chose to comment, we were both participating in a forum. But by those standards, I had a partnership with EVERYONE who posted in the forum because they weren't compensating me either, and participating in the forum.

 

But I've thought about it some more and I think I can see where the disconnect is. You want to apply a remedy to something other than the illness the FTC was trying to cure.

 

The FTC ruling came about to deal with the issue of bloggers who write about products and receive compensation from the companies whose products they were covering without disclosing that they were receiving compensation, either in the form of payment, free gear, junkets, or whatever. So yes, OBVIOUSLY it makes perfect sense that if someone is receiving direct compensation for what they write, that needs to be disclosed.

 

The difference is that I did not receive compensation from the companies whose products I was reviewing. In fact I was never an employee of Harmony Central, Musician's Friend, or Guitar Center. Musician's Friend or Guitar Center received the compensation, but they were not writing what you insist on calling a blog, nor were they contributing to the content in any way.

 

So that's the difference. By applying the FTC ruling that applies to a situation where the blogger receives compensation from a company whose products they're writing about to a situation where a moderator does not receive compensation from the company whose products they're writing about, you are drawing a parallel between the two situations that I feel is very misleading. It implies there is some kind of quid pro quo where none exists, and this is why I object so strenuously to planting a seed in peoples' minds that there IS a quid pro quo, and why I consider that misleading.

 

The analogy is much closer to magazine publishing, where an author is compensated by the magazine for what they write. BUT the compensation is even LESS direct with Pro Reviews, because I did not get paid specifically for pro reviews. I was paid for "editorial services" which encompassed moderating forums, spam removal, doing videos, editing other authors, marketing, writing articles, answering emails from people, attending trade shows, putting out the newsletter, etc.

 

And here's what's really, really offensive: I said "Why is it so hard to understand that you’re complaining about my not doing something BEFORE ANY LAW AFFECTING WHAT I WAS DOING EVEN EXISTED??!?" to which you replied "Because it was considered ethical to disclose these relationships clearly and conspicuously even before the FTC issued its guidelines."

 

Are you really and truly incapable of seeing that my posting an extensive, comprehensive FAQ as a sticky that clearly said "Pro Review FAQ and Forum Rules" and disclosed the relationship between HC and the pro review - both accurately and precisely, unlike your proposed disclaimer - was done in a way that I most certainly felt was clear and conspicuous? This is how forums were done. You put stickies at the top of important information that needed to be read so it didn't have to be repeated constantly within the body of the forum. I was following the procedures of the day to make a clear and conspicuous disclosure without needing any prodding from anyone, let alone you. And don't forget that even before starting the first pro review, I started a forum delineating my plans, and asking if anyone had a problem with that or felt the information could be compromised. No one did. So not only did I disclose what was happening once the pro reviews started, I disclosed what I planned to make happen to the community and asked for comments.

 

That's "hiding"? That's not being clear? That's not disclosing in full what pro reviews were about? That's being "unethical"? Get real. How the hell is this hiding:

:

 

 

It really offends me that you accuse me of being unethical when I went well beyond the norms of the times to make sure the process behind Pro Reviews was transparent and presented with a full, accurate, and precise disclosure, presented prominently in accordance with how important things were presented in forums, and whose tenets were followed during my tenure at HC when I did pro reviews.

 

There's a big difference between writing about something and being compensated by a manufacturer for writing about it, and writing about something and NOT being compensated by a manufacturer for writing about it. If you can't see that, It's pointless to continue this discussion because you will never, ever convince me there is equivalency between those two situations. Nor will you ever convince me that canvassing the community, then posting a thorough and complete disclosure prominently in the accepted way of posting important announcements - without being prompted by anyone to do so - is unethical and "hiding" something.

 

 

[Anderton]

One more thing. You said:

 

"You are doing something that is widely regarded as unethical"

 

That is wrong. The correct phrasing is "In my opinion, you are doing something that is widely regarded as unethical." And if anyone takes the time to understand the difference between the existence of a quid pro quo with a writer and a system that is set up specifically to insure the complete lack of a quid pro quo with a writer, they will understand your opinion is wrong.

 

Can you truly not see that if I did as you ask, and implied there was some kind of compensation from manufacturer to moderator, or partnership between the two of them, that would be highly misleading? You would be asking me to deny the reason why I started pro reviews in the first place - to minimize manufacturer influence so the people who said "you can't trust magazine reviews" would not have to wonder whether the same thing was happening with pro reviews.

 

You are correct that I want to inform people, but I want to inform them with facts. I appreciate the attempt, but your "disclaimer" was misleading and inaccurate. I didn't "partner" with anyone, and neither did Jon or Phil.

 

I've said it before, but I'll say it one last time: companies paid for bandwidth and a moderator, not content. I provided content and moderation. HC/MF/GC provided the bandwidth and moderator. They got the compensation, but they never presented their opinions in the forum, so by definition they could not have made statements that were influenced by the compensation they received.

[Mark L]

I've started a thread about this Anderton/Goobers battle-of-the-Titans over at my forum

 

 

 

Edit: Deleted it. Pretty stupid idea, really

[Ernest Buckley]

Hey Mark,

 

Speaking of your forum…. we need more of these over there….

 

 

 

And my all time fav….

 

which is perfectly suitable for this thread.

 

I`m out.

[blue2blue]

 

Craig, you've explained yourself thoroughly and clearly. I don't think you need to waste any more words here. I don't think any reasonable person who reads both your explanation and the complaints against it will need anything else to sort the issues. The party arguing with you fails to persuade on point after point.

[Luke17]

I am just wondering how Nads thread about starting a Forum sequed into a Battle Royale?

[Anderton]

Craig, you've explained yourself thoroughly and clearly. I don't think you need to waste any more words here. I don't think any reasonable person who reads both your explanation and the complaints against it will need anything else to sort the issues. The party arguing with you fails to persuade on point after point.

 

Fair enough, but I've figured out how to distill it down to two sentences. I don't see how anyone could disagree with this, especially if you replace "blogger" with the more accurate "forum moderator.".

 

If a blogger is compensated by a manufacturer for writing about the manufacturer's goods or services, that needs to be disclosed - hence the FTC guidelines.

 

If a blogger is NOT compensated by a manufacturer for writing about the manufacturer's goods or services, to imply that compensation is occurring is dishonest, and IMHO Goobers is asking me to be dishonest.

[blue2blue]

It seems to me that you've explained the system fully and in detail. If people don't like how it works, given this explanation, they should simply not participate in the parts of the site they have issue with.

[Ernest Buckley]

It seems to me that you've explained the system fully and in detail. If people don't like how it works, given this explanation, they should simply not participate in the parts of the site they have issue with.

 

Amen, and therefore, I don`t.

[Anderton]

Those who understand the difference between "Blogger IS compensated by manufacturer" and "Blogger IS NOT compensated by manufacturer" can continue to enjoy the Pro Reviews...if they ever start up again.

 

I figure it's like this. You can assume that all reviews are tainted, and therefore not read or participate based on that assumption. Or, you can read the reviews and see if there's any information that's not factual and make a decision based on data instead of assumptions as to whether someone writes credible reviews or not. Some writers do, some don't.

 

People who do read my reviews do so because they understand I truly believe no one cares whether I like something or not (and if they do, they shouldn't). What I believe makes for a good review is to describe something with sufficient accuracy that readers can decide for themselves whether the product meets their needs or not.

 

But if the upfront assumption is that a writer is too stupid to realize the readers are his boss, not the manufacturer, then there's not much I can say. Sure, manufacturers buy ads. But they don't buy ads if the magazine doesn't have readers, or the web site doesn't have visitors.