Should Industry Professionals Disclose Brand Affiliations When Commenting on Social Media?

[Ron Resnick]

Today I noticed on Facebook an audiophile proudly posting a photo of his room and components. I think the room is beautifully designed and set-up. The loudspeakers are Vivid Giyas and the electronics included Audionet. This room would be the envy of many of us.

All of the comments I noticed were very positive.



Dick Diamond, who works at GTT Audio, commented:

What a killer system with the Vivid Audio G1 Spirit speakers and the Audionet Pre G2 and MAX electronics. The combination of Vivid Audio and Audionet creates a beautiful synergy.

GTT Audio is the USA distributor of Vivid Audio and Audionet.

Please answer this poll:

In your opinion should industry professionals making posts or comments on social media in support of their brand and business interests disclose such affiliations as part of their posts or comments?

 

[Joel27]

I don't have any problem with individuals posting photos of their setup or reviews of various items. But as a consumer I would like to know if there is potentially any bias from the individual. Granted we all have a bias but if somebody works for someone or alongside someone I feel it should be announced so we, the consumer can apply this to the amount of weight we would like to give to an individuals views.

 

[Glide3]

Yes, disclose

 

[Synaxis]

I also think shills on the forums who pretend to be normal consumers but get gear at discounted prices to shill endlessly for the company should never equally required to disclose.

After all, they are more insidious than dealers.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I also think shills on the forums who pretend to be normal consumers but get gear at discounted prices to shill endlessly for the company should never equally required to disclose.

After all, they are more insidious than dealers.

With regard to the opening post we have a clear, bright line of industry professionals making a living from representing, promoting and selling brands.

With regard to hobbyists receiving discounts and talking about components they genuinely like because they bought them is a much more complicated and fuzzy scenario with no obvious lines let alone clear, bright lines.

 

[Synaxis]

With regard to the opening post we have a clear, bright line of industry professionals making a living from representing, promoting and selling brands.

With regard to hobbyists receiving discounts and talking about components they genuinely like because they bought them is a much more complicated and fuzzy scenario with no obvious lines let alone clear, bright lines.

Totally agree, Ron.

I just wanted to point out that many seem to forget about the shills - even the ones who are PAID to post by the companies pretending to be a product owner.

There was recently one banned from AS for that.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I just wanted to point out that many seem to forget about the shills - even the ones who are PAID to post by the companies pretending to be a product owner.

In my evaluation of these fact patterns I would consider this to be a distinct third scenario. I would consider this third scenario much closer to the first one which has a clear bright line.

Here the clear bright line is the existence of a formal and explicit financial arrangement pursuant to which the poster is paid by a company to perform a posting service to promote the brand of the payor. If the poster in this financial arrangement pretends to be a product owner but does not, in fact, own the product, this is another, additional element of malign deception, of misleading activity.

In no other industry of which I am aware would such deception, such false and misleading statements, such fraud on the consumer, be tolerated. Most industries have made illegal these kinds of deceptions and these kinds of false and misleading activities.

Even the record industry outlawed payola over five decades ago!

 

[Ron Resnick]

I would like to moderate a Zoom panel discussion with Michael Fremer, Tom Martin, Elliot Goldman and Jay Caceres to surface and to discuss these issues.

The hobbyists and the consumers in this industry deserve an airing and a discussion of these issues.

 

[Al M.]

I guess the one voter out of 11 (as of this post) who voted No is an industry shill.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I guess the one voter out of 11 (as of this post) who voted No is an industry shill.

I don't think that's fair. I don't think we should presume to know the underlying thinking of that voter.

 

[Lee]

Totally agree, Ron.

I just wanted to point out that many seem to forget about the shills - even the ones who are PAID to post by the companies pretending to be a product owner.

There was recently one banned from AS for that.

It’s very difficult to know if shills are a big problem. I have my strong doubts that this done in any volume based on my own experience.

1. When CEO of Nextscreen, I saw that the vast majority of high end firms were extremely tight with any cash for marketing. Even when presented with new options they often just shift marketing spend from one area to another.

2. When I was on Computer Audiophile, I argued for MQA because my honest reaction was that it sounded good. I was accused strongly and frequently of being a shill. I had several friends get accused as well. None of us were paid anything.

3. With respect to reviews, there is accommodation pricing but even then that is offered by 99% of the brands and the outcome is that reviewers always buy what they feel sounds good. In a way, “associated equipment” may be the most honest review of all.

 

[Lee]

Shill existence is like snake oil existence.

It gets talked about a lot but rarely is found in the real world.

And if snake oil doesn’t perform really well, the free market usually kills it off fast.

 

[Rob181]

With respect to reviews, there is accommodation pricing but even then that is offered by 99% of the brands and the outcome is that reviewers always buy what they feel sounds good. In a way, “associated equipment” may be the most honest review of all.

With respect - that is a very long bow. It is highly likely the discount becomes a significant factor on a sound improvement Vs $ spent rationale...

 

[Ron Resnick]

With respect - that is a very long bow. It is highly likely the discount becomes a significant factor on a sound improvement Vs $ spent rationale...

I don't agree. Sixty percent of a huge amount of money is still a lot of money.

To me the single most probative and informative piece of information in a review is if the reviewer bought (not long-term borrowed!) the component under review.

 

[tima]

Do forum owners and paid/unpaid forum employess consider themselves to be audio industry participants?

 

[Iamrael]

Today I noticed on Facebook an audiophile proudly posting a photo of his room and components. I think the room is beautifully designed and set-up. The loudspeakers are Vivid Giyas and the electronics included Audionet. This room would be the envy of many of us.

All of the comments I noticed were very positive.

View attachment 141644

Dick Diamond, owner of GTT Audio, commented:

What a killer system with the Vivid Audio G1 Spirit speakers and the Audionet Pre G2 and MAX electronics. The combination of Vivid Audio and Audionet creates a beautiful synergy.

GTT Audio is the USA distributor of Vivid Audio and Audionet.

Please answer this poll:

In your opinion should industry professionals making posts or comments on social media in support of their brand and business interests disclose such affiliations as part of their posts or comments?

Woah!
Dick Diamond AFAIK is not the owner of GTT Audio. Dick used to work for YG Acoustics and I am pretty sure Bill Parish still owns GTT Audio.

 

[Rob181]

I don't agree. Sixty percent of a huge amount of money is still a lot of money.

To me the single most probative and informative piece of information in a review is if the reviewer bought (not long-term borrowed!) the component under review.

Firstly your response presupposes the item in question is mega expensive. That does not have to be the case at all.
Secondly 40% discount off a genuine retail price is a significant & very tempting offer that Joe Average would never have a chance of obtaining.
Thirdly most reviewers review equipment that is within a reasonable price variance of what they own - for parity reasons if no other.
If I were in that position & I believed the item was better than what I had - there is no doubt I take advantage of the offer - none.

 

[Al M.]

I don't think that's fair. I don't think we should presume to know the underlying thinking of that voter.

Fair enough.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Woah!
Dick Diamond AFAIK is not the owner of GTT Audio. Dick used to work for YG Acoustics and I am pretty sure Bill Parish still owns GTT Audio.

You are correct. Thank you for correcting me. I edited the opening post to correct this and to say "Dick Diamond works at GTT Audio."

 

[ssfas]

I voted "No" because if you spend a load of money on something because you read about it on the internet, and didn't do what any sensible consumer would do like listen to the product (if it's audio), then you only have yourself to blame. You'd think that people with the cash for high-end hifi could make an intelligent decision for themselves, but then I suppose there are the trust fund kids and assorted members of the British Royal Family.

Plus we live in a world of influencers, for those who want to be influenced, and it's not like it's new. Claques were a form of institutionalised mafia-like influencing in the opera houses of Europe for centuries and it's a practise that goes back to Roman times. Back at the beginning, in the days of Euripides, rather than paying for self-promotion, the Comics and the Tragedians used to satirise each other, and there's nothing better than a bit of biting satire. We need a bit more of that to stop people taking themselves too seriously, because to the casual observer the high end audio market smacks of pomposity, top dog bragging and all that stuff.

Never mind all this puffery, it's a real shame we don't have people online calling a spade a spade. Clement Crisp, my favourite critic, was a reliable ballet observer for 60 years. I saw him at hundreds of shows and he never gave anything away. Here's one of my favourites:

It takes skill to make sex boring, but Glen Tetley pulls it off, aided by the turgid nonsense of Korngold’s Sinfonietta, a score actually written by Richard Strauss’s hairdresser . . . My sympathies are with the marvellous Darcey Bussell, cast as a prostitute whose unenviable task is to end the ballet by wriggling on the ground with all the amorous ecstasy of a grass-snake on heat.

The moment there's a whiff of negative criticism, all hell breaks loose. Last week MenditMark fixed an irreparable (according to Tom Evans) £25,000 Tom Evans Microgroove phono stage by replacing a $2 capacitor and at the same time made it look like a £25,000 pile of dog do-do. YouTube pulled the video on a claimed copyright infringement, it has been reposted on dozens of sites, Mark's become internet sensation and Tom Evans is wondering either if he'll ever sell another product, or how he got away with it for so long.

p.s. It's a very nice room, but the plug sockets seem to be on the wrong wall. Are the power cables running all the way round?

p.p.s. Am I not allowed to comment without disclosing my son used to work for Lawrence Dickie of Vivid and I got a 20% discount on a lot of product?