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

[gleeds]

not making a big deal about it. but as the WBF co-owner Steve takes ad dollars from the industry and the forum has value related to the activity for the industry. therefore he is a part of it. not apart from it. his relationship with various manufacturers and dealers is certainly not like an influencer or regular audiophile....even though is is also both of those too. all of which is neither anything good or bad. simply part of the true picture.

Mike, no doubt Steve, is a passionate advocate for the brands he owns. He has also worked tirelessly to share positive comments about products, which, while not his particular flavor of jam, he admires greatly and, at times, like yourself, has taken some heat for it. That said, as two of the more famous influencers in the ultra high-end segment, I have never found either of you to be anything but genuine, as well as opening your homes to anyone who cared to listen to your systems and even enjoy a glass of single malt.

More power to you guys and less to those who talk shit when uninformed about what an actual component or system sounds like. I think we can all agree context matters.

 

[Tomictime]

it’s the influence of the single malt..i worry…er…worship..over

 

[gleeds]

it’s the influence of the single malt..i worry…er…worship..over

Exactly

 

[Synaxis]

not making a big deal about it. but as the WBF co-owner Steve takes ad dollars from the industry and the forum has value related to the activity for the industry. therefore he is a part of it. not apart from it. his relationship with various manufacturers and dealers is certainly not like an influencer or regular audiophile....even though is is also both of those too. all of which is neither anything good or bad. simply part of the true picture.

Should people who get special deals from mfg's to shill on forums be upfront about this in the interest of full disclosure?

 

[Rob181]

Should people who get special deals from mfg's to shill on forums be upfront about this in the interest of full disclosure?

Yes they should...

 

[Steve Williams]

In the case of the WBF forum: Although he used to be a dealer for Lamm and was a business associate of Joe Lavrencik of Critical Mass Systems, I don't see anything in Steve William's current profile that suggests he is a member of the audio industry. Ron Resnick hangs out a shingle saying he is a dealer for Clarisys Audio and Hegel Music Systems and indeed Clarysis Audio Global LLC lists him as a Clarysis dealer in California, so he is member of the audio industry.

Im just seeing this thread now

FWIW when I represented both Lamm and CMS they were indeed part of my signature

As an owner of WBF this was hashed out several years ago and if you recall I agreed with members who said an owner should not represent anything. Unlike Ron, I represent no one but yes I am passionate about what I own so please cut me a break for not having in my signature something that I no longer represent nor have I in years

This was posted over 2 years ago...

A Followup Re Divulging One's Industry Affiliation

It has always been part of the Terms of Service of Whats Best Forum that all members in the industry must divulge their industry affiliation in their Signature section. It has always been part of my signature divulging my affiliation. To that extent I continue to be reminded of my industry...

whatsbestforum.com

I find it interesting that I,as an owner, and no longer representing anyone, is taken to task that I dont have in my signature something that I no longer represent for over 2 years but it's otherwise OK for Ron as he does represent a product.

Really Mike and Tim, you should understand where I stand before you start making such ill conceived posts. I looked in the mirror one day.....and agreed with the membership who broadly stated that an owner should not represent any product. I agreed with what was said, rescinded my relationship and removed them from my signature. Now have you had a look in the mirror

As the saying goes, "people in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones"

 

[Rob181]

Im just seeing this thread now

FWIW when I represented both Lamm and CMS they were indeed part of my signature

As an owner of WBF this was hashed out several years ago and if you recall I agreed with members who said an owner should not represent anything. Unlike Ron, I represent no one but yes I am passionate about what I own so please cut me a break for not having in my signature something that I no longer represent nor have I in years

This was posted over 2 years ago...

A Followup Re Divulging One's Industry Affiliation

It has always been part of the Terms of Service of Whats Best Forum that all members in the industry must divulge their industry affiliation in their Signature section. It has always been part of my signature divulging my affiliation. To that extent I continue to be reminded of my industry...

whatsbestforum.com

I find it interesting that I,as an owner, and no longer representing anyone, is taken to task that I dont have in my signature something that I no longer represent for over 2 years but it's otherwise OK for Ron as he does represent a product.

Really Mike and Tim, you should understand where I stand before you start making such ill conceived posts. I looked in the mirror one day.....and agreed with the membership who broadly stated that an owner should not represent any product. I agreed with what was said, rescinded my relationship and removed them from my signature. Now have you had a look in the mirror

As the saying goes, "people in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones"

Speaking of mirrors - declarations should include - a financial interest/investment in the manufacture/wholesale/retail of an audio product - discounts received for hosting an audio "promotional" event. Otherwise "conflict of interest" issues could be raised...

 

[tima]

I find it interesting that I,as an owner, and no longer representing anyone, is taken to task that I dont have in my signature something that I no longer represent for over 2 years but it's otherwise OK for Ron as he does represent a product.

Really Mike and Tim, you should understand where I stand before you start making such ill conceived posts. I looked in the mirror one day.....and agreed with the membership who broadly stated that an owner should not represent any product. I agreed with what was said, rescinded my relationship and removed them from my signature. Now have you had a look in the mirror

As the saying goes, "people in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones"

You think you were being taken to task? For this?

"Although he used to be a dealer for Lamm and was a business associate of Joe Lavrencik of Critical Mass Systems, I don't see anything in Steve William's current profile that suggests he is a member of the audio industry. "

Looks like an accurate statement to me, wouldn't you say? I happen to agree with you that you are a 'private citizen'.

 

[gleeds]

Should people who get special deals from mfg's to shill on forums be upfront about this in the interest of full disclosure?

Michael,

I admire your channel and have enjoyed your insights on the high-end "arms race." I also appreciate your support for passionate, smaller brands that create reasonably priced products that truly resonate with consumers.

In today's highly competitive and overcrowded high-end market, deals from certain brands are often available upon request, meaning one does not have to be an influencer to secure them. As an experienced distributor of smaller, passionate, and relatively unknown brands, I understand that building a following and establishing a market presence takes years and a significant investment.

Although the subject has little to do with this post, I want to thank Steve, Ron, and Julian for providing a well-managed, affordable platform on which firms like mine can succeed if we are patient, diligent, and dedicated to servicing our customers. I look forward to discussing how we can build the industry with you via email and phone after the holidays.

P.S. I installed the second pair of darTZeel 458 monoblocks in the US ten years ago. Mike L. had the first and, as far as I know, still owns them today. At that time, the amplifiers cost $135,000, a princely sum. Nevertheless, they were the finest components—not just amplifiers—I had experienced in my 40 years of engagement with high-end audio, and they were genuinely transformative. It's unfortunate what happened to darTZeel, but knowing Herve as I do, I am confident he will continue faithfully supporting his loyal customers.

 

[Steve Williams]

Michael,

I admire your channel and have enjoyed your insights on the high-end "arms race." I also appreciate your support for passionate, smaller brands that create reasonably priced products that truly resonate with consumers.

In today's highly competitive and overcrowded high-end market, deals from certain brands are often available upon request, meaning one does not have to be an influencer to secure them. As an experienced distributor of smaller, passionate, and relatively unknown brands, I understand that building a following and establishing a market presence takes years and a significant investment.

Although the subject has little to do with this post, I want to thank Steve, Ron, and Julian for providing a well-managed, affordable platform on which firms like mine can succeed if we are patient, diligent, and dedicated to servicing our customers. I look forward to discussing how we can build the industry with you via email and phone after the holidays.

P.S. I installed the second pair of darTZeel 458 monoblocks in the US ten years ago. Mike L. had the first and, as far as I know, still owns them today. At that time, the amplifiers cost $135,000, a princely sum. Nevertheless, they were the finest components—not just amplifiers—I had experienced in my 40 years of engagement with high-end audio, and they were genuinely transformative. It's unfortunate what happened to darTZeel, but knowing Herve as I do, I am confident he will continue faithfully supporting his loyal customers.

thank you Gary for trying to bring some insight into these issues. As an owner it has for me been a difficult fine line to walk as some see the glass as half full and others as the glass half empty. I started this forum almost 14 yers ago because of my love for this hobby. Over countless decades now in this hobby I have met my best and longest friends. I have always been passionate about what I own and I have my entire life opened my house and room to everyone as I enjoy sharing the passion. Having said this, I again truly believe the community here has been correct in stating emphatically that an owner should not represent anything in this hobby and for that very reason I divested my interests so that I could concentrate on making WBF the best high end audio forum. To address the comment made about looking in the mirror about hosting an industry event because of conflict of interest merely proves my point as to how fine a line we walk. Rest assured I have done this my entire life as I enjoy the camaraderie of meeting new members in the hobby and for no other reason. I can state that I paid the entire costs of hosting these events out of my own pocket and not as an expense to WBF to avoid this very reason of what I was just made suspect for. All food and refreshments were paid for by me as I felt that was the proper thing to do. I can say that each event was not a trivial expense. I did it for the sheer enjoyment of sharing.....nothing more. Those who know me , know I am passionate about the hobby, my system and my desire to share. Nothing more, nothing less.

To be accused of guilt by association because WBF covers its expense with the use of banner ads and maybe at the end of the year makes a bit of money is plain silly IMHO. This has become a very huge and well read forum all because of the tremendous community we have here. Again, I thank everyone for that but I can assure everyone that it is a large and daunting task on a daily basis , so much so that for me I continue to have my best fun by hosting these open houses and letting people hear what they read about.. There is no ulterior motive other than showing what I have and nurturing friendships old and new, yet I am damned if I do and damned if I dont. For me this is how friendships are born and kindled. I advertise them openly for no other reason than I love doing such. So to all readers please put your guilt by association theories to bed.

 

[Ron Resnick]

A high-end audio consumer who develops a relationship with a dealer and who purchases from that dealer a component at the maximum discount typically offered by such dealer to repeat clients, and who then discusses the purchase and the component on WBF or on YouTube or on some other public platform, and who for weeks and months later posts wildly enthusiastic and hyperbolic reports and comments and reviews and encouragement about the component is not a shill. That is the behavior of a completely ordinary and typical high-end audio hobbyist.


PROPOSED DRAFT DEFINITION AND DRAFT DISCLOSURE RULE OF "HIGH-END AUDIO SHILL" FOR REVIEW, COMMENT AND PUBLIC DISCUSSION

Proposed Definition:

High-End Audio Shill: An individual in high-end audio (i) who is not a manufacturer, distributor or dealer, and (ii) who does not have any employment or independent contractor relationship or arrangement with any manufacturer, distributor or dealer, but a) who has an explicit or implied agreement, arrangement or understanding with a manufacturer, distributor or dealer, b) pursuant to which such manufacturer, distributor or dealer agrees to sell a component to the individual at a price which is lower than the lowest price at which such manufacturer, distributor or dealer would sell the component to a typical consumer or hobbyist, c) in return for such individual describing, discussing, promoting, reviewing or touting the component on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube or other social media platforms; on on-line forums or websites; or in magazines, and d) who does not disclose such agreement, arrangement or understanding in connection with such public description, discussion, promotion, review or tout.

This definition excludes an individual (i) who holds himself/herself out to the public as a reviewer of high-end audio components, and (ii) who publishes written or video reviews of high-end audio components as a regular course of conduct.


Proposed Disclosure Rule:

An individual whose activity satisfies the definition of "High-End Audio Shill" should disclose such activity in connection with his/her public description, discussion, promotion, review or tout.

 

[tima]

A high-end audio consumer who develops a relationship with a dealer and who purchases from that dealer a component at the maximum discount typically offered by such dealer to repeat clients, and who then discusses the purchase and the component on WBF or on YouTube or on some other public platform, and who for weeks and months later posts wildly enthusiastic and hyperbolic reports and comments and reviews and encouragement about the component is not a shill. That is the behavior of a completely ordinary and typical high-end audio hobbyist.


PROPOSED DRAFT DEFINITION AND DRAFT DISCLOSURE RULE OF "HIGH-END AUDIO SHILL" FOR REVIEW, COMMENT AND PUBLIC DISCUSSION

Proposed Definition:

High-End Audio Shill: An individual in high-end audio (i) who is not a manufacturer, distributor or dealer, and (ii) who does not have any employment or independent contractor relationship or arrangement with any manufacturer, distributor or dealer, but who has an explicit or implied agreement, arrangement or understanding with a manufacturer, distributor or dealer pursuant to which such manufacturer, distributor or dealer agrees to sell a component to the individual at a price which is lower than the lowest price at which such manufacturer, distributor or dealer would sell the component to a typical consumer or hobbyist, in return for such individual describing, discussing, promoting, reviewing or touting the component publicly on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube or other social media platforms; on on-line forums; or in magazines, websites or other modes or formats of public dissemination.


Proposed Disclosure Rule:

An individual whose activity satisfies the definition of "High-End Audio Shill" should disclose such activity in connection with his/her public description, discussion, promotion, review or tout.

Are you're saying that anyone in the recognized audio media who reviews a product and buys it on accommodation is what you, Ron Resnick, the co-owner of the WBF Web site, labels a 'high-end audio shill'?

 

[Ron Resnick]

Are you're saying that anyone in the recognized audio media who reviews a product and buys it on accommodation is what you, Ron Resnick, the co-owner of the WBF Web site, labels a 'high-end audio shill'?

Absolutely not. We need an exclusion for reviewers.

How would you propose to draft an exclusion to cover not only professional reviewers who are employed by the magazines (easy to define) but also reviewers like yourself at Positive Feedback? What do we do about YouTubers who occasionally publish a video self-characterized as a "review?" (My tentative answer off the cuff is that a YouTuber who occasionally publishes a video self-characterized as a "review" does not qualify for the reviewer exclusion.)

How about:

This definition excludes individual (i) who holds himself/herself out to the public as a reviewer of high-end audio components, and (ii) who publishes written or video reviews of high-end audio components as a regular course of conduct.

What other exclusions do you think we need?

 

[tima]

Absolutely not. We need an exclusion for reviewers.

How would you propose to draft an exclusion to cover not only professional reviewers who are employed by the magazines (easy to define) but also reviewers like yourself at Positive Feedback? What do we do about YouTubers who occasionally publish a video self-characterized as a "review?" (My tentative answer off the cuff is that a YouTuber who occasionally publishes a video self-characterized as a "review" does not qualify for the reviewer exclusion.)

How about:

This definition shall not apply to an individual (i) who holds himself/herself out to the public as a reviewer of high-end audio components, and (ii) who publishes written or video reviews of high-end audio components as a regular course of conduct.

What other exclusions do you think we need?

To be straightforward, I don't think there is a need for a definition of what is dishonesty in the audio world.

But, to play along for now ...

Rather than an exclusion for reviewers, I see this differently. I understand the recognized audio media to be an industry participant. They are recognized as such by the manufacturers, distributors and dealers (but mostly the first two) who send them equipment to write about. Industry level events such as trade shows allow recognized media to cover the event. That means publishers, columnists and reviewers are industry members and they accrue the same privledges as other industry members. Thus their is no need to set them apart and carve out exclusions for them.

So the boundary question is who is the recognized audio media? I think the answer is is pretty straightforward when thought in terms of publications. Publications are owned by publishers who have an established staff and a set of guidelines, rules and practices for delivering accurate and vetted audio information to their readers. The staff includes editors and writers. Editors (and sometimes publishers) are the gatekeepers for the guidelines, rules and practices and act in what they believe are the best interests of the industry. Writers receive approval in advance for the topics and components about which they write and their written product is reviewed by someone other than themselves before publication.

The lines are formal and anyone else is ruled out. One is not an industry member simply by declaring oneself an industry member.

I believe any industry participant/member should, in a straightforward way, identify themselves and their role as such on audio social media and the platform should require that. And it should be relatively easy for say, WBF administrators, to validate that identification.

A 'shill' is someone who pretends to be something/someone other than who they are or who fails to reveal who they are. The distinquishing mark of a shill is concealment. For example, someone who is a brand ambassador who pretends to be 'only' a regular customer. Or someone who receives discounted audio gear for promoting it on forums without revealing such is concealing what they are doing from other participants -- the so-called 'influencer'. This seems to be your target. Consultants who claim to sell or give away advice may or may not be shills but they are probably not industry participants.

 

[Synaxis]

In today's highly competitive and overcrowded high-end market, deals from certain brands are often available upon request, meaning one does not have to be an influencer to secure them. As an experienced distributor of smaller, passionate, and relatively unknown brands, I understand that building a following and establishing a market presence takes years and a significant investment.

Hi Gary,

Thank you for your post.

What you describe in the quote above is not what I am referencing.

I am talking about people who call up companies and shop around with the offer up front of exchanging continued shilling in exchange for a special unique deal up front and thus have developed a reputation among brands and dealers as a shill-for-hire. I'm also talking about people - some who are on this forum -- who are PAID by the companies to act like normal posters to exert undue influence. Although this is bigger in the pro side of sound, I've actually talked with companies who ADMIT to using people like this.

In fact someone was just kicked on AS last month for being one of these very people.

When certain people have inside information about a company going under and try to sell the stuff they bought at that certain special deal unloading on an unsuspecting public, that again puts them in place that is not an average normal consumer, but someone who has become part of the industry and thus IMO requires transparency.

Deals and working with others is great. All that is required is simple transparency.

Do I trust the opinion of a dealer on WBF any less than a normal poster? Absolutely not. I take all input and weight it equally regardless of the source as simply another data point.

As someone engaged in a 100% subjective hobby I only trust my own ears and urge the same of others.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Really Mike and Tim, you should understand where I stand before you start making such ill conceived posts. I looked in the mirror one day.....and agreed with the membership who broadly stated that an owner should not represent any product. I agreed with what was said, rescinded my relationship and removed them from my signature. Now have you had a look in the mirror.

did i take you to task? did i criticize? did i miss-speak? are you off limits to comment on?

obviously i offended you in some way, which i apologize for as it was the opposite of my intent.

 

[Steve Williams]

did i take you to task? did i criticize? did i miss-speak? are you off limits to comment on?

obviously i offended you in some way, which i apologize for as it was the opposite of my intent.

Yes Mike, I felt you did as you singled me out when there are 2 owners of WBF yet only my name was mentioned.

I have a psychiatrist friend who would always tell me that when someone says,"no big deal, BUT......" it is a big deal to them

This is why IMHO a thread of this sort serves no useful purpose because invariably it brings out agendas and people who have different views of things

As I said in my post, it is difficult for me to walk the fine line as it seems that many people feel as an owner, we should be totally silent or have no opinion. My zeal has always come from the pleasure I get from what I own and from what I can talk about yet when I do I "alone" am somehow criticized.

My house has always been a haven for people who share the love that I do , much the same as you as well. I never have an opinion about anything that I don't own and/or have never heard.

Apology accepted. TY

 

[Kingsrule]

Shill is a very harsh word

Another level is opportunist....I believe there are many on this and other forums and they should disclose those opportunities, most likely financial, when it involves comments they are making regarding their new acquisitions....

 

[Mike Lavigne]

@Steve williams

my post (see at the bottom) was in response to the post below from Tim, who addressed the 'Ron' circumstance. i simply saw you in a different light than Tim did, so wanted to make that point. you were not singled out away from Ron.

In the case of the WBF forum: Although he used to be a dealer for Lamm and was a business associate of Joe Lavrencik of Critical Mass Systems, I don't see anything in Steve William's current profile that suggests he is a member of the audio industry. Ron Resnick hangs out a shingle saying he is a dealer for Clarisys Audio and Hegel Music Systems and indeed Clarysis Audio Global LLC lists him as a Clarysis dealer in California, so he is member of the audio industry.

not making a big deal about it. but as the WBF co-owner Steve takes ad dollars from the industry and the forum has value related to the activity for the industry. therefore he is a part of it. not apart from it. his relationship with various manufacturers and dealers is certainly not like an influencer or regular audiophile....even though is is also both of those too. all of which is neither anything good or bad. simply part of the true picture.

 

[gleeds]

Shill is a very harsh word

Another level is opportunist....I believe there are many on this and other forums and they should disclose those opportunities, most likely financial, when it involves comments they are making regarding their new acquisitions....

Hi Gary,

Thank you for your post.

What you describe in the quote above is not what I am referencing.

I am talking about people who call up companies and shop around with the offer up front of exchanging continued shilling in exchange for a special unique deal up front and thus have developed a reputation among brands and dealers as a shill-for-hire. I'm also talking about people - some who are on this forum -- who are PAID by the companies to act like normal posters to exert undue influence. Although this is bigger in the pro side of sound, I've actually talked with companies who ADMIT to using people like this.

In fact someone was just kicked on AS last month for being one of these very people.

When certain people have inside information about a company going under and try to sell the stuff they bought at that certain special deal unloading on an unsuspecting public, that again puts them in place that is not an average normal consumer, but someone who has become part of the industry and thus IMO requires transparency.

Deals and working with others is great. All that is required is simple transparency.

Do I trust the opinion of a dealer on WBF any less than a normal poster? Absolutely not. I take all input and weight it equally regardless of the source as simply another data point.

As someone engaged in a 100% subjective hobby I only trust my own ears and urge the same of others.

Thank you for clarifying, Michael. I agree entirely that folks should trust our ears and the subjectivity of our hobby—what works for one person may not work for another. I believe forums, magazines, and YouTube should serve as platforms for researching products that interest us. It is frustrating to hear about consumers being taken advantage of due to a lack of disclosure from someone who claims to be an audio professional. Bad for everyone!