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

[Ron Resnick]

Shill is a very harsh word

It certainly is pejorative. But it does embody the essence of the activity we are trying to proscribe.

That's why this is an open discussion effort. Thank you for your comment.

"Opportunist" just doesn't seem specific enough to me to suggest the kind of activity we are trying to define.

What else would you suggest?

 

[Rt66indierock]

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....

But shill is a perfect term. Have you forgotten the MQA shills from John Atkinson, Robert Harley and about 300 other people who can get a press pass. And who could forget our favorite MQA shill here Lee. Only one person with a press pass opposed MQA Doug Schneider of Soundstage.

The disparity of these numbers is hard to reconcile.

 

[Rt66indierock]

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.

Then how do you deal with someone like me?

 

[Rt66indierock]

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

I agree this thread is a mess and harms the reputation of this forum.

I look at it this way. Who is a limited purpose public figure in the audiophile world? They should be disclosing what they are up to.

 

[Republicoftexas69]

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.

I agree though I have had manufacturers offer equipment to try, in the hopes they get a positive review. Not here but on other forums. Personally I do not have the time for such nonsense.

 

[Ron Resnick]

But shill is a perfect term. . . . And who could forget our favorite MQA shill here Lee.

Are you alleging that Lee's MQA-related activity satisfies each of the conditions in my draft definition, above?

While presently I am thinking of my definition as just a "think piece," it has utility potentially in that it can be used both offensively and defensively. It can be used defensively if somebody makes an allegation of somebody else being a "shill" and cannot substantiate the allegation by running the facts through the definition. Failure of the alleged facts to satisfy the definition proves that the allegation is a false allegation.

 

[Ron Resnick]

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

I'm not sure there is either. This is just a "think piece." Although the slur "shill" is thrown around pretty casually. It might be worthwhile to do a little work on coming up with a functional definition. A functional definition might put the ka-bash on a lot of loose and ill-considered allegations.

But, to play along for now ...

Thank you.

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.

It depends how we write the definition. Industry participant is a complicated concept that would have to be carefully defined. I agree that recognized media and industry participants are the easy cases.

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.

I agree, but again these are the easy cases.

One is not an industry member simply by declaring oneself an industry member.

I agree.

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.

I agree. If we were writing industry self-regulatory ethics rules I would have this on the list.

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.

Yes, these are the difficult cases. The post-legacy media cases are the difficult cases.

 

[Rt66indierock]

Are you alleging that Lee's MQA-related activity satisfies each of the conditions in my draft definition, above?

While presently I am thinking of my definition as just a "think piece," it has utility potentially in that it can be used both offensively and defensively. It can be used defensively if somebody makes an allegation of somebody else being a "shill" and cannot substantiate the allegation by running the facts through the definition. Failure of the alleged facts to satisfy the definition proves that the allegation is a false allegation.

Ron, I’m not playing your game. Use the dictionary of definition of a shill like we did years ago when we fought the MQA shills.

informal•North American

noun

1. an accomplice of a hawker, gambler, or swindler who acts as an enthusiastic customer to entice or encourage others.

Just for laughs I went back to the Steve Hofman Music Forum and of course my own MQA is Vaporware thread and looked at some of Lee’s classic posts. Looking back, it’s sad the way Lee cozied up to Mike Jabra and Ken Forsythe in person. Or just look at all the Peter McGrath references.

You are years too late to change the definition in the audiophile world. We like our shill hunts too much.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Ron, I’m not playing your game. Use the dictionary of definition of a shill like we did years ago when we fought the MQA shills.

informal•North American

noun

1. an accomplice of a hawker, gambler, or swindler who acts as an enthusiastic customer to entice or encourage others.

Nope. This definition does not work in this hobby. Almost every high-end audio hobbyist is an "enthusiastic customer to entice or encourage others." Bolting in front "accomplice," "gambler" or "swindler" is inapposite.

Just for laughs I went back to the Steve Hofman Music Forum and of course my own MQA is Vaporware thread and looked at some of Lee’s classic posts. Looking back, it’s sad the way Lee cozied up to Mike Jabra and Ken Forsythe in person. Or just look at all the Peter McGrath references.

This proves nothing. Just enthusiastic hobbying.

You are years too late to change the definition in the audiophile world.

Apparently, the definition never worked.

We like our shill hunts too much.

That may be, but your over-broad "definition" is nothing but an all-purpose slur. It proves too much. Almost hobbyist in the entire hobby is, under your definition, a shill. It should be obvious that that doesn't work.

You should not accuse people of being shills unless you have some alleged facts of undisclosed financial arrangements to back it up.

 

[Rob181]

Nope. This definition does not work in this hobby. Almost every high-end audio hobbyist is an "enthusiastic customer to entice or encourage others." Bolting in front "accomplice," "gambler" or "swindler" is inapposite.


This proves nothing. Just enthusiastic hobbying.


Apparently, the definition never worked.


That may be, but your over-broad "definition" is nothing but an all-purpose slur. It proves too much. Almost hobbyist in the entire hobby is, under your definition, a shill. It should be obvious that that doesn't work.

You should not accuse people of being shills unless you have some alleged facts of undisclosed financial arrangements to back it up.

 

[Rob181]

That may be, but your over-broad "definition" is nothing but an all-purpose slur.

Its an accepted "dictionary" definition.

Almost hobbyist in the entire hobby is, under your definition, a shill.

Please - that is just a nonsensical statement. Surely your not really suggesting that most WBF members are "an accomplice of a confidence trickster or swindler". The hobbyist who posts his opinion/s is not a shill by definition as there is no financial reward. The only gratification a hobbyist receives is to his/her ego.

It should be obvious that that doesn't work.

The distinction between a shill & a hobbyist is easy to make if the rules & regs of WBF state that "thou shalt disclose affiliations or financial reward when posting about a product". It really should be in their "signature" as all the honourable WBF members do - "gleeds" declaration being an excellent example...

 

[Ron Resnick]

Its an accepted "dictionary" definition.

But it just doesn't apply directly.

Please - that is just a nonsensical statement. Surely your not really suggesting that most WBF members are "an accomplice of a confidence trickster or swindler".

I made my point in a confusing way. Sorry. Yes, of course WBF member's are not "an accomplice of a confidence trickster or swindler". My point was the definition just doesn't make any sense to apply in this hobby context. The fact that those elements are even part of the definition proves it's the wrong word to use for the activity in question in this hobby.

The hobbyist who posts his opinion/s is not a shill by definition as there is no financial reward. The only gratification a hobbyist receives is to his/her ego.

Exactly! This proves my point! Unless there is a financial reward the label "shill" does not apply and should not be used.

This is precisely why at the core of my admittedly complicated definition is financial gain.

The distinction between a shill & a hobbyist is easy to make if the rules & regs of WBF state that "thou shalt disclose affiliations or financial reward when posting about a product".

This is something to consider to implement the ethical consideration behind this thread.

"gleeds" declaration being an excellent example...

I agree!

 

[Tuckers]

I'm glad you started this thread @Ron Resnick, I know many professionals do not like to see the dark underbelly of this industry brought to light. But its these things that have the potential to improve its quality. I frequently wonder why well known members here that are known industry people (including reviewers) don't include this on their signature. Some use the term 'Industry Expert' but this does not actually tell us enough to gauge their participation or possible biases.

Also, I surmise that most of the active members here do not buy most of their equipment at the MSRP. From getting a 'good customer' 20% off to 40-50% off for industry accommodation, to 100% discounts and equipment swaps. It is a slippery slope just on those factors alone.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I would very much like to be a shill. Audio companies please contact me by PM and bring a cheque book.

Thank you for disclosing the arrangement. You are setting a great example!

 

[treitz3]

Who wouldn't?

Tom

 

[tima]

Also, I surmise that most of the active members here do not buy most of their equipment at the MSRP. From getting a 'good customer' 20% off to 40-50% off for industry accommodation, to 100% discounts and equipment swaps. It is a slippery slope just on those factors alone.

It isn't that unusual to find MSRP has a discount built in. In other words the dealers margin is large enough to assume a discount is given. I don't see where discounts tie into affiliation disclosure.

What is a slippery slope?

 

[soliver]

I'm glad you started this thread @Ron Resnick, I know many professionals do not like to see the dark underbelly of this industry brought to light. But its these things that have the potential to improve its quality. I frequently wonder why well known members here that are known industry people (including reviewers) don't include this on their signature. Some use the term 'Industry Expert' but this does not actually tell us enough to gauge their participation or possible biases.

Also, I surmise that most of the active members here do not buy most of their equipment at the MSRP. From getting a 'good customer' 20% off to 40-50% off for industry accommodation, to 100% discounts and equipment swaps. It is a slippery slope just on those factors alone.

For someone who is an industry professional by signature, this seems extremely dark; underbelly, slippery slope. Yikes! So I agree with Tima, as a small business owner (non-audio), if you aren't valuing loyalty on pricing, you are risking losing business in the future.

 

[Tuckers]

My point is that if most transactions have a discount built in, at what percentage do considerations towards a brand kick in? It can be hard to draw a bright line as Ron states it.

 

[Ron Resnick]

. . . 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 . . .

 

[andromedaaudio]

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

No an income statement is more then enough