About a week ago, The Consumerist stumbled upon claims made by various gaming websites (specifically, Elite Bastards and Beyond3D) that graphics chip manufacturer Nvidia, in cooperation with the Arbuthnot Entertainment Group (AEG), had seeded various gaming and PC hardware enthusiast sites with pro-Nvidia shills. That is to say, that AEG would hire employees to create ‘personas’ in various gaming communities, slowly building up the trust of other members by frequent posting unrelated to Nvidia, to later cash in that trust with message board postings talking up the positive qualities of Nvidia’s products.
Especially the slimming ads...All those beautiful girls with attractive bodies, and body building guys... that they use in the ads?-Baseman (March 06, 2006, 12:08 PM)
Paid Product Evangelist that hide they are getting Paid
I have a friend that is a pretty popular blogger, and I asked him today why he had been talking about a certain product so much. He confided in me that he was being paid to be a product evangelist. When I told him that I had never heard him disclose that he was getting paid to evangelize the product he said that his contract had forbid him from disclosing this.
...
Over the last six months, Sprint has been trying to get bloggers (like me) to write about their new Power Vision Network by sending us free phones and letting us download music and movies and use the phones for free.
That’s rather nice of them, but honestly, I have a really strong aversion to writing about things just because some PR person wanted me to. Basically, there’s no better way to make me not want to write about something than to ask me to write about it. I accepted the free phone because, gosh, well, it’s a free phone, but I decided that I simply wouldn’t write about it no matter how much I liked it.
As it turns out, I had the opposite problem. The phone they sent me, an LG Fusic, is really quite awful, and the service, Power Vision, is tremendously misconceived and full of dumb features that don’t work right and cost way too much. So I’m going to review the dang phone anyway, even though if anybody from Sprint is paying attention they’re going to lose their lunch and some executive bonehead over there is going to go nuts and I sincerely hope that this doesn’t put an end to the entire free-phones-for-bloggers boondoggle, because I’d hate to get beaten up at Etech next year by all the other bloggers who would hate me for spoiling all the fun.
When it finally arrived, the physical appearance of the phone was rather disappointing. If you’ve been spoiled by Motorola’s latest phones, or the seamless, screwless, elegant iPod, the LG Fusic will strike you as butt-ugly. Where a Motorola RAZR has a solid case made out of almost sensual matte-black steel that just feels great, the LG Fusic is made out of the cheapest kind of gray plastic, the same material you find on a $3 toy. Where Motorola goes to great lengths to hide the screws, and minimize bumps and seams, the LG Fusic has dozens of ugly protuberances, gaps, holes, screws, seams, etc. Worst of all, the LG Fusic has no less than three of those evil, flimsy, rubbery plug-caps that are connected to the phone by the thinnest of filaments. You know, those stupid rubber plugs that you have to pull away to plug anything into the phone, and then they just dangle there like chicken wattles (when they’re not getting in the way of the thing you’re trying to plug in) for a couple of weeks until they finally tear off. The phone is almost twice as thick as a RAZR. It comes with a break-offable front plate which can be used to change the accent color of the very front of the phone. Your choices are Barbie Pink, Barbie Green, Barbie Blue, and Black which would be the only stylish choice, if only it didn’t clash so badly with the rest of the phone. (Believe me, it is hard to make black clash with anything, but LG did it.) Overall this phone seriously looks like a Fisher Price toy, not a top-of-the-line cell phone.
PS: I alas have had to pay for every single one of my graphics cards-iphigenie (April 06, 2007, 08:27 AM)
Where do you draw the line? If we say that you can't accept money for reviews, must we also say you can't accept anything of value for reviews? That is, is it wrong for me to accept a license to a piece of software in order to review it? I'm assuming this is OK (and I've done so myself), but how is the income I derive from free software different?
Of course, I have always disclosed any such arrangement. Is it simply the transparency that's important?-CWuestefeld (April 09, 2007, 01:49 PM)
Hmm... I guess we have to watch out for that mouser (https://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=2) guy then.-mwb1100 (October 13, 2008, 06:12 PM)
Take a look at the top 10 posters on this forum (https://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?action=stats). All of them would be perfect candidates for this type of paid posting, here. And if any of them did it, you probably wouldn't know it.But if any of us did that, it would probably be the same high quality posts we usually do, and thus the effect of it probably wouldn't be bad - even if the sub-morality of the things makes me nauseous. I really don't condone the idea, but at least it (probably) wouldn't result in the sub-par crap that spammers usually do.-app103 (October 13, 2008, 05:11 PM)
But if any of us did that, it would probably be the same high quality posts we usually do, and thus the effect of it probably wouldn't be bad - even if the sub-morality of the things makes me nauseous. I really don't condone the idea, but at least it (probably) wouldn't result in the sub-par crap that spammers usually do.-f0dder (October 13, 2008, 07:10 PM)
Hmm... I guess we have to watch out for that mouser (https://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=2) guy then.-mwb1100 (October 13, 2008, 06:12 PM)
What Amazon (and other sellers) should do (worldwide) is to state in ALL BELKIN product descriptions that reviews cannot be trusted and that Belkin business practices are highly dubious and immoral. Buy this item at your own risk.-Carol Haynes (January 19, 2009, 04:27 PM)
With that kind of money, I can see why it would be tempting :o
But even though I don't view myself as having super extremely high moral standards1 (#post_foot1), I don't think I could make myself post positively about something I didn't personally like or use.
...-f0dder (October 13, 2008, 08:06 PM)
We're doing lengthy QA on our products, websites and other things here. We're always looking for people to look with "critical eye" and "severe fault-finding".-vizacc (July 14, 2009, 07:18 AM)
It would be helpful if you mentioned what your products, websites, etc. are.yeah but not in this thread please -- this thread is about addressing bad behavior.
Reverb Communications is an extremely successful PR firm that claims to have “first party” and “personal” relationships with Apple.
(...)
Unfortunately, they don’t always follow the rules, and they have been stupid enough to tell that to prospective clients.
(http://www.mobilecrunch.com/2009/08/22/cheating-the-app-store-pr-firm-has-interns-post-positive-reviews-for-clients/)-http://www.mobilecrunch.com/2009/08/22/cheating-the-app-store-pr-firm-has-interns-post-positive-reviews-for-clients/
Should this be a surprise? Given the amount of 'advertising' on the internet theses days (and the depths that some of these 'advertisers' will plumb) I would be very surprised if any possible method is not being exploited openly and covertly.
Add to that the large web-factions that have gotten 'religion' when it comes to browser wars, operating system, platform etc. then almost anything printed on a webpage should be taken with a pinch of salt!-Carol Haynes (February 06, 2006, 09:38 AM)