Thread: A Confused Citizen

If I may? I was around when it happened, and I remember well that a lot of thought and careful deliberation went into the exact wording of the vendor rules. And they worked well enough for a while. Then the "artisans" came along. And then the vendor rules didn't really work that brilliantly any more.

Here is the kicker:

Originally Posted by Pithor

1. have a commercial website on which you offer shaving related products;
2. buy or make items with the sole intent to re-sell them.

Yet some of these members do not have a vendor badge.

I won't name names, either. I would not want to turn this into a witch hunt. But I did do some quick research, and came up with ten people who ought to have a vendor badge, but do not. If you do not believe me, pick any artisan with a high post count but without a vendor badge, and run the result through your search engine of choice along with +custom +(brush* OR razor*).

I think that the vendor badge serves an important purpose: It gives members, especially beginners, the ability to put what that vendor writes, or displays, into perspective. Moreover, it gives members, again: especially beginners, the ability to put what other members say about this vendor and his products into perspective. Because it has long been established that some (not all by any means, but the more aggressive ones) do incentivise buyers to either write positive reviews, or encourage other people to buy their products. There are, for example, rewards programs.

Now, I am not saying that rewards programs are bad. They are a legal way of boosting one's sales. But in the context of SRP's rules, they are illegitimate if the vendor cannot be identified as a vendor.

Again without naming names, several lines of shaving products, allegedly all made by the same individual, started having major success out of the blue some time ago. The interwebs were flooded with lyrical reviews, semi-professional Shave of the Day shots, and seemingly regular members kicking up a major fuss when these products were negatively criticised. I know, because I run a tiny, and highly specialised community with very limited access. Some of us tried these products, thought they were a cruel joke, wrote scathing reviews. Literally minutes later the "artisan" tried to join (under several guises, but some of us have an intelligence background, and we are not easily given the run-around), and when he was refused access, several previously dormant members began to relay messages, or became highly abusive themselves.

Gentlemen, make no mistake. There is a lot of money to be made in this business. And I am using the term business deliberately, because in my opinion, a lot of the spirit that made the straight razor shaving scene special several years ago has been knocked out of it by rigged reviews, shilling, and other kinds of illegal behaviour. And I hate that.

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

Honestly, AFAIK ....... no vendor has given a moderator an item for free in exchange for a review. If they did, I would expect the reviewer would say so.

I am afraid that is provably wrong. I was given quite a bit of stuff. Lots and lots, to be precise. When the reviews section still existed, I had something like 70 in-depth reviews in there. Of course I didn't buy all of the products. And on four occasions, I did not divulge the source. For good reasons, mind you, but I didn't. And I regret that. Now, those who remember my reviews will, I hope, remember them as balanced, and I did occasionally slam a product. But...

I want to know if someone giving seemingly helpful advice, or posting beautiful pictures, is doing that because he's a genuinely nice chap (the vast majority are, thank God), or because he's trying to boost his sales. I really want to know. And therefore, I wish more vendors wore a vendor badge. If they are genuine, they could wear it with pride. Lynn, Glen, several others - genuinely good people who happen to make money by selling shaving related goods. Great! We need more products. Choice is good.

Thank you for your consideration,
Robin

Originally Posted by Pithor

I am aware that the review section is (sadly) no longer accessible, but encouraging vendors to offer their items for review in order for exposure may cause issues with those reviews not necessarily being unbiased, no matter where they are published. If those samples are paid for by the reviewer or a disclaimer is added that they were not then this of course would be a lesser issue, though.

I am not aware of the existence of any such review neither in the no longer existing section nor anywhere else on SRP. I'm, however, pretty sure that there are number of reviews by members who were given incentives by the vendor but who haven't disclosed the conflict of interest.

The point is that we have no control over any shenanigans that members may be engaging in but if people chose to go through the process above, we will know that a free product is being provided for a review, we can pick a reviewer with experience and integrity to provide a honest review, and ensure that there is a disclosure the product was given for free. Furthermore, I don't expect that the reviewer would get to keep the stuff if it's of significant value, most likely it'll be raffled in some sort. That's what happened with the razor Thiers-Issard sent to Lynn back in 2007 or 2008 when they were switching to the c135 steel.

But that's only theoretical because this is not something that happens. During my time in charge I've gotten exactly one request for a review of an aftershave (may be six to twelve months ago). I found a senior moderator who was willing to review it, passed their address to the manufacturer/vendor and I don't think it went any further. One more vendor inquired about it, but I think they expected some assurances that it would be positive review i.e. marketing, because after I told them that it is a simple process of selecting an experienced member of our choosing and they will provide honest review they decided it 'may be something to consider down the road'.

Perhaps that's precisely why it is not something popular - it is not a marketing device.

Originally Posted by Pithor

Secondly:

I understand that the majority of the panel are not vendors, but nonetheless: is there not at least a slight conflict of interest of any vendors having a say in vendor policy? There must be at least five Senior Mods who are not vendors, I would think. I would be most obliged if any of the Senior Mods could clarify how exactly I am to understand this.

Here is the current list of senior moderators:


There are 6 of them, 2 are vendors 4 aren't.

Jimbo already gave a very good account of why things are the way they are.

The way I look at it is that we have to work with what we've got. Absolute commercial purity is impossible, so the objective is pragmatic - keep the priorities straight. The commercial side should not be front and center, like it is on many other places, but should rank towards the bottom of things.

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

Honestly, AFAIK ....... no vendor has given a moderator an item for free in exchange for a review. If they did, I would expect the reviewer would say so.

Why there are no reviews anymore is a separate issue having to do with dev stuff that I don't understand, so I won't attempt to explain it.

I did not mean to imply that Moderators here are for sale. I just found it a bit strange that getting people to write reviews on products is actively encouraged by the moderation team as a marketing tool. This was not one of my main concerns, though, but I felt it deserved a mention.

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

As Jimbo noted in his post, this vendor/rules stuff sort of evolved as it became necessary. I wasn't a mod when it began. Off the top of my head I don't know that there are that many seniors, that are not vendors, to choose from. We sort of assume that the vendors who are seniors, and are on the vendor panel, can be trusted. For sure if any one of the team felt there was a conflict the issue would be discussed.

Originally Posted by gugi

Here is the current list of senior moderators:


There are 6 of them, 2 are vendors 4 aren't.

Jimbo already gave a very good account of why things are the way they are.

The way I look at it is that we have to work with what we've got.

Good to hear. And I understand there have to be made pragmatic choices and that you have to work with the tools you have. However, to those who do not have intimate knowledge of the exact composition, practical functioning and personalities of the group of Senior Moderators and Vendor Panel, I think you will have to agree that having vendors as a part of the body that decides on the Vendor Policy and its enforcements at least seems like a direct conflict of interest, even if these specific vendor/moderators have no absolute power and can be trusted not to abuse their position (like I consider Max and Glen to be). For illustration, take for instance the hypothetical situation of a (Dutch) Minister of Infrastructure and Environment having (or spouse/direct relatives with) a large share in a construction company. It does not mean that the Minister is corrupt, but that is besides the point - that is not what a conflict of interest means. A conflict of interest exists, whether it is abused or not.

Originally Posted by gugi

Absolute commercial purity is impossible, so the objective is pragmatic - keep the priorities straight. The commercial side should not be front and center, like it is on many other places, but should rank towards the bottom of things.

I agree. The commercial aspect should definitely be kept in the background on a hobby forum such as SRP. Which is why I believe it should, in turn, be treated as a high priority aspect of moderation, because there is a lot of potential for business around here.

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

As to the third and following questions ........ I can't answer those. Someone will be along. As I noted, most of this stuff was instituted before I came along to the team. I haven't memorized the rules, and frequently have to go back to them and check to see if this, that , or the other is allowed when I'm confronted with a reported post.

Not trying to avoid it, I just don't feel competent to explain what I haven't taken the time to understand myself.

Which raises another question: does this mean that the Vendor Policy has not been under serious scrutiny or revision since 21 December 2010? That would surprise me, bearing in mind the developments in the shaving scene over the past five years e.g. the boom in "artisan" businesses and a large increase in forum members. Now, I am all for 'If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it,' but a good, hard look every now and then at if and how the rules can be made to serve the SRP membership better 'wouldn't hurt none'.

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

Thanks for the kind words. Forgive my bringing some humor to your serious post (post #4) I couldn't resist.

I do not mind humour, Jimmy. Not in the slightest. In fact, I value it as an effective tool in communication.

Why, I oughta,

Pieter

Pithor, if you have something to sell, I wish you would just come out with it. Plus I would like first dibs.

Probably pretty useless to try and explain that Max and I as vendors actually do more to help new would be vendors get their ducks in a row so that they can actually get a badge

So I wont

So with curiosity, I ask what is it about the "Vendor" badge that folks have and aversion to and or difficulty getting? Its evident to me that the vendors corner of this forum is under utilized and yet this forum is flooded with posts of things that are obviously "for sale". Not that any of this bothers me I like free market environments but I understand certainly this forum should not degenerate into some "wet shaving bazaar". Is there anyway to corral this show and tell with intent to sell to some easily defined area? Or would it be too much of a PITA. Just thinking out loud.

Regards

Interesting question, and read.
I think the spirit of sharing on SRP, and the challenge of teaching hands on skills in a hands off medium such as the web has been, and continues to be handled very well. Scammers and shills seem to be shut down very quickly.
Experience begets credibility and Glen, Max, etc, and their informative videos and DIY's have helped me not ruin at least 20 blades over the last three years. Never really looked at vendor vs non vendor ratings I just trust what makes sense from those who have been prolific and transparent in their posts, explanations, and yes, sometimes snide responses to flames or farts.
As Tom said, one day all my stuff will be for sale, but that is not why I hit this forum almost daily.
Although I have bought a number of treasures on the classifieds, to me it never mattered if it came from a vendor or member. What I learned, from the vendors allowed me to make informed choices all by myself.
One day I may feel qualified to make blades from scratch. I would hope I could send some out to existing experts in this field such as Glen, Bruno, Max, Richard, Jimmy, Tom etc for hands on feedback.
If their feedback was positive enough to post, I would hope I could, with their permission.
Would I expect those blades back? I don't think so. Is that a gift or incentive for false praise? I don't think so either, as they cannot assess without seeing and we all start, or at least I am, with this being a personal pleasure that we like to share. The business part comes much much later.
That all being said, it is a good question Pithor. One day, if I was/am seeking vendor status I might pose something similar.
Cheers all.
Keep up the awesome work on this forum!

Originally Posted by Razorfaust

I understand certainly this forum should not degenerate into some "wet shaving bazaar". Is there anyway to corral this show and tell with intent to sell to some easily defined area? Or would it be too much of a PITA.

I don't think you can because to know somebody's intent without evidence you have to read their mind. So the line is drawn at 'direct advertising', i.e. do not mention it is for sale, do not list it for sale at the same time you post it in the gallery, do not talk about your website or store, etc.

There will always be people who think the forum is too commercial, some who think it's not commercial enough and some who are happy with it as it is. At the end of the day it will be less attractive for those in the first two groups than in the later one, so the self selection makes it the majority.
Those in the first two groups would typically find a place that fits them better or even try to run their own (which usually fail because there's not enough pragmatism and understanding of the necessary trade offs).

Originally Posted by Razorfaust

So with curiosity, I ask what is it about the "Vendor" badge that folks have and aversion to and or difficulty getting? Its evident to me that the vendors corner of this forum is under utilized and yet this forum is flooded with posts of things that are obviously "for sale". Not that any of this bothers me I like free market environments but I understand certainly this forum should not degenerate into some "wet shaving bazaar". Is there anyway to corral this show and tell with intent to sell to some easily defined area? Or would it be too much of a PITA. Just thinking out loud.

Regards

I feel being a vendor here should require some responsibility to the members as to sharing techniques, advise. In other words, being an active member. It is too easy to blow through and advertise without being an active member. Hence, SOME don't want the trouble of a vendor's badge, it would seem.
Robin stated above that those with large post counts are offenders, but many sell products and services here and are tremendous and productive members without being official vendors. Their post counts are quite high.

On the opposite side of the coin are those with few posts which are all related to their wares. Sadly some of these are equipped with a vendor's badge while not participating with the general forum whatsoever.

JMHO

Originally Posted by sharptonn

I feel being a vendor here should require some responsibility to the members as to sharing techniques, advise. In other words, being an active member. It is too easy to blow through and advertise without being an active member. Hence, SOME don't want the trouble of a vendor's badge, it would seem.

I really do not understand why? On a non-shaving forum, of which I am a member, there is a serious cost to be a vendor and financial support of the Forum is required. Not so here!

Robin stated above that those with large post counts are offenders, but many sell products and services here and are tremendous and productive members without being official vendors. Their post counts are quite high.

I agree with the idea of them being good Samaritans and helping others to enjoy our hobby, etc. I do sometimes wonder, though, where the posted information is a bit snarky, whether the object is help or derision?

On the opposite side of the coin are those with few posts which are all related to their wares. Sadly some of these are equipped with a vendor's badge while not participating with the general forum whatsoever. JMHO

Here is where the questioned division really is.
"How to do it" posts of products meant for sale, or sold, how do they classify?
What types of posts constitute selling posts?
Is there a time period between such posts which does not require vendor status?
How many selling posts are necessary to require being classified a vendor?
How many posts in "Classifieds" are cause to require vendor status?

Some of this pertains to me at my age; I am thinking of thinning out my accumulation and such intricacies of ethical consideration do concern me!
~Richard