The site guidelines have a paragraph on transparency but it seems to only apply to owners or employees of a company?
Should this not be broadened to any user who has a conflict of interest? Today’s internet is rife with ‘influencers’ of various kinds, from straight up shrilling or sock puppet’ing (which I assume would be clamped down on pretty quickly already) to more tangental relationships, for example promoting a company or product that the poster has the potential to gain from, either financially or personally ie. promoting a product that is connected to a service or product they offer, or one they are hoping to sell/offer in future, without being upfront about that conflict of interest.
Be Transparent
We love to hear from others in the audio industry, whether we’re already collaborating with you or may do so in the future!
That said, if you’re going to be advocating on behalf of your company or organisation in any way, please be transparent about your affiliation, and edit your profile to include:
Not sure I agree with this extending to ANY affiliation as there is still such a thing as privacy and confidential information. Also you say “any affiliation” and then proceed to add limitations to your initial statement. Which is it? Any affiliation (which could be any one that has ever touched or talked about a product) or any affiliation that has the potential for making the individual a profit or gain (which could be anyone that talks well of a product and gets only verbal “thank you” from the company)?
And isn’t basic business still run on the “caveat emptor” principle in most places. i.e. do your homework and read the terms and read reviews with a skeptical eye, it’s on you whether you believe the ads or influencers or not.
If you’re just posting about a product you enjoy using, or have a good experience with then obviously there’s no conflict of interest there. If there’s a strong incentive behind your posts, particularly financial but it could be because your brother-in-law owns the company, then be upfront and transparent about it.
That doesn’t seem overly complex to me, sure the wider world of social media is a cesspit rife with paid influencers and sock puppet reviewers, and sure do your homework before buying anything, that goes without saying. But that doesn’t mean you can’t do better and have basic guidelines within a private forum — the forums already has rules about owners and direct employees of companies promoting their products.
btw. ‘proceed to add limitations’ those were just general examples, rather than explicit rules or limits I was suggesting get imposed.
Not really and even if there was, I wouldn’t want to explicitly point fingers unless I was 100% sure.
And I think that is the issue, when you’re not sure, but you’re reading a post here or elsewhere for that matter thinking “this feels awfully like a paid post” but I have no proof it is and that’s fine, no one (hopefully) is suggesting we take down posts based on feelings or the exuberant use of marketing like adjectives.
But if it later turns out a user was getting paid by a company to market a product and hadn’t disclosed that information upfront then they can expect short shrift.
Really all I am suggesting is we extend the current “Be Transparent” rule to include ‘influencers’ — how that is defined is up to Roon.