**Winner announced! See post 53**
Meet Bubba.
Bubba goes online, spends his hard-earned money on a shaving soap, receives the soap, tries the soap, enjoys the soap, and posts the following on B&B:
Now, meet Cletus.
Cletus goes online, strikes up a conversation with a shaving soap vendor, receives a free puck of soap from the vendor, tries the soap, enjoys the soap, and posts the following on B&B:
Bubba's post was, if not a bit prone to hyperbole , very helpful to B&B. Way to go, Bubba!
Cletus, on the other hand, has done our members a grave disservice. Cletus did two things wrong. So wrong, in fact, that they diminish the ability of our new and old members alike to fully enjoy wetshaving and see B&B as a trustworthy resource.
First, and most importantly, Cletus failed to disclose that he received the soap for free. You see, whether or not Cletus believed that the "freeness" of the soap affected his review, he denied our members the opportunity to make that call for themselves. For the record, we define this activity as "shilling", and do see it as a ban-able offense here.
Second, Cletus failed to contextualize his review by indicating his experience with shaving soaps in general. Such contextualization greatly improves a review, thus helping all of our members make decisions about products they'd like to try. Post counts can help with this, but we have uber-experienced members with 6 posts, and neophytes with 1000. One must be careful relying on post counts alone -- context is our best bet.
Why this exercise? Recently, with everything from razors to brushes to shaving creams, we've encountered instances of purposeful deception in promotion. Some less than scrupulous non-B&B-subscribed vendors (who'd never make it past our application process) have created fake accounts to hype their products or duped our own members into promoting their products through free samples. These actions reduce the integrity of our content, and as such are not tolerated on B&B.
We implore you, be like Bubba. Strive to be transparent, objective, and properly contextual in your statements about products here. Let's increase our mutual trust as we grow, and eschew vendors who seek to line their pockets at the expense of our integrity.
So, let's have some fun. What should Cletus have said? The most amusing (yet ethically sound) response entitles the winner to a custom title, plus a Gillette Fatboy (non-cased) generously donated by luvmysuper.
Product Promotion, Transparency, And You
Bubba goes online, spends his hard-earned money on a shaving soap, receives the soap, tries the soap, enjoys the soap, and posts the following on B&B:
Bubba said:I love this soap. It's the happiest, mostest wonderful soap of the three I've bought so far. I swear, when I was lathering with it I saw a smurf run by. I'm not certain, but I also think it cured my halitosis! You should all buy this soap!
Cletus goes online, strikes up a conversation with a shaving soap vendor, receives a free puck of soap from the vendor, tries the soap, enjoys the soap, and posts the following on B&B:
Cletus said:I love this soap. It's the happiest, mostest wonderful soap ever! I swear, when I was lathering with it I saw a unicorn run by. I'm not certain, but I also think it cured my athlete's foot! You should all buy this soap!
Bubba's post was, if not a bit prone to hyperbole , very helpful to B&B. Way to go, Bubba!
Cletus, on the other hand, has done our members a grave disservice. Cletus did two things wrong. So wrong, in fact, that they diminish the ability of our new and old members alike to fully enjoy wetshaving and see B&B as a trustworthy resource.
First, and most importantly, Cletus failed to disclose that he received the soap for free. You see, whether or not Cletus believed that the "freeness" of the soap affected his review, he denied our members the opportunity to make that call for themselves. For the record, we define this activity as "shilling", and do see it as a ban-able offense here.
Second, Cletus failed to contextualize his review by indicating his experience with shaving soaps in general. Such contextualization greatly improves a review, thus helping all of our members make decisions about products they'd like to try. Post counts can help with this, but we have uber-experienced members with 6 posts, and neophytes with 1000. One must be careful relying on post counts alone -- context is our best bet.
Why this exercise? Recently, with everything from razors to brushes to shaving creams, we've encountered instances of purposeful deception in promotion. Some less than scrupulous non-B&B-subscribed vendors (who'd never make it past our application process) have created fake accounts to hype their products or duped our own members into promoting their products through free samples. These actions reduce the integrity of our content, and as such are not tolerated on B&B.
We implore you, be like Bubba. Strive to be transparent, objective, and properly contextual in your statements about products here. Let's increase our mutual trust as we grow, and eschew vendors who seek to line their pockets at the expense of our integrity.
So, let's have some fun. What should Cletus have said? The most amusing (yet ethically sound) response entitles the winner to a custom title, plus a Gillette Fatboy (non-cased) generously donated by luvmysuper.
Last edited: