Bad Review Blackmail

[Chuckles]

It was an analogy to the following so called blackmail:

It happens and will continue to happen.

When I first became a member here and did not have any reviews a senior well respected poster (who has long since left the board) had asked me for a discount in exchange for a positive review.

...

So let me see:
1) When an Indy / agency owner offers to "buy" a good review, you call it "bribery"
2) When a customer offers to "sell" a good review, you call it "blackmail"

My sarcastic question "reversed blackmail?" was to say that none of the above situations should be called blackmail IMHO. Sleazy / seedy, yes, but not blackmail.

1) When the SP / agency owner offers to "buy" a good review w/ a discount, I would call it "bribery," because I'm guessing that s/he isn't going to inflate the price or otherwise somehow injure the client's reputation if the client decides against partaking. Could be wrong, of course.

2) When a client offers to "sell" a good review if he gets a discount, that by itself would also be "bribery," IMO. Howsomever, if the client is implying that the review will be not-so-hot without a discount, that would seem to me to be venturing into the "blackmail" region. Not all mean that, I'm sure, but...

 

[YouVantOption]

Or is it a board version of an urban legend?

Stop that please. It happened twice that I know of personally. Incontrovertible facts were presented to me. Pretty much every SP that has had the guts to pipe up here has said it has happened to them. That indicates it is happening often enough that even were you to dismiss one or two incidents as false, it has some measure of credible frequency.

The only other conclusion I can arrive at is that you think I am lying about my two friends, as are all of the SPs that have stated they have been the victims of MERB-member blackmail for a good review.

Now, let's allow for a moment the possibility that we are all lying. Where's the profit in that? What possibly would I gain from lying about this? Or the SPs?

In one case, some sleazy scumbag saved himself $50 on a duo, and in another, some guy didn't get laid or his mudslide. No big loss in either case but it does speak to the issue that some girls are naive and scared enough enough to worry about a single review, some MERBers are cheapskate sons-of-bitches who abuse women, and that's about it.

 

[eastender]

Usurped

Oh I totally agree with that. As I stated earlier a great deal more dialogue is needed



I would agree that that is the direction they are pushing it. Whether the effort is a 'fait accompli' or not is yet to be decided. You have suggested one possible course of action to make it so but we are not there yet:

I realize that you are putting this out just for the sake of discussion in answer to the point Korbel threw out there. I would like to add that I for one would not wish to see any type of subversion or commercializing of the review process. The original purpose of the board is to remove potential abuses in advertising. Reviews in the purest sense of the word, I believe, are the best way to counter the fact that since this activity operates essentially in the twilight zone standards and practices for advertising do not apply. Agencies are free to engage in all sorts of disreputable practices which the rest of the business community are for the most part not allowed by law. Bait and Switch and not providing the service advertised are two examples of practices which are definitely disreputable. The debate over GFE would essentially become a non issue were agencies allowed to subvert the review process.

Regardles of all the good intentions, the review process gets usurped by elements beyond the control of the review author.

A system of checks and balances has to be established and revisited once in awhile.

 

[Robin]

Basically the agencies and the Indies have subverted the review process by making it a marketing tool - evidenced by contests(agency and board sponsored) and the use of review extracts on their websites or in promos.

What is so subversive about this? Movie ads quote extracts of reviews by film critics. Canadian Tire conducts review contests. Why should agency and board businesses be subject to a different yardstick?

 

[eastender]

Quid Pro Quo

What is so subversive about this? Movie ads quote extracts of reviews by film critics. Canadian Tire conducts review contests. Why should agency and board businesses be subject to a different yardstick?

Your examples make my point. There is a "quid pro quo" arrangement. The movie ad extracts drive traffic or readership or viewership to the film critics venue. The film critic gets a financial benefit indirectly or directly.

 

[Regular Guy]

Ensuring fairness

Regardles of all the good intentions, the review process gets usurped by elements beyond the control of the review author.

Yes, To be quite honest I have tried to keep any musings hypothetical. There must be a will or it will only remain good intentions. I don't wish to give the impression that I am marching down the avenue of righteousness beating a drum. I went into detail here as this issue seemed to be stirring strong emotion.

A system of checks and balances has to be established and revisited once in awhile.

Yes, the concept of "what is a review or should be a review" would have to be defined and a strategy worked out. I do feel that it is important to distinguish between the "collateral benefits" to an agency or sp and overt initiatives to usurp the process. An outline or review format might be a great first step.

 

[eastender]

Perhaps.................

Yes, To be quite honest I have tried to keep any musings hypothetical. There must be a will or it will only remain good intentions. I don't wish to give the impression that I am marching down the avenue of righteousness beating a drum. I went into detail here as this issue seemed to be stirring strong emotion.



Yes, the concept of "what is a review or should be a review" would have to be defined and a strategy worked out. I do feel that it is important to distinguish between the "collateral benefits" to an agency or sp and overt initiatives to usurp the process. An outline or review format might be a great first step.

So far we are seeing the willingness to explore endorsements, testimonials and other derivatives. Perhaps once a better understanding is achieved then the review will finds its place.

Maybe we will have to have a distinct review section with a disclaimer that review in this section are for not for commercial use by agencies or providers.
Alternatively reviewers who wish to distance themselves from the commercialization could use such a disclaimer.

 

[Regular Guy]

About Being Pragmatic

So far we are seeing the willingness to explore endorsements, testimonials and other derivatives. Perhaps once a better understanding is achieved then the review will finds its place.

Maybe we will have to have a distinct review section with a disclaimer that review in this section are for not for commercial use by agencies or providers.
Alternatively reviewers who wish to distance themselves from the commercialization could use such a disclaimer.

Well I don't dispute the direction you are suggesting. Up to now I have dealt with the question in terms of ethics, perhaps as an academic exercise. But the practice has become so widespread and people so desensitized to it that you may have the more pragmatic approach. Maybe trying to stem the tide would be like trying to mop up the Atlantic ocean. It seems to have reached the stage where members only trust information exchanged on back channels. I do applaud the efforts by administrators on all boards to try to curb the unethical and dysfunctional practices described. The "Suspensions" thread and other initiatives do help. And maybe you are onto something there. In retrospect I feel I could have saved my breath arguing the ethical side of it all. But at least it's been said. Reading the discussion on both this thread and the other related thread and other related threads on other boards I suppose the conclusion would be to take a very cynical approach to this hobby and the usefulness of review boards in general. There has been very little said of a positive nature. Not exactly the type of discussion you might like to see on a membership drive. Perhaps Sapman had the best approach. Enjoy the process for yourself. Be ethical and your own critic. Take what you can from it all whatever that may be.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Cycles of subversion

So far we are seeing the willingness to explore endorsements, testimonials and other derivatives. Perhaps once a better understanding is achieved then the review will finds its place.

Maybe we will have to have a distinct review section with a disclaimer that review in this section are for not for commercial use by agencies or providers.
Alternatively reviewers who wish to distance themselves from the commercialization could use such a disclaimer.

Which distinct review section with the above-suggested disclaimer is bound to be subverted, again: history repeats itself.

Divergent interests are not easily reconcilable. Specifically, the model we know as escort review boards (quite an awkward model given it's alleged mission statement) poses the double problem of cohabitation (of buyers and sellers) and incentives (the ones to cheat being just as attractive, if not more, than other ones to not to).

Alternative models offering solutions, one for instance that would converge with the mainstream, are conceivable.

 

[eastender]

Ethical Issues

Well I don't dispute the direction you are suggesting. Up to now I have dealt with the question in terms of ethics, perhaps as an academic exercise. But the practice has become so widespread and people so desensitized to it that you may have the more pragmatic approach. Maybe trying to stem the tide would be like trying to mop up the Atlantic ocean. It seems to have reached the stage where members only trust information exchanged on back channels. I do applaud the efforts by administrators on all boards to try to curb the unethical and dysfunctional practices described. The "Suspensions" thread and other initiatives do help. And maybe you are onto something there. In retrospect I feel I could have saved my breath arguing the ethical side of it all. But at least it's been said. Reading the discussion on both this thread and the other related thread and other related threads on other boards I suppose the conclusion would be to take a very cynical approach to this hobby and the usefulness of review boards in general. There has been very little said of a positive nature. Not exactly the type of discussion you might like to see on a membership drive. Perhaps Sapman had the best approach. Enjoy the process for yourself. Be ethical and your own critic. Take what you can from it all whatever that may be.

Personally I appreciate the ethical side of the debate as it provides a solid base. Sapman's point is very valid. However you have to be vary of those that will manipulate whatever is available.