Bad Review Blackmail
- Thread starter YouVantOption
- Start date
There is a huge difference
That is bribery, not blackmail. You are really stretching the truth with that analogy.
Maxima said:
That is bribery, not blackmail. You are really stretching the truth with that analogy.
eastender said:
LOL...
You'd think someone would go after the old, overweight, sweaty, cheap, smelly, small penused, drugged out market....
Miss Jessy xxx MtlSexCity said:I knew my english was bad, but not as much as what was conclude few posts above but pretty much what it says here above
So yes ZM, accordly to what I was told, this was exactely what I was trying to explain. Even if like you said, it's doesn't seem to be blackmailling clients, it is unfortunate when these occur or let's say if you prefer, not very pleasant.
Possibly not a constant practice but keep in mind that for whatever situation it applies, talking about urband legends always takes some guts !
However, take it or leave it, it's a free world. For me, the point is finally understood and I couldn't say it better then with the above example by ZM. By the way ZM, did it took you long to understand what I was trying to explain ?
One last thing:
Marketing tool, yes I give it to you. Everything that can be developp as a marketing tool will be in any business.
And we say in french: '' Et que le meilleur gagne ! ''
Hello Jessy,
It's amazing that anyone could claim there is anything wrong with a review being a marketing tool since that is essentially what it is, what it always was, and what it will inevitably always be. What was it supposed to be: a recipe for chicken soup. Good reviews are promotional devices by their nature, unavoidably. They point out one choice as being better than another possible choice. Of course it's a marketing tool. As long as it is written as honestly as possible there is nothing wrong with the marketing element...and there is certainly no connection to blackmail.
Really,
Korbel
Blurring the Distinction
Korbel,
Your definition effectively removes the distinction between a reviewer and a shill.
You are using the word review as you would use the word endorsement - where the spokes person indicates a preference, which more often than not is linked to a "quid pro quo" arrangement. Alternatively the poster may act as a spokesperson for an agency or an Indy. Again a consideration is part of such an arrangement. Regardless there is no expectation of objectivity. This is fine as under such circumstances since none is expected.
Conversely a review retains many elements of objectivity. A music review of Bob Dylan may compare his music from various eras, the word play within certain songs, versions of his songs with/without the harmonica, acoustic vs electric guitar.
Korbel said:
Korbel,
Your definition effectively removes the distinction between a reviewer and a shill.
You are using the word review as you would use the word endorsement - where the spokes person indicates a preference, which more often than not is linked to a "quid pro quo" arrangement. Alternatively the poster may act as a spokesperson for an agency or an Indy. Again a consideration is part of such an arrangement. Regardless there is no expectation of objectivity. This is fine as under such circumstances since none is expected.
Conversely a review retains many elements of objectivity. A music review of Bob Dylan may compare his music from various eras, the word play within certain songs, versions of his songs with/without the harmonica, acoustic vs electric guitar.
Hello all,
If a client has an enjoyable meeting and writes a review about it, how does one avoid thus marketing, promoting, or endorsing. Are we now to be bound to satisfy those who have fears of these three elements and/or shilling by eliminating all reviews??? Can't a review just be a review. Does it really have to be some kind of subterfuge, coercion, subversion, or scam of one degree or another? Are we now to believe that the "honest no alterior motives review" is an impossibility??? Is the possibility of an honest review completely proscribed on this board? I think some people have begun to enjoy their pessimism and skepticism too much and are slipping deeper into a void known as..."The Silly".
Yeah, we all know what goes on, but let's not eliminate the possibility of honest people in this world and imply everyone is out for improper benefit or just plain lying.
Come on,
Korbel
If a client has an enjoyable meeting and writes a review about it, how does one avoid thus marketing, promoting, or endorsing. Are we now to be bound to satisfy those who have fears of these three elements and/or shilling by eliminating all reviews??? Can't a review just be a review. Does it really have to be some kind of subterfuge, coercion, subversion, or scam of one degree or another? Are we now to believe that the "honest no alterior motives review" is an impossibility??? Is the possibility of an honest review completely proscribed on this board? I think some people have begun to enjoy their pessimism and skepticism too much and are slipping deeper into a void known as..."The Silly".
Yeah, we all know what goes on, but let's not eliminate the possibility of honest people in this world and imply everyone is out for improper benefit or just plain lying.
Come on,
Korbel
Last edited:
Simple and Straightforward
Korbel
No one has suggested any of the issues you raise or eliminating reviews. Rather a very simple and straightforward approach may work best.
Simply agencies that advertise on this board would be allowed to state on their website "Endorsed by x members of MERB" or "Endorsed by the following members of MERB" thereby building synergy and brand awareness that benefits all and is transparent.
Members wishing to expand on their endorsement can do so to their heart's content. Likewise members may endorse as many or few agencies or providers as they wish without any obligation.
Checks and balances would follow - a member would be allowed to withdraw an endorsement. Likewise an agency or a provider would be allowed to drop an endorsement.
Korbel said:
Korbel
No one has suggested any of the issues you raise or eliminating reviews. Rather a very simple and straightforward approach may work best.
Simply agencies that advertise on this board would be allowed to state on their website "Endorsed by x members of MERB" or "Endorsed by the following members of MERB" thereby building synergy and brand awareness that benefits all and is transparent.
Members wishing to expand on their endorsement can do so to their heart's content. Likewise members may endorse as many or few agencies or providers as they wish without any obligation.
Checks and balances would follow - a member would be allowed to withdraw an endorsement. Likewise an agency or a provider would be allowed to drop an endorsement.
I once had an SP from an agency I was using for the very first time ask me to review her before we got to the action part of our encounter... When I feigned ignorance, she even spelled out https://merb.cc for me and encouraged me to join. I thought that was kind of creepy.
ZM said:Oh, an insult! I'm severed!
No, it didn't take me long to figure out this whole case of yours wasn't blackmail.
Stut stut stut ... I was not an insult, it was a wink to someone else
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.
Last edited:
Maxima said:
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...
eastender said:
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.
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 said:
Ensuring fairness
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.
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.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Sticky
- Poll
- Locked
- Sticky
- Poll
