Opinions Please: Manufacturer Disclosure

That solution is adequate. Two more thoughts:

• Abbreviations should be encouraged. Full company names are just messy.
• The Internet standard is just parentheses: Dan (Durston) or Dan (McHale) suffice to distinguish their names and also their affiliation. I like Ron @ MLD or Ron (MLD) rather than spelling out Mountain Laurel Designs.
• Full company names and (optional) contact info or links could be in the user’s public profile.

From my POV, that’s all that is necessary. Most posts from manufacturers are helpful and should be encouraged.

And/Or change their title to Vendor (instead of BPL Member). The green Vendor will standout. We really want the vendors to participate here, BTW!!!

This seems like a reasonable solution to me.  In this instance, less is better, IMHO.  I don’t want to do anything that might discourage Dan, Jon, Ron, or anyone else from partipating.  Another great resource on this forum that comes to mind is Franco, who for years worked for Tarptent.  I have never considered his posts to be biased, just well-informed.  His contributions are always extremely valuable.

In the end, this, like all forums, is about relationship.  Dan Durston’s posts are valued by most of us not because he is a manufacturer, but because he is a long-time contributor whose educated opinions have earned our trust over the years.  I hope this forum does not create a solution to a problem that, in my opinion, may not exist.

Why not just have it in their profile? No need to be in your face about it, unless they want to,  I wouldn’t ask them to or force them too.. On that topic, I think in their profile would be just fine. How many members here have blank empty profiles??? I think most..

[edited] …vendor transparency is always good.

Matt, I like Nick’s take as it provides the desired info in the most unobtrusive way. My first thought in the other thread is like Nick’s thought, I don’t want anything that gets in the way of any folks like, Dan, Ron, or Henry from jumping into a thread to share their insights.

I agree that minimal is good and shorter names are handy.

Just to clarify, BPL values the contributions of our vendors. They are some of our most experienced users and they share lots of experience that is useful to the MYOG crowd and help us all make more informed purchases.

I’ll talk with Ryan about whether a custom tag like Nick said is feasible. Vendor seems like a good choice.

I’m curious why this has come up. Was this something mentioned in the recent survey y’all did? I guess I don’t see a problem as it is now, why the change? And what constitutes a vendor? Roger sells his stoves on here at times, does that make him a vendor? If Skurka ever posted again on here, would he have to be classified as a vendor (he sells guided trips)?

I’m a fan of not changing things just for change’s sake. Of course if there is some issue that has come up and this is your way of addressing it, that’s certainly understandable.

No Limu, it was prompted by my comment about Durston posting about aspects of his product being superior to another company’s product in a thread comparing the Xmid and Stratospire

Thr point of my comment was that there should be etiquette on a forum like this where vendors are not disparaging other products or engaging in conduct that is essentially promoting their product.  There is a difference between providing insight and disparaging another company’s products no matter how subtle.  Just my opinion. Others disagree.

Doug, This is a topic that has been discussed within BPL staff for a while now and the conversation today reminded me that I meant to ask the community about it.

Thanks for the clarification Matthew.

@bajabob: Makes sense to me.

“There is a difference between providing insight and disparaging another company’s product no matter how subtle”

Absolutely right Baja Bob. I looked like the bad guy last year when I took up for ZPacks tents on another thread. Like I stated then, when you are a professional who designs, manufactures and markets outdoor gear, anything you say about a competitor’s products can and will be viewed with suspicion.

Joe at ZPacks stays above it all. He told me in an e-mail that he doesn’t respond on forums like BPL because he figures not that many people see it. I disagree with him on that.

I took Persuasion as social science elective in college and I thought it was a waste, however as the years have gone by I think it’s helped me identify language that appears to be unbiased yet contains a message with subtle digs intended to manipulate the receiver (or potential buyer) towards a particular point of view.

You see it in public relations rhetoric every day (and politics). Same thing in law with arguments between litigants. The object is to design your message to win. One ancient Greek philosophy’s basic mantra was “there is a truth but you can’t know it, so the goal is to persuade for your own personal gain”.

When you are a brilliant designer who has a wildly popular product, you don’t need to point out the inferior qualities of a competitor’s creations. You’re too good for that.

I think of this thread not necessarily as issue of “transparency,” nor a concern for “disparaging” a competitor’s product, nor a concern for “promoting” their own product.

There are probably people here on BPL who don’t know who people such as Ron Bell or Dan Durston are (sorry, guys!).

I frequent a large astronomy forum, where discussions are much more scientific and complicated than anything we may see on BPL. There might be a topic such as software algorithms for deconvolution of stars in an image, where light distribution has been distorted by the instrument (point spread function) and the desire to correct this scientifically and not to alter the “scientific data” collected by a camera. It is really helpful when the author of popular astronomy software package, or a professional astronomer, or a manufacturer of astronomy optics joins the conversation. It lets the forum members know the credentials of said persons.

If we have a thread about how to assemble a DIY Cuben Fiber (or whatever it is called these days) shelter, and if Ron or Dan offer suggestions, it will let the person wanting to DIY, that these two have lots of real-world expertise.

As to who would be “classified” as a vendor is another discussion. If “vendor” doesn’t diminish someone’s status or benefits, then I see no problem. I don’t know how Gear Swap works on BPL, but some forums do not let vendors sell things in a “gear swap” type of  classified ads section.

As far as my personal feelings, it doesn’t matter to me either way. I know who most of the vendors are, but I’ve been a member here for well over a decade.

Valid points, Nick.

The internal BPL discussion was prompted  when members reached out with their concerns regarding disclosure of commercial interests. I recall this being brought up several times during my tenure here. It’s never seemed like that a big of a deal to me personally because I know who Ron, Dan, Zelph, Jon, Henry, Dave, etc. are but it matters to some of our members. This type of disclosure  aligns well with BPL’s Values.

I think we’re pretty fortunate on this forum that just about everyone is very respectful, and there doesn’t seem to be much of an issue with manufacturers coming on and trying to overly sell their stuff or commenting too negatively on other manufacturers. I didn’t see the particular post being referred to, but I know that in the posts I’ve saw from Dan in the past, he is usually very good at being diplomatic and does his best to answer the questions about his own products without being overly critical of others.

However I have saw this become a real issue on other sites, so there is nothing wrong with getting ahead of the issue now and stopping any potential problems before they develop. Having their company listed in their name is one way to do that. I have also seen sites having a general rule in place that manufacturers are free to answer questions about their product when asked, or mention their product if it is a solution to a particular problem someone posts about, but that they can’t just throw it into the conversation in an unsolicited way or be overly commercial in their posts.

I see this as potentially having more of a chilling effect on folks like Dan and Ron than helping.  And what if they want to post on a topic that really has no relationship to their business, say Dan wants to post about the Great Divide Trail?  Would he still have to identify as a vendor?

I think that it is a good idea, especially for new subscribers.  Besides, I could eliminate us from saying”full disclosure here, blah , blah, blah”.  I think that if an owner has an opinion about non-product topics, it won’t stop them from posting.  My 2 cents.

it is kind of funny to think of Rodger as Moderator, Vendor and so forth.  How many badges can we have?

I echo Jon’s 2 cents. Seems like a good idea indeed.

I don’t see a problem with Ron (or any vendor) posting about their favorite trailrunners, hiking with their dog, trip reports, rad couscous recipes, etc. if their name becomes Ron Bell (MLD). I don’t think we are boxing our vendors into only using this platform as a sales tool. If anything, we’d prefer they interact organically with our members in lots of different ways aside from strictly talking about their products.

I think it is fine to have the labels. I don’t think it will change anything and that is a good thing!

Yep. ⬆️ That.

Quick mockup of the group consensus. I’m not using the correct font…

Not important but I like the @ version better

Edit: the mockups look great and I’m all for them. But…

I think that transparency isn’t a solution to anything. Inclusivity is a much more important theme.

The posts I appreciate most in this thread are the ones that are focused on how interactions affect the community. But these posts don’t go far enough IMHO because they only look at interactions through the prism of experts contributing knowledge to a community that is largely passive.

Sure, the contributions that designers and vendors can make on the basis of expertise to discussions about fabrics (my favorite!), design, field performance, etc., are irreplaceable. Oftentimes, vendors know more just because the data set they work with is much larger than any industry outsider could possibly access.

Yet not every contribution coming from a place of expertise is a positive one, even when it looks positive. Over the decades since BPL’s founding, I’ve noticed that there are certain kinds of contributions that have a tendency to close down discussion and drive people away. More often than not, expertise plays a role in it.

When people who make things and/or sell things proactively intervene into every thread dealing with their own products/designs or other people’s products/designs in the same class, it tends finally to create a homogenizing effect in the community. That’s great for their sales but it sux for the community. I’ve seen it here time and time again. People who have field experience with a product get subtly or not so subtly “steered” in the “right direction” by someone with skin in the game, i.e., a designer or a manufacturer. Eventually, the member and others withdraw from posting, while opinions in the community congeal and homogenize.

Transparency won’t address any of these issues.

I’d much rather see rules about how designers and manufacturers can participate in threads about their products and/or products by other designers/manufacturers in the same class.

To make really pertinent suggestions, I feel like I’d have to know more about traffic stats on BPL. From a purely user perspective, it’s obvious that BPL has become much less lively as the center of gravity for online discussions about UL stuff has shifted elsewhere. We all want BPL to thrive.

I would like to see designer/mfgr participation in conversations about their own designs/products or those of others in the same class be housed in threads located in a dedicated forum section, separate from the Gear (General) forum. I am convinced that adopting this measure would not prevent experts from contributing their expertise while encouraging more people with differing types of experience to contribute without being made to feel inadequate.

@matthewkphx: Your mockups look great.

Parentheses look more “normal” to my eye, but I agree that it isn’t important. You could even leave the style up to the user.

I vehemently disagree with Jon’s call for speech controls.  Disclosure/transparency is sufficient.