Opinions Please: Manufacturer Disclosure

Jon’s call for speech controls

That’s not speech control and to characterize it as such with such vehemence is pretty unfriendly. That’s making a space for more people to speak while still leaving open a place for guerrilla marketing. Cause that’s what we’re really talking about here is guerrilla marketing.

Go back and look at old threads from 10 years ago. You can easily find threads where somebody actually used a product being told by some other person who designs products that his/her experience is wrong. Where are those people now? Gone, obviously.

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?

No, he wouldn’t have to do anything. The designation would be in the software, just as you and mine are “BPL MEMBER.”

I agree with Jon’s concern and proposal. I think there should be transparency, but it is not sufficient to solve the problem. I find certain manufacturers find a way to insert themselves into almost every thread where their product is mentioned on this site and others. The comments are often couched as friendly education on the product but it is amazing how many subtle digs towards the competition are included.  I would also like to see rules designed to curb commentary that is unavoidably infected by self-interest. Or maybe a dedicated thread for manufacturers to answer questions  or provide commentary about their own gear.

As I already mentioned, whether or not there is a “vendor” disclosure in the member’s ID doesn’t matter to me.

The only restriction on any member should be the same for everyone, which should be,

“Be nice to everyone.”

We’re adults. If someone like Jon Fong is replying on thread about stove, a “vendor ID” would be sufficient to me, to indicate he might have a vested interest in a particular product.

Should BPL decide to go with a descriptor in the User Name Field, I would like to see it hyperlinked to that person’s company website. I think this would benefit the vendor and the end user at same time. Plus, Ron Bell wouldn’t be mistaken for a lawyer in New Mexico ;-)

That’s not speech control and to characterize it as such with such vehemence is pretty unfriendly.

I don’t mean to be unfriendly, but…

rules about how designers and manufacturers can participate in threads

and

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

sure sound like controls on speech to me.  And yes, I vehemently oppose those things in a forum like this.  I want the vendors’ (and everyone else’s) claims right there in the main conversation where others can affirm/dispute/agree/disagree as they see fit.  And I don’t want some moderator or overseer making the decision whether “tent” and “tarp” are the same product class, for example.

“Be nice to everyone.”

^^– This. Same rule for everyone.

I find it disappointing that there is even discussion about segregating manufacturers or limiting what they are allowed to comment on. One of the things that makes BPL different (and better) than other forums is the participation from scientists, designers, and manufacturers.

I’ve read a lot of the older threads, and the only participant that I recall as being repeatedly toxic was a manufacturer. Not because he was a manufacturer; just because he was a jerk. He hasn’t posted in recent years, so it is old news.

Even so, I wouldn’t want to see the guy routinely forced to post in his own forum or topics or limit his speech. He contributed enough factual information (and knowledgeable opinions) to be interesting (stuff that would be hard/impossible to get elsewhere).

Let people say what they want to say; politely. We can figure out to whom we choose to listen (and on what topics) for ourselves.

Just the company affiliation is all that is needed here.

There is plenty of control of speech already. Other people posting here have already attested to that fact.

Guerrilla marketing is exactly a form of speech control. It uses online communities to create a homogenous consensus that fosters a herd mentality. All of sudden, a certain shelter becomes the be all end all of shelter design.

Take DCF, for example. It has taken literally a decade to get people to acknowledge that DCF is susceptible to permanent deformation and pinholes. One of the reasons why is because the only people with enough experience with this highly controlled material are the people who have an interest in selling it. Even today, now that DCF’s shortcomings are more widely known by the general public, they are regularly played down and minimized. In the end, that hurts innovation, preventing the pressure to scale up production of similar types of fabrics that don’t have the same shortcomings.

I don’t want some moderator or overseer making the decision whether “tent” and “tarp” are the same product class

That’s silly. They are both in the same class. The name for that class is “shelter.”

If we don’t take steps to promote greater participation, places like BPL will just become echo chambers for influencers and guerrilla marketers.

Few points not mentioned yet. There are people who developed products on here. Remember the guy who made some sandals with input from members. Fun thread. At what point does he become a vendor. Or the people who come on here asking about developing a product. This to me is what is different about BPL. There are people here who will help you figure out your design. Hate to see that become overly complicated.

Having said that vendor identification seems innocuous to me. Be interested to hear vendors thoughts but they probably want no part of this.

I prefer to leave the change at that without rules beyond what is existing. I really want to hear from Henry Shires, Kevin Timm, ect. more often. Not less. Just saying.

For some reason I’m picturing a old western lynch mob being formed.

Wow, ok i think that my comment spun out a bit.  My thought was being labelled a Vendor could eliminate me from constantly writing “In full disclosure.    “. When it comes to respond to comments that could be influenced by products that I might sell.  No worries, I can keep adding those disclosures.  No big deal.

I’m not a fan of the ‘vendor’ label. I remember when BPL had some sort of hierarchy in their labels, and lots of folks didn’t care for that so it was abandoned. This kind of reeks of that to me. Why not just Jon@FlatCatGear or Dan@DurstonGear or Ron@MLD, with links to their websites for those that want to look them up further. Slapping ‘vendor’ on them makes me feel like I’m at a conference instead of on an online forum. Why are we trying to put people into different boxes (I’m also not a fan of ‘member’ and ‘spectator’, why do we need labels?).

I’m all for transparency, but I think the @ name is plenty transparent, we don’t need to keep creating categories of the people on the forums.

Ron Bell?  Lawyer in New Mexico?

Maybe a Breaking Bad reference?  Saul Goodman?

Googled it – there is a lawyer named Ron Bell in New Mexico.  Since he was brought up he must advertise.  Was he an inspiration for Saul Goodman?

His website says he’s into slip and fall.  Slippin’ Jimmy?  More evidence that this inspired Saul Goodman

Googled some more

https://www.thehealthyjournal.com/faq/is-takovic-a-saul-gene#:~:text=Saul%20Goodman%20was%20inspired%20by,bus%20stations%20and%20television%20networks.

Yeah, they claim Saul Goodman was based on Ron Bell  “whose advertisements are plastered all over Albuquerque’s bus stations and television networks”

Important cultural information learned here at BPL

Doug,

I don’t disagree with you, but apparently others do.

My concern is the call to place some restrictions on members who own backpacking related businesses.

I have a backpacking & camping website/blog. It is mostly for my family and friends, but others read it. It costs money to keep it running, so a few years ago I implemented affiliate ads. That covers the bills. In 2021, a year I didn’t post much, I actually made a profit (due to the pandemic) and had to pay $200 in federal income tax. The IRS says it is a business.

Since I sometimes post links to articles I have written, should I be classified as a “vendor?”

I think not. But it wouldn’t bother me to have a “vendor” tag or a Nick (popupbackpacker) moniker. But to place restrictions on what and where I can post, would end my interest in BPL. I would think that the valuable, real vendors, might have the same mind set. That would be a tragedy.

Then the problem gets murky, who and why will some members be restricted, plus the extra effort and time to monitor these things.

I’ve been a BPL member since 2008 and have never had issue with any vendor post, other than when someone was mean or rude. That doesn’t mean I blindly accept what a vendor says. I can separate the wheat from the chaff.

The thought that we cannot figure things out on our own, and that a vendor could manipulate us is disconcerting.

“be nice to everyone” – I agree with Nick and Bill

if you’re more specific than that then people just start arguing about it

on the other hand, isn’t that Google’s catch line?  How is that working for them?

“Durston posting about aspects of his product being superior to another company’s product in a thread comparing the X-Mid and Stratospire…..there is a difference between providing insight and disparaging another company’s products…”

Respectfully, I don’t think this is an accurate description of my post. My post did not say anything negative about the Stratospire, so I don’t think it’s fair to call it “disparaging“. My post clarified a few details about my shelter that were already being discussed (how to pitch just the inner, when separate inners will be available) and provided floor width details for the two tents. At the end I did summarize some strengths of my shelter (which was unnecessary) but at no point did I critique the SS or claim my shelter was overall superior.

I feel compelling to defend myself on this because here on BPL other tent makers have levied personal insults at me and made outright false claims about my tents (e.g. they can’t actually stand with 4 stakes, they are knockoffs of other designs), while I have always endeavored to take the high road. Yes I post more frequently and can be a bit long winded and defensive, but I never made personal insults or false claims. My approach is to focus my discussion on my own shelter and when I do discuss other shelters I stick to factual and readily verifiable attributes (e.g. differences in weight, size, materials).

I like the idea of connecting the user name with the company name. It helps readers understand the context of the posts, and provides transparency.

TBH, I think that the vendors should also like it, since it provides marketing value if their contributions are appreciated. I’m guessing that many of them would have used their company name before now, but may have believed it wasn’t allowed. In most forums, commercial interests are separated from the discussion forums, and blatant advertising isn’t allowed unless a company sponsors the forum.

I guess I’m in the minority by thinking that this has all spiraled out of control over one post criticizing a “vendors” characterization of his own products and those of others.   I’ve been on BPL a very long time now and every so often some friction arrises between a member or two.  I don’t think it’s a big deal…I just stay out of it and don’t read the comments of those posters.

I vote to leave things as-is.  These types of kerfuffles always seem to work themselves out, everyone moves on and “normal” discourse resumes.  Honestly, part of the charm of this community is learning who the regular posters are, what their specialties are and what they develop, build or sell. Knowing this provides a valuable filter for evaluating what they post.

Being nice to others, respecting an individual’s right to an opinion different from yours, and being willing to ignore someone trying to “pick a fight” are all the rules we need.

“The thought that we cannot figure things out on our own, and that a vendor could manipulate us is disconcerting.”

Humans are far more easily manipulated (and/or succumb to power urges over others) than they tend to realize. A lot of psychological experiments bare this out from Milgram Experiment, Standford Prison Experiment, etc. Then history past and current: Nazi Germany, slavery, modern day politics and political theater, etc, etc.  And it is clear that marketing tends to influence a lot of people in all sorts of areas.  Few humans are self realized and conscious enough to be completely immune all the time in all areas.  If you are one of the rare lucky few, congrats.

More on topic, I’m fine with the @ ______   label idea.

For the topic at hand, I’m not opposed to some type of labelling system but I do think these company affiliations are already fairly clear.

What might be more useful is to have boundaries on the type of content vendors can post (although this brings a moderation burden). I suggest things that should not be allowed are (1) personal insults, (2) promoting their products when they are not already being discussed (e.g. creating threads about their own gear, or bringing it into a discussion where it didn’t already exist).

A step further would be to disallow vendors from discussing products from other companies. On first glance this might sound good, but it would be really murky to enforce and not always helpful. This is happening all the time by numerous vendors in BPL posts, articles, podcasts etc, and often it is benign and necessary (e.g. I illustrate the footprint size of my tents by showing a diagram of it compared to about a dozen others for context) but this also can venture into the more troubled waters of being subjective or false. Avoiding the latter would be nice but almost impossible to enforce.

Those are some possibilities but overall I don’t think there is much too improve. Unsolicited promotion is already not allowed. Most people view vendor participation as a positive. If a vendor is being rude or making false claims that could be moderated, but most people will see through that and they are generally only harming themselves.

Personally I believe the label idea to be really good, many of us that are new to the forums arent aware of some of the posters affiliation, for some like Dan its quite obvious but others are not.

I think that everyone enjoys vendors posts as they provide so much value and great discussion but I do believe that unnecessary persuasiveness should be less common.

For example Dan recently said: “Anyways, they’re both very nice tents. I think the main argument for the X-Mid is that is quite about lighter (about 1/2 lbs), simpler pitch, no struts to pack up and has some other nice things like larger vents, seam taped, easier reach to close the fly door, and the vestibules are beside the door instead of blocking it. It also has higher end built quality (e.g. double folded edges and full double stitching) while costing less.”

This was quite sad for me to see at the end of your post Dan as the rest of your post was quite informative and really added to the discussion, but this point at the end comes off as too postitive towards the Xmid, whilst saying absolutely 0 positives about the stratosphere 2. In my opinion this makes your whole post end up feeling like your trying too hard to push the Xmid, when your really dont need to persuade that much as its such a great tent and your discussion generally makes that obvious in itself. Just my 2c and I hope you dont take this the wrong way Dan as your posts are some of the best content that comes out of BPL and I learn alot from yourself and others and am very thankful for the great discussions that you all provide

Thanks Ryan. I agree that last bit was unnecessary/overly exuberant. I went to delete it but BPL has a short editing window for posts so I was unable.

I am a bit surprised at the standard being applied though. I go a step too far by providing a list of advantages of my shelter and some people take issue, while another shelter maker has brought up my shelters unsolicited including providing a “physics analysis” with demonstrably false conclusions on stability and stake requirements to make scary conclusions about my tents, and that gets published in an article with no complaints from the community on it being offside. Anyways, I will endeavour to dial back the enthusiasm (and I have a lot over the last year).

Maybe the simple solution is to recommend that vendors use their company logo as their avatar.  What ever works for you guys to improve the site.  My 2 cents.

I wrote a long post a few hours ago and never hit submit because a friend came over (to load up a backpack for a hike tomorrow!) and then I was watching Trail Days… The post is gone now.

I strongly agree with Nick’s statement. Thank you, Nick.

The only restriction on any member should be the same for everyone, which should be,

“Be nice to everyone.”

I have not categorized and counted responses here but it seems to me we have:

• A couple of responses indicating that things are fine as is.
• Lots of responses indicating that an @ or ( ) or Vendor is a good idea.
• A couple or responses indicating that much tighter rules are needed.

My recommendation here is that we go for the middle path. My father often said “It’s not Ready, Aim, Fire. It’s Ready, Fire, Aim”. I think we move forward with the this new naming convention and see how it works. It’s not going to solve every potential issue but it will make things a little clearer without requiring Jon to laboriously say “I’m the owner of Flat Cat Gear and must disclose that I sell stoves” when he comments on a thread about couscous.

I really like the idea of recommending that vendors use their logo (Dan Durston does this well).

Thanks for all of the responses. Back to Trail Days!

+1

Dan D., most here (including me) appreciate what you bring to the BPL forums, so please continue to contribute. And I don’t think you have to dial back your enthusiasm for your gear, that’s just who you are.

What I would hope you’d consider is that perhaps, as you talk about your gear, you leave other makers’ gear out of your posts — not even to correct what you believe to be a misperception about another maker’s gear, that’s for them to correct if they choose to do so.

IOW, talk at length about your gear, and do so with passion, but only your gear. Let others who don’t have a business stake do comparisons if they wish (and many do). Unfortunately it’s often not about right or wrong, but simply about perception.

That, in my mind, should really be the only ‘vendor’ rule, if there is to be one (though I’m with JCH, I don’t really see a need for change, but having a vendor’s business name after @ seems like that could be helpful).

Okay now, let’s all hold hands and sing…..some thrash metal. That’ll bring everyone back together.

My recommendation here is that we go for the middle path.

Thanks for all of the responses. Back to Trail Days!

I support this decision, Matthew. It’s all good — except the vehemence.

Just wish I were in a time zone to listen to Trail Days.