Commercial Activity

[StuartDH]

We've recently received a complaint that the site appears to be promoting particular vendors as a place to buy camera equipment. This could prove to be a problem if the charity is seen to act as a mask for a commercial company, which it definitely does not.

Just to make it clear, Wild About Britain belongs to the Wild About Britain charity. We don't receive any money from any vendors and we have no association, partnership or loyalty with any vendor. Other than through the google adverts, we do not promote any suppliers of cameras or other equipment.

In the future I'll remove any references to any vendor that looks as though we're giving free promotion for their products or services, and I'll work my way through some of the older posts to remove the same.

Part of the complaint is that some of the references looked similar to spam, or at least attempts to get a bigger discount from a vendor by putting in a good word for them on the site. To this end, please avoid adding links or references that advertise company's products or services

The above could have very serious implications on the charity and any member who continually promotes a company, including in Private Messages, will likely be banned from the site.

Thanks

Stuart

[Gill Catton]

how would this affect a 'where do you recommend i get ??? from' thread or have you had any problems with 'boggitand leggeit' queries etc......is it just a case of adding in a 'other companies may be as good / bad' type caveat?

[StuartDH]

I think it all comes down to what's reasonable. The odd reference should be OK, but it was pointed out to us that some members have repeatedly posted recommendation for the same vendor on lots of occasions. I don't think that even a caveat like 'other companies...' would be good enough for the Charity Commission.

We've been playing with the idea of setting up the directory to include paid listings from commercial companies, that could then be used as a reference for recommendations. Without a listing they can't be recommended etc, but even that could be a problem if there's too many references from the forum to one company.

[Tormentil]

Does this effect the "Reviews" page ??

[StuartDH]

Originally Posted by Tormentil

Does this effect the "Reviews" page ??

It will if there's a particular vendor being highlighted as the place to buy the items. The review should be about the product, rather than where to buy it.

[kshotton45]

Originally Posted by StuartDH

It will if there's a particular vendor being highlighted as the place to buy the items. The review should be about the product, rather than where to buy it from.

What about an intermediate supplier - i.e. " you can buy this from E-Bay......", where E-Bay do not directly sell a product. Would this cause a problem?

Keith.

[StuartDH]

That should be fine as long it doesn't indicate any particular supplier. I'm currently going through the threads and deleting tons of references to one supplier and to be honest some of the recommendations are written to look like WAB endorses these suppliers .

[Gill Catton]

Originally Posted by StuartDH

That should be fine as long it doesn't indicate any particular supplier. I'm currently going through the threads and deleting tons of references to one supplier and to be honest some of the recommendations are written to look like WAB endorses these suppliers .

but what if you've stumbled accross an absolute bargain how do you pass on the good news?

[StuartDH]

As I said above, the odd reference should be OK, but when we get so many references to a single supplier that it makes us look like we're favouring a single company and supporting commercial interests then that's not OK.

[eeyore]

I know some other sites deal with this by having a disclaimer that says that the views expressed in the forum are not necesarily those of the site or the charity behind it - would that work for us ?

I hold my hand up to having given a certain ebay trader a number of mentions but it is hard not to do so when people ask for a recomendation or ask where I bought a certain lense/camera/whatever - Whilst i will obviously abide by whatever you decide my opinion would be that so long as the trustees or charity arent actually endorsing a certain vendor the charity should not be liable for what members who arent authorised to speak for the site have to say

[Kayleigh]

In the future I would like to buy a camera with a macro feature and as I now nothing about camera equipment it very useful to know in advance what products are worth spending money on. What sort of equipment is good for a beginner and is easy to use ect. On another site I was recommended a pair of binoculars and as they were for bird and wildlife watching. If this make were not recommended by people that use the product I would have bought something totally inappropriate and probably spent a lot more money in the process.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Kayleigh

In the future I would like to buy a camera with a macro feature and as I now nothing about camera equipment it very useful to know in advance what products are worth spending money on. What sort of equipment is good for a beginner and is easy to use ect. On another site I was recommended a pair of binoculars and as they were for bird and wildlife watching. If this make were not recommended by people that use the product I would have bought something totally inappropriate and probably spent a lot more money in the process.

I dont think stu is talking about people recomending brands - the way i understand it the issue is with recomending specific retailers

ergo there would be nothing wrong with me suggesting that a good camera with a macro feature is the fuji s9600 - but I would be in lumber if i told you you can get a good deal from ..... etc

[StuartDH]

Originally Posted by eeyore

I know some other sites deal with this by having a disclaimer that says that the views expressed in the forum are not necesarily those of the site or the charity behind it - would that work for us ?

I hold my hand up to having given a certain ebay trader a number of mentions but it is hard not to do so when people ask for a recomendation or ask where I bought a certain lense/camera/whatever - Whilst i will obviously abide by whatever you decide my opinion would be that so long as the trustees or charity arent actually endorsing a certain vendor the charity should not be liable for what members who arent authorised to speak for the site have to say

That's the way it's always been in our T&Cs, and hopefully it'll be enough for the Charity Commission. The charity doesn't gain anything from promoting any one supplier, in fact we loose out because they don't have to advertise through the google ads.

I think we'll be OK with the odd reference, but there has been lots of support for some suppliers that make them almost a beneficiary of the charity's website. We have to draw a line somewhere and I'm happy to put it at keeping references to an absolute minimum.

I've deleted a lot of support for one supplier over the past couple of days. In more than half of all cases I've replaced it with just 'ebay trader' or high street' and it hardly loses anything in the translation.

Looking through some of the threads it says that ABC is a friend of Wild About Britain, or supports WAB etc. This simply isn't true and it could potentialy put the charity in hot water. We'll allow the occasional post where it's necesary, but we'll delete anything that looks like an ad or an ad on behalf of....

[galanthus]

seems like a shame really. I had a really bad deal and process with a company and wouldn't want anyone else to have the same problem, I've also had fab deals and very good service from another 3 companies and wanted someone to benefit. So many pitfalls when you start to buy equipment and you don't know who does good deals. As I said is a shame

[StuartDH]

Originally Posted by Kayleigh

In the future I would like to buy a camera with a macro feature and as I now nothing about camera equipment it very useful to know in advance what products are worth spending money on. What sort of equipment is good for a beginner and is easy to use ect. On another site I was recommended a pair of binoculars and as they were for bird and wildlife watching. If this make were not recommended by people that use the product I would have bought something totally inappropriate and probably spent a lot more money in the process.

At the moment, brands don't seem to present a problem, but if a certain brand of bird seed etc gets continually pushed on the site then we might have to take action on that too. Personally, I can't see Canon complaining about support for Nikon cameras because it won't dent either manufacturer's sales, but smaller manufacturers might complain about favouritism for their competitors products or services if it gets too much and they start to lose out. Everything in moderation.

[Ambriel]

Originally Posted by StuartDH

It will if there's a particular vendor being highlighted as the place to buy the items. The review should be about the product, rather than where to buy it.

Disagree. Quality of service is in some ways just as important as quality of product.

[glsammy]

Originally Posted by Ambriel

Disagree. Quality of service is in some ways just as important as quality of product.

Your missing the point. The reviews are about products and NOT suppliers. Obviously service is important, but it's not our position to have store or supplier recommendations.

[Pete W]

Sorry but this is ridiculous...... You just need a disclaimer to say the views expressed by individuals are not a reflection of this charities/sites views... What happened to free speech.....

As long as it is not a moderators or admin doing the recommending for a good place to shop, i.e price or service then it should/is not a problem...... We are talking about peoples personal experience that they want to share....

Sorry I think you have got this totally wrong...... Next we won't be able to say one species of animal is better than another......


You are on a slippery slope...

Things that could be slanderous or unfounded are the only thing that should be considered for sensoring....

[Boddie]

Originally Posted by Pete W

Sorry but this is ridiculous...... You just need a disclaimer to say the views expressed by individuals are not a reflection of this charities/sites views... What happened to free speech.....

As long as it is not a moderators or admin doing the recommending for a good place to shop, i.e price or service then it should/is not a problem...... We are talking about peoples personal experience that they want to share....

Sorry I think you have got this totally wrong...... Next we won't be able to say one species of animal is better than another......


You are on a slippery slope...

Things that could be slanderous or unfounded are the only thing that should be considered for sensoring....

I agree Pete but if a complaint is made then the Charity must obey the rules set down by the commission.

It does make me wonder who had the time to make such a complaint

Sad that you can't relay good service and keen prices from a source who is competetive. However I can see that phrases such as 'friend of the site' etc could be a bit too much (I may have penned this one myself)

AS Stu says - everything in moderation.

I am surprised that it is forbidden by PM though

[Tormentil]

Originally Posted by Boddie

I am surprised that it is forbidden by PM though

Perhaps the Commissioners are reading our PM's ??

[nightshade]

I can see the reasoning, if a grey retailer gets the business then
hissops will complain,I certainly would!!
Spontaneous recommendations in response to a query should
be okay in my opinion

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by StuartDH

Looking through some of the threads it says that ABC is a friend of Wild About Britain, or supports WAB etc. This simply isn't true and it could potentialy put the charity in hot water.

I know the post you mean and i was the poster in question and i apologise for giving the wrong impression - when i wrote the "is a freind of" thing i meant that the supplier in question had given a lot of people off here very good deals and was ergo freindly to the wab community - I didnt mean to imply that the site or charity itself was receiving any payment or benefit. I should havbe been more careful and apologise for causing stu etal the etc hassle

From now on I am not going to reccomend any specific supplier on the boards or by PM - if anyone wants to discuss specific recomendations i would suggest you contact me by email.

[Paul mabbott]

Yes, I see the problem with threads such as 'Canon v ... ' . On the other hand there are threads, 'What is the best ...?'. The former could be taken as pushing a label (and there is tendency on this forum to emphasise one brand - but I don't think it's based on bribery, just a grouping of Canon buffs!).

I would hate to see the loss of threads asking. 'What is the best ...[lens/camera/microscope/&c].

[DaiTheDragon]

Does this work both ways. If a post is made giving information about a disreputable retailer or one that has continually given bad service, is that wrong also.
I don't quite understand how the site is a charity, could Stu give a brief rundown on how it works.

Dai

[Boddie]

Yes, I see the problem with threads such as 'Canon v ... ' . On the other hand there are threads, 'What is the best ...?'. The former could be taken as pushing a label (and there is tendency on this forum to emphasise one brand - but I don't think it's based on bribery, just a grouping of Canon buffs!).

I would hate to see the loss of threads asking. 'What is the best ...[lens/camera/microscope/&c].

I think it is less about brands and more so about promoting one particular supplier who sells at a discounted rate (I may be wrong) I think Stu is saying that some posts have made out that this supplier may be affiliated to the site, or is the sites preferred supplier, which is simply not true. He / they / she may be favoured by some of the sites' members, but is not endorsed by the site itself. If too many members side with one supplier and do not make it clear that it is not a view expressed by the site itself then the Charity could end in trouble. So, rather than have a grey area, Stu would prefer to not have this type of activity.

Does this work both ways. If a post is made giving information about a disreputable retailer or one that has continually given bad service, is that wrong also.
I don't quite understand how the site is a charity, could Stu give a brief rundown on how it works.

WILD ABOUT BRITAIN is a charity and the forum is part of that 'brand' and is therefore governed by the charity commissions rules.

The rule does make sense to me. I just find it strange that free enterprise is effectively stopped by its rules