[JeFFz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeonWho /img/forum/go_quote.gif Before I begin this review, I'd just like to thank the folks at Monster for their dedication and generosity in putting together the review program that gave me this opportunity.

Honestly speaking, it is very straightforward that this quote mentions that Leon received his earphones through the review program. Well I'm pretty sure me and other readers did get that idea.

I don't know why are bashing Leon over this matter.

 

[TheGame21x]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeFFz /img/forum/go_quote.gif Honestly speaking, it is very straightforward that this quote mentions that Leon received his earphones through the review program. Well I'm pretty sure me and other readers did get that idea. I don't know why are bashing Leon over this matter.

I'm gonna play Devil's Advocate here and say that I can see where The Monkey is coming from. The statement you quoted is very ambiguous and could mean anything from Monster sent you a sample to review and send back to them to Monster sending the headphones at a discount to the actual case that Monster sent out these earphones to reviewers to review and keep (as far as I know). See what I mean? The statement says that there was some sort of review program in place, not the details of said program, which, I believe, is the main point of contention.

I'm not bashing Leon at all and I hope this post isn't seen that way (I think his review was excellent by the way) but I believe that The Monkey is right in saying that it is a bit unclear in terms of FTC full disclosure guidelines.

 

[GreatDane]

I received some advice from The Monkey via PM and agree with his views on this issue. I decided afterward to edit the first paragraph of my "quick impressions" post.

 

[The Monkey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGame21x /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm gonna play Devil's Advocate here and say that I can see where The Monkey is coming from. The statement you quoted is very ambiguous and could mean anything from Monster sent you a sample to review and send back to them to Monster sending the headphones at a discount to the actual case that Monster sent out these earphones to reviewers to review and keep (as far as I know). See what I mean? The statement says that there was some sort of review program in place, not the details of said program, which, I believe, is the main point of contention. I'm not bashing Leon at all and I hope this post isn't seen that way (I think his review was excellent by the way) but I believe that The Monkey is right in saying that it is a bit unclear in terms of FCC full disclosure guidelines.

Precisely. Although it's the FTC we're worried about in this context.

Especially when someone has received something for free and then assigns a "value" rating to it. Full disclosure just makes good sense IMO. And this isn't bashing (c'mon folks). In fact, disclosure protects the reviewer as well as the consumer.

We have too many shills here. I don't believe OP is one of them. But I do think this is a great opportunity to show folks how to properly write a review. When it's such an easy thing to do, I am frankly at a loss why people don't do it. But it's a community. Mine is only one opinion.

 

[TheGame21x]

Whoops. Guess I was typing a bit too fast there, ha ha. Updated my post with the right organization.

 

[JeFFz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Monkey /img/forum/go_quote.gif Precisely. Although it's the FTC we're worried about in this context. Especially when someone has received something for free and then assigns a "value" rating to it. Full disclosure just makes good sense IMO. And this isn't bashing (c'mon folks). In fact, disclosure protects the reviewer as well as the consumer. We have too many shills here. I don't believe OP is one of them. But I do think this is a great opportunity to show folks how to properly write a review. When it's such an easy thing to do, I am frankly at a loss why people don't do it. But it's a community. Mine is only one opinion.

ok i get it now about the value rating and the FTC. Thought about the review program, there was only this http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f38/te...phones-475757/ program no? But well maybe the OP should explain it in more detail.

Sorry if i offended you in any way

 

[rawrster]

It might but that I'm tired or just being stupid right now but what is FTC? I can see both sides but it is true that there have been shills acting like members and posting favorable impressions on products. However if I did not know about the Monster review program I might not know what the mention towards Monster would be since it is not very clear. I however do not believe the OP is one of those shills but it helps put into perspective when reading the review.

the solution to this? The OP should edit his first post and say that Monster gave the coppers for free in exchange for this review. That way we can get on with this and to the actual review.

 

[TheGame21x]

The FTC is the Federal Trade Commission.

 

[The Monkey]

FTC is the Federal Trade Commission, which is the federal agency tasked with, among other things, consumer protection, truth in advertising, etc. (It also shares concurrent jurisdiction with DOJ regarding antitrust matters.) Some interesting reading here (well, to me at least):

http://ftc.gov/os/2009/10/091005revi...mentguides.pdf

In particular, this example, while not directly on point, hits pretty close to home concerning reviews on this site:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Example Example 7: A college student who has earned a reputation as a video game expert maintains a personal weblog or “blog” where he posts entries about his gaming experiences. Readers of his blog frequently seek his opinions about video game hardware and software. As it has done in the past, the manufacturer of a newly released video game system sends the student a free copy of the system and asks him to write about it on his blog. He tests the new gaming system and writes a favorable review. Because his review is disseminated via a form of consumer-generated media in which his relationship to the advertiser is not inherently obvious, readers are unlikely to know that he has received the video game system free of charge in exchange for his review of the product, and given the value of the video game system, this fact likely would materially affect the credibility they attach to his endorsement. Accordingly, the blogger should clearly and conspicuously disclose that he received the gaming system free of charge. The manufacturer should advise him at the time it provides the gaming system that this connection should be disclosed, and it should have procedures in place to try to monitor his postings for compliance.

People like Great Dane (and I'm sure many others) are sick of me going on about this, so I'll stop at this point. Just something to think about.

 

[Anaxilus]

^
deleted

 

[LeonWho]

Edited my review. I wasn't trying to offend anyone. I guess my wording was a little vague though.

 

[The Monkey]

LeonWho I also meant no offense and sorry if I came across as heavy-handed. But this place would be boring without some spirited debate.

I applaud you for writing what is, IMO, an excellent and exemplary review.

 

[Anaxilus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Monkey /img/forum/go_quote.gif LeonWho I also meant no offense and sorry if I came across as heavy-handed. But this place would be boring without some spirited debate. I applaud you for writing what is, IMO, an excellent and exemplary review.

Hah, you think that was spirited? Pansy! J/K