Topic: Where do we draw a line? Signature campaigns or shilling campaigns - page 2. (Read 1457 times)

I suppose my idealistic view of advertising is different then. I don't think advertising should influence speech, period. That just feels what is most right to me...

That aside, it seems like bad business to go about things the way that Wasabi and icopress have. I'd say a business would be better off respecting honest consumer/publisher opinions and instead being constructive by asking "We see you recommended Sparrow rather than Wasabi, so that we can improve to change that opinion in the future, tell us what made you recommend Sparrow over Wasabi?" instead of punishing honesty. I think that is a much better way to interact and build a relationship with a user (or publisher) and gain value from them, rather than breaking that relationship and taking somewhat of an aggressive approach.

That's much smarter than damaging the relationship with the end user/publisher imo, which I'm sure both icopress and Wasabi have done with pawel7777. It sure would with me.

I still think the view of influencing speech is ok opens the door to damaging publisher integrity. If campaigns make readers unsure that what they are reading is honest and uninfluenced, that will surely lead to problems down the line...like not being able to trust any discussions about services being discussed by a user with a signature containing a service in the same sector as what is being discussed. Does this way of doing things benefit advertisers? Yes, like you said, better value for money for them. Does this benefit the forum, users and its readers? I can't say so, I don't think anyone can...and who do we prefer to have as a first priority here? Advertisers and their value for money, or users, readers and post integrity/quality?

Yes they can, and probably should.

I see your point, but I feel like things are a little mixed up here, there is a huge difference between telling someone "what to say-- what not to say", Icopress would be in the wrong if he said

"Users who don't recommend x wallet would be removed"

or

"You have to post in the ann thread every day to get paid"

These things are against the forum rules, and this is where the forum rules end as far as signature campaigns are concerned.

Things like

"You shouldn't be recommending y wallet when x wallet is paying you to advertise it"

is pretty reasonable, and is not against the forum rules, you may call it whatever you want, but it's not against the forum rules, and it's within the boundaries of real business, if I was paying Icopress to manage my campaign and I see him pick users who recommend other competitor services I would be mad at him, I want the best results for the money I spend, what the users feel shouldn't be my problem, it's only business.

If I see someone wearing x wallet, and goes to recommend y, z wallets without mentioning x, I would think that x wallet team and their ad campaign are dumb as fuck and probably their whole product is, not because they didn't "force" that user to recommend their business, but because they picked someone who is so incompetent to advertise for them.

The real question however is, if Sparrow wallet had a running campaign with a much lower pay rate, would said user join that campaign instead? pretty hard to tell, personally I wouldn't like to be in a campaign where I am told what to say or not say, but out of respect to the people paying me -- I would not recommend competitors without recommending them, despite the fact that I have also stressed on the difference between advertising and endorsement, it's only ethical that you don't advertise for a competitor.

If the service you advertise sucks to the extent that you can't even recommend it -- you are in the wrong place, and you are just desperate for money.