If an ITB person wants to identify his employer, that is fine. But he should not be required to. He should, though, explicitly state any connection he has to any wine (or relevant gadget) he discusses – and that should be enough.
If someone identifies his employer in his signature, he becomes a de facto representative of that company on WB. I can see how that might cramp soneone’s style.
For someone who won’t even put his actual name on his profile, the OP is asking for a lot of unnecessary transparency from ITB folks, IMO.
I think this is right. Forcing folks to identify the specific company could well prevent participation where the employer forbids that sort of representation. It seems to me to be enough if the sig indicates the type of relationship one has to the marketplace and posts about products in which the poster has an interest are identified.
Correct
I am an old school guy that still has Abu Garcia 5500/6500 on All Star Rods.
CA-CHING
Very funny, guys. Perhaps if I had a name as common as any of your, it wouldn’t matter. I can live my conscious free and clear because I most definitely am NOT here to sell anyone of you a damn thing.
Good point. Mark, why the Markus moniker?
I’ve always wanted a 2-syllable first name and have sometimes called myself variations of it , is that a good answer? ![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
I understand where you’re coming from, but really: is anything anyone posts here going to influence you to make an enormous monetary investment? It’s not like stock analysts disclosing whether or not they own the stock personally (or that kind of thing). I honestly can’t imagine that I’d take anything someone says on this board about a wine as anything other than one person’s opinion whether they are involved with the wine or not. Nice to have information, sure, but still just interesting data points. Agree with Brad that demanding full is disclosure is too much and is taking all of this pretty darn seriously.
And as someone who got repeatedly flamed and accused of having secret ITB interests when she dared to disagree with the tide of accepted sentiment, I think I’m in a position to say that it probably wouldn’t matter even if there were a rule.
I think that’s a great idea and perfectly sufficient.
So edited.
… and this is IMO exactly how to play it. The onus is on all of us to declare an interest if it exists. I know many ITB who would actively avoid commenting on a wine they stock, unless information is specifically requested e.g. “When would be a good time to drink it?” or “Does this see much oak?”.
The one that falls outside of this sensible guidance, is the one where an ITB comments on wine that a competitor may stock (or on a competitor’s wines). This can get very nasty very quickly, so although each of us should be entitled to our views, it would make sense to exercise some caution if no other reason than to reduce the risk of flame wars that look good on neither party - typically in such situations the ordinary punter looks on in horror if two ITBers start piling into each other. I know one ITB winemaker who is often harshly critical of other’s wines (in his region) and whilst I believe his views to be scrupulously honest (and potentially helpful to listen to), I fully understand when the target gets irate at such a public critique from a competitor.
Agreed. I know that my employer (who has nothing to do with wine) does not allow employees to identify themselves as such in public forums as that might imply they are representing the company.
I really don’t get the point of this thread. As others have said, are you REALLY going to make a big investment because someone suggested a wine and oh my dear God that person might have also been selling that wine?
If someone is that susceptible to random influence, that person has more serious issues to deal with than whether someone else discloses who they work for and what they represent.
Or is the idea to eliminate the participation of people who are in the business in some capacity or another so that the people who remain can discuss and speculate w/out the occasional reality check? There are a lot of people on this board who got into wine three, four, or five years ago. Everyone has to start at some point and while I’m quite willing to help those folks, I don’t necessarily find their discoveries particularly informative. That’s not to be an a-hole, it’s just the way it is - the comments and info from more experienced folks are far more useful.
I think the one example that was given about an undisclosed interest is a pretty good example of what happens in that situation - sooner or later people get outed and the damage to their reputation is greater than the benefit of the sale to the single susceptible individual who jumped out and loaded up on the suggested wine.
Moreover, imagine someone ITB who is working with a small importer/distributor or with carefully-selected wines - maybe the person is recommending a wine because he actually believes in it, which is why he’s selling it in the first place! When I was selling wine, I can guarantee that I knew them better than anyone on this board since I’d had them over many vintages.
Okay, okay. I added some extra stuff to the sig.
In the future, however, if you call me out I get to choose the weapons.
I wasn’t trying to be funny. I was totally serious. You want folks to disclose details on this organization or that - how about you start by posting with your actual name. What are you posting that you don’t want to be identified with?
+1,000
I thought this was actually a precondition to posting here. Isn’t it?
Doesn’t seem to be in practice.