The Boards "Brand", Community and Boards Deals

Tallon

I'm the other side of the fence.. I just can't believe someone who approved this type of add thought it was a viable product to advertise to people

Next week, they'll be selling Dowsing rods

My name is URL

seamus wrote: »

In relation to "alternative therapies" though, I think MNiU, you're missing a layer from the equation. Although these therapies often claim all sorts of pseudo-scientific nonsense, people know what they're buying when they go to an aromatherapy session, and many people will enjoy it purely for the relaxation element. They go because the experience is pleasureable, they don't all believe that there are healing properties in the aromas.

But I thought that the whole issue that people have about this is the claims being made about the product, not the product itself?

Perhaps some people purchased the item simply because they're into that sort of woolly-headed thing for whatever reason. I highly doubt that all of the 700+ people who have purchased the band done so because they believe it'll cure what ails 'em.

The same can be said for the Aromatherapy and Speleotherapy deals.. sure, some people will buy them because they find the overall experience to be pleasurable, but undoubtedly others will be swayed by the specific health claims being made.

One of the testimonials from another salt therapy deal - https://www.boardsdeals.ie/deal/40-instead-of-90-for-3-Salt-Therapy-Sessions-plus-a-free-Starter-Session-at-the-Salt-Cave-Clinic-Maynooth/578/

"I brought my children to the Salt Cave Clinic in Maynooth, After one session their blocked nose cleared up and their cough improved a lot. Three sessions were enough to get rid of their symptoms which used to take two or three weeks" ~ Susanne, Mum of three from Celbridge

28064212

DeVore wrote: »

Ok... Gave this 5 seconds thought and it occurs to me that people probably wouldnt have an issue with a banner ad for this Ionic whatsit... but have an issue when it appears that Boards is actively promoting its "healing properties".

So its the promotion which is an issue?
Would that be fair to say?

DeV.

Essentially, yes. Regardless of the fact that Boards just regurgitates whatever the seller tells them, the fact remains that Boards sends out text which says "this band has healing properties". If this deal consisted of text that just said "ionic bands for sale", I wouldn't have an issue with it. In that case, it's 'buyer beware' (although Ionic Balance themselves should be done for fraudulent advertising).

It's the appearance that Boards agrees with the manufacturer's claims that is the troubling part

jor el

DeVore wrote: »

...it occurs to me that people probably wouldnt have an issue with a banner ad for this Ionic whatsit ...
So its the promotion which is an issue?
Would that be fair to say?

DeV.

I would say that a banner ad wouldn't have the same connection to Boards as an organised deal or promotion.

The association between Boards Deals and the products they promote is far greater than a banner ad, which is all handled by automatic scripts and such. The Deals are organised by people, and you would therefore put more faith in them as being genuine and reliable, where as an ad is just an ad.

One thing though, even if they were to offer it in such a way as seamus put it, by making it clear that the blurb is from the supplier and not Boards Deals' opinion, I'd still say you'd associate the product strongly with Boards Deals (and Boards.ie) because of the fact that these are specifically organised by the crew at HQ. The Boards people should be able to stand over the deal, as they will be first in the firing line if something goes wrong, and the first port of call for unhappy or disgruntled buyers.

Tallon

FYI

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2064470/Power-Balance-shells-57m-settle-lawsuit-bracelets.html

28064212

Tallon wrote: »

FYI

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2064470/Power-Balance-shells-57m-settle-lawsuit-bracelets.html

Ah but that's Power Balance, they use the clearly makey-uppy "hologram resonancy" technique. The Ionic Balance bands use the much more scientific "negative ions" method.

DeVore

"I brought my children to the Salt Cave Clinic in Maynooth, After one session their blocked nose cleared up and their cough improved a lot. Three sessions were enough to get rid of their symptoms which used to take two or three weeks" ~ Susanne, Mum of three from Celbridge

My guess is that the kid decided they would rather go to school after all than back to the salt caves

DeV.

Fear Uladh

I would love to hear from the supposed 600 people that bought this miracle.

Morag

Fear Uladh wrote: »

I would love to hear from the supposed 600 people that bought this miracle.

I wonder how many even post on boards.ie and how they could buy such a shíte present for anyone, seriously don't give your granny that, give her a bottle of her favourite tipple.

minidazzler

DeVore wrote: »

Ok... Gave this 5 seconds thought and it occurs to me that people probably wouldnt have an issue with a banner ad for this Ionic whatsit... but have an issue when it appears that Boards is actively promoting its "healing properties".

So its the promotion which is an issue?
Would that be fair to say?

DeV.

I would say yes, very fair to say, given that what essentially happened is we received emails saying "we can heal you, for 11 euro." I've gotten plenty of those types of emails from far less reputable sites, it would suck if Boards deals went that way, but I doubt it ever would!

TouchingVirus

You folks wouldn't let it :P

donothoponpop

DeVore wrote: »

Ok... Gave this 5 seconds thought and it occurs to me that people probably wouldnt have an issue with a banner ad for this Ionic whatsit... but have an issue when it appears that Boards is actively promoting its "healing properties".

So its the promotion which is an issue?
Would that be fair to say?

DeV.

A banner ad doesn't have a "report post" button, doesn't appear in the same manner as every other post on Boards. I "report button" the original, then made a complaint to the forum mods (as per the proper procedures), and was told that the forum mods don't have any say or control over this subforum of their discussion group. This part of Boards seems to be allowed to operate under different rules (my original gripe was with their "boost your immune system" crap, when athletes can't even discuss common injuries).

tbh

DeVore wrote: »

Ok... Gave this 5 seconds thought and it occurs to me that people probably wouldnt have an issue with a banner ad for this Ionic whatsit... but have an issue when it appears that Boards is actively promoting its "healing properties".

So its the promotion which is an issue?
Would that be fair to say?

DeV.

the promotion probably made this a more visible issue and more directly linked to boards. However it's probably not fair to say that people wouldn't have an issue with it if it were a banner ad - I and others have complained about spurious ads for miracle cures appearing in the LTI forum - you and I have discussed that issue - in fairness I've not really seen any objectionable ads in a whole except the one for UPC

LoLth

its weird but when I saw the boardsdeal for Ionic balancer the thought that it was being endorsed by boards.ie never entered my head. I just thought, "wow, thats a crap deal I wont be buying".

Boards has a lot of users following a broad spectrum of beliefs. Some believe in Wiccan magic, others believe in the power of Faith to heal, some might even believe in the power of pseudo science negative ionic sci-fi flux capacitors. If you're not interested in it, dont buy it. There might be a deal next week that fits your beliefs perfectly that someone else thinks is absolute crap.

I knew a guy that had these pressure point wristbands that , when he wore them he didnt suffer motion sickness but he couldnt last more than a minute on a bus without them. maybe these are similar. I also know one person that went to Fatima and burnt a wax leg and has a noticably reduced limp and no longer complains of pain during damp weather. And I knew one girl who used a wiccan charm to cause her friend to pass his college exams (no, him studying his arse off in a panic had nothing to do with it!). Point is, just because you dont believe in the pseudo science, doesnt mean someone else doesnt (and you can think of those people what you like , just try to be polite about it if you feel the need to share) and this boardsdeal might be exactly what they are looking for.

The alternative is that all boardsdeals, no matter what, are vetted according to a set of acceptable beliefs. Would you be happy if your preferred belief were not on that acceptable list?

I would say that seperating the fact that boards is making the deal available from the claims made by *any* advertiser would only help the issue. Though, in all honesty, I never really thought that it was boards that was claiming miracle hair results or that X makeup package was the ultimate experience one could have involving the application of chemicals.

ecoli

LoLth wrote: »

The alternative is that all boardsdeals, no matter what, are vetted according to a set of acceptable beliefs. Would you be happy if your preferred belief were not on that acceptable list?

Thats the point I know a few people have been making. How can the medical advice rule which prohibits many topics be enforced when products such as this are being sold under the boards brand are claiming properties which are in direct conflict of the No medical advice rule?

Either the deals are subject to the rules (moreso than beliefs) or the rules can't be properly enforced

Morag

Should we expect that boardsdeals advertising be of a certain level? I think we should.
It looks like the makers of this product got thier wrist slapped in the UK and then tried to sell as many of them here as possible. Is it too much to expect those who are putting the deals together to do a little research on the products and to have some ethical guidelines?

Googling the product name would have brought this up.

http://www.asa.org.uk/ASA-action/Adjudications/2011/10/Ionic-Balance/SHP_ADJ_162457.aspx

A Facebook page, and the Ionic Balance website, viewed on 12 and 24 June 2011:

a. The Facebook page, headed "Ionic Balance - Benefits" stated "Utilising the unique healing properties of the gemstone tourmaline an Ionic Balance Band emits negative ions and far infrared rays, which can have the following benefits: - INCREASED ENERGY - INCREASED STAMINA - ENHANCED IMMUNE FUNCTION - QUICKER RESPONSE - REDUCED FATIGUE - IMPROVED FLEXIBILITY - DEEPER SLEEP - IMPROVED MOOD - FASTER HEALING - BOOSTED METABOLISM - IMPROVED BALANCE - GREATER WELLBEING - STABILISED BLOOD PRESSURE - SHARPER CONCENTRATION - REGULATED SERATONIN LEVELS - FASTER RECOVERY - AMPLIFIED STRENGTH - MORE FOCUS".

b. The Ionic Balance website was headed "Ionic Balance - Ultra Performance" and restated the claims from the Facebook page. Further pages discussed at length the efficacious effects of tourmaline, including the effects of negative ions, far infrared rays and alpha waves, which the ad claimed were generated by the mineral. The text referenced a number of studies and a range of medical conditions.

A page headed "Endorsements" listed the profiles of several sportspeople. The Inverness Caledonian Thistle player Ross Tokely was quoted as stating, "My Ionic Balance wristband definitely has increased my stamina, strength and endurance. My powers of concentration, my focus and my sleep patterns have improved dramatically. I have Ionic Balance to thank for this, and can recommend the wearing of an ionic-balance.com wristband, to anyone."

A paged headed "Disclaimer" stated "Ionic Balance nor its distributors, make any claim that any of its products are intended to prevent, cure, mitigate, treat or diagnose illness. If you believe you have a health problem, you should consult a doctor or health professiona.."
Issue

1. Two complainants challenged whether the efficacy claims in ads (a) and (b) were misleading and could be substantiated.

2. One complainant challenged whether the efficacy claims in the celebrity endorsements in ad (b) were misleading and could be substantiated.

3. One complainant challenged whether the disclaimer in ad (b) contradicted the efficacy claims throughout the website.

The ASA challenged whether the:

4. efficacy claims in ad (b) for negative ions, tourmaline, far infrared rays and alpha waves were misleading and could be substantiated;

5. efficacy claims in ad (b) for negative ions, tourmaline, far infrared rays and alpha waves misleadingly implied that the product would produce the same effects; and

6. references to serious medical conditions in ads (a) and (b) could discourage essential treatment for which medical supervision should be sought.
CAP Code (Edition 12)
12.112.212.612.73.13.453.473.73.9
Response

1. Ionic Balance said the efficacy claims on the ‘Benefits’ page of their Facebook entry and on their website’s home page were keywords taken from well-known studies. They said the information supporting those claims was contained in the sections of their website relating to negative ions, far infrared rays and alpha waves. They provided 28 documents, including abstracts of studies, full studies, and surveys of literature on the subjects, which they said substantiated the efficacy claims.

2. Ionic Balance said they had added a disclaimer to their testimonials page to state that “This is some of the feedback we have received. This is for your reference and does not guarantee the efficacy/performance of the product. Please consult a doctor if you need medical treatment”.

3. Ionic Balance said their disclaimer was valid, because they did not sell a medical device and advised anyone with a medical condition to consult a doctor or healthcare professional.

4. Ionic Balance sad they did not believe the claims were misleading because they quoted studies and well-known facts which were freely available on the internet. They said it might seem that there was almost too much information on their website, but they would rather have too much than too little. They referred to the documents they had provided to substantiate the efficacy claims.

5. Ionic Balance said the content in ad (b) did not in any way specifically promise consumers that they would experience the same effects. They said they tried to be as clear as possible, and had a no-quibble money-back guarantee.

6. Ionic Balance said they did not discourage people from seeking professional medical help, and if consumers asked them medical questions they told them to consult a doctor. They said that was proven in their responses to users on their Facebook page. They said that in some cases they had actively encouraged people to seek medical advice before buying the product.
Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA considered that the efficacy claims in the ads would need to be supported by robust, controlled and blinded studies.

We noted that 13 of the 28 documents provided by Ionic Balance were abstracts. We noted we had not seen the full studies relating to the abstracts, and therefore considered that those abstracts alone were not sufficiently robust to substantiate the claims.

Out of the remaining 15 documents, ten made a range of claims in relation to the efficacy of far infrared rays and negative ions. Some of the documents referred to the results of studies and provided references for those, but others did not include any references or provide other evidence for their claims. None were detailed accounts of research studies. Most appeared on websites selling products which used far infrared rays and negative ions, and none appeared to have been published in peer-reviewed journals. We therefore considered that those documents did not constitute robust substantiation for the claims.

A further document was an article which had been published in a peer-reviewed journal in 1976, which primarily discussed research conducted by the authors and other scientists into the effects of positive and negative air ions on bacteria, mice and rats. The article referred briefly to research into the effects of positive air ions on humans and the results of a treatment using the inhalation of air which contained high numbers of negative ions. We noted the article had been peer-reviewed but considered that, without viewing the studies referenced in the article, that document in itself did not constitute robust substantiation for the claims.

A further three documents were research studies which examined the effects of negative ions in air on levels of stress, fatigue and reaction speeds, and on seasonal affective disorder (SAD). We noted those studies examined the effects of different levels of negative ions in the air rather than those generated by tourmaline. We also noted that those studies were conducted on 20, 24 and 25 subjects respectively, which we considered to be insufficient numbers for the studies to be robust substantiation for the strong efficacy claims made in the ad. It was also unclear as to whether the studies, which researched the effects of negative ions on levels of stress, fatigue and reaction speeds, had been published in peer-reviewed journals. We therefore considered that those studies did not constitute robust substantiation for the claims.

A final study researched the biological effects on human skin of a cream containing powdered tourmaline, when applied to the faces of ten adults. However, we considered that to support the “Benefits” claims in the ads, we would need to see robust evidence relating to the product. We also considered that a study on only ten subjects was not sufficiently robust to support the claims in the ad. We concluded the study did not constitute robust substantiation for the claims.

Because the advertiser had not provided robust substantiation for the efficacy claims in the ads, we concluded the claims were misleading.

On this point, ads (a) and (b) breached CAP Code rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 12.1, 12.6 and 12.7 (Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products).

2. Upheld

We noted Ionic Balance had not provided any evidence that the celebrities had made the statements on the testimonials page, nor that they had experienced the effects described in the testimonials. Because we had not seen evidence to support the efficacy claims in the celebrity endorsements, we concluded they were misleading.

On this point, ad (b) breached CAP Code rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.45 and 3.47 (Endorsements and Testimonials) and 12.1 (Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products).

3. Upheld

We noted that Ionic Balance did not consider their product to be a medical device, but noted the ad made a number of efficacy claims, including “BOOSTED METABOLISM”, “STABILISED BLOOD PRESSURE”, “IMPROVED BLOOD CIRCULATION”, “FASTER HEALING”, and “ENHANCED IMMUNE FUNCTION”, which suggested that the product could restore, correct or modify a physiological function or metabolic action and was, therefore, medicinal. We considered that efficacy claims throughout the website both directly stated and implied that the Ionic Balance Band could prevent, mitigate or cure a range of medical conditions. We therefore considered the disclaimer contradicted, rather than clarified, the claims it was intended to qualify. We concluded the ad breached the Code.

On this point, ad (b) breached CAP Code rule 3.9 (Qualification).

4. Upheld

For the reasons noted above, we considered we had not seen robust evidence to substantiate the efficacy claims for negative ions, tourmaline, far infrared rays and alpha waves. We therefore concluded the efficacy claims were misleading.

On this point, ad (b) breached CAP Code rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 12.1, 12.6 and 12.7 (Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products).

5. Upheld

We acknowledged that, in its descriptions of the effects of negative ions, tourmaline, far infrared rays and alpha waves, the ad did not specifically state that wearers of the Ionic Balance Band would experience the same effects. However, we considered that, because the ad highlighted that tourmaline, the ‘active ingredient’ of the product, produced negative ions, far infrared rays and alpha waves, and went on to make efficacy claims in relation to them, the ad implied that the Ionic Balance Band would also have those effects on wearers. Because we had not seen any evidence that the product could have the effects claimed for tourmaline, negative ions, far infrared rays and alpha waves, we concluded the ad was misleading.

On this point, ad (b) breached CAP Code rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 12.1, 12.6 and 12.7 (Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products).

6. Upheld in relation to ad (b) only

We noted Ionic Balance’s view that they did not discourage people from seeking essential medical advice because, when potential customers contacted them and asked whether the product could help a specific medical condition, they told them they should contact a doctor. However, we considered that many people would purchase the product without contacting Ionic Balance, and furthermore, that the advertiser’s actions after being contacted by potential customers was not relevant to whether the ads themselves could discourage people from seeking essential medical advice.

We noted ad (a), the Facebook page titled ‘Benefits’, did not specifically refer to any serious medical conditions. We concluded that it did not discourage essential treatment for which medical supervision should be sought.

We noted ad (b) referred to a range of health problems, including serious medical conditions such as asthma, arthritis, stroke, high blood pressure, gout, bronchitis and kidney problems. We considered that those conditions were conditions for which medical supervision should be sought, and that the claims could discourage patients from seeking essential treatment for those conditions. We therefore concluded that the claims breached the Code.

On this point, we investigated ad (a) under CAP Code rule 12.2 (Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products), but did not find it in breach.

On this point, ad (b) breached CAP Code rule 12.2 (Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products).
Action

Ads (a) and (b) must not appear again in their current form. We told Ionic Balance they should not make efficacy claims for the Ionic Balance Band, including in testimonials and endorsements, unless they held robust substantiation that the product could have those effects. We also told them they should not make efficacy claims for tourmaline, negative ions, far infrared rays or alpha waves unless they held robust substantiation that they could have those effects. We told them they should not refer to medical conditions for which medical supervision should be sought. We also told them that they should ensure any disclaimers did not contradict the information it was intended to qualify.

Oh and if boardsdeals was to start offering voodoo dolls, hoodoo powders, hex bags, or any sort of charms/simples/philtres as anything other then a novelty item then I would be raising objections too.

Dr Galen

I think Boards HQ ( Distilled Media really) are going to have to make some decisions about how integrated all the sites within the "family" are and are going to be. For many of us Boards.ie is the daddy with things like adverts being the children, offshoots of the parent as such.

Over time, this seems to have changed, and now Adverts and Deals are pretty separate entities, and thus, the question is, what is the link between those sites and here. Maybe the same rules just don't apply?

/devils advocate

_blank_

as long as it's called Boardsdeals, it's going to be associated with Boards.ie

Tallon

Adverts too.. since it's embedded under everyones username... It's not like people can opt out

tbh

Dr Galen wrote: »

I think Boards HQ ( Distilled Media really) are going to have to make some decisions about how integrated all the sites within the "family" are and are going to be. For many of us Boards.ie is the daddy with things like adverts being the children, offshoots of the parent as such.

Over time, this seems to have changed, and now Adverts and Deals are pretty separate entities, and thus, the question is, what is the link between those sites and here. Maybe the same rules just don't apply?

/devils advocate

you can login with your boards id, the logo is based on the boards logo, it says:

About BoardsDeals

Boards.ie is Ireland's biggest discussion forum. With 2.2 million visitors per month we rival national primetime television in terms of audience.
Now, Boards.ie brings you BoardsDeals - amazing and exclusive deals from all around Ireland!

Boards deals is a way to take advantage of a pre-existing audience, and it leverages the brand loyalty of boards.ie. No problem with that whatsoever. I'd argue that, at least initially, boards deals wouldn't have had the same success if it were just another deals site. No problem with that. However, that means that boards.ie takes the rough with the smooth - if boards has nothing to do with boards deals, then remove all boards references and change the name. If not, then stand over the site when things like this come up.

Dr Galen

I don't disagree with any of you lads.

Which is why I would say that Distilled need to face these sorts of things and make that call.

TheZohanS

Dr Galen wrote: »

I think Boards HQ ( Distilled Media really) are going to have to make some decisions about how integrated all the sites within the "family" are and are going to be. For many of us Boards.ie is the daddy with things like adverts being the children, offshoots of the parent as such.

Over time, this seems to have changed, and now Adverts and Deals are pretty separate entities, and thus, the question is, what is the link between those sites and here. Maybe the same rules just don't apply?

/devils advocate

I disagree with that point. Boardsdeals are still very much a part of boards.ie. Biz--->Consumer--->Bargain Alerts--->Boards Deals

If they are operating under the boards.ie umbrella I think it's only fair that they adhere to the site rules, and deals such as these silicone bands should not be allowed. We're not allowed to give medical advice or even legal advice for that matter so Boardsdeals should also follow these rules considering that forum is embedded within the site.

Adverts has it's own heading and there's merely a link to it at the top section, maybe Boardsdeals should do the same now.

Tallon

TheZohan wrote: »

I disagree with that point. Boardsdeals are still very much a part of boards.ie. Biz--->Consumer--->Bargain Alerts--->Boards Deals

If they are operating under the boards.ie umbrella I think it's only fair that they adhere to the site rules, and deals such as these silicone bands should not be allowed. We're not allowed to give medical advice or even legal advice for that matter so Boardsdeals should also follow these rules considering that forum is embedded within the site.

Adverts has it's own heading and there's merely a link to it at the top section, maybe Boardsdeals should do the same now.

Adverts have several support forums and as I said, is integrated with every username.. so they are very much, if not more, a part of Boards.ie

Sacksian

LoLth wrote: »

The alternative is that all boardsdeals, no matter what, are vetted according to a set of acceptable beliefs. Would you be happy if your preferred belief were not on that acceptable list?

I would have thought that all boardsdeals are already vetted according to a set of acceptable beliefs. I'm sure there are a vast number of legal products which boards wouldn't be comfortable promoting through boardsdeals.

The original point was about the boards "brand" and whether such deals have the capacity to undermine it.

I think the issue is that, given the centrality of "community" to the boards "brand", it's likely that goodwill would be undermined if products are officially promoted using claims that some members of the community are explicitly forbidden from making (e.g. the A/R/T forum with regard to medical advice).

Dr Galen

TheZohan wrote: »

I disagree with that point. Boardsdeals are still very much a part of boards.ie. Biz--->Consumer--->Bargain Alerts--->Boards Deals

If they are operating under the boards.ie umbrella I think it's only fair that they adhere to the site rules, and deals such as these silicone bands should not be allowed. We're not allowed to give medical advice or even legal advice for that matter so Boardsdeals should also follow these rules considering that forum is embedded within the site.

Adverts has it's own heading and there's merely a link to it at the top section, maybe Boardsdeals should do the same now.

Tallon wrote: »

Adverts have several support forums and as I said, is integrated with every username.. so they are very much, if not more, a part of Boards.ie

I'm not talking about this in a technical way, like a site structure way, I'm talking about functionally.

Adverts and Boardsdeals both have their own teams running the show. We have Dav and his guys/girls. There was once a time when pretty much everything of this sort of nature, was resolved by Dev coming in and making the call. Those days are quite obviously gone. Adverts issues are dealt with by the Adverts team, Deals by the deals team and Boards issues by Dav.

I am not disagreeing with what any of you are pointing out above. The bands thing was a silly deal, and considering the rules on boards.ie was ill advised. There should be a vetting process for deals absolutely. It's just that we have now reached a point (which was bound to happen) whereby Distilled (ultimate owners of everything) need to put some clear guidelines in place as to how the 3 sites will be interacting with each other from now on. They then need to make it clear to the users of all three sites what the relationship is.

Oryx

Firstly, as an example of how not to do it, groupon are getting it in the neck lately over their lack of vetting of suppliers and poor customer care. (see consumer issues if you dont believe me). I would not like to see boards go down this corporate path where they lose sight of their core strength (us) in pursuit of the more financially beneficial aspects. Like it or not Dev, boardsdeals is not a standalone object. It began with boards the forum, and this is still your core strength. If you start to get bad press in the deals site over dubious offers like this one, it can filter back into this site.

Secondly, I agree with --amadeus--. The way this deal was offered came across as boards.ie legitimising it. We trust you to look after members interests, not to try to sell us junk. People give out about how strict we are here, this is just so glaringly opposed to the normal boards stance its almost funny. (If it werent taking peoples money for a joke of a product). I know you have said you will look into this, as it hadnt occurred to you how it came across. But it would only take a few instances like this to create a lot of bad feeling about the trust aspect of boards.ie. As well as leaving you open to accusations of 'one rule for us, another for them'.

But in the wider issue, I get LoLth's point. How do you tackle this? Do you vet each product, and if so, who decides what product is kosher and what isnt? To me the whole set up is fine in theory, and a good idea, but could go completely bad if the team running it are not proactive and responsible to this community which they are invariably tied to. It doesnt matter if technically, boardsdeals is seen a separate entity. In reality, to the user, its one and the same. The same ethos needs to apply.

token56

Oryx wrote: »

But in the wider issue, I get LoLth's point. How do you tackle this? Do you vet each product, and if so, who decides what product is kosher and what isnt? To me the whole set up is fine in theory, and a good idea, but could go completely bad if the team running it are not proactive and responsible to this community which they are invariably tied to. It doesnt matter if technically, boardsdeals is seen a separate entity. In reality, to the user, its one and the same. The same ethos needs to apply.

I completely agree here, while it still operates and is linked so closely with the site that made it in most peoples view it should have to apply the same ethos. However I feel in terms of what is best for boardsdeals as a business those in charge need to think about whether or not this is best for them. In the cruel world of business it might better to distance itself from boards and the associated ethos and move onto greener business pastures. I'm not saying I'd like this happen but might make sense for boardsdeals as a business. I'm also not saying they would then be able to sell whatever they like, I'd still like to think the team their would have some level of integrity regarding what is sold. Although doing this might initiate a backlash from the community that helped get it off the ground. It is indeed a tricky position.

RoundyMooney

Anything associated with the boards.ie name definitely needs to hold itself to a decent standard, anything else simply devalues the boards.ie "brand" as it were.

Personally, I gave up on boards deals some time ago, because it is too Dublin-centric (which obviously won't be a problem for users in the area of the capital!), but mumbo jumbo masquerading as medical fact doesn't inspire me with confidence, or make me feel that I missed out. My opinions don't matter as such anyway, because I'm not a user in the first place

But. In keeping with the community ethos here, the people at boards deals are getting some comprehensive, insightful, and voluntary feedback landed on their desk, as it were from actual subscribers. One can only hope they take it on board.

DeVore

So, the outcome of this is:

1. The deal was pulled (some time ago now in fact).

2. We are aware now that our brand is considered "trusted" and that we need to take more care about what we do with that trust.

3. People shouldn't cut and paste manufacturers claims into our description.

4. There needs to be some advertising standards applied at least in terms of ASAI sort of stuff. Normally our deals dont go anywhere near that sort of area so we never really thought about it before. However, we are NOT going to make subjective decisions about products on the basis of whim and localised complaint. Everyone has a bug in their ear about something (the Green supporters would take us to task for selling a ride in a Ferrari for example). But yes, some advertising standards thought will go into the decision to present a deal from now on.



Also, BoardsDeals is part of Boards.ie Ltd. We are closely aligned with it and its paying for a good deal of our redevelopment and hosting.

Adverts.ie is a separate company with a separate team and finances. We are still allied with them in terms of common directorships and links from here to there but its much more distant to us than Deals is.

Hope this clarifies things.

DeV.

--amadeus--

All of which sounds good and it's great the dodgy deal was locked off promptly.

Going forward I think there are 2 simple tests to work out if a deal is acceptable:

1 - Would a poster making the claims in the copy text be breaching any of the site rules?

2 - Would you be unhappy for your Granny to spend her pension on buying whatever it is?

Yes to both of those is a definite no go, IMO. Yes to one and the product should get a bit more thought or be managed with care. So in the case of aromatherapy massage it might breach site rules if posted by a general punter but it's harmless stuff and if my Granny had one it wouldn't bother me. So promote away (without being too outlandish in teh healing claims).

Once again the all powerful "Don't be a dick" rule works - if the Deal looks like the people selling it are dicks then avoid