@Devin_Grady it’s not really changing policy, just bending it slightly. It’s an interesting enough product that I would have certainly let the first kickstarter post slide as long as I weren’t in a bad mood. If I were in a great mood, I’d probably even let a second one slide. The third one, probably not. We don’t want it to become a regular thing either.
I think the current idea is that it would go to Thomas first for review, and then either get passed along like the WitBox Pilgrim so a bunch of people got to test it out and pass it on, or to plan some sort of giveaway for the community. How’s that sound?
I have absolutely no objections to organizing a giveaway or passing a review device around etc. and having all of these activities generate posts/buzz/discussion with links to Kickstarter. I just think we should have our messaging clear that we don’t change policies because a company gives certain people things. That seems like it would open up a can of worms…
I’m not a huge contributor to the discussions but I follow a lot of the 3D Printing posts and have a respect for you guys for how you filter out the crap spam vs possibly useful semi-spam and making this group readable.
I basically think it’d be pretty lame of you guys to accept a bribe/kickback to allow direct marketing kickstarter spam.
If that’s what you want it to be, ‘no advertising unless we get stuff’, then so be it. You group ‘owners’ created the group, invested the time to build it and moderate it so it’s your call in the end. No doubt if the product is amazing and wonderful I will hear about it through other sources geared towards that sort of thing.
Okie dokie then. No bending the rules. No changing them. I’ll probably let them post 2 kickstarter posts, and if they want to generate more through passing a sample around, that’s cool. It’s well within what we probably would have allowed prior to this discussion, so we’ll leave it at that.
@Jon_Caywood Major +1 to thanking the mods for keeping this community relatively spam free and generally well maintained! This community is the best part of G+.
I wouldn’t mind them posting about their machine and campaign in here so long as it’s done with the community in mind, it’s possible to have a conversation rather than flat out market a thing.
Mods allowing marketing posts in return for borrowing a demo unit is unethical.
If you did this and their posts were very marketing orientated I would not hold my tongue in the comments. I don’t think they even could get special treatment by just getting the mods on-side.
I think Tom would be an excellent reviewer to send a unit too, totally separate from him being a mod. This is the real way to generate buzz about your campaign. Engage the community, not the moderators.
I would reply with; the mods are not for sale, but here’s some tips on how to interact with this community in a positive way…
I think rules should stand but Thomas should get one and let it stand on its own two legs.
My two cents. Good stuff finds its way here anyways. I do understand their approach and I gotta hand it to them for asking permission not forgiveness.
Brook
The group has a healthy relationship with several business entities. We’ve seen reviews from e3d, BQ, and Printrbot among others. We can stand another company, if they can successfully separate marketing from their product. Let our notable associates review as necessary, show us the kickstarter, then let the product stand on it’s own. If they post once or twice or three times, it’s not the end of the world. If they’re truly interested in the community, the community will be interested in them.
Don’t sell out for new toys. Just make them participate. They could probably post a link and ask for feedback and suggestions and not really be actively advertising. It would just be a slight side effect. They would have to accept it if people had bad feedback, of course. If they gave direct links to youtube instead of the kickstarter, it would be further from advertising their sales. Meanwhile, if someone can’t find the kickstarter link on their own despite it probably being in the public posts of the kickstarter person and in their youtube videos, then they should not be punished for fulfilling a request on the same thread as the request for info.
I’m going to agree with Brook. If they want advertising, there is no better way then providing demo units and letting the product speak for itself. This community is large enough that if the product is of value then the community will spread the word. I would limit advertising posts of kickstarters like this: one at the beginning of the campaign, and one at the end. If they want more, they would need to produce more. In your context, say a company starts a kickstarter for a product that is relevant, but midway through the kickstarter they show off some outstanding feature (say, closing all of the feedback loops). That would warrant a new post. Otherwise if nothing is new, then they’ll need to rely on regular good old fashioned advertising like going to blogs, Facebook, Twitter, etc. If it’s truly not another “me too” product, then people will hear about it.
If you change anything, change the “rule” to allow a company to make a single post to launch a kickstarter or a new product relevant to the community.
“Ethics” aside, any new company can give anyone a product for testing, and nothing prevents them from doing so in this case. If @Thomas_Sanladerer gets one and does a review of it, I’ll probably pay more attention that if someone I don’t know reviews it.
In reality if they send a unit to Tom and he likes it and gives it a good review they wont HAVE to post their Kickstarter. If they send him one and he doesn’t like it, well they are sunk anyway. So allow posting as usual {1 or 2) and let the reviewers tell the tale.
