Who should be allowed to post?

[FmGrowit]

This thread is a question about competitor retailers who want to post on the site.

The question of who to allow and who to not allow to post is a delicate balancing act. My basic philosophy is this...

1. All growers are welcome to list anything they grow for sale on the site.

2. Wholesale distributors are welcome to list their available inventory or the leaf they can make available.

3. There are even a couple of retailer who I would allow because they are network affiliates in that I buy and sell to them.

Of course, anyone looking for any quantity of leaf is allowed to post in the appropriate forum.

LeafOnly is a direct competitor and giving them free advertising is only counterproductive. Can anyone find justification to allow a competitor to advertize their site and product on this site? If I'm missing something, please help me understand.

 

[LeftyRighty]

I agree completely! I thought it was in extreme poor taste for LimpOnly to post.

 

[SmokesAhoy]

I was about to ban and delete but saw the admins were on and wasn't sure what your policy was on him. I can see you taking compensation for a direct placement advert in a subforum dedicated to other retailers but just quick "responses" to threads that almost invariably lead to link dropping is at best poor taste. My initial thought was to delete tho.

We should allow another retailer to post a blurb in an appropriate spot, but only if they pay for the advertising. Otherwise spam should be treated as such, even if it is targeted.

 

[johnlee1933]

I agree it is a delicate question and I need more time to think on it. In some other thread I believe you said any one could post things for sale from their hobby or profession. To limit that because it is competitive with you seems odd to me. That is a first thought and I may change when I think it over some more.

John

 

[johnlee1933]

Thanks Smokes, I like that approach. If they want to compete let them set up their own forums or pay for advertising. In the meantime why not delete the URL's they post with a polite note that if they want to advertise on the sub site they are welcome.

J

 

[Chicken]

i think they should pay for advertising also,

 

[indianjoe]

The overt posting and referencing to "their" site was somewhat out of flavor. How much can they add to a discussion without getting back to their agenda? Reminded me of telemarketer, of which I have a distaste

 

[Jitterbugdude]

The overt posting and referencing to "their" site was somewhat out of flavor. How much can they add to a discussion without getting back to their agenda? Reminded me of telemarketer, of which I have a distaste

Ditto!

 

[johnlee1933]

Don,

It seems some of us share a mutual distaste for telemarketers. (FYI -- The National "Do Not Call" list is available to all and helps some.) {Personally I just put them all on hold. If we can agree time is money I enjoy wasting theirs!}

Motivated entrepreneurs will seek any venue they can to market their wares. I think it was inevitable that eventually some would show up on this forum. They have found a marketplace (developed by you) and want to use it. The fact they did nothing to develop it means nothing to them. The fact that it may be in poor taste doesn't bother them. I guess I am a bit surprised they haven't struck sooner. These people may or may not have something to add to the forum. That is beside the point.

Don, you started this forum and you get to set the rules. If it were mine to do I would ban them ruthlessly. I think you must expect they will keep trying and be prepared to define, set and enforce the rules. Perhaps it is a compliment the the site has been "discovered" and considered to be viable marketing tool. Oh yes, they will find it "unfair" they aren't allowed to profit from your efforts. Tuff S#%T !

Like anything else in life I will learn the new rules and abide by them or leave.

There's my two cents. Good luck in whatever you decide,

John

 

[BarG]

Posting versus advertising, put that on the fair trade scale. Posting as a member vs. advertising as a competitor.

BarG

 

[Ashauler]

Would this competitor buy leaf from growers here? Would that be desirable? Could he be compelled to do so as a requirement of advertising?

 

[FmGrowit]

I'm pretty sure Larry tried to establish a business relationship with them and they couldn't come to an agreement.

I don't want to bad mouth anyone here and LeafOnly has a place in the market. They offer a lot of stuff that I don't offer and a lot of it I will never offer. My main goal is to sell domestic, specialty and heirloom tobacco. Right now, the only foreign tobacco I sell is Cigar wrapper and Oriental tobacco because it isn't available domestically. Leaf only sells (almost exclusively) imported and commercial domestic tobacco.

With the help from all of the research being done here on the FTT forum, WLT will be offering even more exclusive varieties. So in a way, LeafOnly isn't much of a threat in the long run. With this in mind, would a even exchange of plugging each others sites be more or less beneficial to FTT and indirectly to WLT?

...a delicate balancing act indeed.

 

[Ashauler]

I'm pretty sure Larry tried to establish a business relationship with them and they couldn't come to an agreement.

I don't want to bad mouth anyone here and LeafOnly has a place in the market. They offer a lot of stuff that I don't offer and a lot of it I will never offer. My main goal is to sell domestic, specialty and heirloom tobacco. Right now, the only foreign tobacco I sell is Cigar wrapper and Oriental tobacco because it isn't available domestically. Leaf only sells (almost exclusively) imported and commercial domestic tobacco.

With the help from all of the research being done here on the FTT forum, WLT will be offering even more exclusive varieties. So in a way, LeafOnly isn't much of a threat in the long run. With this in mind, would a even exchange of plugging each others sites be more or less beneficial to FTT and indirectly to WLT?

...a delicate balancing act indeed.

Agreed...though any potential benefit is worthy of exploration, imo. I do agree with others that, at this point, further advertising by them in any form should not be allowed "gratis". A mutually beneficial arrangement involving links should be pursued, imo.

 

[deluxestogie]

I will take an unpopular stance on this issue. I firmly believe in a free press. All of the responses on this thread, so far, have clearly demonstrated that members are quite capable of differentiating marketeering from gospel. There is no better antidote for a biased presentation than a clear and open-minded rebuttal.

Even a fool, when he holds his peace, is counted wise: and he that shuts his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.

Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.

I like the American custom of allowing politicians, marketeers and, yes, even radio talk show hosts, to open their mouths. Intelligent listeners and readers can draw their own conclusions. Public scrutiny is a powerful antiseptic.

The competition will be there, whether you cover your eyes or not. When you offer a better product, you win.

Now I've opened my mouth on the subject.

Bob

 

[FmGrowit]

LeafOnly has not been banned and only a couple of the obvious spam posts have been removed. There will always be spam posts and they will always be removed regardless of subject.

I don't want to alienate anyone from the forum, but I don't want to shoot myself in the foot either.

 

[BarG]

There is a thread for members to market there whole leaf, http://www.fairtradetobacco.com/forumdisplay.php?16-Sell-your-Whole-Leaf-Tobacco I prefer WLT over site being discussed, my initial thoughts while researching whole leaf made it unclear if actual whole leafs were being offered or whole leaf parts, making it unclear as to product I would be purchasing, prior to joining FTT, Have not visited other site since.

edit; usualy done through pm. not redirecting to another site.

 

[Ashauler]

I will take an unpopular stance on this issue. I firmly believe in a free press. All of the responses on this thread, so far, have clearly demonstrated that members are quite capable of differentiating marketeering from gospel. There is no better antidote for a biased presentation than a clear and open-minded rebuttal.




I like the American custom of allowing politicians, marketeers and, yes, even radio talk show hosts, to open their mouths. Intelligent listeners and readers can draw their own conclusions. Public scrutiny is a powerful antiseptic.

The competition will be there, whether you cover your eyes or not. When you offer a better product, you win.

Now I've opened my mouth on the subject.

Bob

Yes, I agree with a free and unrestrained press. Is that what's being discussed here?

This is a privately owned site, free to choose for itself the content that it will allow. Allowing competitors to actively attempt to redirect this site's visitors to their site is simply not wise, unless, as I stated before, a mutually beneficial arrangement can be made between the two sites.

I don't see links for Pepsi on the Coca-Cola website. Help me understand how this is different?

 

[Tom_in_TN]

If you took a position that anyone can become a member and post on the forum, then of course they should abide by the rules. So, nothing wrong if you wanted to have a rule that any member who posts a competitive site link should pay for the privilege. I would think a competitor would be wise to take that offer so long as it is cost effective. There are thousands of companies paying for the privilege to be on a popular site.

 

[deluxestogie]

Yeah. I really don't want to be (or sound like) a crusader for invasive commentary. I guess what I have in mind is akin to the ambiance of the buyer's reviews you often find on commercial websites. If any product, even the very finest, has no unfavorable comments, then I distrust the favorable comments. A vendor that invites all comment, positive or negative, shows his confidence in his products holding their own. With regard to the LO posts, some were neutral, some were simply biased, some were spam. I trust that all of us can tell the difference.

Redirection links are everywhere on the Web--on just about every page. We usually just ignore them, like the "sponsored" links that appear at the head of a Google search. I suppose you could sell "sponsored" links in the designated area of the FTT forum, though I doubt the profit from it would cover the headache of administering it.

Yes. Do stomp the spam.

Bob

 

[BarG]

Yeah. I really don't want to be (or sound like) a crusader for invasive commentary. I guess what I have in mind is akin to the ambiance of the buyer's reviews you often find on commercial websites. If any product, even the very finest, has no unfavorable comments, then I distrust the favorable comments. A vendor that invites all comment, positive or negative, shows his confidence in his products holding their own. With regard to the LO posts, some were neutral, some were simply biased, some were spam. I trust that all of us can tell the difference.

Redirection links are everywhere on the Web--on just about every page. We usually just ignore them, like the "sponsored" links that appear at the head of a Google search. I suppose you could sell "sponsored" links in the designated area of the FTT forum, though I doubt the profit from it would cover the headache of administering it.

Yes. Do stomp the spam.

Bob

Good point Bob.