RE: 3rd party business recommendations

[Tourangelle]

Ian

sounds like it would be a disservice to your clients if you didn't recommend your friend restaurateur, I wouldn't have any qualms about it, presumably you say, something along the lines of, he is a friend, but his cooking is excellent, you can expect to pay X, then they make up their own minds. It is so different I think from being on a forum where all you can see is type.

More generally there was a thread the other day which somebody started which was just an ad for some property, but it got removed almost straight away. I wish rather than bickering about it (and I don't mean in this thread) people would just PM a moderator and leave it at that. Otherwise when the offending post is removed it reads really oddly, more posts have to be removed, what a waste of time.

[Will]

Ian's interpretation of the rules is about right, and I wouldn't see any problem with recommending a friend, as long is it was in response to a request and not just a blatant plug. A family member's business is a slightly different matter, particularly in France where it is difficult for a business in the family to be kept totally separate from the household income, but I think there are ways of helping people discreetly.

The reason for the rule is basically that advertising revenue is very important to Living France, the magazine could not be produced without it, so obviously people aren't allowed to use the associated forum for free advertising.

Of course, whenever there is a rule like this, there are always the cleverdicks who will try to bend it or stretch the limits, but I think intelligent forum members can see through them.

If anybody sees a posting that they think contravenes any of the forum guidelines then by all means let us know and we can edit or remove it without disrupting the flow of the discussion.

[Deimos]

Again, having nothing to do with the rules, but just getting my 2p worth in; Maybe one aspect is what you are actually responding to. If there is a post asking “where can I find an English speaking accountant near St. Grots” and your wife is an English speaking accountant living in St Grots, then I would think that providing the details is only answering the question. If you were unsure you could always answer by PM. However, if you put a web site link in your signature you are including it on every post including those to which it has no relevance – which could easily be interpreted as advertising.

This forum is slightly different to many in that it is run by a magazine that carries commercial advertising and thus has obvious commercial considerations. For example, I used an agent that virtually always advertises in LF to purchase my French Property and they were a complete disaster/rip-off. I have subsequently found out that many others have done the same and been ripped-off (by the same company). However, on the few occasions where people have posted their experiences on LF forum they have been quickly removed thus ensuring that others do not benefit from the experience, others can make the same mistakes and that LF maintain their advertising revenue. Unfortunately it is a constraint of the nature of this forum. As with all things in life people have to appreciate that what is published and what is said will (to an extent) always depend on constraints.

[Russethouse]

The sig issue has been debated several times and the present solution is a good compromise. No one has to click !

While I respect your point about advertisers, don't forget there are also issues of libel as well as commercial considerations to be considered.

[Deimos]

[quote]The sig issue has been debated several times and the present solution is a good compromise. No one has to click !While I respect your point about advertisers, don't forget there are also issues of lib...[/quote]

I think it is the “commercial considerations” that is the issue rather than “libel”. Libel has little to do with recounting real experiences about a company. Libellous comments can be made about people companies, etc. and has nothing directly to do with companies advertising in LF. The “Libel” aspect is one used by some to justify protecting their commercial interests. I do not have and problem about this but think one just needs to be clear about what is happening (and thus how extensive advice people visiting the forum’s can expect).

When people are allowed to recount their positive experiences about a company but not the negative experiences then people using those comments will receive biased and unrepresentative advice. Again, don’t take my comments as a criticism – just that people need to be aware of the constraints of this forum (in that “commercial considerations” outweigh quality and accuracy of advice presented).

[Will]

We're getting into a different argument here.

The matter of libel (or rather defamation) is very complicated and I can assure you does take precedence over commercial considerations. I would have no problem with you saying "I used company X and was not happy with the fact that they charged me an extra £3500 plus VAT when purchasing my French house through them, when I could have got virtually the same service from any of the French agencies advertising in Living France at no extra charge over the standard agency fees" even if company X was a regular and prominent advertiser. If it is the same company I am thinking of, you have to bear in mind that plenty of other people have paid the extra fee and been quite happy to do so in return for the service provided - you are merely stating the facts of your experience. If, on the other hand, you had said something along the lines of "Don't use company X they are total con artists and rip off merchants", this would have to be edited or deleted under the forum rules.

Remember too that you don't have to actually name the company or person, merely referring to them so that they are clearly identifiable is sufficient.

Another thing that is often not realised is that the size of the company also has a bearing on how statements like this are interpreted in the law. For example P&O is probably big enough not be harmed by one comment about it supposedly overcharging on some of its ferry routes, whereas a small start-up company could be seriously damaged by such adverse publicity.

UK law relating to the printed word is complex enough, and that is probably what applies to a site like this owned and hosted in the UK. However, internet libel law is still very much finding its feet (though there have been some interesting legal decisions) and it is arguable that French, European or even international laws could apply to a forum like this.

This site http://www.newsdesk-uk.com/law/libelcheck.shtml gives a more comprehensive view. You will see that it is not necessarily a defence to be just quoting facts. It is the way you quote them that matters. One of the cases mentioned on the site concerns a magazine that printed its own findings about a sailing boat it tested - i.e. fact. However, that magazine had a seven-figure sum awarded against it because it was decided that, although factual, its report went against the claims of an advertiser, a small company, and made the directors of that company look like 'charlatans and liars'. The magazine concerned was a sister title to one I was working on at the time so it's a subject that is close to my heart.

Living France cannot afford million pound-plus damages, plus all the associated costs, so it is not surprising that its publishers prefer to play safe with these forums and remove potentially defamatory postings. We have had lawyers, both professionally-qualified and knowledgeable amateurs, query this approach before: it has even been argued that by removing possible libels we are proving their existence, and on the other hand the existence of moderators with the power to remove postings is sufficient defence against libel actions. But the policy was, and remains 'safety first'. I can assure you that is the prime reason for the rule rather than risk of losing advertising.

[Deimos]

I was not complaining about it, just stating it. The company I refer to with my experience (and quite a few others I know of and many more through an ex-employee) effectively protects its reputation by extensive advertising and the fact that most people use such agencies only for their 1st purchase abroad. They are thus not dependant on repeat business. Long time ago there were quite a few posts removed about the company. I didn’t see them, just the comments about them being removed.

Maybe, had the posts remained it might have saved me quite a lot of money and problems (who can say as they have gone).

I’m not complaining nor trying to kindle any “censorship” type of argument, just that as with all things in life, people need to be aware of what can and cannot be said and thus that there may be the risk of unbalanced opinion being expressed.

[Will]

I certainly take the point that you were not complaining but as the relationship between potential defamation and possibly upsetting major advertisers is such a sensitive subject to many people I thought it as well to once again clearly state the forum's policy, and the reasons for that, on the subject.

In the circumstances you mention it might be useful for the uninformed to have reference to adverse comments about all sorts of companies on the forum; trouble is that adverse comments have to made very carefully so that they do not breach the rules, and some users were, in the past, unable to do that. With the older version of the forum it was not possible to edit posts (other than for a short time after they had been made) so unfortunately whole topics had to be removed, which often contained good information as well as the contentious stuff.

It could be argued that most people making their first purchase in France may not even have discovered this forum, so are still open to being taken advantage of.

We often stress in answers to questions on the forum that buyers of French property should never be expected pay over any money to an estate agency (only to a notaire) and should not be expected to pay anything other than the standard agency fees quoted in the initial contract (except for certain extras like a land survey should this be necessary). I think this point covers your experience. We're sorry that you feel taken advantage of, and can understand why. The company I think we are both thinking of is comparatively large and well-established, so there is no reason to think it is acting illegally. However its charging structure may not suit all clients so, as with all advertisements, it has to be the responsibility of the buyer to make enquiries beforehand, and we are always pleased to answer specific questions and make recommendations (or otherwise) on the forum, whether or not the company advertises in the magazine, as long as the answers stay within the forum guidelines.

There is a current post about an agency that asks for extra fees from buyers referred by English sub-agents, this names the agency and has not caused any problems yet, so it can be done.

[Deimos]

Certainly not complaining. We live in the real world and Archant have to make a living. Truth is they do not publish their magazine and maintain this forum out of the goodness of their hearts but to help their company commercially.

This forum probably follows similar guidelines to the magazine itself. Income from major (and ongoing) advertisers is important to the magazine’s profitability. One would not expect to see articles critical of aspects of major advertisers practices published. Just common sense.

I use my case only as an example. I cannot justifiable consider I’ve been “taken advantage of” (as immediately prior to starting legal action they provided me with a significant refund). I think people just need to be aware of the limitations of information published on the forum (in all respects – not just in my example).