[Yak] Re: Conflict of interest is conflict of interest
deanwisleder at insightbb.com
Sat Sep 3 09:55:32 CDT 2005
If I understand how this is shaping up, the $100 "acknowledgement" is not
the real issue here. What's at issue is the fact that all five brands of
bicycle will be ridden by the same individual. Bike Friday wants a Bike
Friday owner to step forward, and the New York Times is okay with that. In
fact, didn't the NYT ask for a BF owner to do the testing? Unless the Bike
Friday owner also owns or has extensive experience with the other brands of
bicycle beyond short test rides, it seems to me he/she will have a strong
bias towards Bike Friday. The conflict of interest is already built in even
without the bonus "acknowledgement." If the published article clearly
explains how the testing was done and who did it, the readers will at least
be able to draw their own conclusions as to how objective the test was.
The resulting article might be really interesting if each bike manufacturer
provided a bike AND a happy owner with each owner testing all five bikes.
For just a very short period, I wish I lived in the NYC area.
> Behalf Of Larry Varney on 9/3/05
> Yes, I can agree with those who say that there might be a conflict
>of interest here, but perhaps not: it's not actual cash that's being
>offered, but credit towards a purchase of Bike Friday accessories. If
>BF took it upon themselves to send money, or something tangible like
>a new set of tires or a folding rack, something actual and physical,
>that would be one thing.
> But what's being offered is a little different. In fact, the
>recipient might decide not to even use it at all, or may suggest that
>BF take that $100 credit and turn it into a charitable donation of
On Sep 2, 2005, at 10:14 PM, Mark Atwell wrote:
> I hate to say it but I agree with Dante. I won't bore you with my
> Progressive political rant about Administrations paying radio hosts
> to tout WH Programs...
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dante Lanzetta"
> <dante_lanzetta at sbcglobal.net>
> To: <yak at bikefriday.com>
> Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 1:55 PM
> Subject: [Yak] Re: Conflict of interest is conflict of interest
> Lynette Chiang <lynchiang at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> We're not paying - it's called acknowldgement
> John and I were not playing semantics. It's not about
> acknowledgement; its
> about ethics and transparency, i.e., avoiding a conflict of
> interest or the
> appearance of one.
> If GG wants to pay people for market research though it should
> that fact when it publishes the results that's its business.
> This isn't market research, but a newspaper that represents what it
> as unbiased (except for editorials, stated to be opinions only).
> If GG pays
> (even after you've renamed it "acknowledges") the reviewer, it
> taints the
> story and, in fact, ultimately GG.
More information about the Yak