146 replies to this topic

[smokeydokie]

Well im sure this will get right up there nose lol.Silly really more fool them as this has back fired somewhat.

Smokey

[pegginton]

Janty have delusions of being Apple Inc*

*I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, and was in no way fair comment, and was motivated purely by malice, and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused janty, or their employees, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future.

[Harlequin69]

Well done Scott! I don't blame you in the slightest and would have felt the same if it was me

[roadhoguk]

pegginton, on 26 January 2012 - 10:59 PM, said:

Janty have delusions of being Apple Inc*

*I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, and was in no way fair comment, and was motivated purely by malice, and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused janty, or their employees, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future.

LOL!

John Cleese in "A Fish Called Wanda" i believe"

Minus the "Janty"

Edited by roadhoguk, 26 January 2012 - 11:04 PM.

[Fiona]

easystreet, on 26 January 2012 - 10:29 PM, said:

now we'll never know if it produces a really nice amount of vapour!

I think I'll start up The Scott Bonner Groupies Society.....We can swap notes

[JMW]

I really can't believe they attempted that - with any reviewer tbh, it is just not playing the game imo. Full respect to you Scott, for sticking by the principles we all know you and trust you for.

As someone who is also involved with media/photography/copyright for a living, they'd get a similar response from me in all honesty.

Agree with other's comments that it is a shame though, as I had lots of respect for their "karma" based approach to business, having seen their designer on vttv the other night. He left me with a very good impression of their conduct, but for me, its left a bit of a sour taste now.

[valtergomes]

I do think it's a pre-written email, and they didn't even read it well.. Their mistake doing that.
I did receive the same email as Scott and we talked about it.. I sent janty an email with the things I didn't like. They didn't answer me back, I recorded the video and sent them (6mins? nah.. 17minutes!).. They told me I could release it..

My review is in Portuguese and they don't understand it, I could be talking bad about the product and they """""allowed""""" me to publish it, so I really think it's a pre-written "contract" mistake from the marketing side.

Scott want my product to review? You can use background music and lapdancers mate!

cheers!

[daveio]

lol good on ya scott just watched the review on my mobile..luv it....just a shame i never got to hear..lets see what it vapes like

what a legend

[romastino]

A really shitty way of going about things from a respected company ,and hats to you mate for telling them were to go, now lets see how they get on with this PR vid, notonyournelly.com was a masterstroke

[DaveK]

Lol. Who else tried looking up notonyournelly.com then? Admit it!

I think they did send that list of "terms" to everyone, at least I know they did with VTTV anyway. We just contacted them and said we don't do that and they immediately told us to carry on and do what we wanted - so we did!

My personal feeling is that as soon as you start making any concessions about the way you do your review (whatever the suppliers' intentions), it ceases to actually be a review and becomes dangerously close to being a commercial / info-mmercial. I've nothing against commercials, but viewers need to know what they are watching and accepting terms like these would blur the lines quite a bit.

[Phil A]

DaveK, on 27 January 2012 - 09:01 AM, said:

Lol. Who else tried looking up notonyournelly.com then? Admit it!

I think they did send that list of "terms" to everyone, at least I know they did with VTTV anyway. We just contacted them and said we don't do that and they immediately told us to carry on and do what we wanted - so we did!

My personal feeling is that as soon as you start making any concessions about the way you do your review (whatever the suppliers' intentions), it ceases to actually be a review and becomes dangerously close to being a commercial / info-mmercial. I've nothing against commercials, but viewers need to know what they are watching and accepting terms like these would blur the lines quite a bit.

Couldn't agree more, Dave - some of the terms they tried to impose may just have been intended as advice for newer reviewers (although a lot were far more sinister than that), but it's not something suppliers should be doing at all for the reasons you say

[DaveK]

Phil A, on 27 January 2012 - 09:08 AM, said:

Couldn't agree more, Dave - some of the terms they tried to impose may just have been intended as advice for newer reviewers (although a lot were far more sinister than that), but it's not something suppliers should be doing at all for the reasons you say

Some of the terms were clearly to ensure they had some consistency of format so they could make a compilation from the different reviews (no music, under 6 minutes etc), which I personally thought would have been OK as a request, and I'm sure that some reviewers would quite fancy "starring" in the official Janty video that resulted. But it came accross as prerequisite, and therefore we contacted them to resolve that, as we prefer to do our own thing (whatever that is)!

It has to be said that they were absolutely fine with that - there was no negotiation or compromise needed. They just said "go for it".

[igetcha]

seriously Dave? a 6 minute review on a product that had to be used without testing is okay as a request?

and there was no "request"......it was a very clear set of instructions on how the review must be conducted! what i read out were word for word quotes from their email!

ps...and i certainly have zero interest in "starring" in their official Janty video even if i had complied to their demands!

Edited by igetcha, 27 January 2012 - 09:40 AM.

[DaveK]

igetcha, on 27 January 2012 - 09:35 AM, said:

seriously Dave? a 6 minute review on a product that had to be used without testing is okay as a request?

and there was no "request"......it was a very clear set of instructions on how the review must be conducted! what i read out were word for word quotes from their email!

That's what I said

If it had been a request - fair enough, but it wasn't so we advised them that we couldn't do that either.

[Rusty]

Well done Scott

Only just seen this and you have brilliantly explained yourself and shown to some 'doubters' out there what the rest of us know. Your integrity as a reviewer is and has always been second to none.

I'm really surprised and disgusted at Janty though!


Keep up the good work.

Russell

[igetcha]

Rusty, on 27 January 2012 - 09:40 AM, said:

Well done Scott

Only just seen this and you have brilliantly explained yourself and shown to some 'doubters' out there what the rest of us know. Your integrity as a reviewer is and has always been second to none.

I'm really surprised and disgusted at Janty though!


Keep up the good work.

Russell

cheers Rusty


@Dave

sorry mate, read it wrong.......i thought you was saying it was okay for them to request / demand those things rather than saying it would have been okay "if" they said something like "if possible, could the review go like this?" (which they didn't, lol)

[ChrissyBoy]

Scott - no need to comment really... You did the right thing.

Considering your main line of work: "raw footage", "copyright" etc sounds like they were after a freebie!

[DaveK]

igetcha, on 27 January 2012 - 09:48 AM, said:

@Dave

sorry mate, read it wrong.......i thought you was saying it was okay for them to request / demand those things rather than saying it would have been okay "if" they said something like "if possible, could the review go like this?" (which they didn't, lol)

No worries!

[Trog]

well done scot..

but this is a product promo thing isnt it.. a "big name" e cig company playing the tit for tat game.. offering a kind of payment but not in monetary terms..

they know folks will hit the neo google button.. scot pops up and get his own promotion as a reviewer.. you promote us and we promote you..

it does kind of show just how arrogant they are.. but they have always been this way nothing has changed..

it deserves the reply you have given them scot.. a very polite but f-ck off janty..

they are doing you a favour by letting you review their new product.. they tell you how to do it so as you dont make a pigs ear of it.. they own what you do and in return you become part of the janty promotion machine.. which i must admit is very slick..

thanks for exposing it for what it is.. the only surprising thing is that they can be so blatant about it.. which is the taking the piss part..

trog

ps.. i doubt it will do them much harm though.. or you.. he he..

Edited by Trog, 27 January 2012 - 10:29 AM.

[igetcha]

thank you for the kind words Trog (never thought i would say that! lol)

i would like to touch base on one thing you wrote though:-

"they are doing you a favour by letting you review their new product"

and that is precisely how it came across to me......though i view it in a less positive way, lol

sure, i know it will bring me lots of views (the Janty Ego review i done has nearly 70,000 views now!) but reviews on these type of starter kits actually cost me money whereas they no doubt earn Janty plenty.
as i have no interest in keeping hold of these type of kits once reviewed i give them all away.......i always send my stuff out next day delivery if its going to a UK address or recorded delivery if I'm sending it out to a foreign country. so as well as the cost of packaging materials, petrol to the post office, parking fees, my time etc i then have to pay anywhere from £5.90 to £15.00 postal delivery charges..........do that between 3 - 10 times a month and it all starts adding up! lol

so really, who is doing who the favour? lol


but i do get your point though mate