I don't see why anyone should be divided. Shilling is paying or convincing people to lie about your product in order to make it seem better than it may be and thus generate more sales. You're cheating a system otherwise designed to give people honest impressions or reviews of your product, thus rendering that system useless and making money through bald-faced deception. How can anyone even argue this point? It's dishonest, dishonorable, and anyone who does it is a douchenozzle, period.
Hi, Has anyone seen a TV commercial? Ever buy something because of that commercial? Nine times out of ten, the person has never used that product, basic fact. The person up there in that commercial is a shill, you do realize this, right? Advertising is word of mouth, honesty has never been a big priority in advertising. Get the word out and make the product sound like it is needed by those you market to. Cebebrities and Athletes marketing things, shills? How many have gone out and bought a pair of shoes based on who wears them in an athletic competition? This concept is all around you and just part of the basic principal of marketing. Just about anyone who is paid for endorsing or participating in a commercial is a shill. This is not even a moral or ethical issue, it is just the way the world works. Reality, what a concept. All the arguments against this does not mean it does not and will not continue to be a basic and fundamental way of marketing. Yes, in Utopia, it would be great if it did not occur, but this is the real world. You really think each athlete has the best sneaker out there, and most are made by the same company? If you do, I got some prime property to sell you too. David
Commercials are one thing. Companies usually clearly associate themselves with their products in those. Shilling seems more in line with your typical infomercial. Outside of the late Billy Mays, not sure how effective they are. Do developers really want to be seen in the same light as the Sham Wow guy? I don't know.
Well that was an interesting read.... LOL! As to the topic originally posted about - I don't think it's cool to beg for 5 star reviews. I'm willing to give honest reviews if I managed to snag a code somewhere, but I don't go looking often. I also think there has been a time when I didn't even rate or review something I got a promo code for because, well, I didn't want to be mean you know? As for how much they influence ME when it comes to buying.... not much. I actually only read the reviews to see if there are any problems in an app. I've normally researched it enough to be about 75% ready to buy, and the reviews can help with the rest. If there is a huge chunk of "problems" (like, Battleship and the playing over wifi & BT), i think try to discern if it is true representation of the game play. I also look at the dates on them - if they are the same day of release, i'm wayyyyy more apt to skim right on over the 5 star glowing reviews. Unless of course there is a 6000 post thread on TA saying how great it is already I'm pretty sure i won't ever be important enough to have someone begging me to give them 5 star reviews. (and really, people read the music reviews to decide if they want to buy it? really??????? there is one place i have NEVER taken them seriously!) But man, you "guys" sure do know how to go at one another! At least it's entertaining at times....
I've never heard of the term "shilling" until this thread but I have seen the act of it with apps and I HATE it when I see it. I actively try to post reviews warning of the false reviews that exist and I actively research suspected posts and vote that it is not helpful if I honestly don't think it is. I saw an analogy made between shilling and prevalent popular marketing strategies. I have some two cents on those: "Shilling is similar to commercials" - Most commercials make it obvious that the actors are only acting. However, infomercials can show a "real person" giving positive feedback when the person in fact is either being paid or is given some kind of incentive ("I lost 100 lbs using Product A!"). I deplore infomercials using this type of trick but over time it has become so obvious that the normal critically thinking person can discern between fake reviews and real ones. When it comes to infomercials, just seeing their tactic makes me believe they do not have a real product worth the price they charge and I have never and probably never will buy from them. They are simply salesmen trying to get the most money as they can. Integrity is not there. I likewise see "shilling" as the same thing. When I come across it, I deplore it and the reputation of the makers takes a serious hit in my eyes. There are plenty of things a developer can do to promote their game: Lie about content that might come in the future, make promises that they have no intention of keeping, hype up the game as being something it isn't, playing word tricks to get people to pay first before finding out what they bought isn't what they expected, and "shilling." If a developer does not care about their reputation, then they should deploy all the tactics I mentioned because it's all fair in marketing and they probably will make more money because of it. ...on a side note, I hate marketing in general. The most profitable marketing strategies are deceptive, play psychological games on the consumer, and are irresponsible. A developer marketing their game should not be defined by what they are willing to do, but rather what they choose not to do.
Most profitable marketing strategies are based on the notion of delivering on a product or service that the public wants to buy. That's the basis of strategic marketing: doing the audience research, shaping the offer accordingly. What you're objecting to is deceptive marketing: when the tools of audience research and communications are used to sell people on things that provides them with no value (or worse, actually harms them). Unfortunately, most people tend to equate all marketing with deceptive marketing. They're not the same thing. The tool itself is neutral; what's deceptive is the intent of the organization that wields it. Think about it: both Phillip Morris and the American Cancer Society use marketing strategies to help achieve their objectives.
You're absolutely right that it's deceptive marketing that I deplore. I was making a general statement which unfortunately could look like a blanketing statement but it wasn't meant to be. Marketing is very important to inform potential consumers about their potential benefit from having the product. Where I was generalizing is where the "best and most profitable" marketing strategies come into play. First, the marketing strategy should play on the public psychologically, convincing them why they "need" the product. It should also play on the emotions of the target audience rather than their logic. I say this because the best marketing strategy sells a product whether or not it is a logically good choice for the consumer. That and a large number of, but not all, people make decisions based on their feelings rather than rational deliberation. So where marketing, in general but not inclusive of all of it, really bugs me is that it uses psychological tricks, which have been shown to create certain outcomes through studies, to manipulate the public. For example, Apple's ads with Microsoft being portrayed as a nerdy, clumsy, uptight guy in a suit and Apple being portrayed as a "cool," savvy, hip guy who seems to best the Microsoft guy every time. This helps bolster an image of Microsoft as exactly what Apple intends, which may or may not be the truth, and just having it being illustrated as thus plays psychological games on the viewer. Just like how some fake reviews look very fake to some critical thinkers, some of this psychological trickery seems just as such to other critical thinkers. But not to all. And I could care less of the person behind the trickery: Philip Morris who I believe is involved now with working on more regulation on tobacco (I think it's the new company name, Altria, that you're thinking of instead as the parent company of Marlboro), or the American Cancer Society. Trickery is still trickery and it is not good for the individual who's relying on this deception to make decisions.
That often happens when developers or marketing reps are put on the spot about such things as, for example, features promised on an app store page that never come into being; cases where the dev has no rational reply, since he/she is contradicted by his/her own words within the respective thread. Someone posting from a newly created account will say something to the effect of "well you had fun dude, didn't you?
i think i have found the biggest shiller in the appstore. The dev's name in Daniel Wong, and there are no reviews on any of his by anyone other than him. Heres an example. Heres some more crap that he has done as well.
Apps like this are the causing the delay of the apps were are waiting for in the apple approval process.
ya, it pisses me off that apple is not doing anything about. Does anyone know if there is a way to contact them?
