Rules for financial reps | Site suggestions | Discussion forum

I agree with Loonie, though I'd still be confused if I was a rep. According to rule 5, Janna should never have come here to advise us of Ideal's new product, reps can only come here to answer a question, but I also got the impression from Peter that the original issue was not that, it was that she should have disclosed who she was when she first posted. ??

Rule 5 is unequivocal: "Do not promote your product, service, or business on this forum. This includes..........announcements about new products and rates." The rule does not say this is ok if you disclose who you are, it says it's not ok, period.

Check out Janna's initial, unsolicited entry and you'll see she's out of bounds re this wording, she should not have posted.

I'm pointing this out because other reps are likely to see it that way too, especially when they see the response to Janna's entry on this site. It cuts off a source of information, but maybe that's the way the users here want it.

Peter said

I think that part of the rule, as stated, might be too harsh. I don't want the alternative to be that they e-mail me or the moderator team with all their latest promotions. But I also don't want to create a section that's just a free for all.

Maybe we should allow postings provided that the reps stick around to answer questions? That's tough to enforce and also has loopholes.

Or maybe... they're very welcome to participate in the forums but they're not allowed to start any threads. And we have a separate "free for all" section (which is still useful for readers because we can learn about promos there) that's not the forum, but they have to pay to be allowed to post there.

I can appreciate that Peter doesn't want an onslaught of junk mail. Nobody does. He does have the ability to screen new members, and does utilize this to good effect, so I would think that any posts to a new separate area could be restricted in the same way.

You are the one with the experience in marketing this site. If you think it would work to expect them to pay for access to a designated area, then that's fine with me.

I am also OK with a trial run of giving them a place to post as long as they stay around to ask questions. I'd be just as happy if they DIDN'T stick around to answer questions, but I appreciate that others probably want this.

Perhaps too we could restrict the kind of information that they might post. The main thing we need to know about is the entry of new FIs into the marketplace; after that, we can follow them ourselves, as we currently do. I don't think a new promo is likely to be missed by the eagle eyes on this forum!
In that respect, Janna's contribution was helpful as Ideal Savings is not doing anything in terms of promotion that has come to my attention. I haven't even had popup ads from looking at their site. For her, this was effective free promotion, and still is, despite any criticisms and her decision not to return. I actually disagree with kanaka on this; I think she is very savvy about marketing. As the old marketing saw goes, there is no such thing as bad publicity. It's all about getting your name out there. And I am confident that she has garnered a number of new clients from this tactic.

Loonie said

Janna said at one point that she had had trouble figuring out how to proceed (I think!), so perhaps it would help to have the guidelines more prominent.
I can't really blame her for not disclosing in the first place (although it would have been much better if she had), because the directive to do so was hard to find.

All I'm looking for is a way for posts from reps to be clearly identified and in a way that avoids marketing BS , which I don't think any of us want to have to wade through. Basic information, sticking to the facts, is all fine, and I think that's the intention of number 5 above. I think basically that J did that, but I was taken aback by her failure to identify herself in the first place and by Peter's having to coax her to do so. It was awkward at best. And, so, I think the best compromise might be to give these people their own "space" in which to advise us of their offerings and answer factual questions, preferably with reference to where the answers can be reliably found on their website. They should always be encouraged to get their people to post the answers to the questions we find important on their own website where they can be responsible for them. If they get out of line with "hype", then that is for the moderator to deal with, just as any other overstepping would be.
I would like to see FAQs on FI websites that actually reflected the questions people were asking, not what the marketing departments wanted them to say (which often appears to be the case).

I honestly did not think to look under the rules and etiquette topic at any point. My suggestion going forward would be to include these rules either as a something you must check off or agree to before completing registration or to have them in the 'Welcome' email that is sent out with your personal password.

I personally was very happy to find out about the Ideal Savings offer and am thankful to Janna for letting us know. I don't think there were any sneaky intentions on Janna's part.
Hopefully we can find a way for this info to be introduced openly without any offense being taken.

Sorry Loonie, while you and I have surprisingly agreed on several topics recently, I have to agree with Peter here.

This forum has a surprisingly lack of contributed posts by financial institution representatives. The amendment or "split-off" you propose is completely unnecessary.

In fact, I wasn't even aware of this "rule" in the first place. It's just not a problem.

I'd actually go further and ask Peter to add a "caveat" of sorts to the part about disclosing their relationship with their financial institution employer. Such disclosure should only be required if the person is posting on behalf of their employer on company company time . As an example, when I worked for HSBC Bank Canada, I contributed many posts on HSBC's products and services information but it was always on my own personal time and never the opinion of the employer. Notwithstanding that I voluntarily disclosed my employer/employee relationship, which was my choice, it shouldn't be a requirement unless the person is an independent contractor/sub-contractor of a financial institution (i.e., an investment or mutual fund sales representative that is self-employed and sells products for an investment firm like Investors Group or even a much more reputable full service financial advisory firm like Raymond James).

Cheers,
Doug

Wow I read this thread and the thread the poster above me posted. No wonder the representative didn't want to stay on this group. I thought this forum was more welcoming than RFD and encouraged banking representatives posting to share new products. (I am not in the banking industry - to clarify) Guess I learned something new. I only recently came back to this site after a 3 year absence so I guess I should go read up on all the new rules so I don't get attacked in the future in case I miss a subsection of some buried rule. The above post seemed like everyone was ganging up on her and it was an old boys club and no newbies welcome. Hopefully people are more welcoming to new people in the future.