What's going on w/RGM and A blog to watch?

[gwells]

it explains nothing at all and it makes the disclaimers look like a childish rant.

if you can't say anything, don't. at all. this doesn't make RGM look as bad as it makes ABTW.

[unixshrk]

Yeah that explains a lot

[belligero]

Heres the page: http://www.ablogtowatch.com/disclaimer-company/

Not sure how much it really explains.

It explains nothing about the situation, but much about the site's lack of credibility.

I don't even have any particular interest in RGM watches, it's just that I find ABTW's trademark unsubstantiated bullshitting to be irritating at best, and this is characteristic of their lack of professionalism.

[JP Chestnut]

it explains nothing at all and it makes the disclaimers look like a childish rant.

if you can't say anything, don't. at all. this doesn't make RGM look as bad as it makes ABTW.

This plus their covering for Bremont makes for a good chuckle IMO. If they're suing, then they should sue and shut up about it. I hope RGM brings countersuit, even if it's somewhat frivolous, if this reaches court.

[Joeprez]

That's too bad. I visit the ABTW page and listen to their podcast (as well as visiting Hodinkee, Worn and Wound, Gear Patrol.... etc). I usually enjoy the articles, but the truth is that Ariel handled this poorly. As stated before, he should had keep his mouth shut or just explain everything from the get go.

Ariel is a lawyer so I assume he'll be careful to say just enough to avoid a slander lawsuit.

I'm also wondering if the issue is related to the contest they held in which the winner would go to RGM headquarters. That was a great contest.

[JP Chestnut]

I'm also wondering if the issue is related to the contest they held in which the winner would go to RGM headquarters. That was a great contest.

Maybe RGM is run by Willy Wonka and the winner was turned into a blueberry during the visit? That would be hard to explain (thus the cryptic warning from ABTW), and would warrant a warning to future visitors.

[JBZ]

I read the page - it's horrible in so many ways, I can't even begin.

[t20569cald]

Using a private business dispute to publicly defame a company is a pretty poor business practice.

I did it, and would do it again.
I had just got out of three years of litigation at the time, (I won) and did not have the energy to start it again, in Switzerland.
What Mhvj did, was just plain shitty, not many other words for it, and the internet was my only recourse at the time other than suing them, which as stated, I didn't feel up to. I could afford to, just don't have the desire to go through it again.
I am more than happy to defame them, and they deserve it and a lot more than that. I could go on for years, as they basically strung me along for three, but I pretty much said my piece, and for the most part moved on.

I do not think it a poor practice, depending on the situation and to be honest I see it like a consumer in a way. If you buy a watch for example from XXX and it was not close to being as described, you are well within your rights to out them online, and I see it no different for companies.
As for the current business, well who knows, maybe the story warrants it, maybe not, it is all dependant of the situation.

Just my take.

[CGSshorty]

Using a private business dispute to publicly defame a company is a pretty poor business practice.

I did it, and would do it again.
I had just got out of three years of litigation at the time, (I won) and did not have the energy to start it again, in Switzerland.
What Mhvj did, was just plain shitty, not many other words for it, and the internet was my only recourse at the time other than suing them, which as stated, I didn't feel up to. I could afford to, just don't have the desire to go through it again.
I am more than happy to defame them, and they deserve it and a lot more than that. I could go on for years, as they basically strung me along for three, but I pretty much said my piece, and for the most part moved on.

I do not think it a poor practice, depending on the situation and to be honest I see it like a consumer in a way. If you buy a watch for example from XXX and it was not close to being as described, you are well within your rights to out them online, and I see it no different for companies.
As for the current business, well who knows, maybe the story warrants it, maybe not, it is all dependant of the situation.

Just my take.

The difference to me is you backed everything up with facts.

[t20569cald]

Using a private business dispute to publicly defame a company is a pretty poor business practice.

I did it, and would do it again.
I had just got out of three years of litigation at the time, (I won) and did not have the energy to start it again, in Switzerland.
What Mhvj did, was just plain shitty, not many other words for it, and the internet was my only recourse at the time other than suing them, which as stated, I didn't feel up to. I could afford to, just don't have the desire to go through it again.
I am more than happy to defame them, and they deserve it and a lot more than that. I could go on for years, as they basically strung me along for three, but I pretty much said my piece, and for the most part moved on.

I do not think it a poor practice, depending on the situation and to be honest I see it like a consumer in a way. If you buy a watch for example from XXX and it was not close to being as described, you are well within your rights to out them online, and I see it no different for companies.
As for the current business, well who knows, maybe the story warrants it, maybe not, it is all dependant of the situation.

Just my take.

The difference to me is you backed everything up with facts.

Yes I agree he should have done that straight up.
Many people who never heard of ABTW have now, and the traffic would be many times its normal amount

[belligero]

[...]Ariel is a lawyer so I assume he'll be careful to say just enough to avoid a slander lawsuit.[...]

I read the page - it's horrible in so many ways, I can't even begin.

DISCLAIMER: I'm no lawyer, but I know when something stinks.

And what a steaming pile of duplicitous horseshit this is. Regrets about the wall of text; I quoted the entire page but have tried to make it easier to skim by putting the particularly ripe bits in bold, and my comments in blue:

Why Is There A Disclaimer About A Company?

What is the purpose of the disclaimer?

aBlogtoWatch recognizes that coverage of a product, service, or company on aBlogtoWatch is interpreted as endorsement of those products, services, or companies. aBlogtoWatch is excited to bring audience members stories and insights into the world of watches, which are often very expensive items whose purchase requires a lot of consideration.

When aBlogtoWatch experiences something that forces us to reevaluate our position or ability to endorse a company, we feel obligated to mention that to our readers as part of our ongoing mission. Therefore, the disclaimer you read is an indication that aBlogtoWatch can no longer endorse a company because we personally would no longer choose do business with them. [Fair enough, it's your site; you can "choose do business" with whomever you like, even if you can't write for shit.]

What is the disclaimer not meant to do?

Nothing about the disclaimer is meant to specifically suggest anything negative about RGM products, its staff and watchmakers, or its service to customers. [Except the bit immediately preceding this one, and several others.]

Is there a dispute between RGM and aBlogtoWatch?

Yes, aBlogtoWatch is currently in dispute with RGM's management over a breach of contract. The dispute is currently a private matter, as aBlogtoWatch does not feel that making it public offers a material advantage to the watch community at this time. [It's obviously not a private matter, as you just published it on the internet.]

Is the dispute a result of RGM owing aBlogtoWatch money?

No. The heart of the dispute is not about RGM owing aBlogtoWatch money. [Irrelevant]

What does this mean to the consumer?

It would be inappropriate for aBlogtoWatch to recommend that anyone not purchase products from or do business with a company simply because we have a dispute with them. Our goal is not to disparage or cause harm to anyone despite our own experience with them. [Well, except for that bit where we singled them out as a company with whom we would not choose [to] do business.] We advise all consumers interested in RGM products to do their research and make an intelligent and educated decision about where to spend their money and with whom. Our goal is to help connect people with, and help recognize those watches that offer an enjoyable ownership experience.

Why can't you explain more about the situation in detail?

We'd really like to explain exactly what happened and all the facts because we feel that the watch consumer community deserves to know precisely what happened. Of course, this would clear the situation up entirely, but unfortunately because of the ongoing dispute we have been advised not to escalate the matter further by discussing all of the facts at this time. [We can't actually state any facts, but unsubstantiated innuendo is A-OK! ] We can say that in the future, it is very likely that additional details will be published that should help shed light on the situation.

Why put up disclaimers versus simply taking down all the content about RGM on aBlogtoWatch?
Taking down content is something that aBlogtoWatch feels is akin to censorship. Past articles written by aBlogtoWatch hold true, and unless there are factual errors in those articles, [BS; the site has very little horological or journalistic credibility to begin with, and the articles are consistently riddled with factual errors.] it is our policy not to remove or materially alter them. To remove content and ignore the existence of a brand just because of a current dispute would be against our mission. Disclaimers allow us to offer an important message to readers about aBlogtoWatch endorsement.

Are there other circumstances where aBlogtoWatch has removed endorsement from a company?

Since our founding in 2007, aBlogtoWatch has worked with and covered hundreds of different watch brands and other companies. This is the first time we have ever felt it necessary to mention that we no longer wish to endorse a company. Our hope is that it will be the last. [What a patronizing asshole.]

What does aBlogtoWatch aim to accomplish with the disclaimer?

aBlogtoWatch is written by watch lovers for watch lovers. This is our mantra and we repeat it to remind ourselves that we are writing for people are in our exact position. More specifically, we regard our audience as savvy consumers with a passion for watches who want to learn about products and as much about the industry as possible. Part of our communication style is to speak conversationally, as we would to close friends. When we have experiences which force us to take pause and or change our position on something materially, we feel obligated to let the community know. Unfortunately, in this situation prudence dictates to us that we respect matters related to a private dispute. A dispute that we honestly would like to resolve if possible, but nevertheless a dispute that may require delicacy in its resolution. [No comment necessary, but feel free to add your own!]

We know that aBlogtoWatch's regular readers and new people coming to the site would fully understand the situation if we were able to share all the details. Ideally we would do that, but right now we've agreed that isn't the best idea and we prefer to take the high-road. It very well might be that in future these disclaimers go away. [That one takes the figurative cake of hypocrisy.] If that happens, it probably means that the dispute has at least been successfully resolved to the point where we no longer feel it necessary [Only "we" get to decide when the dispute is resolved. Sounds reasonable, no?] to withdraw our endorsement of a company whose contribution to modern American watchmaking should not be overlooked.

On behalf of the aBlogtoWatch team, we thank you for taking the time to learn more about this situation and hope none of this has put a damper on your appreciation for timepieces. The watch industry, like all other industries, is made up of people who from time to time can make bad decisions which are unrelated to the reason we are all here in the first place - great watches.

If Ariel "I'm A Watch Expert" Adams is in fact a lawyer, then he doesn't appear to be a very good one.

Of course, that's just my opinion; I could be wrong.

[JBZ]

Using a private business dispute to publicly defame a company is a pretty poor business practice.

I did it, and would do it again.
I had just got out of three years of litigation at the time, (I won) and did not have the energy to start it again, in Switzerland.
What Mhvj did, was just plain shitty, not many other words for it, and the internet was my only recourse at the time other than suing them, which as stated, I didn't feel up to. I could afford to, just don't have the desire to go through it again.
I am more than happy to defame them, and they deserve it and a lot more than that. I could go on for years, as they basically strung me along for three, but I pretty much said my piece, and for the most part moved on.

I do not think it a poor practice, depending on the situation and to be honest I see it like a consumer in a way. If you buy a watch for example from XXX and it was not close to being as described, you are well within your rights to out them online, and I see it no different for companies.
As for the current business, well who knows, maybe the story warrants it, maybe not, it is all dependant of the situation.

Just my take.

The difference to me is you backed everything up with facts.

This - without any additional information, we have no idea whether what ABTW is alleging affects only ABTW or the larger business or consumer community at large. In your instance, you made the case that, in your view, Mhvj's actions could affect future businesses who choose to buy from them.

That said, I'm still not a fan of doing it that way. In the US, the law does treat consumer issues differently from business to business disputes, as is reflected in federal and most states' consumer protection laws. Not trying to say you were in the wrong, just that it wouldn't be my preferred way of doing things (and who really cares about what I would do anyway?). I also see a clear difference between the way you handled things and the what ABTW is doing in this case, at least based on what I've read.

[belligero]

By the way, isn't it revealing that they're stating that ABTW's content (such as it is) doesn't constitute articles and reviews, but endorsements?

Good to know.

[JBZ]

Yeah, I just don't get the whole idea that somehow, by reviewing a company's watches, ABTW is implicitly endorsing that company.

I also didn't like the whole, "we're not telling consumers they shouldn't buy an RGM watch, but we just can't endorse them" theme or the idea that they're "obligated" to inform consumers about what sounds like a private dispute (like they're doing us a favor). Apparently, making the details of the dispute public won't provide consumers with an advantage, but if ABTW could only explain the situation, it would clear everything up entirely and we'd fully understand.

Disclaimers allow ABTW to offer "an important message to readers about aBlogtoWatch endorsement", even if we have no idea what that message might be.

Finally, removing content from your own website isn't censorship. It just isn't.

[matt.wu]

By the way, isn't it revealing that they're stating that ABTW's content (such as it is) doesn't constitute articles and reviews, but endorsements?

Good to know.

Anyone who is capable of mistaking his articles for unbiased reviews deserves what they get.

[pacifichrono]

I'm not even a reader of ABTW and this is the second time I have questioned the ethics of Ariel Adams.

Hmmmm.

[aztecknight]

Free stuff and objectivity do not mix well, otherwise, people will stop giving you free stuff.

[JBZ]

^^^But is that what's happening with ABTW? Do they get free watches or other items in exchange for their reviews? I honestly have no idea.

[JP Chestnut]

^^^But is that what's happening with ABTW? Do they get free watches or other items in exchange for their reviews? I honestly have no idea.

Maybe RGM backed out of some sort of payola agreement? I'm sure the hard hitting watch media is currently investigating.

[gwells]

saw this posted on reddit, supposedly from roland himself.

Hello Gentelman,
Thank you for the heads up about the thread on WUS.
RGM has never had a contract with any watch blog. We did have a verbal agreement with a blog that in the end the terms of the verbal agreement were interpreted differently by both sides. We have never had a situation like this before in RGM’s 22 years!
Regards, Roland Murphy

[pacifichrono]

saw this posted on reddit, supposedly from roland himself.

Hello Gentelman,
Thank you for the heads up about the thread on WUS.
RGM has never had a contract with any watch blog. We did have a verbal agreement with a blog that in the end the terms of the verbal agreement were interpreted differently by both sides. We have never had a situation like this before in RGM’s 22 years!
Regards, Roland Murphy

Maybe Adams didn't get all the freebies he thought he "deserved."

[unixshrk]

Shrug. Drama

[toxicavenger]

sounds like that blog is a shill for wares and RGM told him no thanks and he got pissed. i won't be clicking on his site again that is for sure.

[marchone]

What a train wreck. AA and ABTW just lost all credibility.

[fastward]

If this is the case, ABTW really showed RGM who's the boss!