• WELCOME Grumblers
    Backup is now done at 3PM EDT. You may find the server down for up to two minutes at that time.

Tru-Vue Survey

pwalters

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
And by the way.... I am not saying that being paid to be a consultant IS contributing to the formation of anyone's opinions because I'm absolutely certain that everyone on this board is able to sleep well at night. In fact, I commend those that have risen to that level as a result of their dedication to their craft. Since none of you are ashamed by your affiliations, then stating said affiliations should be a matter of pride and disclosed. What is the harm? NASCAR does it:D
 

johnny

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
I don't know why you guys can't see why disclosing a compensated affiliation is an important issue not only for yourselves but for your readers. No one is trying to impugn your collective credibility. It's for the benefit of everyone. And it bolsters your credibility that these guys would train you and think you're good enough to be compensated.

It's not just an issue here believe me. With the advent of messageboards it began to be a problem. With blogs it exploded. The reader has the right to know about any affiliations because the reader decides how those affiliations affect how they interpret the comments. It's very simple. It's very fair.

By large, it's already been addressed:

http://www.ftc.gov/os/2009/10/091005revisedendorsementguides.pdf

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/10/endortest.shtm

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9138949/FTC_tells_bloggers_to_disclose_payments_freebies_for_reviews?source=CTWNLE_nlt_pm_2009-10-05

Example 8: An online message board designated for discussions of new music download
technology is frequented by MP3 player enthusiasts. They exchange information about
new products, utilities, and the functionality of numerous playback devices. Unbeknownst
to the message board community, an employee of a leading playback device manufacturer
has been posting messages on the discussion board promoting the manufacturer’s product.
Knowledge of this poster’s employment likely would affect the weight or credibility of her
endorsement. Therefore, the poster should clearly and conspicuously disclose her
relationship to the manufacturer to members and readers of the message board.
I quoted just that example but there is a lot more in those links that is relevant.

Seriously, it's more than just the few people that are vocal in this thread that have a concern here. Plenty of people are silent. I can't imagine new readers not wanting to know something like this. And that the FTC felt the issue was strong enough to rule on shows that the concern carries a lot of credibility.
 

Jim Miller

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
I don't know why you guys can't see why disclosing a compensated affiliation is an important issue not only for yourselves but for your readers.
But Johnny, nobody is hiding anything. Not only in this thread, but in all threads where we promote products, we make our affiliations well known.

If you doubt that, then perhaps you should join Paul, Jeff, and Bob in their quest to catch us failing to disclose -- which, in case you haven't noticed, rarely happens. In this thread, for example, the names of all who went to the meeting were given in Post #57, and Ken and I (if not others) disclosed that in our first posts.

Perceptions are not always accurate. In at least one example that came out today, a Grumbler was indignant about one guy's failure to disclose a relationship that didn't even exist. He wrongly assumed it did.

The most offensive feature of this whole inquisition is the not-so-subtle implication that any of us would have different opinions if we weren't consultants to the suppliers involved. Think about it. If the consultant didn't have a favorable opinion of the supplier before hand, and vice-versa, the affiliation couldn't develop in the first place. How do you suppose these things happen, anyway?
 

johnny

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
The most offensive feature of this whole inquisition is the not-so-subtle implication that any of us would have different opinions if we weren't consultants to the suppliers involved. Think about it. If the consultant didn't have a favorable opinion of the supplier before hand, and vice-versa, the affiliation couldn't develop in the first place. How do you suppose these things happen, anyway?
Jim, just quoting this paragraph right now for time... I'm going to say this one more time.

No one is impugning your credibility. No one is saying you're lying because you rep a product.

It's not about if you are sharing your true opinion of the product or not. It's about how the affiliation would affect the readers interpretation of what you say.

You can't control that. It has nothing to do with your personal ethics, because few people know you well enough to know what your ethics are.
 

Jeff Rodier

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
Therefore, the poster should clearly and conspicuously disclose her
relationship to the manufacturer to members and readers of the message board.


From the FTC ruling. A simple addition to your tagline would meet the spirit of the ruling. The word conspicuously is the same requirement you have on your vendors license. An occasional mention that you have one does not meet the standard.
 

Paul Cascio

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
I've said all I will be saying on this thread. I'm exhausted.
 

Rob Markoff

PFG, Picture Framing God
And it bolsters your credibility that these guys would train you and think you're good enough to be compensated.
johnny- This is where I take issue with this whole distorted concept. Who are these guys? What training?

In the case of Tru Vue, we were transported to take a tour of a manufacturing plant. Afterwards, we had a working lunch meeting with the marketing department who asked our opinions about a variety of things. And since we were a diverse group, we did not all have the same opinion on many of the topics.

In fact, I was disapponted that we were not given a handout about the manufacturing process with Q and A so we could be better ambassadors for the product (from a factual standpoint). I can assure you there was a discussion regarding Masterpiece vs Museum and the price points of each. The dialog in this case came more from us to them than from them to us. They wanted our opinions and we felt secure enough to give them to them. From my perspective, there was no implied requirement for endorsement of their products as a "payback" for them bringing us to the plant.

My opinon has not changed, other than an increased appreciation for what goes into the manufacturing of the product and a better understanding of the complexities of the process.
 

pwalters

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
But Johnny, nobody is hiding anything. Not only in this thread, but in all threads where we promote products, we make our affiliations well known.
Then this shouldn't be an issue. I have a feeling someone will step up and lead the way on this. It's just cleaner.

Unless there is a reason not to.
 

Jeff Rodier

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
From my perspective, there was no implied requirement for endorsement of their products as a "payback" for them bringing us to the plant.
Sounds like testimony from a congressional hearing.
 

johnny

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
johnny- This is where I take issue with this whole distorted concept. Who are these guys? What training?
I was speaking in general terms, not in regards to True Vue. So "these guys" means any company that compensates and "training" means any process you go through in which you learn more about products and processes. I apologize if training wasn't the right word to use. It seems to be a very small thing to select from my overall message. I was trying to compliment you guys fwiw. I don't know why you would take issue with it.
 

johnny

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
Sounds like testimony from a congressional hearing.
Well they have a different perspective on it so they don't understand. There wasn't a requirement to endorse a product that was implied so it doesn't matter. And also in their minds they won't take any of this into account... as far as True Vue or Fletcher or whatever company in whatever compensatory circumstance... they won't be taking that into account when they speak on things so it doesn't matter. But what they don't seem to get is that they don't get to make that determination precisely because they are the ones receiving compensation, regardless of their intentions or high morals (which I do not question). The only person who gets to make that determination is the reader for themselves. And they can only do that if it's disclosed.

I'm getting weary too. This is one heck of a topic.
 

Paul Cascio

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
The operative word Jim is "Conspicuously." And I would also add, Consistently, and Willfully.

Then there won't be a problem.
 

johnny

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
You're stuck on "misled" and false info and all that stuff. Like saying that because you are giving what you believe to be good info that the disclosures don't matter. When no one is saying you guys are misleading anybody.

Further, that you do disclose. Fine, whatever. You're all obviously very firm in your beliefs. I wish that you guys could understand that when you have an affiliation it's not up to you to decide how much to disclose or not in each post based on what you feel you're conveying.

I tend to be more conservative/libertarian and I refuse to argue with liberals on the internet. (Not becuase I'm picking on liberals here, just because liberals are diametrically opposed to my political arguments.) I do this because of the way that the arguments always go. One thing that happens is that they say "Show me a link! Show me the proof!" and then you waste time collecting links just so they can say "Your link is not valid! I win! You're a Google idiot!" It didn't take long before I figured out that was a horrible way to argue a point.

Going through the forum to find link and call you guys out is similarly bad. There are plenty of times where I read threads and think "Well that guy doesn't know who he's talking to." Where a poster has a benefit to their post that the reader isn't aware of, or isn't fully aware of.

One links are posted *bam* the argument goes to the minutia of what is in just those links and the overall argument is done with. And I'm pretty much done with this anyway. So, what the ####. I just went to two from recent memory.

http://www.thegrumble.com/showthread.php?t=49914 I don't think saying that Fletcher asked you to demonstrate your model at a trade show meets the spirit of disclosure that the FTC desires.

http://www.thegrumble.com/showthread.php?t=49762 I've been reading this board for years and framing while knowing about the PPFA my whole life and even I don't have any idea who is what in that thread. Denny has no idea who is giving him info and how any of those people might be affiliated with the PPFA themselves, in the organization itself or selling books or classes or workshops to PPFA members or hey maybe just a happy member. He has no hope to know. Last night I tried again to see who is who at the PPFA but their website doesn't tell you. There is an area that you can get into if you're already a member maybe that has it but I couldn't find it. Or maybe I missed it. Anyway, it still should be here, in the posts themselves.

There are plenty of instances where I think "Man, they are really saying how great that was. Shouldn't people know how they are involved?"
 

Jim Miller

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
The operative word Jim is "Conspicuously." And I would also add, Consistently, and Willfully.
The disclosures have been all of those things in this thread, as in other threads.

Then there won't be a problem.
There never was a problem here, except your effort to derail the discussion by your inquisition. Sad to say, it worked. Again.

I guess all of us owe Jeff K an apology for ruining his thread. He got mine in post #79. Your turn.
 

johnny

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
Enough! Who made you guys God, anyway? A moderator should close this thread.
Heck, I'm going to keep posting until you tell me to shut up one more time. Mom.

Man, that's annoying.

This has been on some people's minds for a very long time, more people than have been vocal here, and this is where it came out. It was brewing and was going to come out somewhere. I'm tired of reading threads and shaking my head.
 

Paul N

In Corner
The disclosures have been all of those things in this thread, as in other threads.
This is a lame argument. Do you really expect anybody posting here to do a search of all threads to ascertain somebody's affiliations??

You used to list your affiliations in your signature. That's the way it should be. But you stopped doing that.....

As to listing that in a profile, might as well say you have it printed on a card and it's in your wallet.
 

johnny

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
Then file a formal complaint, if you have evidence that will stand up. Enough has been said here.
You know no one will ever do that even with evidence. Otherwise it would just be done and we wouldn't be trying so hard to convince these guys that slinging out sales pitches while under the cloak of a casual observer is a profoundly bad idea for the reader, the forum, and themselves.
 

Paul Cascio

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
Enough! Who made you guys God, anyway? A moderator should close this thread.

If you don't like a discussion just don't participate instead of whining, "Make it stop mommy, please make it stop." You never contribute anything useful to a discussion anyway.
 

Jeff Rodier

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
I sent a link to this thread to Tru-Vue along with a brief description of the issue at hand. Guess we will find out their view of the FTC ruling before long. I thought it would be good to document that Tru-Vue has full knowledge by posting this message.
 

Paul Cascio

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
And it is disclosed.:nuts: Nobody is being misled here.:faintthud:
For those just arriving, here's a compilaton of those so-called disclosures. The problem is that the most important information - that Tru Vue paid for the trip - is either ommitted or encrypted :


I just completed a tour of the facility that applies the coatings for the premium glass on Tru-Vue products. Until you see the incredible detail and the scope of creating this product you think it IS priced high.

After viewing what it takes to make it a consistently high quality component, I left with a new appreciation and the belief that it is worth every nickel.

I was on the same tour of that Faribault, Minnesota plant
I was also one of the educators, along with Jim Miller, Rob Markoff, Ken Baur, Meg Glasgow and David Lantrip who were invited to tour the AR facility in Minnesota, last week (more on that later).


Are you really questioning the motives of a handful of respected educators who are simply sharing with you observations of what they saw inside the manufacturing process, during an educational tour?

We went there to be educated, and that is what happened.

Message to Vulnerable Newbies: When you want to learn about anyone who posts on The Grumble, click the name on any post and read their profile information.

Yes, I took a tour of the TruVue facility in Minnesota along with John Ranes, Rob Markoff, Jim Miller, Ken Baur and Meg Peters.
A group of educators, who by the way, all make their living by running active shops (and are not traveling the country supporting themselves through teaching, speaking and writing) is invited by a manufacturer to tour their manufacturing plant and spend some time with the marketing department- and as a result, all of their years of experience in the trenches actually working with clients and various framing products is immediatelty discounted?

I went to the Tru Vue Plant as a guest of Tru Vue and was allowed to see the actual process of the glass being coated.

In the interest of full disclosure, I was one of the educators who went on the tour


AND MY PERSONAL FAVORITE...

Tru Vue transported us
 

Ray Bragg

CGF II, Certified Grumble Framer Level 2
Much ado about nothing. I think some people just get jelose that they don't get invited on these excursions and you can see why right here!!!!!!
 

Ylva

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
I have absolutely no issue with it because again I think it goes back to bulk purchasing. I was only curious why those vendors weren't beat about. In reality, since this is a thread about a TV survey, that's the reason, but I still thought it interesting to ask. FOR THE RECORD - I have no issue with any vendor buying a product (private label or otherwise) for less than me because of higher volume/purchasing advantages and fully expect them to be able to price it more effectively than someone who only piddles in a percent of that volume.
I agree completely. I can never touch the volume the BB's do, so price competing is not always effective.

My mentor told me that you can compete on three things;
quality
price
service
But you can't compete on all of them at the same time.
Now I know there will be people who disagree with that and I also know there are exceptions.
When you look at any BB (also outside of our industry) they compete on price only.
I offer the other things.
 

Mike Labbe

Member, Former moderator team volunteer
It's time to take a collective 'deep breath', and see how foolish this looks...

It is a shame that a handful of folks have hijacked and ruined what could be an otherwise informative and educational thread; turning it into some kind of sophomoric exercise in chest beating/one upsmanship.

When economic times are challenging, it seems to inflate aggression on our family friendly forum. We usually see an increase in political propaganda threads, egos, personal attacks, etc. This is, unfortunately, one of those times.

If this was your first day here, how would you feel if you saw how vicious people have been in this thread? Would YOU be brave enough to ask a question about framing? This type of unfriendly/aggressive behavior is what discourages people from participating on our forum, in my opinion. I think ALL of us need to take a better look at our tones to keep them in check.

Bill, our founder, has set this forum up with one basic rule: To be nice to others. We are all guests here, as if partygoers in his home. If someone was aggressive or rude in your home, wouldn't it be appropriate to ask them to leave the party? If it gets out of hand, we do reserve that right.

All I am suggesting is that we try (considerably) harder to be civil and professional with one another.

Sincerely
Mike (with my personal opinion)
Moderator
 

johnny

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
I'm disappointed that you see our concerns that way. Very disappointed. Further, I don't believe I've been aggressive, rude, or gone about chest beating in any way. I have been direct. And I have a legitimate concern. Far from being unprofessional, I believe that professionalism was at the core of my attempts. This place would be far better off, far more professional. But I see where this is going and so I'll stop in this thread. Or you can just ban me now if you want, whatever. It's a shame though. I think it's really, really bad.
 

johnny

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
I just want to make one last post regarding this.

People wonder why the thread went on and on. Why don't we just shut up. Well, we do. You read the board and you do bite your tongue for days, weeks, months. Then one day there is this opening and all that is built up. And you want people to understand. Because you know once the opening is closed you're going back to biting your tongue for more weeks, months, years.
 

Paul N

In Corner
OK, let me me ask Mike a simple question maybe he can clarify the following:

When somebody posts a commercial post, aka trying to sell a product, you always make sure that post lands in the Commercial Section of the Grumble. Fair enough, it belongs there.

But when some who are clearly and admittedly associated or paid by certain vendors try to influence certain posts, those posts are NOT treated as commercial posts!

Case in point: There is hardly a question about a CMC where Jim Miller doesn't praise the CMC that he represents. How is that any different from the first case??

In the first scenario, that person is trying to sell a product, in the second scenario the push to influence a purchase is present as well, disguised more or less as a reply.

And the fact that Jim Miller's affiliation is not always clear to a new grumbler asking the question is hardly addressed (except......in threads as this one.....:p!)

Your input / comment on this scenario is greatly appreciated.

Thanks and Best regards
 

Paul Cascio

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
It is a shame that a handful of folks have hijacked and ruined what could be an otherwise informative and educational thread; turning it into some kind of sophomoric exercise in chest beating/one upsmanship.
Mike, I'm sure that being a moderator is a thankless task, but I too am dissapointed that you seem to have so little regard for the integrity of the information dispensed here.

I hope in the future you will police the veracity of the posts as thouroughly and zealously as you do the categorical placment of posts.

The integrity of this forum is diminshed when you knowingly allow posts that fail to disclose the financial relationships of the poster with the product being touted. If this thread hasn't shown you the pervasiveness of the concern for this problem, then maybe you should review this discussion again. Since you are the moderator, I encourage you to set some rules with respect to conspicuous disclosure.

This problem has been ignored for a long time. And it's not limited to this incident, or this company as I'm sure you are aware.

If you set and enforce appropriate disclosure rules, you will avoid the need of the forum members to police the board in order to maintain its integrity.
 

Ylva

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
I don't think it's a bad rule to put affiliates in your signature line. Wasn't that what was always done? Why did that disappear?


As for just newbies not wanting to post; I sometimes don't post things either, wondering if my head will get bitten off as some people might think it a stupid question and will blatantly point out my ignorance, if any.
In those cases, I send PM's to the people I trust. I've been here for 2 years, so kinda know who the players are.
 

Mike Labbe

Member, Former moderator team volunteer
I am not convinced that xxxxxx's integrity or opinion is in any way influenced by consulting that he has done in the past for any particular company. I don't believe this person is paid for each post, and I would act appropriately if convinced otherwise. If you check old threads, you'll see that we have done so on several occasions.

Many people (including myself) have consulted/spoke/educated/volunteered for vendors in the industry, but I'd like to think that these people can still be allowed to share their unbiased personal experience as a framer.

I do appreciate your reply and have no problem that we disagree. No names were mentioned in my post, and this was intentional. What I am saying is that the tone has become unfriendly, and quickly approaching a violation of this forum's community standards.

We're all on the SAME team, folks.

Best regards,
Mike
 

Baer Charlton

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
Wow. What a lively group.

The girls down the street at the baby shower with the stripper have asked if you guys could hold it down a bit.... they can't hear Chickie scream.

Thanks.

Resume. :D
 

Jim Miller

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
Case in point: There is hardly a question about a CMC where Jim Miller doesn't praise the CMC that he represents.
Not that it's any of your business, but your assumption is dead wrong. I represent no CMC maker. I own one and, like so many other framers, I am pleased to appreciate what it can do. I praise the features of all the newer CMCs and I acknowledge when they are shared by multiple brands, but I have no relationships with any of the manufacturers.

Several framers worldwide were asked to evaluate two designs of a new attachment for the machine I bought a couple of years ago. I was among the volunteers, and hours of time were required to test and report on the prototypes. Frankly, it might have been cheaper for me to wait until the design was debugged and buy it at full price.

I don't know, and I would not assume, but Gumby and FrameMakers were among the first to have new CMCs with new capabilities. If they were invited to evaluate and report on their machines' new features, are they now representatives of the maker? I don't think so.

Evaluating a prototype or doing beta testing does not obligate a framer to represent the manufacturer, and I do not represent any CMC maker. But if I ever agree to do that or receive some sort of compensation from one, I'll be sure to let you know. In the meantime, I will not claim an affiliation that does not exist, regardless of your assumption that I have something to hide.

Just as all other Grumblers discuss the tools and equipment they use in their shops daily, I will not hesitate to describe the CMC I own or its capabilities as I see fit.
 

Paul Cascio

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
Well Jim, have you ever been to Poughkeepsie? :)
 

Pat Murphey

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
I wonder why someone who operates a business that depends on framers would continue these vituperative attacks on this forum. Stating an opinion is your right, but what is to be gained by a continuous rant?
 

Paul N

In Corner
Not that it's any of your business, but your assumption is dead wrong. I represent no CMC maker.
So, are you saying the last 6 years you have not had ANY affiliations with ANY CMC / mat cutting manufacturer???

Strange, because I remember seeing such statement in a signature line you had for a short time.
 

Dave

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
How can anyone else have anything to say on this thread that hasn't been said umpteen times???

:bdh:
 

Jim Miller

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
So, are you saying the last 6 years you have not had ANY affiliations with ANY CMC / mat cutting manufacturer???
I described one a couple of posts back. Sorry to disappoint you, but that's all there is.

What's significant about six years ago? For years I've had a relationship with the equipment manufacturer to which you are eluding, but that's irrelevant to the CMC I now own. The companies involved have been disconnected for some time.

Reasonable people might wonder why you are picking at such minute details. This ridiculous inquisition is not about affiliations or disclosures, is it? Why can't you be honest and explain your real purpose?
 

Paul N

In Corner
What's significant about six years ago?
That's about the time I joined the grumble.

For years I've had a relationship with the equipment manufacturer to which you are eluding, but that's irrelevant to the CMC I now own. The companies involved have been disconnected for some time.
So, I was right then. For a while you were posting supportively without disclosure about the beneficiary.

Reasonable people might wonder why you are picking at such minute details. This ridiculous inquisition is not about affiliations or disclosures, is it? Why can't you be honest and explain your real purpose?
Reasonable people don't get paranoid over something like that. I was alluding to the fact that some, including you, were posting while being affliated and it was not clear to many, especially to new Grumblers.

If you see other motives in my post, that's your problem, not mine.

Thanks for the clarification and I have nothing further to say about this episode.
 

Paul Cascio

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
The Mod ruled on the matter and is not going to require a disclosure. I respect that decision, so that's ends this campaign for me.

I still hope that everyone will take it upon themself to provide conspicuous disclosure, and see that Dave Lantrip (Framer Dave) and some others have done so. I hope the manufacturers will also encourage conspicuous disclosures. And I think we should all continue to provide that disclosure when it's not adequately provided.

My previous post was an attempt to lighten things up, so maybe someone, perhaps Bob Doyle, can explain it to Pat.
 

pwalters

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
So I am not misunderstood. I have no problem with anyone having a relationship with a vendor whereby they can earn some extra income. I don't believe that it, in any way, changes that person’s viewpoint of any particular product. It merely is an opportunity to benefit from your belief in that particular product. In many cases, it shows that you have reached an echelon in our industry that you should be proud of. If you have this type of relationship, I just happen to feel that it should be clearly disclosed. I also don't think it's worth personally attacking anyone on this forum because of my opinions (or for there to be name calling, pokes at people to embarrass them about their spelling, etc.). Amongst such highly regarded professionals, there should be opportunity for heated discussion and difference of opinion without personal attack.

To be fair Jim, having it in your profile is nice, but many newbie’s to a forum may not understand that they can click and go find that information. I realize that this is their problem, but I find that making things as easy as possible for everyone benefits the collective group. Additionally, having a link in your signature that leads to the profile stating that they can go there to view your associations is the same as someone going to a website and seeing a link where they could review the privacy policy. They should understand how it impacts them, but how many actually do. IN MY OPINION (and that's all that it is), there is no harm in listing those affiliations.

Kudos to FramerDave for proudly showcasing his relationships. I didn't know who he was or that he was the David from the Decor articles until now. In fact, knowing of his relationship with shops that I compete with and respect has ratcheted him up a notch or two. Additionally, understanding that he has worked with some of the larger and more respected names in our industry has further elevated my opinion of him. Knowing that he is proud to showcase his affiliations with those organizations should make those organizations proud that someone of his stature in the industry is affiliated with them. I'm not sure why he dumped the stopSylvia info though.

At least that's how I see it. Now, who is going to follow the leader?
 

FramerDave

PFG, Picture Framing God
I only dumped the www.stopsylvia.com link due to space restrictions. I still think the old bat needs to be exposed, and James van Praagh is next.

In my profile I tried to post a more exhaustive list, but it wasn't very practical to do so. So, just to get it out in the open, here is a list of all the companies, products and services I have used, know to have a good reputation, or I have recommended or do recommend:

Larson Juhl
Nielsen Bainbridge
Crescent
Lineco
Frank's Fabrics
SpecialtySoft
LifeSaver
Wizard
Hilton hotels, especially Hampton Inn
Valiani
Gunnar
Fletcher Terry
Cassesse
PAM Fastening
Continental Airlines
Brevetti
Starbucks
Roma
Southern Moulding
Picture Woods
Marriott hotels
Vermont Hardwoods
Apple iPhone
Light Impressions
PPFA
FATG
Lion Picture Framing Supply
Picture Framing Magazine
DECOR Magazine
Picture Framing Magazine
Art Business Today
JREF
DECOR Expo
WCAF
University Supply
AIC
Jeep*
Attach EZ
3M
Dupont and other manufacturers of clear polyester film
Xylo
Foster Planing Mill
Showcase Acrylics
National Gallery of Art
Gemini Moulding
Animaux
A Street Frames

Any omission should be considered a defect of memory rather than any nefarious purpose. I certainly hope I don't have to repeat this list every time I post.



*In the interest of full disclosure I should point out that my father worked for Chrysler for 30 years before retiring. I bought my Jeep used from Car Max and so did not receive any discount or other consideration.

Oh, one last thing. I never go by Dave. Had I known the Grumble was going to be this long-lasting and pervasive I would have chosen a different screen name. But if you do happen to see me and call me Dave I won't be insulted.
 

shayla

WOW Framer
Dave, I can't believe you failed to disclose
your relationship with McDonald's. :fire:

But attaboy on the others!
Alls I can say is wow. :icon21:
 

ann e sellers

Grumbler
I felt like the answers I wanted to give were not options in their multiple choice selections and felt that I was being steered to give answers they wanted to hear.
Jeff K
I got a phone call from Tru Vu and had the same distinct impression that it was less customer survey and more guided questioning directed towards marketing their product.
For example, "do you consider your frame shop's reputation to be a high priority?"
For real? They ask me this? The implication being that using their product would increase the shop's reputation.
I use their product often and willingly, but that little phone call was a burr under my saddle for a couple of days!
 

ann e sellers

Grumbler
Whoa! Sorry ****s! I posted a reply before reading back through the last 5 pages of material and I seem to have stumbled into something over mah head.
 
Sponsor Wanted
Top