5 ms·

> “I definitely feel like I have to keep [the reviewing] a secret from people who have strong morals,” Jessica added. Age old scam that works because of people

by nkrisc 7y ago

> “I definitely feel like I have to keep [the reviewing] a secret from people who have strong morals,” Jessica added. Age old scam that works because of people like Jessica who lack any moral compass and will help to screw over anyone for a buck.

rantwasp 7y ago
it’s hard to have a moral compass when your stomach is empty. even if that’s not the case you will always have bad actors. always. the question is: who has the right incentives to stop this kind of behavior?
- nkrisc 7y ago
  And yet people poorer and more destitute than her avoid turning to crime. Read the article. She's not hungry, she likes getting stuff and having it be like Christmas everyday. It's simple greed.
  - rantwasp 7y ago
    to me it sounds like a person with some sort of addiction/mental health issue. she found a way to get her fix without starving (ie spending all her money on crap and being broke afterwards). it’s true that good people are not resolving to this crappy behavior. it’s also true that are a lot of people that do cheat the system. bottom line, this is a systematic issue and until the right incentives are in place this problem is not going to just fix itself.
- MichaelApproved 7y ago
  Don't excuse her behavior with a made-up "stomach is empty" sob story. This is far from a "stealing bread to eat" situation. Jessica isn't scamming people for basic needs, she's conning people for luxury items. If it were about simply putting food on the table, she'd be reselling everything after she reviewed them, instead of leaving them in a pile in some corner.
  - imgabe 7y ago
    They're not even luxury items. From the article it sounds like a lot of them are really poor quality garbage. She sounds like a hoarder, honestly.
    - MichaelApproved 7y ago
      The luxury items are what she buys with the money she's paid for the fake reviews. As opposed to buying food with the money which OP is implying by saying her stomach is empty.
      - imgabe 7y ago
        The way I read it she's not getting paid. She buys the item out of pocket and then the seller reimburses her after she writes a review. She gets a free item, but no payment. She said she's losing money (probably some sellers are even more unscrupulous and don't pay, because what is she going to do?). She could probably resell some of the stuff for money, even at a fraction of the price she's make a little since she got it for free, but it doesn't sound like she's doing that.
        rantwasp 7y ago
        the point is that if you’re buying a lot of stuff (maybe hoarding) your financials may suffer. she found a way (not excusing her behavior) to make it less impactful to her budget. morals are nice, but i think you need to be off-balance to do something like this to begin with.
        bdowling 7y ago
        Exchange of goods for services is called “payment in kind”. It is a form of payment.
        imgabe 7y ago
        The comment I'm replying to specifically said money.
- vfsbf 7y ago
  Look at her picture and tell me that her stomach is empty
  - nkrisc 7y ago
    That's not really necessary, and I avoided that turn of phrase for this exact reason. Let's not make it about that.
- ipython 7y ago
  To be clear this is not an ad hominem attack on the author. She is not doing this because she's starving. Anyone who can front-load $2800 (as she gets paid several weeks, to months, afterward from the sellers) can certainly afford to feed herself. Besides, you can't eat an outdoor plastic bird bath. To her this is most likely a game... I get it, it's fun, and you get a bunch of random stuff that you don't pay for! As mentioned in the article, "it's Christmas every day". Who doesn't like getting packages?
  - MichaelApproved 7y ago
    It's not a game. She gets paid cash, in addition to keeping the product, for helping them scam people.
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      She gets reimbursed cash, as far as I can tell from the article. She states she's running a loss (if you discount the free (and largely worthless, even dangerous) products) due to a percentage of her "clients" ghosting her.
      - MichaelApproved 7y ago
        You're right. It's too late to edit and correct my comment but here's the relevant part of the article. > “I really don’t think I’m making money on it at all. I’m pretty sure I’m losing money,” Jessica said while looking over her spreadsheet. “I’m pretty sure I’m at a 10% loss. But I’m okay with it, because I’ve gotten a whole bunch of new stuff.”
    - ipython 7y ago
      To be clear, I agree that she’s scamming people. But to her she sees this as a game, nothing more.
- fortran77 7y ago
  Look at her photo. Her stomach isn't empty to put it bluntly. If she worked 15 hours/week part-time for minimum wage, she'd have more spendable income (about $6500), than the benefits she gets from $15,000/year worth of merchandise. Of course, if she turns around and ebays this for, say $5,000, she won't have to report the income and can still collect maximum food stamp and housing aid benefits, which no doubt she does.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
patentatt 7y ago
It’s not great, for sure, but unless any of these products impact health or safety in a significant and obvious way ... I hesitate to really call it amoral. Its really just a paid sponsorship, or paid word of mouth marketing, or something like that. Like it or not, it’s really just capitalism and the advertising industry at work.
- mehlmao 7y ago
  In the article, she says she doesn't use many of the products she reviews with 5 stars because she's worried they aren't safe.
- nkrisc 7y ago
  It's dishonest at best and fraudulent at worst. In most widely accepted views of morality, it is immoral. The intent is to deceive other shoppers. Sure she's not some evil scourge upon the world, but that doesn't make it right.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
slantyyz 7y ago
>> Age old scam that works because of people like Jessica who lack any moral compass and will help to screw over anyone for a buck. Keep in mind that this current scam has only become the norm because of the outcry over incentivized reviews, which resulted in their subsequent ban. I used to do incentivized reviews, and I followed the rules with disclosures (most incentivized reviewers did that, but not all). After the ban, all those companies using incentivized reviews switched to the backchannel reviews with reimbursement via Paypal, just like the lady in the article. With incentivized reviews, you could easily dismiss them at your discretion, because the disclosure had to be in the review text. But everything now is a "verified purchase", and most "normals" don't know what to believe or ignore. I tend to think a good portion of incentivized reviews were pretty honest (fwiw, the vast majority of products I received were quite good for their selling price). When looking at what other people wrote about the same products, however, I could tell that a small percentage of people were writing reviews without even trying the products. The unfortunate part was that those people tended to have the highest rankings in the review leader board.
- nkrisc 7y ago
  The age-old scam I'm referring to is paying people to shill your product to deceive other shoppers. Even transparently incentivized reviews have their issues since no seller wants to pay people for negative reviews.
jackhack 7y ago
agreed. disgustingly antisocial and immoral. I was astonished back when the poisoned chinese baby formula story hit the news, thinking "how could people knowingly perpetrate such evil?" yet here is this story about "Jessica" knowingly endorsing products that her chemist-boyfriend has identified as toxic. But she "earns" $100/month in kickbacks and gets lots of "free stuff" so I guess it's all good even if others are harmed. (Hope that sarcasm was obvious.) Looks to me like "Jessica" might be a co-conspirator to racketeering. If I were a prosecutor, perhaps I would think that's something for a jury to sort out?
newshorts 7y ago
I’m entertained by her characterization of herself as a “cog” in the marketing machine. It’s not her fault, it’s the system. I bet she doesn’t leave a note when she backs into another car in the parking lot either. The parking spaces are too narrow...

by nkrisc 7y ago

rantwasp 7y ago

it’s hard to have a moral compass when your stomach is empty. even if that’s not the case you will always have bad actors. always. the question is: who has the right incentives to stop this kind of behavior?

nkrisc 7y ago
And yet people poorer and more destitute than her avoid turning to crime. Read the article. She's not hungry, she likes getting stuff and having it be like Christmas everyday. It's simple greed.
- rantwasp 7y ago
  to me it sounds like a person with some sort of addiction/mental health issue. she found a way to get her fix without starving (ie spending all her money on crap and being broke afterwards). it’s true that good people are not resolving to this crappy behavior. it’s also true that are a lot of people that do cheat the system. bottom line, this is a systematic issue and until the right incentives are in place this problem is not going to just fix itself.
MichaelApproved 7y ago
Don't excuse her behavior with a made-up "stomach is empty" sob story. This is far from a "stealing bread to eat" situation. Jessica isn't scamming people for basic needs, she's conning people for luxury items. If it were about simply putting food on the table, she'd be reselling everything after she reviewed them, instead of leaving them in a pile in some corner.
- imgabe 7y ago
  They're not even luxury items. From the article it sounds like a lot of them are really poor quality garbage. She sounds like a hoarder, honestly.
  - MichaelApproved 7y ago
    The luxury items are what she buys with the money she's paid for the fake reviews. As opposed to buying food with the money which OP is implying by saying her stomach is empty.
    - imgabe 7y ago
      The way I read it she's not getting paid. She buys the item out of pocket and then the seller reimburses her after she writes a review. She gets a free item, but no payment. She said she's losing money (probably some sellers are even more unscrupulous and don't pay, because what is she going to do?). She could probably resell some of the stuff for money, even at a fraction of the price she's make a little since she got it for free, but it doesn't sound like she's doing that.
      - rantwasp 7y ago
        the point is that if you’re buying a lot of stuff (maybe hoarding) your financials may suffer. she found a way (not excusing her behavior) to make it less impactful to her budget. morals are nice, but i think you need to be off-balance to do something like this to begin with.
      - bdowling 7y ago
        Exchange of goods for services is called “payment in kind”. It is a form of payment.
        imgabe 7y ago
        The comment I'm replying to specifically said money.
vfsbf 7y ago
Look at her picture and tell me that her stomach is empty
- nkrisc 7y ago
  That's not really necessary, and I avoided that turn of phrase for this exact reason. Let's not make it about that.
ipython 7y ago
To be clear this is not an ad hominem attack on the author. She is not doing this because she's starving. Anyone who can front-load $2800 (as she gets paid several weeks, to months, afterward from the sellers) can certainly afford to feed herself. Besides, you can't eat an outdoor plastic bird bath. To her this is most likely a game... I get it, it's fun, and you get a bunch of random stuff that you don't pay for! As mentioned in the article, "it's Christmas every day". Who doesn't like getting packages?
- MichaelApproved 7y ago
  It's not a game. She gets paid cash, in addition to keeping the product, for helping them scam people.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    She gets reimbursed cash, as far as I can tell from the article. She states she's running a loss (if you discount the free (and largely worthless, even dangerous) products) due to a percentage of her "clients" ghosting her.
    - MichaelApproved 7y ago
      You're right. It's too late to edit and correct my comment but here's the relevant part of the article. > “I really don’t think I’m making money on it at all. I’m pretty sure I’m losing money,” Jessica said while looking over her spreadsheet. “I’m pretty sure I’m at a 10% loss. But I’m okay with it, because I’ve gotten a whole bunch of new stuff.”
  - ipython 7y ago
    To be clear, I agree that she’s scamming people. But to her she sees this as a game, nothing more.
fortran77 7y ago
Look at her photo. Her stomach isn't empty to put it bluntly. If she worked 15 hours/week part-time for minimum wage, she'd have more spendable income (about $6500), than the benefits she gets from $15,000/year worth of merchandise. Of course, if she turns around and ebays this for, say $5,000, she won't have to report the income and can still collect maximum food stamp and housing aid benefits, which no doubt she does.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

patentatt 7y ago

It’s not great, for sure, but unless any of these products impact health or safety in a significant and obvious way ... I hesitate to really call it amoral. Its really just a paid sponsorship, or paid word of mouth marketing, or something like that. Like it or not, it’s really just capitalism and the advertising industry at work.

mehlmao 7y ago
In the article, she says she doesn't use many of the products she reviews with 5 stars because she's worried they aren't safe.
nkrisc 7y ago
It's dishonest at best and fraudulent at worst. In most widely accepted views of morality, it is immoral. The intent is to deceive other shoppers. Sure she's not some evil scourge upon the world, but that doesn't make it right.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

slantyyz 7y ago

>> Age old scam that works because of people like Jessica who lack any moral compass and will help to screw over anyone for a buck. Keep in mind that this current scam has only become the norm because of the outcry over incentivized reviews, which resulted in their subsequent ban. I used to do incentivized reviews, and I followed the rules with disclosures (most incentivized reviewers did that, but not all). After the ban, all those companies using incentivized reviews switched to the backchannel reviews with reimbursement via Paypal, just like the lady in the article. With incentivized reviews, you could easily dismiss them at your discretion, because the disclosure had to be in the review text. But everything now is a "verified purchase", and most "normals" don't know what to believe or ignore. I tend to think a good portion of incentivized reviews were pretty honest (fwiw, the vast majority of products I received were quite good for their selling price). When looking at what other people wrote about the same products, however, I could tell that a small percentage of people were writing reviews without even trying the products. The unfortunate part was that those people tended to have the highest rankings in the review leader board.

nkrisc 7y ago
The age-old scam I'm referring to is paying people to shill your product to deceive other shoppers. Even transparently incentivized reviews have their issues since no seller wants to pay people for negative reviews.

jackhack 7y ago

agreed. disgustingly antisocial and immoral. I was astonished back when the poisoned chinese baby formula story hit the news, thinking "how could people knowingly perpetrate such evil?" yet here is this story about "Jessica" knowingly endorsing products that her chemist-boyfriend has identified as toxic. But she "earns" $100/month in kickbacks and gets lots of "free stuff" so I guess it's all good even if others are harmed. (Hope that sarcasm was obvious.) Looks to me like "Jessica" might be a co-conspirator to racketeering. If I were a prosecutor, perhaps I would think that's something for a jury to sort out?

newshorts 7y ago

I’m entertained by her characterization of herself as a “cog” in the marketing machine. It’s not her fault, it’s the system. I bet she doesn’t leave a note when she backs into another car in the parking lot either. The parking spaces are too narrow...