The following is a guest post from Scrapbook Update reader Cynthia Ewer. Ewer is a Stampin’ Up! demonstrator, as well as the owner of the website OrganizedHome.com and the author of the book Houseworks
I’m incredibly sad: my journey as a Stampin’ Up! demonstrator is coming to a close.
Not that it’s what I want to see happen. I’m being forced out by pending changes to the Stampin’ Up! Independent Demonstrator Agreement (IDA). In a nutshell, Stampin’ Up! wants to control advertising across the site network that I publish as my day job–even on those sites that have no connection whatsoever to rubber stamping, Stampin’ Up!, or papercrafting.
Earlier this week, Stampin’ Up! headquarters alerted rank-and-file demonstrators to new provisions in the IDA that will place restrictions on every aspect of a demonstrator’s online presence, from e-mail to Twitter. Demos have until September 30 to agree to the new terms; if they don’t agree, they’ll be dropped after that date.
For this Web publisher, it’s the writing on the wall; I will be unable to sign the new agreement.
Why not? Well, here’s the problem: the provision steps outside–WAY outside–any reasonable relationship to my Stampin’ Up! blog, and applies to my global online presence.
That online presence is my day job: editor and publisher of the OrganizedHome.com site network. That network includes specialty sites like ChristmasPlanner.com and OrganizedChristmas.com–and it runs on advertising. My ad networks pay the bills, so I can offer resources, articles and printables without charging subscription fees.
Now Stampin’ Up! insists that because I’m a demo, I am not permitted to accept ads on my network that might compete with Stampin’ Up!’s product line. Worse, the new rules apply this restriction globally, to sites in my network which have nothing whatsoever to do with Stampin’ Up!.
It’s Over-Broad
Advocates of the new rules point to alleged abuse on some Stampin’ Up! demo blogs. “You can hardly tell she’s a demonstrator for SU!,” they argue, “what with all the links to other sales sites!”
You know, I agree with them. Stampin’ Up! is within its rights to ask demonstrators to refrain from this kind of marketing confusion–and if that’s all the changes accomplished, I’d cheer them on.
Unfortunately, the new rules go far beyond curing blog abuse. The new regulation of “any presence” online interferes with business decisions pertinent to entirely unrelated Web sites.
As one of the cheerleaders for the new plan put it, “you can’t serve two masters”. I find it presumptuous in the extreme that by owning a small, hobby-based side business, this company believes itself entitled to dictate terms to me concerning my unrelated day job.
It’s Intrusive
Even if I wanted to comply, it would be nearly impossible to do so. My site network partners with four or five major ad networks, including Google’s Adsense program. As a site owner, I am able to exclude very broad categories–adult ads, political banners, dating sites–but I have no way to pick and choose between a banner ad for craft store Joann’s sewing products (permitted under the policy) or a sale on scrapbooking paper at the same merchant.
What rationale can Stampin’ Up! offer for this invasion of my business decision-making? I can’t find any, aside from a doomed idea that they can somehow control Internet advertising to their advantage.
In any event, it’s hardly a toss-up for this business owner. I won’t permit the terms of my hobby-only relationship with Stampin’ Up! to dictate to me how I run a 13-year-old Web network that’s given me an international book contract and television appearances on ABC’s The View.
No contest. You lose, Stampin’ Up!–and I fail to see what benefit you derive for attempting to place this burden on my unrelated commercial activities.
It’s Offensive
Even if I put aside the negative effect on my business that would flow from signing on under these new restrictions, my spirit can’t accept them.
By attempting to control “any presence” online, no matter how divorced from or unrelated to their legitimate interests, Stampin’ Up! has shown themselves possessed of both a view of the Internet and a view of human relationships that disqualifies them from business partnership with any thinking online business owner.
Their draconian demand to control every message board post, Facebook update or Twitter tweet for everyone who demonstrates their product line is outrageous–and has no relationship to the stated goal of avoiding abuse. I won’t censor my entire slate of personal, business or social interactions online for such a slender rationale. And I’m shocked that they would consider such over-reaching to be reasonable for any demo.
I can only speculate whether this new policy was conceived out of a desire to rid the company of “pesky hobby demos”, or out of ignorance about the way the Web works–but I doubt that the policy will grant this company the results it is hoping for.
The Revisions
Yes, Stampin’ Up! did issue a clarification concerning policy changes affecting demonstrators’ online presence.
Sadly, it does not modify or retreat from the central problem of the new policy: the demand that demonstrators cede control over all online communications–even unrelated Web sites, blogs or forums. While it clarifies link policies, and signals a potential turnaround on the issue of gallery uploads and message board involvement, there is no hint that they will address the central privacy issue: extensions of the terms of the IDA to a demonstrator’s NON-SU! online presence.
It’s still a deal-killer for me.
Let’s look at their attempt to justify the policy, comparing demos to a paid product spokesman like Michael Jordan:
Second, the changes in requirements are meant to protect the Stampin’ Up! brand and business as a whole, not restrict your personal freedom of creative expression. For example, consider the famous spokespeople that companies contract to represent their products, like Michael Jordan for Nike. Not only would it have been unethical for Michael Jordan to promote Reebok on the side, but Nike likely had a specific agreement with him not to do so. Your response to this comparison is likely, “But we don’t have million-dollar bonuses from Stampin’ Up!” That may be true, but we do compensate you for the work that you do, and you are definitely our superstars! We consider our demonstrators our partners in business, and an exclusive sales agreement between us is an important aspect of that partnership.
It’s still the same-old, same-old: “We consider our demonstrators our partners in business, and an exclusive sales agreement between us is an important aspect of that partnership.” So it all comes down to how you define “exclusive”–and clearly, Stampin’ Up! does not want to retreat from their position that by signing an IDA, they can exercise control over all aspects of a demo’s online communication, whether it pertains to Stampin’ Up! or not.
This failure to grasp the distinction between online communication in the service of Stampin’ Up! and personal, employment or social communications is the problem. They haven’t moved an inch on this one. Because this clarification does nothing to retreat from Stampin’ Up!’s assertion that they own it ALL.
The comparison to a paid product spokesman and public figure is misleading. “Superstars” or not in Stampin’ Up!’s view, asking for total control of our online presence, whether or not it is in a sphere related to their business interests, is more a contract of adhesion than a fairly compensated arrangement between two equally-empowered commercial entities.
(Can I just say that I highly doubt Michael Jordan’s lawyers would permit his private communications to be bound in this way?)
So for all of us, it comes down to a simple question: what value do you place on your online presence?
Stampin’ Up acknowledges the value they put on our online presence:
We have invested substantial resources-financial, creative, personnel, etc.-in providing products, services, and tools to help you build your demonstratorship. While these changes may seem restrictive, we feel strongly that they will protect our investments and your business over the long term.
Stampin’ Up! puts the value of our online lives at the price of their “investment”–whatever that is. In return, we are expected to cede control over all online presence: e-mail, social networking, message boards, forums or Web sites, whether they have the slightest connection to Stampin’ Up! or not.
For hobby demos, is the 20% discount worth giving up the ability to join freely, write freely, publish freely in Internet venues–whether or not they pertain to Stampin’ Up!? Or in other words, will you sell your online soul for a mess of pottage?
Bottom line: Stampin’ Up! can claim “all your Internets belong to us!”, and many demonstrators without much of an online presence will comply.
But Stampin’ Up? You’re going to lose your best and your brightest.
Starting with me.
[Editor's Note: Comments on this post have become quite contentious. Several have been deleted due to failure to comply with Scrapbook Update's Comment Policy. Please keep debate respectful and polite.]
Want to stay up-to-date on all the latest scrapbook news?
I couldn’t have said this better myself. I too am resigning from Stampin’ Up! because their new policies WILL NOT govern over how I conduct myself online in my PERSONAL life. I find their new policy despicable and it infringes on freedom of speech. With that said, I am just a hobby demo that will no longer be promoting their products (that I used to love so much).
Best wishes to you
Kim Teasdale
I find myself wondering if the posters here have actually called in to Demonstrator Support to ask the questions that specifically pertain to their individual situations. I listened in on a teleconference with Stampin’ Up! executives yesterday and was very surprised to learn that a number of assumptions that people made about the new policy change were indeed absolutely incorrect. I also find it rather sad that someone would present such a one sided discussion. Stampin’ Up! is attempting to address an issue that, in any other industry, would lead to the immediate severance of the relationship between the company and the agent.
I am sure that Stampin’ Up! will lose some very talented artists through this and that is extremely sad. However, I am certain that if the author of this article were to have a regular contributor to her bread and butter site continuously offer links to competing sites, she would request the same policies she calls into question.
I hope that at some point the dust over this will settle and people will see the change for what it is – an attempt by the company to protect and support the Stampin’ Up! brand – and by extension, its demonstrators – and we will all move forward in whatever direction we all deem best for ourselves.
Cynthia, this is very well written and expresses the thoughts of a large majority of hobby demonstrators. There will always be the demos that “live and breath” only Stampin Up! Drink the Kool-Aid so to speak. But, in today’s online and Social Media presence that is not practical. I too believe this will result in a mass exodus and will hurt the company.
This incident will be seen in a future Marketing White Paper studies on a a Company creating it’s own PR nightmare. You can say the signed IDA is all you need, but legally this would never hold up in a court of law. An Independant Contractor is not an Employee, so says the Internal Revenue Service. Thus, you say this is getting blown out of proportion, but you cannot restrict freedom of speech 24/7. I am guessing Stampin Up! had no idea the revolt they would hear, because neither they, nor their PR and Legal teams didn’t do their homework on the power of Social Media in today’s Marketplace. If they want to link to a friend that is an artist on your personal blog, you want to stop this. If I want to mention my friend on Facebook, but she sells products on her site, you want to censor me. On a personal blog or Social Media site that you do not own nor pay for, no less.
Competition is healthy, Stampin Up! products should stand on their own. You keep stressing home workshops. While a great concept, we are an ever changing society that is shifting to buying goods online. Why? Because jobs, family and limited resources are all time suckage. Now you have put not only a bad taste in most demonstrators mouths, but because of the power of Social Media, a whole lot of customers too. Is this being blown out of proportion? Of course it is, and needs to be. Each and every demonstrator no matter how little they bring in contribute to your bottom line. Please don’t forget this moving forward.
Tracy & Brenda – were we on the same call? They did not address Cynthia’s particular situation, and her situation is unique. Re-read her post. No. She is out of compliance by operating a website that is not SU related because she accepts advertising through a service that my include SU competitors. That much is addressed in SU’s own Q&A.
Additionally, SU pointedly ignored every single one of the many Social Media related questions I posed. No doubt, ignoring many others that we could not see.
They do not want to address Social Media because they do not understand it and are frightened by its implication. Period.
That aside, I know for a fact that Cynthia has contacted DS. As have I. Nada. Nothing. Just an autoresponder.
Before you attach personally, get your facts straight.
I know for a fact that Cynthia has contacted DS. As have I. Dead silence.
I did not attack anyone. And I specifically stated that people should call to discuss their own personal situations. I am sorry to hear that you and the author are not receiving the information you are seeking.
I stand by my personal opinion that this article was one sided. The phraseology in the new IDA was poorly worded given the intention of the new policy and I do believe that, for the most part, ensuing clarifications were adequately made. I am absolutely certain that, as in any case where policy changes are made, that there will be people for whom this will result in a negative turn of events. However, I do believe that the *intention* of this change was well meaning whereas the article posted here was clearly not.
I would still be interested to know whether or not the author would welcome posters who blatantly promote competitive venues on her site. I think the response to that question will speak volumes about the author’s perspective on this issue.
Brenda, complaining that this article was one-sided misses the entire purpose of the article. This is an opinion piece written by one single Stampin’ Up! demonstrator describing her reaction to the changes and explaining why she feels that way. Scrapbook Update also published a news article on the changes. The two articles have two entirely different perspectives and purposes. It’s like the difference between the letters to the editor in your local newspaper and the news articles on the front page.
I think that Michael Jordan analogy is awful.
Sure, Michael Jordan doesn’t promote Reebok shoes “on the side” but he used a Spaulding baskeball during games, not a Nike one. He surely has friends who wear Reebok that he can talk to and “promote” if he wanted as in Hey, check out my friend Larry Bird at this golf tournament – even if Larry wears Converse. He doesn’t only talk about Nike all day long. Jeepers.
Besides, how long has it been since Michael Jordan played ball? Couldn’t SU! find a more current spokesperson?
Don’t forget Michael also endorses Fruit of the Loom undies!!
If any of you want to continue being a creative, home based business consultant (or just a “pesky hobby demo”
We LOVE “pesky hobby demos” at CTMH. ). C’mon over to Close To My Heart. I don’t see any of those shenanigans being pulled by CTMH. (Don’t get any ideas, CTMH!!!) As much as I like SU! products, I truly LOVE the clear stamps by CTMH for a multitude of reasons. My prediction is this could lead to the overall demise of the SU! we all know. They are cutting their own throats with this one for sure. What’s wrong with these people?? What are they thinking!?!?
Tracy, if you are an SU demo and that is your blog that comes up when I click on your name then it appears you are out of compliance with SU’s policy. If you aren’t a demo then your rights are being restricted. Image that.
Also, I think we are talking about rubber stamping and crafts so I don’t see why you feel the need to attack Cynthia by name calling. Sharing your opinion and being rude are two different things.
Again, you should really talk to demo support to get the facts about your particuliar situation. Demo support is talking to it’s demos (Beate Johns, employee of Splitcoast Stampers, has already heard back) and I think it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that you would have to give up your position.
Oh, I have contacted them.
No answer.
But that misses the point. I don’t want a “Cynthia exemption”. I think this proposal is bad news for EVERYBODY, and I want to see it changed.
Thank you for your comments, and have a lovely day.
Cynthia Ewer
I guess you are missing my point -
You are posting untruths about the proposal.
“I’m being forced out by pending changes to the Stampin’ Up! Independent Demonstrator Agreement (IDA). In a nutshell, Stampin’ Up! wants to control advertising across the site network that I publish as my day job–even on those sites that have no connection whatsoever to rubber stamping, Stampin’ Up!, or papercrafting” – FALSE
“Why not? Well, here’s the problem: the provision steps outside–WAY outside–any reasonable relationship to my Stampin’ Up! blog, and applies to my global online presence.” – FALSE
“Now Stampin’ Up! insists that because I’m a demo, I am not permitted to accept ads on my network that might compete with Stampin’ Up!’s product line. Worse, the new rules apply this restriction globally, to sites in my network which have nothing whatsoever to do with Stampin’ Up!.” – FALSE
This may be an opinion piece, but it borders on malice.
If you can prove these statements to be truths then you have my respect and apologies for any inappropriate comments I’ve made on this post.
One last note -
“this proposal is bad for EVERYBODY” – this statement seems a bit arrogant to me – hopefully I am not breaking any rules of the site by saying so.
Actually that statement is entirely true. SU does want to control (or limit) the advertising on her websites – no matter what the topic of the website, Cynthia will not be able to have SU competitive advertising on it.
“no matter what the topic of the website, Cynthia will not be able to have SU competitive advertising on it”
Hi Nancy,
Have you confirmed this with SU!?
You keep telling me that this provision doesn’t limit my ability to keep on doing my job.
Prove it.
Not your hunch. Not your belief. Not your apparently knee-jerk “feeling” that SU ! doesn’t demand this.
Because I have news for you: this new IDA DOES demand exactly that.
I have quoted the express, explicit and forthright words that mean the following: I cannot be a demonstrator for SU! in my spare time and still do my job. If I sign this agreement, I am giving up a HUGE part of my money, my career, my credibility and my business.
For what? 20% off a $20 stamp set? You think I am willing to sell my soul for 50 cents?
You have blackened my name, appended your “False! False! False” words to my statements.
But you haven’t proved your case.
Now it’s time for you to come to the table. You “know” that this provision doesn’t mean what the clear language says it means?
Prove it. Point to the provision that will save my bacon when Stampin’ Up! sues me for doing my job.
Because it isn’t just about me. It’s about every single demonstrator who is looking at this contract and wondering what it means.
You have chosen to tell us that YOU know what it means. Please, do tell. Show all of us who are watching exactly WHERE the escape clause is located.
You claim to believe there is one? In the face of the clear and quoted language that bars it?
Please go to whatever source you have and cite chapter and verse. Tell us why you keep making this argument.
Quote the language from the agreement that bolsters your assertions, so that all of us can learn from you.
Tell us all how to defend ourselves against legal claims that we are violating the new IDA.
We are waiting for you to enlighten us, Tracy. You claim to have knowledge we do not have.
Show me that I am what you say I am: false.
I’ve proved my case.
Prove yours.
Stampin’ Up has already made an extremely clear statement on this matter…
From the SU FAQ about the new IDA…
Q: If I have a Stampin’ Up! blog where I promote my Stampin’ Up! business and a personal blog that I keep separate from my Stampin’ Up! business, do the same guidelines apply to both blogs?
A: Yes. As a Stampin’ Up! demonstrator, any presence you have in the electronic communications world (blog, web site, Facebook, Twitter, etc.) must meet the guidelines outlined in the new IDA. When you sign the new IDA, you agree to refrain from using any electronic communications to promote, market, or sell the products of any other companies (direct selling or retail) that offer similar products, including decorative stamps in any form, stamp art accessories, scrapbooking products, digital art solutions, and vinyl wall art.
Note the use of the phrase “any presence that you have in the electronic communications world”…that’s pretty clear. ANY PRESENCE. Not most. Not some. ANY. That word makes this policy global to everything the person does online.
In fact, that entire section of the FAQ is to written just to tell people that they can’t separate part of their online presence out as not having the IDA apply to it. You can’t get clearer than that.
“no matter what the topic of the website, Cynthia will not be able to have SU competitive advertising on it”
Have you confirmed this with SU!? This is a serious question about a serious topic. I really would like to know. Your response does not answer my question.
With my compliments, here is exact text of the relevant language from the new IDA:
“I understand that the content of my electronic communications such as e-mail, personal blog, web site, Twitter, Facebook, other social media and the like can have a considerable influence on how I am perceived as a Demonstrator for Stampin’ Up! and also reflect significantly on the Company. Accordingly, I will refrain from using such electronic communications to promote, market, or sell the products of other companies (direct or retail sellers) who offer similar products, which includes: decorative stamps (in any form), stamp art accessories, scrapbooking products, digital art solutions, and vinyl wall art.”
The FAQ are also clear: advertising is forbidden, as are direct links to sites that sell competing product. My site network involves both. (I am happy to supply you with these provisions as well, should you need them, but let’s cut to the chase.)
So let’s give you a chance to support your argument. Go to this site: http://christmasplanner.com
I own it. It is an aggregator site that compiles examples of handmade holiday planners. On it, I post stories linking to planners made by Stampin’ Up! demonstrators, Close to My Heart demonstrators, and competing company project pages, like the official Fiscars site.
Please enlighten me! Tell me how I am to continue to publish these kinds of stories if I sign a contract containing the clear wording above.
Explain to us how these kinds of link do not “promote” the competing products sold by the bloggers profiled there. Because if I sign the contract, I will be required to refrain from profiling anybody but Stampin’ Up!–unless you have discovered some kind of provision that WILL permit this.
Have you? I am all agog. Dazzle us!
I am happy to respond to your post however, I’ve spent the evening having dinner and drinks with my husband so it will have to wait.
Me, too. This evening, I had a glass of wine on my backyard balcony with my husband, while we overlooked our pondless waterfall and listened to the San Francisco Symphony playing their new and astonishing version of Mahler. Do you know that my husband was their Symphony Doctor for six years? We toured Europe, Asia and Japan with them every time the Symphony went on tour.
And like you, we enjoyed a homecooked gourmet dinner, followed by a movie. I made a Belgian Beef Carbonnarde, using dark beer and the onions from our farm share to make one of the season’s first autumn treats. We noted the first yellow leaves in our neighbor’s trees, and we talked over my aunt’s funeral, which was two days ago.
It was just another day in our household. Life goes on, flame wars or not.
We are not very different, you and I. But what does that have to you coming here and being confrontational without putting up evidence?
We are waiting, Tracy.
Brenda and Tracy,
I can only hope that Stampin Up! is paying all of your bills or you do not understand the importance of Social Media in today’s marketplace. To compare it’s demonstrators to Michael Jordan’s contract with Nike is outrageous! Nike does pay his bills and he still endorses other products. Mr. Jordan makes millions of dollars off these endorsements. We are talking about demonstrators that make a measley 20% off selling Stampin Up! products and putting every bit of that 20% back into “workshops” to get more sales. I.E. $5 off a $50 sale, putting that right back in to buy product. Meaning no profit and they are telling demonstrators what to put on their personal blogs or Social Media sites in which they do not pay for? If that demo was selling blatently selling CTMH and Stampin Up!, heck yes, that is a violation, but a link? Puhleese! If they want to share a link to a friend who is an artist and she endorses other products. So be it. Stampin Up! can justify their actions by getting you to sign a contract that would never hold up in a court of law!
I suggest you both view this video on Jeff Bezos: http://timberry.bplans.com/2009/09/jeff-bezos.html
I also suggest every executive at Stampin Up! read “Who Moved My Cheese”, because their lack of change with the current marketplace is becoming quite clear. If they keep wanting to do business as usual and censor the people that only pay their paychecks, well good luck to them.
To accuse Nancy of being one-sided? Then you need to do your homework. Nancy always presents a well-balanced point of view and the facts. If you think otherwise then you need to stop drinking the kool-aid.
For the record: I have FOUR email requests for clarification that have been sent to SUHQ. Three on Tuesday, shortly after the announcement was made.
A fourth request was made yesterday.
I have had only two responses, and they are both the autoresponders: “we have your message and will reply soon”.
And Tracy? No, I CAN’T “call” demonstrator support. I am profoundly hard-of-hearing and cannot use the telephone.
So yes, we have asked, and no, they haven’t answered. Despite my inviting them to do so when my web site logs showed that SUHQ was visiting my blog ….
But why do you think that a “Cynthia exemption” would make this move acceptable? I don’t want a special deal. I want them to rethink this untoward and unwise policy.
For ALL of us.
It would appear we are all lucky that SU products are not sold in stores. Otherwise they’d be demanding every retail craft venue sell only SU products! Can you images Michael’s bowing to that kind of tactic?
What is SU afraid of? Competition allows CHOICE!! SU products should stand next to any other craft items out there and let the consumer choose!
I think the article was very well writen and truth.
It’s clear from all that I have read (on both sides) that SU has crossed a line.
You know, Tracy, it seems from your blog, that you are a former SU demo. If you’ve resigned, you haven’t uttered a word about it since you placed your first new catalog order and mentioned thinking about it.
So I have to wonder where you (and your information) is coming from. What’s your angle?
You refuse to address the issue directly.
You refuse to quote your sources.
You refuse to write a genuine perspective either as a Demo, Former Demo, or Potential Demo.
Your own blog will be out of compliance with the new IDA. What about that? What do you think?
When you “speak” without providing a perspective, and giving the perception of a Demo in support of the IDA, and using the tone you do, what impression do you think that gives SU customers?
You are not helping promote the pro-IDA “cause.” You are giving the “public” a bad impression of SU and Demos with such non-professional behavior. That hurts our businesses. All of them. Is that your angle?
From all appearances, you are simply on the attack and looking for a fight. There’s a name for that. It’s called being a troll.
Actually, by definition your post is a “troll” post. As you’ve seen, I’ve provided my full name, e-mail address and website. If someone wanted to contact me, they could. I don’t mind having a conversation with someone about the untruths of this article, however I’ve chosen not to post here any further because of the format.
I should say, not just the “format” but the fact that anyone can say anything they want about/towards me anonymously and hey – I just don’t go for that.
*sigh*
It’s all becoming boring now.
Sign it or don’t sign it. I don’t care. Just stop going on about it!
So if it’s boring, why are you here? Those of us who have to make a decision can read all the points of view.
Thanks for keeping the debate going.
A well-written personal response. Thank You for your intelligent take on this.
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/2122004 This video is also VERY informative. If the information here is correct, and my best guess is that it is, then the contract has not changed–not even one word. The only changes that have taken place are to the song & dance about it (the FAQ) which have no legal applications at all. SU seems to be counting on those who do not speak legal jargon, or those who are trusting enough to buy into such a restrictive policy.
Thank you Em for recommending my podcast as a resource! You are correct in what was said on the Paperclipping Newsbreak episode. As far as I’ve been able to discover, the actual legal contract itself was not revised by Stampin’ Up! in response to the uproar over it. Only the non-binding FAQ describing how they intended to apply it was.
Which means they didn’t actually revise the legal reach of the contract, they just revised how they say they are going to enforce it.
I am no longer an SU! demo. Haven’t been for years. I had issues with some of their policies way back when, so I left. Boy am I glad I did. You know, we all wear many hats in our day to day lives (mom, friend, coach, teacher, wife, co-worker, etc.). What this new agreement tells me is that SU! is afraid of the competition and that they are insecure with their product line and demos. Basically what they are saying is that if you are an SU! demo (whether hobbyist or FT business) you wear that hat 24/7 365 days a year under whatever other hat(s) you may need at the same time. Regardless of what you’re doing in your personal life, you represent SU! The next step they will take is the freedom to shop in stores that sell competitive products because heaven forbid if one of your customer saw you buying something that isn’t SU! Wow … that’s simply incredible. I know there will be enough demos who don’t have a problem with this new IDA because it is their livelihood, but seems like to me this is a way to weed out the hobbyist demos who don’t depend on their SU! career to help support their families. Just my .02. It really doesn’t affect my life one way or the other, but I know it will affect a lot of people out there.
Here, here! The online communication provisions are just plain absurd. But I think even the part about not being allowed to be on another company’s design team is silly. Look at it this way, yes, if your personal blog shows another company’s product and links another company’s website, your SU! customers might see that and be led to buy those products. But on the flip side, your link from that company’s design team might lead non SU! customers to your blog to see that company’s product, and then see other things you’ve done with SU! products, and create customers for you. SU! is controlling and stupid.