Doctor Who Online business practices?

[JoeZhang]

So did anyone else read this?

This isn't a particularly pleasant post, I'm afraid, but it's an important one. I've spoken occasionally about the fact that it's vital for freelance creators to be open about where their money comes from and how much they make, and especially to be vocal when someone rips them off. Today we have a case study in why that is: a high profile Doctor Who fansite that has been around for nearly twenty years, and that is serially defrauding members of the Doctor Who fan community by offering expensive advertising on the back of false promises, and that has gotten away with it largely because until now, nobody had actually reached out to the site's victims and collected their stories.

The site is Doctor Who Online, run by Sebastian J. Brook. It's a longstanding site, founded in 1996. They have an active forum and over 100,000 Twitter followers. Their podcast is up to its 349th episode. And the site is, in practice, a front for a series of breathtakingly fraudulent business practices designed to rip off small and independent business owners.

What follows is an explanation of how Doctor Who Online's fraud operates, and a compilation of the evidence I have gathered demonstrating that this is standard business practice for the site. Although I am not a legal expert by any means, it is my sincere belief that the site's business practices, as documented below, constitute fraud by false representation under UK law.

http://www.philipsandifer.com/2015/06/doctor-who-online-sebastian-j-brook-and.html

I notice a few sockpuppets in the comments and some blowing of hot air but no actual rebuttal? Anyone bought ads off this guy?

 

[StCoop]

I might feel more sympathy if it wasn't Phil Sandifer doing the crying. In a fandom full of people with massive egos and delusions of importance in a few short years he's managed to make his way up the ladder to Levinesque heights.

 

[NightJim]

I'm struggling to see how you can disregard this because of Sandifer. He's not actually fallen for it himself (that I know of) but was approached by other people who have and has decided to shed some light on it.

As for his "Levinesque" status, you might have a point, he has risen pretty quickly. But Levine was mostly down to saving episodes and getting in with the BBC, no real writing talent. Sandifer has written several books on the narrative structure of Who and has been approached by writers because of his insight into their wors. Put them alongside each other and I know who I'd rather pick. Besides, the likes of Cornell and RTD could almost fit the same mold, they were just flying the flag during the Wilderness Years instead of when it was going strong like the other two.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

I'm struggling to see how you can disregard this because of Sandifer. He's not actually fallen for it himself (that I know of) but was approached by other people who have and has decided to shed some light on it.

No, as he explains in that post at one point, Sandifer did buy an ad with DWO, was dissatisfied with the results, complained, and negotiated a refund. He did some digging, discovered that he wasn't alone, and committed an act of journalism to expose what does look like a scam.

As for his "Levinesque" status, you might have a point, he has risen pretty quickly. But Levine was mostly down to saving episodes and getting in with the BBC, no real writing talent. Sandifer has written several books on the narrative structure of Who and has been approached by writers because of his insight into their work. Put them alongside each other and I know who I'd rather pick. Besides, the likes of Cornell and RTD could almost fit the same mold, they were just flying the flag during the Wilderness Years instead of when it was going strong like the other two.

I generally enjoy reading Sandifer. Emphasis on "generally." His work on the original series and the Wilderness Years is insightful more often than not, and he brings new and somewhat unusual perspectives to old ideas that illuminate them in surprising ways. His Moffat-era work, on the other hand, I feel is detached from reality and suffers from the lack of historical perspective that comes of writing of it so soon after transmission; his essays on Series 6 and Series 8 talk about episodes that, as far as I can tell, bear little resemblance to the ones I saw on BBC America. And recent things that I thought he would have something interesting to say about, he ignored, said nothing of import, or had someone else write about them.

I've contributed to both of his Kickstarters (the second edition of TARDIS Eruditorum Volume 1, The War in Albion). I respect his work, admire it even, even if I don't always agree with it.

There is a new figure in fandom that I would call "Levinesque" -- a mercurial, moody, self-important blowhard convinced of his own rightness and superiority -- but I wouldn't label Sandifer as such. I'll even forgive him for taking a victory lap because his work was referenced in "Hide"; I was over the moon yesterday because io9 wrote an article about something I wrote, quoting what I wrote, and for a writer toiling in obscurity, something all writers do, the momentary light was illuminating.

 

[NightJim]

Okay, I can agree with you on that. His aim to stay current on what is generally an historical blog can have his writing suffer some what. Also I was basing my opinion on his tumblr posts about the subject that gave the impression of him being contacted rather than one of the victims. That's what you get for posting when in the middle of 5 different things.