teched58
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2020
- Messages
- 206
- Likes
- 546
That basically happened, yet here we are...
Permission from the manufacturer to do a review is NEVER necessary. It sets a bad precedent. Procedurally, it could shut down any site that engages in it, because sites want to publish fast. Manufacturers want to review stuff written about them slooowly.
Mainstream review sites like Consumer Reports and Wirecutter would never agree to "solicited" reviews because that's antithetical to journalistic culture. (Not asking whether ppl think this is good or bad, just reporting the way it IS and has been for forever.)
Of course Wirecutter, which is owned by the NYTimes, and Consumer Reports have deep pockets and lawyers. Small sites don't. This is precisely why we have to hold the line and not let vendor intimidation win.
FWIW, VENDORS NEED THE OXYGEN PUBLICITY PROVIDES. If nobody writes about your stuff, nobody sees it, nobody buys it.
I can't tell you how many times during my 30 years in the electronics and computer trade press manufacturers pulled advertising after an article they didn't like. (These weren't even reviews. Just news stories where they didn't like the angle, or a quote, or something.) UNIFORMLY, these advertisers came back after they cooled off. Because they needed to reach the audience that the publication provided. P.S. This was when there was still advertising