Paid reviewers

[ta240]

It was brought up in another thread about reviewers getting paid to do reviews and I'm curious how many people think that a reviewer can still be impartial when they are paid to do that specific 'review'.

A video by a 'reviewer' with with a title that includes "speakers stole the show" about some speakers at Axpona popped up on my suggested list and the very first thing that shows on the thumbnail when I hover over it is that the video is brought to us by the maker of those speakers. And in the comments for the video we have the standard "Now I want those!!" responses.

I think it is hard enough for anyone to be impartial when the company gives them the speakers; because who doesn't like a company that gives you things?

But even if the reviewer has to send them back to the company when they are done they still want to get more from that company and others so there is still an incentive there to be a bit more enthusiastic.
And there is always the underlying issue that the more excited the personality gets the more excited the viewers get and excited people watch more of your videos.

Since it is nearly impossible to escape the last two issues we tend to accept them, but throwing "This video is paid for by the guy sitting next to me. Sir, your product is AMAZING!!!" into the mix just seems a step too far. I guess in an ideal world the host could both think they are amazing speakers and be getting paid to say that, but I still find that the more connected they are to the company the harder it is to take them seriously.

 

[Ze Frog]

Easiest way to look at these people are as what they really are... influencers and marketing.

It's likely a lot of them receive either payment or product, and even if they don't they have a vested interest in doing what the manafacturer sees as a good job so they can get stuff to test in future free of initial outlay. A lot of these people are making a living from what they do, which should tell you all you need to know regardless if it's proven they are on some payroll or getting kickbacks. There's a reason Erin still does his day job alongside.

 

[antcollinet]

I voted different levels.

I would not say it is impossible for a paid reviewer to be impartial but...

It is impossible to know whether a specific paid revieiwer is impartial or not. In other words it is not possible to trust any specific paid review.

 

[TonyJZX]

reviewers of a certain level of objectivity expend a fair bit of resources preparing a 'review'

however saying that, the above sounds like the way certain governments will commission a report from say... McKinsey, or the big four... and they either... get the outcome they paid for, or get an 'alternate outcome' that they will shelve never to see the light of day...

 

[TankTop]

Nothing wrong with marketing. I’m getting ready to run a commercial that will air during the news and look like it’s part of the news. The masses don’t come here or a couple other websites and YouTube channels to get informed. Most people make emotional decisions.

 

[DLS79]

I don't have a conceptional issue with professional reviewers, as long as they are very up front about it.

for example, listen the disclaimer from 0:30 to 0:50, he does this in every review video. Though he reviews general consumer products.

what I have an issue with are those who try to obscure the fact that they are doing reviews, or glaze over obvious flaws.

 

[voodooless]

It is impossible to know whether a specific paid revieiwer is impartial or not. In other words it is not possible to trust any specific paid review

As we know biases are for a large part subconscious, so the default for me is that nobody is impartial, payed or otherwise. For sure there are varying levels of (im)partial, but why complicate things

 

[akamatsu]

Sellers need good reviews. Reviewers need product to review. There's no room in there for bad reviews.

 

[JeffS7444]

Even with the best of intentions, I think paid reviews are prone to corruption. At least in the beginning, Harry Pearson had the right idea with The Absolute Sound: It accepted no advertising, reviewers were identified only by initials, and presumably, products were purchased by an anonymous consumer via regular retail channels. But high-end audio is a pretty small world, and I imagine it was all but impossible to remain anonymous for long.

 

[SIY]

Paid by whom? That would make a lot of difference, IMO.

 

[1st.Virtual.Me]

Getting paid may be just getting the device under review (DUR) for free. Except you have to pay the income tax.

I like the Consumer Reports of buying the DUR themselves. Totally unsolicited takes a scientific approach. And not getting some golden unit from the maker. There is no special pleading by the maker.

I come here for the science. People make mistakes and are subject to bias, but the goals seem to be Peer review, Replication, Transparency.
It's all good!

 

[Timcognito]

I like Tire Rack https://www.tirerack.com: a good compromise of objective testing and sales, where the control is all of the data for all the tires in an easy to compare format and little subjective material except pointing to the objective data. Also Rtings.com except they have a paywall.

 

[bodhi]

It depends on the individual. Somebody said that if you are good at something, never do it for free. Unless you are wealthy enough to not care.

If reviewer gives measurements then the subjective part is just entertainment. If the review is completely subjective, well, buyer beware.

 

[TonyJZX]

i think the flip side is that youtubers will get more clicks is they SLAMMM a product

like if a youtuber likes an 8631 then what's the surprise? there is none

people dig on drama... and drama pays

also remember that its often an ouroborous of left hand washing the right hand... with cash

reviewers want to get samples, reviewers sometimes like to get advertising

and so see where the conflict of interest lies?

 

[NTK]

...
Since it is nearly impossible to escape the last two issues we tend to accept them, but throwing "This video is paid for by the guy sitting next to me. Sir, your product is AMAZING!!!" into the mix just seems a step too far. I guess in an ideal world the host could both think they are amazing speakers and be getting paid to say that, but I still find that the more connected they are to the company the harder it is to take them seriously.

Actually, no.

Disclosures 101 for Social Media Influencers

Do you work with brands to recommend or endorse products? If so, you need to comply with the law when making these recommendations. One key is to make a good disclosure of your relationship to the brand. This brochure from FTC staff gives tips on when and how to make good disclosures.

www.ftc.gov

 

[ta240]

I guess I wrote that line wrong. I'm not saying that disclosing is the problem, I'm saying that being paid is the problem.

Most people at Axpona that are excited about a product just do a video saying they are excited about it. I'm curious how the conversation turned to "Hey, your product is so amazing that you should pay me to say that"

They are already getting money from youtube and in most cases patreon so most would be happy to have the manufacture sit down with them and talk to them about the product if they really were that excited about it.

 

[ta240]

....

reviewers want to get samples, reviewers sometimes like to get advertising

and so see where the conflict of interest lies?

That was my point, there is already an understood conflict of interest that is generally accepted, so does that make it okay going to the extreme?

We joke about the youtube 'reviews' actually being more like infomercials but if someone is collecting a paycheck to do the video it really is an infomercial.

I'm guessing Billy Mays was probably impressed with some products that he pitched but that doesn't change the fact that it was a paid pitch.

Car magazines want advertising dollars from car manufactures and access to new cars for reviews, so their reviews have always had an air of being suspect. But would you even read a review of a car if it was stated at the start that the manufacture directly paid for it?

 

[DVDdoug]

My default is not to trust ANY reviews unless backed-up by measurements. Or properly done blind listening tests would be OK in some situations.

And, I'd tend to believe 3rd-party measurements over the manufacturer's specs.

...In the magazine days you'd almost never read a bad review. Sometimes there were policies of not publishing bad reviews. If they couldn't write a positive review or put a positive spin on it they wouldn't write anything.

Anybody that uses "audiophile terminology" gets ignored. Tell me about frequency response, noise, and distortion... Real technical-scientific language... not that audiophile nonsense that often conveys more of a "feeling" more than it describes the sound.

 

[kemmler3D]

I would say that a reviewer being paid (by the manufacturer) inherently limits or even voids credibility and objectivity. This is why politicians and business leaders are subject to bribery laws around the world, and why (as mentioned earlier) it's illegal to accept money for a review but not mention it.

Even if a person can be objective after accepting payment, due to human nature, it's unreasonable and almost impossible to expect that they would be.

Advertising is also known to have the same effect on objectivity - it's not hard to see in action in the audiophile world, and it's why publications traditionally had "chinese walls" or "firewalls" between advertising and editorial functions.

All that said, I don't really blame reviewers for selling out... it's virtually impossible to make a living at it if they don't. This isn't really their fault, it's largely because the traditional publishing/advertising models that supported traditional publications have been absorbed by big tech.

 

[BinkieHuckerback]

Can anybody be impartial and unaffected by bias in their opinion on anything?
That's why we like numbers and measurements, as a way to side step this.
But we're all in to a bit of subjectivity now and again.
Well, that's what I think.
I may be biased.