A) Every reviewer can buy anything with a discount (which is basicly similar across the industry). It is a known fact...
B) ...nobody ever denied that.
C) It is important to understand, that when you are able to buy anything with a (similar) discount, then the discount itself is not an incentive anymore.
D) If all reviewers were buying stuff with a discount, and then one just got something for free - that would be an incentive.
A) It is a known fact? How would anyone 'know' if it is not disclosed? Since it is a 'known' fact, can you tell us the percentage of discount? That, to me, would be the real important thing to know.
B) The issue is not that anyone is denying the practice. No one ever said that, as far as I know. Rather, the problem is that the practice is not being disclosed up front, when the review is tendered. The only way anyone could suspect that it is a practice is that sometimes the review will mention that the review sample was bought. That said, I've never seen anyone mention the amount of the discount.
C) That would be true if anyone can participate. Can any consumer, then, obtain the review discount from the manufacturer? Could I get the same discount as the reviewer? If not, then wouldn't that suggest the discount remains an incentive?
D) The discount remains an 'incentive' (by the way, that's your word), as long as its application is limited to reviewers, and not the general public. The difference between the examples you cite is that the person who received the item free simply got a bigger incentive.
I'm really not sure of your point; what you are trying to say. Are you saying that discounts and special product consideration are not a problem in the reviewing industry? I'm saying that they are in effect bribes. How else can you look at them? A company is offering a favor, and expects something in return. But it doesn't have to be simply a discount on a purchase. As I said, free trips, lodging, meals, a constant flow of product to listen to, and so on. All that ought to be discussed up front, so the consumer can make their own judgement as to the value of the information being reported.
Again, I'm not saying that all reviewers are
shills and whores... um, I mean ethically compromised. It is, however, really up to the magazine publishers to impose ethical standards. Any business I ever worked at, or with, had them, in order to prevent even the appearance of fraud. FWIW, when I was in the work force, if I'd have taken a product at a discount from a company my employer was doing contract work with, I'd have been fired.