Not that OT: Reviewing products

[makoti]

I’m wondering what you guys expect in the way of neutrality from sites that do product reviews.
I have a friend who reviews gear for a fairly well known site. He gets the gear for nothing, reviews it, and then…keeps it for personal use. Doesn’t send it back, doesn’t pay for the item to keep it. I'm of the opinion that this, whether mindfully or not, taints the review. I don’t think its possible to be impartial KNOWING they gave you something for free. To me, this isn’t ethical.
It creates a conflict of interest & the review is little more than an infomercial or fake Amazon review. It'd be better, but not perfect, if in the review he (and I assume now all the reviewers on that site) fully disclosed that they will be keeping the item for personal use afterwards, but I never see it.
Maybe it’s because I was raised on Consumer Reports & them only reviewing things they actually paid for, but I can't help but think this is wrong. I can't think of one reputable & respected site that does this. CU still doesn't, and as far as I know, DCRainmaker & GCN both don't. Car & Driver isn’t getting all those cars to keep forever.
What do you think? In this age of everyone with a computer & the internet being an expert on something, is at least the appearance of impartiality no longer important? I know bike mags & manufactures are way too cozy, but I believe even their reviews get the product returned after reviews.

[FlashUNC]

Bruh if you think GCN isn't getting paid placement for some of those reviews, not least of which because the video is flagged by them as "paid placement" in a lot of instances.

[MattTuck]

Just assume that every product review you read or watch is paid for (either directly or indirectly) by the manufacturer, unless it is a review by DC Rainmaker.

[yinzerniner]

Originally Posted by MattTuck

Just assume that every product review you read or watch is paid for (either directly or indirectly) by the manufacturer, unless it is a review by DC Rainmaker.

I find the CT reviews pretty unbiased, and they do a good job of perk disclosure.

HOWEVER, if any reviewer gets to keep the product for personal use after reviewing it I think it needs to be disclosed. If they get to keep the item and don't disclose the fact in their reviews it doesn't necessarily mean they're impartial but it creates questions and doubts about their impartiality, which is often worse (ie coverup worse than the crime).

I always thought it was journalistic norms to disclose any benefits and/or connections to the subject that the author might have. Then again, with the advent of the instas, lifestyle / wellness influencers and non - sponsored "sponsored posts" I guess there's no getting the toothpaste back into the tube.

[makoti]

Originally Posted by FlashUNC

Bruh if you think GCN isn't getting paid placement for some of those reviews, not least of which because the video is flagged by them as "paid placement" in a lot of instances.

And that's ok. It is like reading an article about someone & reading "Full disclosure - Bob is my boss".

[Bentley]

While he does mostly stuff related to triathalon's I find his reviews fairly unbaised. He does not accept gear from the companies that he reviews, he tells you what he uses and I think he does an honest job of reviewing the capabilities/limitations of gear out there. Not sure that everyone out there is as honest

My opinion

Ray

[martl]

Originally Posted by MattTuck

Just assume that every product review you read or watch is paid for (either directly or indirectly) by the manufacturer, unless it is a review by DC Rainmaker.

or AvE or John Cadogan

[MattTuck]

Originally Posted by yinzerniner

I find the CT reviews pretty unbiased, and they do a good job of perk disclosure.

Taken today, on the launch of the Topstone carbon. Their review and then two advertisements which I circled. Even if you aren't taking gear or getting other perks, these publications are making money from advertising, and thus are beholden to advertisers for their revenues.

So, the reviews may be fair and accurate, but there will always be that implicit pressure because of the business model. And that is fine, it's only bikes... I don't think we need recusals and conflict of interest disclosures to be a part of reading about a new bike.

On the other hand, if you're really looking for an unbiased opinion, you need to find people that are truly independent, and don't have skin in the game.

[yinzerniner]

Originally Posted by MattTuck

Taken today, on the launch of the Topstone carbon. Their review and then two advertisements which I circled. Even if you aren't taking gear or getting other perks, these publications are making money from advertising, and thus are beholden to advertisers for their revenues.

So, the reviews may be fair and accurate, but there will always be that implicit pressure because of the business model. And that is fine, it's only bikes... I don't think we need recusals and conflict of interest disclosures to be a part of reading about a new bike.

On the other hand, if you're really looking for an unbiased opinion, you need to find people that are truly independent, and don't have skin in the game.

We might have different opinions on this but I believe that someone can deliver an unbiased opinion even if they received material benefits from the entity being reviewed. And unfotunately due to the economics of the market (really, economics of ALL markets) it's impossible to keep a publication afloat without taking advertising dollars from those same entities, or other companies that benefit from said entities.

The disclosure of all benefits is a must of course, and that's where I appreciate CT - they always describe how they procured the products they review, or if they've been given other perks as part of the review (hotel, travel, food, etc).

Even DCRainmaker isn't completely immune, as while he doesn't take free items for review nor display ads from the those same manufacturers he DOES make money from affiliate programs where people buy those products.

If anything I might actually trust some online publication reviewers MORE than "independent" reviewers and forumites who supposedly don't have skin in the game but actually have another hidden agenda or beef.

P.S. I was wondering where those ads came from, then remembered I use AdBlock. Bias Solved!

[MattTuck]

Yeah, I had to fire up Microsoft Edge to get the screenshot of the ads! Since I don't see them normally either. But I had a hunch that there would be bike related ads, and it was even more compelling that they were Topstone ads.

You make good points, obviously, and I think we're in 95% agreement.

Eyes wide open when you read/watch these things. They're all intended to shape our perception, so if you understand that, then you're ahead of most of the other people out there.

The good thing is most of this stuff is available for the customer to try as well. I just got word that Pivot is doing a mountain bike demo day in the area later this summer. So, while the reviewers are helpful -- the customer can rely on his/her own impressions when using the actual product as well.

[makoti]

Originally Posted by MattTuck

So, the reviews may be fair and accurate, but there will always be that implicit pressure because of the business model.

This is true, of course, and there isn't anything really wrong with it. Or, really, much way around it unless a publication goes full on Consumer Reports. It's the reviews themselves and the reviewer taking product that's bothersome to me. Now, I'm sure that the product being reviewed likely has an ad somewhere in the publication/site, but, like you say - that's the nature of the industry.

[weisan]

Originally Posted by makoti

I’m wondering what you guys expect in the way of neutrality from sites that do product reviews.

I don't expect neutrality for anything or anyone who is voicing an opinion or expounding their views. But I do expect them to back it up with why they think the way they think. If I find their arguments or rationale weak or baseless, I don't take them seriously...even if they are neutral...so what?!

Neutrality is not the only yardstick in the marketplace of ideas.

[Mark McM]

Even if the reviewers are unbiased, and if the publication takes no advertising dollars, most reviews will naturally be biased, due to the system.

Most reviewers can not afford to purchase all the equipment they review. Instead, the manufacturer will lend the equipment to the reviewer, and when the review is complete, the reviewer will return the equipment. So it may sounds like reviewer receives no material benefit, but here's the catch: If a reviewer produces too many negative reviews, the manufacturers will stop loaning them equipment. Without equipment to review, these reviewers sill simply stop producing reviews. Therefore, only those reviewers who tend to give positive reviews will be able to continue doing reviews.

[MattTuck]

Originally Posted by weisan

I don't expect neutrality for anything or anyone who is voicing an opinion or expounding their views. But I do expect them to back it up with why they think the way they think. If I find their arguments or rationale weak or baseless, I don't take them seriously...even if they are neutral...so what?!

Neutrality is not the only yardstick in the marketplace of ideas.

I'd find your points more convincing if you weren't so biased against neutrality

[pasadena]

In today's culture, the goal is to sell-out.
To expect any bicycle review to be unbiased is just unrealistic.

To call any bicycle product reviewer a "journalist" is silly. You can't hold them to a standard that most in the Fourth Estate can't pass.

The only honest reviews I've read for cycling gear is in CyclingTips.

I don't care if they keep product. That is just a by product of what he thinks of his job.
Really, he should donate all of it to cycling programs but that's just my opinion.