A new industry standard: Fully controlled reviewers

[Andrew Reid]

 

2 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

Unbiased voices like the one you rule are a lighthouse to ward off a commercial target-setting culture each day more widespread among the herd of Internet users and an easy target for the e-business we all live in. It wouldn't surprise me at all if one of these days you'd receive some interesting offer for EOSHD to be swallowed by some hungry fish, to eager your audience, meanwhile raised.

Reason why I'd rather center my focus on you as individual and independent reviewer than the press brand you manage.

 

I'd prefer you would not focus on me so much in the threads.

I find it embarrassing to be honest.

Talk to somebody else.

[Emanuel]

5 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

 

 

I'd prefer you would not focus on me so much in the threads.

I find it embarrassing to be honest.

Talk to somebody else.

Deal : ) But do you follow how the point fulfills our discussion?

"The internet should not be a big shill platform in my view" either.

Point me out how many unbiased press we find out there? ; -)

[Andrew Reid]

Maybe there aren't many left to point you to.

But perhaps also if every thread you posted in didn't descend into rambling sycophantic difficult to understand nonsense about me, we'd find out.

[Emanuel]

LOL I find the point very clear to everyone though : -)

[noone]

The Sony Minolta thing is VASTLY different to Oly selling their imaging division.

I believe Minolta was a viable company that lost a big lawsuit over patents and was otherwise a major player in the market at time that all things photo was at or nearing its heights while Olympus IMAGING is a part of a  company that has been losing money for years (and lots of it) and not too long after a scandal where they tried to hide a BILLION dollar loss over a decade.

I HOPE I am wrong but I would not be surprised if after this goes trough, in a couple of years the Olympus "flagship" camera was an E-PL23 with a Japan only menu (would you like a filter with that?).

 

[newfoundmass]

These days most reviews have to be taken with a grain of salt, unfortunately. It used to be easier to recognize the shilling, because companies would bring "influencers" on lavish trips and you could weigh that in when deciding on how much weight you put in their review.

Companies would always send free stuff in hopes of getting reviewed, but it has pretty much infected every channel and reviewer at this point. Channels with barely 1k subscribers are now getting free stuff, sent from pretty large companies. All you need is a guest bedroom you can turn into a "studio." 

I don't completely blame the reviewers. In truth most are no different than us; I'd be over the moon if cool free stuff started arriving at my door. And that viewers have an endless appetite for new gear and reviews, it's easy to give them what they want, especially if it grows your numbers and gets you more free stuff and more affiliate sales. 

Unfortunately that's not very conducive to encouraging unbiased reviews. There should be some level of journalistic ethics when reviewing something because the information you're providing is meant to inform people on purchasing decisions. Second, that information should also be used to tell the manufacturer what they did right and what they did wrong, so that improvements can be made. It shouldn't be to gush about the product, gloss over the flaws, and then remind folks that affiliate links are down below. 

[Andrew Reid]

Fuck me. Glad we are back on topic

[Andrew Reid]

5 minutes ago, newfoundmass said:

These days most reviews have to be taken with a grain of salt, unfortunately. It used to be easier to recognize the shilling, because companies would bring "influencers" on lavish trips and you could weigh that in when deciding on how much weight you put in their review.

Companies would always send free stuff in hopes of getting reviewed, but it has pretty much infected every channel and reviewer at this point. Channels with barely 1k subscribers are now getting free stuff, sent from pretty large companies. All you need is a guest bedroom you can turn into a "studio." 

I don't completely blame the reviewers. In truth most are no different than us; I'd be over the moon if cool free stuff started arriving at my door. And that viewers have an endless appetite for new gear and reviews, it's easy to give them what they want, especially if it grows your numbers and gets you more free stuff and more affiliate sales. 

Unfortunately that's not very conducive to encouraging unbiased reviews. There should be some level of journalistic ethics when reviewing something because the information you're providing is meant to inform people on purchasing decisions. Second, that information should also be used to tell the manufacturer what they did right and what they did wrong, so that improvements can be made. It shouldn't be to gush about the product, gloss over the flaws, and then remind folks that affiliate links are down below. 

Here is an idea for all the camera companies.

How about instead of flying everybody to Hawaii they start a fund for proper journalists and artists.

From that fund, lots of great resources about cameras will spring and it will inspire others to take up the hobby or career of photos / videos.

The shilling thing will eat itself eventually anyway and kill YouTube completely as a trustworthy website.

[Emanuel]

That would be a great initiative, Andrew and I recall Kodak as for instance to have offered something similar in the past, but are they willing to offer it ever, today?

There are many players in the digital realm, the world is different nowadays. Sony, for example, has changed in twenty years as far as my memory serves the way their marketing was used to work twenty years ago. No need to go back, even though, a decade earlier when I started my career their commercial practices didn't much differ. Seems we live in another century now.

I think that's where also comes part of my weakness for brands like Fuji Film, only to mention their case. Old school : ) No idea if they stand their former programmes anyhow, they probably have to adapt themselves to the other contenders' policies.

[newfoundmass]

2 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Here is an idea for all the camera companies.

How about instead of flying everybody to Hawaii they start a fund for proper journalists and artists.

From that fund, lots of great resources about cameras will spring and it will inspire others to take up the hobby or career of photos / videos.

The shilling thing will eat itself eventually anyway and kill YouTube completely as a trustworthy website.

They could do a lot of things, I think, to help but I think companies in general have a problem thinking outside the box, especially if it means giving up control. I mean, even the current YouTube / influencer model was something that was literally thrown into their lap and was only embraced given how beneficial/one sided it was to them. "You mean we can send these people stuff and they'll make enthusiastic 'reviews' even if the product isn't great? That they'll do it almost exclusively for free stuff, access to us , and the revenue they can make from affiliate links?!"

Long term it'd be for everyone's benefit to properly fund journalist and art programs that can help grow the video / photography community, but I can't see a scenario where they'd do it because it'd mean giving up a level of control that they're not comfortable with. 

[Emanuel]

You're right and... oh yes, affiliate links are a plague of these days.

[cam1982]

32 minutes ago, newfoundmass said:

They could do a lot of things, I think, to help but I think companies in general have a problem thinking outside the box, especially if it means giving up control. I mean, even the current YouTube / influencer model was something that was literally thrown into their lap and was only embraced given how beneficial/one sided it was to them. "You mean we can send these people stuff and they'll make enthusiastic 'reviews' even if the product isn't great? That they'll do it almost exclusively for free stuff, access to us , and the revenue they can make from affiliate links?!"

Long term it'd be for everyone's benefit to properly fund journalist and art programs that can help grow the video / photography community, but I can't see a scenario where they'd do it because it'd mean giving up a level of control that they're not comfortable with. 

Neither I. Control means sales. Don't ask for anything else.

[Andrew Reid]

39 minutes ago, newfoundmass said:

Long term it'd be for everyone's benefit to properly fund journalist and art programs that can help grow the video / photography community, but I can't see a scenario where they'd do it because it'd mean giving up a level of control that they're not comfortable with. 

If they could be made to realise how profitable it would be for the entire industry, they'd probably be onboard but still pulling the strings all the same to get their products in front of an audience.

[rawshooter]

Problem is, in the allegedly "good old times" pre-Internet, things were just as bad. By far most camera magazines in the past were just shills, too. Their reviewers were invited to expensive trips, advertorials were the norm etc.etc. So these practices have just moved over from print to social media.

[cam1982]

They invested in workshops, seminars... Now?

[newfoundmass]

21 minutes ago, rawshooter said:

Problem is, in the allegedly "good old times" pre-Internet, things were just as bad. By far most camera magazines in the past were just shills, too. Their reviewers were invited to expensive trips, advertorials were the norm etc.etc. So these practices have just moved over from print to social media.

Back then though you went into it knowing that there was a business relationship between the press and companies, and also that most of those journalists went to journalism school and practiced standard journalism ethics.

As things moved to the internet, there was an influx of blogs much like this one, where you could get honest opinions. YouTube/Vimeo/etc too. The people writing and creating content were just like us, and you went into it knowing that. Now we're where we are today, where the dynamic has changed. And once neutral parties that you trusted can overnight turn into shills. It's incredibly frustrating and damaging. 

[noone]

29 minutes ago, rawshooter said:

Problem is, in the allegedly "good old times" pre-Internet, things were just as bad. By far most camera magazines in the past were just shills, too. Their reviewers were invited to expensive trips, advertorials were the norm etc.etc. So these practices have just moved over from print to social media.

Still happens in the few remaining camera magazines.

June issue of Australian photography has a full page ad for the Fuji X100V on page 19 and on pages 54-57 is a review of the camera (not singling out Fuji, it was just their turn).    Of course I actually think that is a very nice camera.

 

[Andrew Reid]

1 hour ago, rawshooter said:

Problem is, in the allegedly "good old times" pre-Internet, things were just as bad. By far most camera magazines in the past were just shills, too. Their reviewers were invited to expensive trips, advertorials were the norm etc.etc. So these practices have just moved over from print to social media.

I agree

But the internet was a chance for a change for the better.

It is gutting to me to see it all unravel.

[greenscreen]

1 hour ago, cam1982 said:

They invested in workshops, seminars... Now?

Economies of scale killed them. Is there any brand to organize them today?

[Tim Sewell]

1 hour ago, noone said:

June issue of Australian photography has a full page ad for the Fuji X100V on page 19 and on pages 54-57 is a review of the camera (not singling out Fuji, it was just their turn).    Of course I actually think that is a very nice camera.

As an erstwhile tech-oriented ad salesman I have to tell you that any such person - on finding out that editorial were devoting 3 or 4 pages to a favourable review of a particular camera would, within milliseconds, be on the phone to a decision maker at the manufacturer's HQ. There's nothing corrupt about that process, it's just how it works.