My view of the ethics, or otherwise, is pretty simple - transparency, transparency, transparency.
Providing it is CLEAR to the reader/viewer what the circumstances are, then I have no problem. The tricky bits are :-
- how you, as an ‘influence’ explain what you’re doing, and
- the exact nature of your stance.
In other words, the exact nature of tthe relationship between reviewer/influencer and the supplier of reviewed product should be both explicit and written, to make it clear to said supplier what they do and don’t get to do, or see, AND that arrangement must be clear to the reader/viewer, when reading or viewing.
For instance, there is the world of difference between some knowledgeable individual reviewing a poduct because they have expertise to bring to bear, and they’re doing it as a hobby, and someone making their living in whole OR IN PART by doing such reviews.
Also, as far as I’m concerned, “payment” for a review is any form of beneficial inducement to not be objective, such as :-
- direct payment in monetary form, or
- payment-in-kind by “free” goods, or
- other tangible benefits, like free travel, IN EXCHANGE FOR a review.
If someone provides me with a free ‘whatever’, but expects something in return, it’s an inducement, a “payment” utterly regardless of whether it’s money or not.
The optimum solution, I guess (and there are Youtube influencers doing this) is to have a clear, published, written policy visible to both the public AND the supplier of goods for review, and including that the supplier does not get to dictate any of the terms of the review, or to have any input into editorial decisions, or to even see a review before it’s made public.
In short, I guess if a supplier says “Here’s a product, please review it” and then waits for publication to find out what you think, then fine. If they say “Here’s a product you can keep and this is what we require in return” then they’re hiring you to do some marketing work, and probably on the cheap, too.
Can they supply “free” product? It gets trickier there. There are genuinely valid reasons why that’s not necessarily a bad thing BUT it needs to be clear to the reader/reviewer that that is the case, and the reviewer needs to be aware that in these cynical times, not everybody is going to accept that some good reasons do actually exist.
What do I mean by “good reasons”? As an example, if you are reviewing a specific type of product, pretty much regardless of what it is, then it is useful when doing FUTURE reviews of competing products, to have several of the main competition available to do an A/B test. Take, oh, camera or hifi reviews …. when listening to a £1000 pair of speakers, is the reviewer supposed to compare to his/her rather vague memory of listening to the main competition a year ago? Or is it better to set up both side by side (or one after the other, or both ways) and actually compare?
if i were to do a grinder review, then having used XYZ competitor six months ago has some utility, but so does being able to try exactly the same tests, and on exactly the same beans, right tnow. And before condemning me for having half a dozen expensive grinders sitting here when I do a review, please remember, dear reader, I can only really use one at a time to make my coffee. I don’t really want 6 more sitting in boxes in my spare bedroom, just for the hell of it.
To be clear, that bit was hypothetical - I do not, have never and hugely doubt I ever will review a grinder. i have (I think) 3 or 4, all bought with my own money over the years, and none of that money derives in an way from the coffee industry who haven’t supplied me with so much as a single, solitary coffee bean, other that when I bought them, retail.
Back on point - there’s a difference between a supplier sending me some kit, even long-term for that type of comparison purposes, and giving it in return for a review. Such kit can even be on loan, and have to go back, eventually. That’s very different indeed to giving me a free whatever, IN RETURN FOR whatever they stipulate, like a positive review, or a specific list of bullet points covered, or especially editorial review let alone a veto.
Having spent a couple of decades, many years ago, wrting reviews for magazines, newspapers etc, I have some experience in all this. In all that time, not once did I experience any pressure from a supplier to provide a type of flavour or bias to a review. And yes, i was getting paid (sometimes poorly, sometimes surprisingly well) but NEVER by the supplier of review product.
Sometimes, review product was left here long-term. I still have a few items even now, 20-odd years later BUT, technically, they still belong to that supplier. I can’t just review it, then sell it, for example, because without specific permission to dispose of such product from the owner, that’s theft … which is WHY a few items are still sitting here,, unused in years.
And, for clarity, I was paid by the magazine or newspaper, etc, for a competent and unbiased review, not for a rehashed advert or press release from the suppl,ier. If the magazine ever thought they weren’t getting an unbiased review, I’d have been finished as a reviewer …. and as there were a limited number of editos that largely all knew each other, word would have spread like wildfire. The result was the reader, 100% of the time, from me at least, go what they were paying for, which was a competent, thorough and absolutey unbiased review.
The difference with Youtube (or similar sites) is that I was working for the mag, and tey provided a layer of insulation from manufacturer pressure. That’s not the case with net influencers.
As a result, I’m personally going to be a bit cynical, even if a reviewer does publish an ethical statement. In my opinion, the only real test is to read/watch a number of reviews …. few producs are perfect and some fall far short. Do those reviews, ON PRODUCTS I KNOW WELL, reflect the bad as well as good? If not, don’t trust the “reviewer”.
