Loonster I missed that detail and I think it is good, especially with items yet to be released or in the instance a reviewer might have received a faulty item. Also, an open dialog with the manufacturer around design choices and compromises would be good for the consumer to see.

You often see reps posting on the audio forums confirming technical details or answering questions in review threads. Not for all companies but definitely for some of the smaller more innovative companies. In coffee terms John from Decent participates in this way on a few forums, but also promotes new changes or pieces of kit (when a sponsor).

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”.

tompoland Anyhow, the floor is yours. What would you consider ethical or unethical behaviour from an influencer?

That’s a question deserving a long answer, longer than my previous lengthy post, but the short version is how I started that post ….. complete transparency with the viewer …. AND to be explicitly clear with the supplier, before they send gear out, what they don’t get to do, see or expect. What they can expect, IMHO, is a fair and unbiased review. What they can’t expect is much more than to supply, on loan preferably, the product to be reviewed.

Having a constructive working relationship with the supplier is a good thing, and that includes being able to get answers to honest queries and questions. Getting such concerns addressed, when a review throws them up, is a good thing,. Doing a “fair” review cuts both ways - not only must it be fair to potential buyers but it should be fair to the supplier as well.

Oh, one last thing, referring back to the last post of mine - if/when you do a written ethical statement prior to accepting product for review, some companies will walk away rather than accept it. Thar’s good, they’re the ones that think they’re hiring a paid reviewer for a free product, and that process cannot produce an actual review. If they don’t trust you to do a fair review, I doubt you want to work with them anyway. Still really want to review their product? Buy one. Go the Patreon-type route. Whatever. Just don’t get sucked in by that type of company ,… and it includes (in my area, which isn’t coffee) some leading names.

    CoffeePhilE complete transparency with the viewer …. AND to be explicitly clear with the supplier, before they send gear out, what they don’t get to do, see or expect. What they can expect, IMHO, is a fair and unbiased review. What they can’t expect is much more than to supply, on loan preferably, the product to be reviewed.

    This is good stuff thanks. I hadn’t thought about the supplier but that makes perfect sense. Appreciate your post.

      tompoland This is good stuff thanks. I hadn’t thought about the supplier but that makes perfect sense. Appreciate your post.

      Glad to be of a bit of help.

      The way I see it, a “revewer” is there to do exactly that, review the product. For whom, is the question. If it really is a review, it’s for the consumer of the review, the reader or, in the more modern case of Youtube etc, the viewer. If it’s done for the benefit of the manufacturer/supplier (they may or may not be the same, but often are, in my day at least) then really, it’s not a review so much as an advert or a slick if disguised press release.

      As a consumer of such content myself, what I really want to know if the genuine, unbiased and objective personal opinion of the reviewer, perhaps with a bit of subjective assessment in the conclusion.

      My ‘recipe’ for a review, if you like, was :-

      • the hook. Something to get the reader (or viewer) interested, or they won’t get beyond the first minute or two.
      • a break-down of the most important points, benefits, and features
      • conclusion, based on the above analysis, including who the product especially might, or might not, appeal to.

      The last part, especially, is subjective. Few proucts are truly perfect or horrible, in that they suit everybody or nobody at all. It’s usually more nuanced. And who a given product does or doesn’t suit depends on their exact needs. Someone owning a coffee shop is likely not going to need or want the same feature set in a grinder that I will, with my very variable 3 or 4 cups a day. I might prefer a Ferrari of a grinder while the coffee shop owner probably wants a tractor. :D

      If a review not only assesses what a product is good for, or bad at, and suggests, with reasons, what kind of user should consider it and what kind should not, then a review can’t do much better …. providing the review consumer trusts the opinion. If they get the feel that the reviewer’s agenda is anything other than producing a fair and honest review, they (probably rightly) won’t believe a word of it.

      Hence, transparency.

      Another interesting angle is the potential business impact that can be a byproduct of negativity online.

      I’ve seen people on other forums criticising those with a negative opinion of a product because of the potential damage it can do to a business.

      If it’s unfounded or dishonest criticism, fair enough, but my stance, possibly lacking sympathy, is that we shouldn’t have to censor our critique of genuinely bad products or services for fear of hurting business. Perhaps it’s controversial but I think the onus is on the service provider to make a better product or improve their service.

      I work in design and every job I’ve had, justified criticism has always been the catalyst for improvement. I’ve literally had Creative Directors stand over me and say ‘this is garbage, why did you go home on time last night if this is what you came up with ’. Ultimately I’m thankful for it.

      You make something that could be better, someone criticises it, sometimes harshly and it stings but then you improve it, become more skilled at what you’re doing and create something better until the feedback is positive.

      With nothing but praise and censorship of criticism, things would never improve. Worst case, people become scared of saying anything negative at all and the product/service continually gets away with being subpar

      I think our own humility probably encourages us to sugar-coat opinions for fear of hurting someone. Understandably. If someone’s developed a conversation, handed out a free product, excitedly asking you to try it, you’re going to naturally feel uncomfortable saying negative things.

      But it is really the only way iteration and improvement can happen.

      I think the fact so many of these glitzy large-audience videos start to feel phoney is because there’s very rarely any brutal honesty when things aren’t good.

      La Marzocco Linea Mini - Mazzer Philos

      Ikawa Roaster

        HarveyMushman I think our own humility probably encourages us to sugar-coat opinions for fear of hurting someone. Understandably. If someone’s developed a conversation, handed out a free product, excitedly asking you to try it, you’re going to naturally feel uncomfortable saying negative things.

        I get where you’re coming from, and if were a tiny, startup business and a product given to a friend to try …. well, yeah.

        But when it’s often large (* see note) companies and supposedky ‘professional’ reviewers/influencers, then no, I don’t think that’s the dynamic at all. The company, unsurpisingly, has an agenda - get publicity, sell stuff. But contrary to the popula saying, there really is such a thing as bad publicity. The only thing any company has a right to expect from a review is that it’s fair, competent and professional. If the product has faults, flaws, weaknesss etc, then they should see having them pointed out as an opportunity - an opportunity to get experienced outside feedback, and to use that as input into the development process.

        I had one company, a US software house, contact me after a review that was pretty detailed (a major feature, and cover feature at that) where I’d been largely complementary but I’d pointed out a brief list of areas that could stand change or improvement, and because I’d nailed pretty much every single point they’d already identified as needing work, and been fair, about both the positives and negatives, their CEO wanted to meet. I ended up in San Francisco, talking to him and senior developers, on my way to a show in Vegas.

        A proper review absolutely should include criticisms, provided they’re justified. But the reviewer needs to remember they COULD end up getting sued …. so check, double-check and triple-check before lashing out, and when you do criticise, be sure it’s for good reason, and that you keep notes and records demonstrating why you criticised.

        Only once did I get threatened with a lawsuit. After a discussion with the mag editor, who’d had a chat with their lawyers, it came down to “Do I stand by my criticisms, in court if need be?” I did, and said so, and yes, I had notes, photos, screenshots, test and benchmark resuts etc, should it become necessary to justify the criticisms. The mag told the complaining company, if they wanted to sue, see you in court.

        That is annother possible difference between my day and today - the upset company would have been suing a large and powerful multinational publishing corppration, not an individual Youtube reviewer. But EVERYBODY, private or company, doing a review or just mouthing off online, ought to remember you COULD (unlikey though it is see Note 2) end up trying to justify what you said, in front of a judge. An awful lot of keyboard warriors would come badly unstuck at that pont. It applies to “inluencers”, but it also applies to everybody posting, for example, on this board. If you “publish” damaging or defamatory remarks, depending on quite what you say, you could end up having to justify them. So, a good rule is don’t say it if you can’t justify it, especially in a review. But that’s a long way from saying reviews should only say good things - in my view, if they do that, they’re just marketing, not a review.

        (* NOTE - in my day, and largely in computers, it was companies like Microsoft, IBM, HP, Lexmark, Canon, Epson and so on that I was dealing with most of the time, and professional press and marketing managers/directors) I dealt with, “Excited”, if it appeared at all, would be seen as artifice.

        Note 2) - while getting sued is possible, it’s unlikely, in part because it can get very expensive, very quickly. But that applies to both parties, so if you don’t have deep pockets, be very careful what you say about someone that does.

        When I was sent my second lot of Lelit machines for technical feedback to Lelit, I realised there were 2 types of contracts, an Influencers contract and one I was asked to sign (AFTER) I had been sent the machines. My contract simply asked if they could use any photos or media I produced, but emphasised I was not required to publicly review the product.

        Which means the converse of my contract must exist and for those people are required to sign it before they get anything sent from the company and may even contain other terms.

        So really, if I reviewed those machines, it was because I wanted to and not because I had to. I still intend to do a re-review of the Bianca V3, just have not had time to get round to it.

          All the videos end with, “I’ll hand the conversation over to you, what do you think, let me know in the comments?”…which they rarely, if ever, respond to. (An exception, in my experience is AwareHouseChef).

          They generally don’t care what other people think, they don’t interact in any meaningful way, other than to lash out if they feel they have been slighted.

          The purpose of these channels is purely to generate clicks & comments…the content is largely irrelevant, it could be sowing machines, chainsaws or belly button fluff.

          They all seem to know how to use Youtube & Google in general, but why then they so are typically awful at attributing proper credits?

          Hoffmann & Sprometheus have been doing this a while, but there’s an awful lot that have sprung up since Covid with little novel to offer, just aiming to take a slice of the pie.

          I watch a lot of Youtube, lots of different channels, and yes they all ask for likes, subscribes & comments, but the videos are at least entertaining (as are Hoffmann’s to be fair) in their own right and some actually seem to impart a reasonable level of knowledge:

          A good example of someone who does both is Clint’s Reptiles.

          The ethics are moot if the ‘information’ is really just noise.

            MWJB All the videos end with, “I’ll hand the conversation over to you, what do you think, let me know in the comments?”…which they rarely, if ever, respond to. (An exception, in my experience is AwareHouseChef).

            They generally don’t care what other people think, they don’t interact in any meaningful way, other than to lash out if they feel they have been slighted.

            Yup, I wish they wouldn’t just say then when they don’t really care what you think….but if you don’t go 100% with what they say, they can respond quite aggressively.

            You also need to have a lonnnnng memory and remember everything you say,

            There’s a YouTuber who helped to design a hand grinder and I’m pretty sure the first video he spoke of how he got kick backs and that would be the last you would see of it on his channel.

            I mean it’s been featured loads since but who’s counting…

            Decent De1pro v1.45 - Niche Duo - Niche Zero - Decent is the best machine ever made -

              IMBHO an ‘influencer’ is nothing more than a self-entitled B.S. artist. Majority of it is for pathetic fame and $. Personally won’t watch any videos as I can figure anything out on my own, don’t buy into what others find works for them and won’t contribute financially towards the crap!

                DavecUK I mean basically they are there to make money from you…nothing more!

                We all gotta make money 💰 in this 3D reality that our Soul’s consciousness is currently focused in to be able to manoeuvre this physical vessel we identify as.

                  drdre89 We all gotta make money 💰

                  Indeed. In a way it’s no different to marketing or sales people have been doing for hundreds (thousands?) of years. Same way you can barely read a newspaper these days without having to search for the ‘this is an advertorial’ small print.

                  Again, you can’t really blame them, especially in the current economy. If you take it at face value (glamourised long-form promotion) there’s some entertainment to be had.

                  La Marzocco Linea Mini - Mazzer Philos

                  Ikawa Roaster

                    drdre89 We all gotta make money 💰 in this 3D reality that our Soul’s consciousness is currently focused in to be able to manoeuvre this physical vessel we identify as.

                    We do, and there are some people who choose a particular way to do that….It’s not something I could, or would do personally.

                    HarveyMushman it’s no different to marketing or sales people have been doing for hundreds (thousands?) of years. Same way you can barely read a newspaper these days without having to search for the ‘this is an advertorial’ sma

                    A lot of marketing and sales people are professionals though. Most of these influencers are just idiots, but not as stupid as the brainless morons who follow them and provide them with a living. This video id a classic example!