Enea_ Do you place the urethane on top of your amp?
Niche Zero - One Year in Review
- Edited
Oh, you’re right, I didn’t read the description all the way through :-) They looked so much like the urethane thingies I put under the amp to stop vibrations. Ok, so worth it?
Edit: Nice reference! 😂
😉
The vast majority of Youtubers are there for two reasons. Self promotion and to make money. Therefore can you really trust a word they say when they are seeking to protect those two things I mention. If you YT channel is monetised then that really tells you all that you need to know about a person. Then there are a very few people, who use Yt for different reasons. Their Yt channel is not monetised for starters. The reviews they actually do are written and merely backed up by video. They do not self promote. Ask yourself two questions. Is Lance Hendricks YT channel monetised and is our own @DavecUK YT channel monetised. I think the respective answers will be quite revealing.
- Edited
dfk41 My YouTube channel is fully eligible for monetisation, but I don’t monetise it, or use affiliate links. I don’t monetise any of my online activities.
I mostly use it to store videos I use in written reviews, as part of evidence based reviewing. Sometimes I use it to make a video I think might be interesting like my ECM visit.
dfk41 I don’t understand why you think someone being paid to do their job makes them unreliable. We are all paid to work (either by an employer or our customers) and each one of us is either honest or is not, regardless of where that paycheck is coming from.
I do not follow this guy so I don’t have an opinion but the video seems ‘fair’. Obviously making a bit of a fuss is good for business and to raise engagement, but that has always been the case in show business.
I actually disagree with his preference for light roasts and I think the niche would work pretty well for me.
- Edited
While David will reply, a YT-based revenue model as an income cannot be completely unbiased. They have self-interests; the comments, review and other things will have to guard that self-interest. Otherwise, they will disappear threatening their livelihood. Let’s not forget they also have to put food on the table for their family.
The downside is many innocent consumers get caught in the cross-fire because popular XYZ endorses them. This is a brutal commercially motivated world with no regard or concern for the mass. We have seen JH ripping the Aldi or £100 machines apart, but not certain brands even if they aren’t even up to certain standards. But, he leaves enough guarded hints for his followers to decipher.
Similarly, this guy has achieved his objective by touching the most popular product in the prosumer coffee segment. It is up to us as individuals to decide if he is biased, balanced, and so on.
Unfortunately, the public — those who get influenced — are always at the receiving end. I empathise with them.
This is true in the case of food industry, FMCG, electronics and so on.
I love watching JH’s video and also like watching LH’s channel. As a coffee lover, I learnt something from them. So, their revenue model doesn’t bother me as an individual. 😊
dfk41 Sorry, I don’t agree that anyone monetising their online activities is automatically untrustworthy, or the reverse. Nor do I agree that ad hominem attacks are appropriate or productive.
As to the preference for written rather than ‘video’ content… sign of the times (and the ages), I’m afraid. I dislike it too, but I don’t find it a reason to discard video as a communication and learning medium.
@Evergreen88
@LMSC
@CoyoteOldMan
I will try to deal with your points in one go. AN influencer is not paid to do a job. He is earning an income by persuading folks to view his channel. He therefore has to be very careful what he says. In my private exchanges with Lance, he totally ignored the arguments in favour of slinging mud. He is a Phd student so ought to be able to debate! The ‘advice’ he gives people leads to consequences for those taken in by his guff. Take Hoffman for example. When he does these reviews, how many man hours do you think he plays with them? The Niche was something like 3 years in the R & D stage and evaluated by Dave for months.
@LMSC is about spot on
@CoyoteOldMan No problem with your points raised but let me explain my video comment. I know the kids of today prefer pictures to words and I am still waiting for Lord of the Rings to come out as a comic (!). But when Dave does his written reviews, they are detailed and contain warts and all. Good and bad. YT is making a lot of people a lot of money, but that does not make it good, bad or indifferent. Hendrick in his review, got several things wrong. he is also 100% repsonsible for the content, so he chooses what to include and what to leave out. Why exactly? What is the point of glossing over a bad point? The answer is because he is only interested in monetisation and self promotion and not remotely interested in anything to do with reality and the facts. If we are saying that all influencers ought to be treated with kid gloves and what they say taken tongue in cheek, but they are not. If you can waste a few minutes, listen to this clip by Gerald Pauschman
CoyoteOldMan Hopefully we’re all sensible enough to understand that some channels are monetised and what impact this “may” have on content, especially as these channels tend to have to have 1 or 2 new videos a week to stay relevant. All of us have an idea about what we want from these channels, entertainment, opinion, information etc..
I highly recommend LH Latte art videos, I find them informative, educational and useful, other videos not so much, such as the Lagom Mini where after 25m of video, I had still not seen the grinder grind a full dose, or a shot extract from a machine after grinding with said grinder. In the first example, I went seeking information and found it…in the second, I wasted 25m of my life.
This shows that all online reviews can be a bit of a curates egg. I have enjoyed some videos from the various YT sites like Hoffman, Spromethius etc.. and some I have not.
Personally I will use a video if that explains things better, or often use YT as a handy video repository for evidence based reviewing. I don’t really have a channel and don’t ask for subscribers because my YT activities are not that of a channel for clicks, views and likes. I also do much much less public reviewing nowadays. Preferring to work in the background on issues I believe really matter for the consumer and in a very specific consumer segment.
Overall, if people want to make a living and sometimes a very significant income from these channels, good luck to them. I’m not the policeman of the internet, or the protector of the consumer. If I am asked, or in a discussion I will generally give my opinion, because I think we’re still allowed to do that. Mostly I just mind my own business (except on very rare occasions). If people see these YouTube sites and base their buying decisions, or not, on them, it’s no skin off my nose (and we should all feel like that). Just as we should all feel free to express opinions. So if 1000s of people decide not to buy a Niche based on LH video, and buy something else, so what…down to them.
Lastly I think it’s fair to always keep in mind:
P.S. The very rare occasions are; when I feel the consumer is being massively misled and am currently weighing up whether to publish my Elektra Verve engineering review or not. Especially as a YT channel has popped up heavily promoting the Verve, a machine I believe should not be sold as it is!
- Edited
Evergreen88 dfk41 I don’t understand why you think someone being paid to do their job makes them unreliable. We are all paid to work (either by an employer or our customers) and each one of us is either honest or is not, regardless of where that paycheck is coming from.
Not saying anything regarding this specific video, but just in relation to the general comment that being paid doesn’t mean a person is unreliable: This is only correct if the fact that the person is being paid is disclosed (or implied from the circumstances, for example, if it’s a salesperson in a shop wearing the shop’s uniform). If someone gives advice in a place where it isn’t implied that they are being paid, and they don’t disclose that they are in fact being paid, that on it’s own makes them unreliable (in my view), even if they actually give their honest opinion. It is up to the audience to decide how to treat the view, but they need to be given the correct information to make this decision. Again - not saying this in response to this specific video.
Unfortunately, it has become the norm that people get paid and hide it. I heard a program on the radio about Huel (meal replacement shakes). One of the interviewers on the show was ‘an expert’ who did ‘a scientific experiment’ that found that drinking those shakes is actually better for you than eating food. When asked if Huel funded this ‘research’ he answered ‘yes’, and then went on to explain how rigorous the research method was. I think we will agree that information about the funder is important to put things in context, and that omitting it would make it unreliable (even if the study itself follows the strictest standards and the researcher is the most honest person you’ve met).
After watching Lance’s review… he states his personal preference for his palette is lighter roasts third wave type coffee with fruity notes. Typically in the coffee world flat burr grinders are preferred for this tasting pallette.
So pretty much the bias is there upfront. For Lance’s tastes a flat burr grinder does a better job for him.
I would think majority of people that aren’t coffee nerds are used to the chocolately velvety pallette which most cafes serve up. That’s why the Niche is a good all rounder for that flavour profile.
- Edited
Doram information about the funder is important to put things in context, and that omitting it would make it unreliable (even if the study itself follows the strictest standards and the researcher is the most honest person you’ve met).
While the disclosure is important and brings transparency to the whole process, the reliability or otherwise is subject what the research is about. If related to the product-related funding, one then begins to wonder. However, if a funding pertains non-commercial interests, it may bring authenticity. Some examples are the project on why BAME population was vulnerable during the first round of Covid; the research grants that come from Governments, organisations and research bodies on topics of socio-economic-cultural importance; and, so on.
Well, one thing is for sure, he is doing his YouTube job well. Monetised YouTubers don’t care if you agree or disagree, they just want engagement - every comment and every share ultimately adds to their income. I don’t particularly like that this is how it works, but it is what it is. It’s unfortunate that it leads some to make content that may be designed more to provoke engagement than to inform.
If you agree or disagree leave a comment below. And remember to subscribe and click that bell!
dfk41 AN influencer is not paid to do a job. He is earning an income by persuading folks to view his channel.
That IS a job. We can debate endlessly whether it is the sort of job that society should create more or less of, but it is a job.
There have been reviews of equipment by people paid to write (or script) those reviews for several decades - some of these paid reviewers did an excellent job, and some did not. They all had to tread the path of caution: saying too much or in the wrong way would result in no more equipment to review being sent their way.
The openness of modern media to “instant feedback” provides another hurdle for a reviewer to tackle, and you are right that Lance did not acquit himself well in the comments/replies… that doesn’t make a review on YouTube automatically bad, and that was my only comment.
dfk41 Take Hoffman for example. When he does these reviews, how many man hours do you think he plays with them? The Niche was something like 3 years in the R & D stage and evaluated by Dave for months.
I have no idea how long JH spends in preparing a typical review; if anything, the fact that Lance spent a year “with” the Niche was - in my view - a positive, as is a positive that JH came back to the Niche (and other equipment) several times over a long-ish period. I - like all of us - am bombarded with requests for instant feedback for pretty much anything I buy; in most cases, I can’t really leave a review because I haven’t got enough experience with the item to review to make it useful; all I can really rate is whether the seller’s logistical arrangements work, and whether they responded quickly to any initial issues.
On the other hand, it is quite obvious that the designers and makers of an object know and understand it ‘better’ than pretty much any reviewer; however, they have an even more direct interest in expressing positive opinions. Dave is in a somewhat unique position (as far as I know), as he doesn’t make the equipment or benefit from its sales, but is sought after as a consultant, and therefore has access to it for extended periods of time - which is why I read/see everything he says/films about specific machines with great interest and give it a greater weight than the opinion of others with an axe to grind (or a wallet to fill).
dfk41 I am still waiting for Lord of the Rings to come out as a comic (!).
Now that Christopher Tolkien has passed away, everything is possible. Done well, it would probably be a good thing, and I might well be interested in it - I’m not looking forward to 2 September, though.
dfk41 Hendrick in his review, got several things wrong.
Well, you see… this is the part that I’m really interested in, whereas some of the posts here have gone towards slanging Lance as a character “because he monetizes his channel” or “he is a YT influencer”.
He doesn’t particularly like the Niche, that much is clear; but I don’t think we can call this right or wrong: it’s his personal opinion, and he is entitled to it. I do find his account, however, more balanced than you do, and - as far as I can tell, as a non-Niche-owner and a not-coffee-grinding-expert - factually correct: conical burrs will tend to have a broader distribution of particle sizes than flat burrs for a particular setting of distance between the burrs, and that will make the grinder more ‘forgiving’ in principle, to the expense of the ultimate in clarity. Does that make the Niche a bad grinder? Not at all, and that’s not what I heard from LH. Is he making a bigger point than he needs to out of it? Possibly; it doesn’t make it factually incorrect. Could he have said this in 2 minutes rather than 25, and spent time focusing on other aspects (good and bad) of the grinder? Yes, absolutely - but as you say, he is 100% responsible for the content he puts out, and if that doesn’t contribute to build his reputation as a reviewer of coffee-making equipment… so much the worse for him and no-one else.
dfk41 What is the point of glossing over a bad point? The answer is because he is only interested in monetisation and self promotion and not remotely interested in anything to do with reality and the facts.
The only video by Lance Hedrick I have seen is the one posted at the top of this thread. I haven’t heard him glossing over any bad points of the Niche - if anything, he over-emphasised them. I haven’t heard him say anything - outside of legitimate personal opinion - that is not factual or real to the best of my knowledge/understanding.
dfk41 If we are saying that all influencers ought to be treated with kid gloves and what they say taken tongue in cheek, but they are not.
I’m not saying that, and I haven’t heard anyone else on this thread saying it either. What I have said is that ad-hominem attacks are seldom productive, and never justified.
dfk41 If you can waste a few minutes, listen to this clip by Gerald Pauschman
I did (and I don’t count it as “wasted time” - I’ll show it to my teenagers this evening, so thank you) - but I fail to see the relevance. The fact that one young entitled lady feels that she can offer her social media influence in exchange for free accommodation (and sees no moral wrong in that, but is taken aback when someone exposes her naive machinations) is no evidence that all YouTube or Instagram content producers operate this way, or specifically that Lance Hedrick does.
As an aside - I find it interesting that someone like the ‘influencer for sale’ exists only thanks to social media - but it is the same social media that is their downfall.
DavecUK This shows that all online reviews can be a bit of a curates egg. I have enjoyed some videos from the various YT sites like Hoffman, Spromethius etc.. and some I have not.
Indeed. My point is that just because it is online (and/or video), it doesn’t make it automatically good or bad. Caveat emptor (for the review AND the equipment) nearly always applies, and it does so very much on a case-by-case basis.
DavecUK am currently weighing up whether to publish my Elektra Verve engineering review or not. Especially as a YT channel has popped up heavily promoting the Verve, a machine I believe should not be sold as it is!
If this is the same channel that describes it as a “duel boiler machine” in the video comments… I think they are shooting their feet quite well enough by themselves. Or maybe it’s just my too-literal mind that finds it funny.
CoyoteOldMan video comments
😂 I spent way too long scrolling and still can’t find it
I suspect I was right… given there is a rather pointed comment by DaveC which is beautifully ignored by the Artists.
I wouldn’t waste 13 minutes watching the video, at least if you are interested in knowing something other than “it has a multi-coloured timber wrap” (which is an effective way of using cheaper timber scraps).
@CoyoteOldMan ah silly me, I was actually looking in the comments of that 80s song 🤣 thought you meant they were plugging their video review in the comments section of other videos! I have seen that verve review video a few weeks back. Thought of posting it here but Dave did say he was struggling with the confidentiality issu Guess I shouldn’t have worried…
hthec Whoops - sorry, should have been clearer. It’s just that in my mind the word ‘duel’ is indelibly associated to that song!