Review Rant
-
I was searching for Database Daily news and came upon an interesting rant on the state of hardware reviews. It talks about the various sites and ways that reviews are done and the problems with them.
It was interesting to me for a few reasons. One of which is that I have had some of those scenarios come up. People have offered this site lots of money to "pimp" their product at the expense of others. Fortunately we haven't been in the position of desparately needing the money, so we haven't accepted. Not to say we haven't been tempted, but we'd like to keep a few morals around here and put them above the dollars.
It strikes close to heart because he mentions three types of reviews. Those that are blatantly paid for and manipulated by vendors, those that are completely independent by sites that have strong morals, but are struggling to survive, and those that charge vendors, but give them right of first refusal.
We've in the latter category, but I think that we've solved at least one of the issues in the rant. We charge for reviews, something that we've only recently started doing and only because reviews are a big pain in my butt, take an inordinate amount of time, and entail more negotiation or argument than I would like.
And I don't write reviews!!!
The three founders of this site stopped writing reviews over a year ago because we realized it was an inherent conflict of interest. We need advertising money to survive, but we don't want to be in the position of someone dangling our revenue stream in front of our face for a good review. Or feel obligated to do so.
So we stopped writing them since our name tends to generate more response and having someone else write the review removes us from the bias that may take place. I suppose that vendors could be offering our authors money on the side, but based on the reviews and the amount of back and forth that goes on, I doubt it.
I do want to be clear that the vendors don't write the review. But marketing is important to them and we don't want to send a mixed message. So we'll reword things sometimes to be consistent with what the vendor is marketing. Or the reviewer might make a mistake and then vendor wants it corrected. Or they've fixed something, or whatever. So we try to be true to the reviewer, and they do get the final OK on what the review says, while working with the vendor. That's why you'll see vendor comments in reviews. Sometimes the reviewer doesn't want to change something and the vendor wants a comment in there.
We do also give the vendor the right to ask the review not be published. They still pay us because we still pay the author a pretty nice sum whether we publish or not. To date, I think only one review has not been published at a vendor's wishes.
So I guess we're not knocking them too hard.
Steve Jones
-
This is a tough subject. It has been going on for as long as there have been journals, online or not. I've had friends offered hardware and other rewards for good reviews. Personnally, I'd like to see you not take the approach you have. But it's not my business.
My perspective is that the review goes beyond the article itself. The mere presence of the review gives an implication not spoken. To some it may indicate that because you've chosen to look at product A, no other product is worth looking at. Also many people in this short attention span theater called the internet don't look at any disclaimers you may make. Finally, negative reviews are so very often far more important than positive reviews (to the consumer).
If you did/do participate in/provide a review in the manner you mention, I'd personnally like to see it bracketed and labelled as a paid advertisement. After all, is that not the essence of what you are doing by only accepting paid reviews (while allowing the vendor to not have it shown)?
-
Maybe. It's an interesting concept. We have had a few people do reviews on their own, but for the most part, our authors don't. Perhaps we should call out the reviews that are submitted, but not paid for.
All our reviews are paid, but by not doing them, we insert a small level of distance between ourselves and the vendor who is paying. Also, I should mention, we pick the authors to do the reviews, so I tend to call on those authors that are detail oriented, and do a good job writing.
I wish there were a better solution. Honestly we'd love to be the consumer reports for tools, but the economics of it aren't there. Or at least we haven't figured them out.
-
Steve,
Interesting topic... it's one that has come up in lots of ways... I.e. what is "journalism" really?!
I think maybe you touched on this topic a while back in a way… that or all the newsgroups/articles I read (IT/Computer World, IT Business, Edge, TechRepulic, etc) are blurring together
!I recall there was a discussion about BLOGS and whether they have validity (from a journalistic perspective).
I think reviews fall into the same category of sorts, and when $ is involved (however it is passed around), even if it is just to pay a writer for their time regardless of what happens with the review, it is does create a certain perception. Not that I think writers shouldn’t be paid… oh I definitely think that they should be paid for their time and efforts, I.e. any professional journalist is paid, but then they do have to clearly have guidelines as to what they do and how they do and in what situations... and… what is considered “out-of-bounds” from an ethical, journalistic viewpoint. I think (personally) that it means that a website/group/forum/? such as SQLServerCentral has to have clear and (fortunately or unfortunately) higher standards to ensure ethics and prevent corruption!
To that end, I would think that indicating that a writer has been paid for a review (but perhaps a link to your policy on how this occurs/works) could be put in each review. And those that are distinct from that policy have some indication as well.
However, in the end, people still have to take responsibility for what they read on-line. And if a person is on the Internet and searching for info on a topic and takes EVERYTHING they read at face value… wow… not much you can do, except hope for the “light bulb” to eventually go on! But if you know that you have acted ethically and your “policy” or guidelines are there somewhere clearly, and easily accessible for anyone and everyone to read, then I think you have done what YOU personally or SQLServerCentral can and should do as a well respected industry resource.
Ethics in any industry is still big news, and the "general" public is demanding greater accountability from both companies and people. Reviews may seem like small peanuts next to the other things happening in the world (Enron’s & the like), but IT/industry people (such as myself), would look at a review done by a "bigger name" in that particular area of IT (or posted on a credible resource such as SQLServerCentral), and the perception is one of understanding and knowledge by that person.
Basically, if it is a known person/resource in industry, their opinion carries weight and CAN influence potential purchasing decisions. I have done reviews (for other industries – mostly books) and the one thing I’ve always kept (and liked) for a structure for a review is basically presenting the pros & cons… and find some of both! But either leave the opinion open (and clearly indicated) that is still up to the person to make a final assessment, or offer my "bias”, but explain clearly why I am leaning to the pro/con side and that it is still my “personal” opinion, and again… that is still up to the person to make a final assessment. The intent is (hopefully/ultimately) to stay true to your ethics, and still convey some useful information to industry.
And… I know from personal experience that I read reviews and would like to know there are some out there that I can trust to provide me with useful information on a topic/product (h/w & s/w) that I am interested in learning more about. As well, I know my partner reads reviews A LOT. He owns his own small tech company and deals with things more on the h/w side, but reviews/information/articles are (critically) useful to him as he doesn’t often have time to play with every product, and these resources are his "techie group" since he works primarily alone. He has to make good business decisions and recommendations for his clients that are in their best interests first, even if it is for a product that he doesn’t currently support or use… it just means that he has to become fluent fast!
Again, interesting topic… and very relevant in a world that is searching and struggling with topics like this one more and more each day!
Cheers,
Michelle.
"Work like you don't need the money;
dance like no one is watching;
sing like no one is listening;
love like you've never been hurt;
and live every day as if it were your last."
~ an old Irish proverb -
BTW... just came across this article that sort of touches on a similar vein:
http://www.itbusiness.ca/index.asp?theaction=61&sid=58575
Cheers,
Michelle.
"Work like you don't need the money;
dance like no one is watching;
sing like no one is listening;
love like you've never been hurt;
and live every day as if it were your last."
~ an old Irish proverb
Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply