p.1 #1 · The Confessions of a 14-Year YouTube Gear Reviewer
Revealing part starts from 7 min.
sony flies shills to his house to show him presentations, gets invited to presentations, food, alcohol, fancy hotels, all paid gets 50,000$ just from affiliate links for sony rx1
bashes xpro1 for shit AF, gets blacklisted by fuji
attempted bribe by dji to take out weight comment from vid, declined, doesn't get anything from dji either
bombshell: earns half a mil just from b&h affiliate links!
p.1 #6 · The Confessions of a 14-Year YouTube Gear Reviewer
I saw nothing in there that was new information. I can also say that there was nothing revealed that was unethical by the Companies. Every consumer product I know of operates the very same way. Companies that are best at this do best in the market. You will notice that he never mentioned any companies offering incentives to say bad things about competitors. There is no support for the accusations of paid "bashing" that fans of a certain brands often make to deflect criticism by some reviewers of their favored brands. In fact the opposite should be considered. Given the perks for positive reviews, one must default to the consideration that sincerity of criticism must be real in order for a reviewer to take the hit. Yes, think Tony Northrup, and Fro when it came to Nikon's original pre-Z9 mirrorless products.
It has always been this way. This has been true in all media way before there was the internet, or computers. That is why non participatory organizations like Consumer Reports started so many decades ago. When this goes on with products like cameras it is really no big deal. When it goes on (which it does in even bigger ways) in fields like medical/pharmaceuticals then real harm may be done. Ask your Doctors about this.
It is up to us to choose who we listen to in order to get truthful information. Always has been, always will be. Bear in mind that it is possible to take the money, and be truthful.
p.1 #7 · The Confessions of a 14-Year YouTube Gear Reviewer
jwolfe wrote:
There are some truly independent reviewers out there. Most of the "influencers" are paid stooges by Sony. Give them credit, it works.
Boy did you miss the point of that video.
Yes, he did say that Sony is aggressive in pursuing good press for their products. Good on them for that. It is fair business practice. However, no where did he say that companies offer any incentives for bashing competing brands. Those that are criticizing are paying a real price for doing so. Such criticism has real negative incentives. It is therefore logical to believe that they must be sincere in their criticism in order to bear such costs for candor. In the video he says when playing the game, it is best (more profitable) to just not to do a review, than to do a negative one. This ads credibility to those negative comments.
So are those that offer good reviews about Nikon must be paid "stooges" for Nikon? They are getting all the same perks from Nikon that you say are making the others paid "stooges" for Sony. I guess by your logic anyone who got a product in advance of announcement so that they could release a review the same day as the announcement, have been bribed by access, and the increased revenue from announcement day affiliate links. They must all be "paid stooges".
One must go beyond whether a reviewer praises or criticizes a brand or product to determine the value of that opinion. Especially if criticism of a favored brand evokes an emotional response in you, and cause you to label "most" as stooges".
This guy is like a bank robber who comes out and says that he knew all along that robbing banks was wrong. But he kept doing it until he made enough money to stop. He is not going to return that ill gotten money, but he is going to cleanse his soul by ratting out all the other bank robbers. Things that make think HMMMMMMMMMMMM....
p.1 #8 · The Confessions of a 14-Year YouTube Gear Reviewer
1bwana1 wrote:
This guy is like a bank robber who comes out and says that he knew all along that robbing banks was wrong. But he kept doing it until he made enough money to stop. He is not going to return that ill gotten money, but he is going to cleanse his soul by ratting out all the other bank robbers. Things that make think HMMMMMMMMMMMM....
I completely agree. That said, I'm glad to see the "inside baseball" exposed, even if it is distasteful. The alternative is an "industry" secret that materially harms all of us. (Well, at least it harms the people listing to shill reviewers.)
p.1 #9 · The Confessions of a 14-Year YouTube Gear Reviewer
Oh I got the point.
You missed mine. If Sony is sending representatives, incentives and free gear to influencers, who may or may not be good photographers, I don't even bother with them. I listen to a select group of reviewers, NOT youtube idiots. The whole purpose of an influencer is to push the brand. Patrick Racey-Murphy is a great example. I'm not interested in opinions from people who make their living with clickbait.
1bwana1 wrote:
Boy did you miss the point of that video.
Yes, he did say that Sony is aggressive in pursuing good press for their products. Good on them for that. It is fair business practice. However, no where did he say that companies offer any incentives for bashing competing brands. Those that are criticizing are paying a real price for doing so. Such criticism has real negative incentives. It is therefore logical to believe that they must be sincere in their criticism in order to bear such costs for candor. In the video he says when playing the game, it is best (more profitable) to just not to do a review, than to do a negative one. This ads credibility to those negative comments.
So are those that offer good reviews about Nikon must be paid "stooges" for Nikon? They are getting all the same perks from Nikon that you say are making the others paid "stooges" for Sony. I guess by your logic anyone who got a product in advance of announcement so that they could release a review the same day as the announcement, have been bribed by access, and the increased revenue from announcement day affiliate links. They must all be "paid stooges".
One must go beyond whether a reviewer praises or criticizes a brand or product to determine the value of that opinion. Especially if criticism of a favored brand evokes an emotional response in you, and cause you to label "most" as stooges".
This guy is like a bank robber who comes out and says that he knew all along that robbing banks was wrong. But he kept doing it until he made enough money to stop. He is not going to return that ill gotten money, but he is going to cleanse his soul by ratting out all the other bank robbers. Things that make think HMMMMMMMMMMMM.......Show more →
p.1 #10 · The Confessions of a 14-Year YouTube Gear Reviewer
jwolfe wrote:
Oh I got the point.
Patrick Racey-Murphy is a great example. I'm not interested in opinions from people who make their living with clickbait.
PRM is a Sony Ambassador. He is not a reviewer. He is paid in a number of ways for this work and that is not hidden. This relationship is open and advertised.
His job is to show his employers products in a positive way, demonstrate it features and benefits, and educate users and consumers. All brands have such people, including Nikon who have a number of well known ones.
Equating such people to reviewers on the take shows a total lack of understanding the roles, motivations, and validity, of different information channels in the industry. His work is not "click baiting", he is a valuable resource for Sony and users of Sony products, just as Joe McNally is for Nikon. Same roles, different brands is all. I enjoy and learn from both among others.
p.1 #11 · The Confessions of a 14-Year YouTube Gear Reviewer
Except he's not. He's not a good photographer. He was a nobody before he got in with Sony. When that happened they were desperate for pros. Comparing Patrick to Joe McNally is a travesty. Joe is one of the best photographers in the world. Patrick is a paid hack.
There are tons of "reviewers" who are no more than influencers that receive free gear, perks etc from brands to push them. I don't bother with them. I stick with neutral reviewers who aren't on the gravy train. Not to mention there's a lot of people who claim to be pro photographers who would be lost on a real assignment. The internet, and especially youtube, is full of them.
1bwana1 wrote:
PRM is a Sony Ambassador. He is not a reviewer. He is paid in a number of ways for this work and that is not hidden. This relationship is open and advertised.
His job is to show his employers products in a positive way, demonstrate it features and benefits, and educate users and consumers. All brands have such people, including Nikon who have a number of well known ones.
Equating such people to reviewers on the take shows a total lack of understanding the roles, motivations, and validity, of different information channels in the industry. His work is not "click baiting", he is a valuable resource for Sony and users of Sony products, just as Joe McNally is for Nikon. Same roles, different brands is all. I enjoy and learn from both among others....Show more →
p.1 #14 · The Confessions of a 14-Year YouTube Gear Reviewer
jwolfe wrote:
Comparing Patrick to Joe McNally is a travesty. Joe is one of the best photographers in the world.
One should try to develop the ability to read past their personal biases. I never compared Joe McNally to Patrick Racy as photographers. I will not judge either in that capacity. I only pointed out that they both play similar roles as brand Ambassadors. Neither is giving independant unbiased reviews.
No travesty has taken place except in your head...
p.1 #16 · The Confessions of a 14-Year YouTube Gear Reviewer
jwolfe wrote:
There are some truly independent reviewers out there. Most of the "influencers" are paid stooges by Sony. Give them credit, it works.
Unfortunately independent doesn't equate to unbiased. No matter how well intentioned, we all carry biases.
p.1 #17 · The Confessions of a 14-Year YouTube Gear Reviewer
That is true, but I think someone who's not in bed with a particular company is far more valuable than a paid stooge. Or someone who just wants to generate clicks.
Alistair1 wrote:
Unfortunately independent doesn't equate to unbiased. No matter how well intentioned, we all carry biases.
p.1 #18 · The Confessions of a 14-Year YouTube Gear Reviewer
RoamingScott wrote:
So many grifts, so little time.
. I await his exposé revealing his earnings from contacting the tragically deceased Bollywood actor Sushant Singh Rajput. He made quite the stir amongst the vast fan base of the unfortunate actor.
p.1 #19 · The Confessions of a 14-Year YouTube Gear Reviewer
Nikon ambassadors generally don't give reviews. They are like pro athletes wearing Nike cleats. Sony has turned it into influencing. PRM used to flood SportsShooter with posts about Sony before he got kicked off. I don't have respect for that. People like Joel Sartore are out making amazing images and Nikon makes them an ambassador. Sony just found people willing to sell out and post tons of influence crap all over the internet. Don't get me wrong, I like Sony cameras, but I have no respect for their "pro" marketing.
1bwana1 wrote:
One should try to develop the ability to read past their personal biases. I never compared Joe McNally to Patrick Racy as photographers. I will not judge either in that capacity. I only pointed out that they both play similar roles as brand Ambassadors. Neither is giving independant unbiased reviews.
No travesty has taken place except in your head...
p.1 #20 · The Confessions of a 14-Year YouTube Gear Reviewer
jwolfe wrote:
That is true, but I think someone who's not in bed with a particular company is far more valuable than a paid stooge. Or someone who just wants to generate clicks.
Can you please name someone who you feel lives up to this standard.
. I await his exposé revealing his earnings from contacting the tragically deceased Bollywood actor Sushant Singh Rajput. He made quite the stir amongst the vast fan base of the unfortunate actor.