RomanMF
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
|
johnvanr wrote:
Unless they’re independently wealthy, they have no choice. To get the audience, you have to get the product before release. To be totally unbiased, you have to buy the thing yourself. These two things are already contrary to each other.
To get the product early, you can’t screw over a manufacturer or their PR company. You won’t get the next product.
So, even though you have to send most stuff back, you are dependent on the manufacturer if you want to build your audience.
With some exceptions, it’s always been like that in much of product-oriented journalism. Car journalists for major publications have had a new car in their garage every week, courtesy of the car makers. Travel writers get hosted for free, etc. In some countries, journalists get freebies just because they belong to a professional trade group. In small communities, the local supermarkets and car dealers never got bad press because they were the largest advertisers. In trade press, the writers don’t ask critical questions and the ‘experts’ cited in an article, are not incidentally working for the advertisers that bought a page.
In Europe traditionally journalists have taken the freebies with the attitude that they’re still going to screw the company if they feel like it. At least that’s what they will tell you. In the US, they struggled more with the whole notion, but knew you can’t cover stuff you can’t afford to buy for review. The only exceptions can be the largest publications who do have the money to refuse freebies (but even their journalists get the weekly car…). So, the reporters for Reuters, the WSJ, the NYT etc. will not be allowed to take the freebies and the free travel, etc. etc. When I worked for a global news service, we signed an annual ethics statement that prevented all kinds of stuff.
So, good for those YouTubers that they now state their relationship with manufacturers.
Quite honestly, while on a personal I hated ‘the game’ when I wrote my blog, I’m much more concerned about the political game of ‘access’ in journalism than about product reviews. That shit actually matters.
Finally, why would one have to be a great photographer to review products? People state that here all the time, but reviews are technical exercises, not artistic ones. ...Show more →
I wouldn't call anything here journalism though. Bob Woodward and Ronan Farrow are journalists. Most tech reviewers are bloggers and pundits, reporters at best. There's a lot of "access journalism," which ain't journalism. This isn't true of all outlets, some like Wired or The Verge who have strong separations between Ad and News divisions, but none of these YouTubers have that kinda infrastructure. It's marketing through and through. Creators were outright calling themselves marketers at Cannes Lions, and I like it. Call it what it is.
I try to find "creators," whose sensibilities align with mine to get a gut feel on a product, and then if I really am considering purchasing it, I'll rent it for a weekend or more to form my own opinions. I'll probably end up doing that with the SL3-P and 24-90 TBH.
Am I the only one who skips over those images? And think many images here don’t do justice to the expensive gear they were made with?
Now this is a can of worms and I don't wanna hurt feelings, so I'm leaving it alone! 
|
