It really isn’t, which is why it’s news when something like that comes out. People sometimes confuse being cynical with knowing how things work.
That said, this one is confusing, because it really does seem like Google is blurring the lines here between an ad spot or a product placement spot and pre-release samples for tech influencers intending to review them.
Honestly, cynicism aside, The Verge does a good job of breaking it down, including clarifying that they are under no such stipulations for their own review, so I’d recommend just reading the article in full.
In published media it’s getting really frustrating to find articles that seem like honest reviews. The NYT did an article on toaster recommendations and they praised one for having something like a 3 year warranty because “toasters aren’t known for their longevity.”
I am… unfamiliar with the ecosystem of print newspaper appliance reviews, but I can tell you that having sloppy or obsequious reviews isn’t generally a sign of having taken a bribe or even having any direct influence from the manufacturer. Reviewing things is hard, by definition you are not in the same position as the people who will buy the thing later. It can be difficult to make that shift and appreciate value, particularly when it comes to tech where reviewers are often assessing the cool factor of whatever is new on the market while users just need a tool for everyday life.
Also, good reviews and hostile reviews aren’t the same thing. This depends a lot on what is being reviewed, and it’s not to say extremely protective reviews are bad themselves. This is more true in media reviews than on tech reviews, but even on tech reviews, some of my favorite people working generally provide fairly positive reviews, or very neutral spec reviews with relatively little judgement. Very often I don’t need to be protected from harm, I just need a savvy overview of a thing before I pull the trigger.
But also, let’s be clear, don’t book product placement that looks like a review. And if you do, make it a full on ad and make sure it’s presented as a sponsorship, although even when big names do that while trying to stay honest, or because they genuinely like the thing I don’t particularly like it.
Any review that doesn’t begin and end with “its a great phone, but it’s 4x the price of last years budget model and only provides a modest improvement” is just an advertiment
Which is fine. Most people don’t need a phone at any given time. You go check reviews for phones when you need one and when you care about the differences between them. If you just need a phone-ass phone you can just go to your carrier and grab whatever is packed-in, no need to check reviews for that, most phones just fine work out of the box these days.
Find an article with a review, and there’s a 90% chance it links to an Amazon ref link, or similar.
Which means they completely ignore products that are only sold on other stores.
And they probably don’t even look at the product, half the “top 10 lists” obviously just base the list off of Amazon reviews and SOMETIMES reddit posts.
You really have to search to find decent reviews sites like rtngs or similar.
Ultimately the reviewer should be paid for their efforts because honest reviews are their livelihood. Saying, “I liked this and if my review helped, buy through this link to support me for free,” is a fairly innocuous way.
Is it completely unproblematic? No, but earning money for your opinion is always going to be fraught.
See, this is the exact process I am trying to describe. I’m sure that made sense in your head, and I’m sure if you think about it for a second you’ll realize that Target will very happily set up an affiliate link, just as Amazon does. And, of course, a whole bunch of the SEO listicles are the SEO hooks of bigger traditional review sites, including RTINGS, IGN or whatever. For the sake of argument, punching in “best bluetooth speaker” on DDG returns SEO listicles from Tom’s Guide, Wired, RTINGS, the New York Times, CNET and The Verge, in that order.
Which is not to say it’s not annoying, affiliate links and SEO have done terrible things to how practical reviews on websites are presented and parceled out. But that’s not to say they aren’t done honestly or lack validity on the sites that do it right, which are also the more successful ones.
Can I just say, I’m incredibly pissed off at Xiaomi (and at the redmi sub brand by extension) at how difficult unlocking the bootloader is on newer devices. Like, you have to make an account with them, log in, and then wait 7 days, to unlock the bootloader, like WHAT? Why? I kinda understand the account, cuz spyware, but why the 7 day wait? So you’re forced to use their crappy bloated and spyware-and-ad-ridden system? It’s just really frustrating. Left a bad taste in my mouth to the point where I’m considering a switch to another brand for my next phone.
The Redmi brand is aimed at a mainstream audience, and there are probably enough people who will try to unlock bootloader without thinking through that Xiaomi wants to put some deterrance. Although I feel the Poco brand should allow easier unlockong, since it is aimed more at power users.
This was just incredibly dumb. Now any positive news about their new phone is going to be seen as planted.
I always assume that anyway
deleted by creator
It really isn’t, which is why it’s news when something like that comes out. People sometimes confuse being cynical with knowing how things work.
That said, this one is confusing, because it really does seem like Google is blurring the lines here between an ad spot or a product placement spot and pre-release samples for tech influencers intending to review them.
Honestly, cynicism aside, The Verge does a good job of breaking it down, including clarifying that they are under no such stipulations for their own review, so I’d recommend just reading the article in full.
In published media it’s getting really frustrating to find articles that seem like honest reviews. The NYT did an article on toaster recommendations and they praised one for having something like a 3 year warranty because “toasters aren’t known for their longevity.”
I am… unfamiliar with the ecosystem of print newspaper appliance reviews, but I can tell you that having sloppy or obsequious reviews isn’t generally a sign of having taken a bribe or even having any direct influence from the manufacturer. Reviewing things is hard, by definition you are not in the same position as the people who will buy the thing later. It can be difficult to make that shift and appreciate value, particularly when it comes to tech where reviewers are often assessing the cool factor of whatever is new on the market while users just need a tool for everyday life.
Also, good reviews and hostile reviews aren’t the same thing. This depends a lot on what is being reviewed, and it’s not to say extremely protective reviews are bad themselves. This is more true in media reviews than on tech reviews, but even on tech reviews, some of my favorite people working generally provide fairly positive reviews, or very neutral spec reviews with relatively little judgement. Very often I don’t need to be protected from harm, I just need a savvy overview of a thing before I pull the trigger.
But also, let’s be clear, don’t book product placement that looks like a review. And if you do, make it a full on ad and make sure it’s presented as a sponsorship, although even when big names do that while trying to stay honest, or because they genuinely like the thing I don’t particularly like it.
Any review that doesn’t begin and end with “its a great phone, but it’s 4x the price of last years budget model and only provides a modest improvement” is just an advertiment
Well, then you don’t need a phone review, do you?
Which is fine. Most people don’t need a phone at any given time. You go check reviews for phones when you need one and when you care about the differences between them. If you just need a phone-ass phone you can just go to your carrier and grab whatever is packed-in, no need to check reviews for that, most phones just fine work out of the box these days.
Find an article with a review, and there’s a 90% chance it links to an Amazon ref link, or similar.
Which means they completely ignore products that are only sold on other stores.
And they probably don’t even look at the product, half the “top 10 lists” obviously just base the list off of Amazon reviews and SOMETIMES reddit posts.
You really have to search to find decent reviews sites like rtngs or similar.
Ultimately the reviewer should be paid for their efforts because honest reviews are their livelihood. Saying, “I liked this and if my review helped, buy through this link to support me for free,” is a fairly innocuous way.
Is it completely unproblematic? No, but earning money for your opinion is always going to be fraught.
I don’t mind them making money, but if they’re only pushing products that can make them money, then you can’t trust them.
What if the best product is only sold at Target? Forget it cause they’ll claim a worse product that’s sold on Amazon is #1 cause they get a kickback.
See, this is the exact process I am trying to describe. I’m sure that made sense in your head, and I’m sure if you think about it for a second you’ll realize that Target will very happily set up an affiliate link, just as Amazon does. And, of course, a whole bunch of the SEO listicles are the SEO hooks of bigger traditional review sites, including RTINGS, IGN or whatever. For the sake of argument, punching in “best bluetooth speaker” on DDG returns SEO listicles from Tom’s Guide, Wired, RTINGS, the New York Times, CNET and The Verge, in that order.
Which is not to say it’s not annoying, affiliate links and SEO have done terrible things to how practical reviews on websites are presented and parceled out. But that’s not to say they aren’t done honestly or lack validity on the sites that do it right, which are also the more successful ones.
I mind them making money. Getting anything in return for a review is advertising, not reviewing.
So all reviewing should be volunteer work, I guess.
They don’t care, the massive majority of normies will never hear about it and those that do won’t care
Normies buy Redmi Note Pro Max + (or iPhone if they’re rich). Pixel is for devs and photos.
Can I just say, I’m incredibly pissed off at Xiaomi (and at the redmi sub brand by extension) at how difficult unlocking the bootloader is on newer devices. Like, you have to make an account with them, log in, and then wait 7 days, to unlock the bootloader, like WHAT? Why? I kinda understand the account, cuz spyware, but why the 7 day wait? So you’re forced to use their crappy bloated and spyware-and-ad-ridden system? It’s just really frustrating. Left a bad taste in my mouth to the point where I’m considering a switch to another brand for my next phone.
The Redmi brand is aimed at a mainstream audience, and there are probably enough people who will try to unlock bootloader without thinking through that Xiaomi wants to put some deterrance. Although I feel the Poco brand should allow easier unlockong, since it is aimed more at power users.
They’re the same phones. And use the same Android distro/ROM.
Poco phones are based on Redmis. They do change some things, even hardware. So nothing is stopping them from changing their unlocking policy.