Is there a storm brewing for YouTube reviewers?

[Will Prowse]

Oh and bluetti vs eco flow for me is that I promised not to do crowdfunded projects. Bluetti didn't crowdfund, and ecoflow did. So I have only reviewed bluetti. I'll review ecoflow the moment I get my hands on it. I have no preference and I bash on both all the time.

I will review anything under the sun. Even if the commission is garbage or the product is horrible, I make more money and I help more people when I show the good stuff and the bad stuff. The bad reviews actually boost my recommendations because they show why you shouldn't by junky solar products. It's great.

I have no clue why any YouTuber would play favorites with affiliate commission products unless they are on a contract. They will make less money, and be less helpful. I don't get it.

 

[Supervstech]

Nice.
“I’ll review everything UNDER THE SUN”

 

[12VoltInstalls]

I have no clue why any YouTuber would play favorites with affiliate commission products unless they are on a contract

When people have no faith in themselves (because they know they are not being truthful) they gravitate to the immediate and/or short term ’reward’ because they know a house of cards goes down quickly so they are afraid of “tomorrow.”

If they have no faith in what they say/do, why should we?

“I bought this with my own money” -Will Prowse

 

[dgallen]

Oh and bluetti vs eco flow for me is that I promised not to do crowdfunded projects. Bluetti didn't crowdfund, and ecoflow did. So I have only reviewed bluetti. I'll review ecoflow the moment I get my hands on it. I have no preference and I bash on both all the time.

I will review anything under the sun. Even if the commission is garbage or the product is horrible, I make more money and I help more people when I show the good stuff and the bad stuff. The bad reviews actually boost my recommendations because they show why you shouldn't by junky solar products. It's great.

I have no clue why any YouTuber would play favorites with affiliate commission products unless they are on a contract. They will make less money, and be less helpful. I don't get it.

OP here. My original post was directly related to my observations of the latest Bluetti vs EcoFlow tome that is out there and how one reviewer made conclusions about one product over the other that did not make sense when making a side to side comparison with truthful specs.

Regarding the whole Kickstarter/Indiegogo thing, for established companies like Bluetti or EF may still use those platforms as marketing tools (rather than development cashflow), although Bluetti now calls these "Presales" which IMHO are quite frankly really the same thing. It's all still crowdfunding no matter what you call it. Put out field untested products to a few select reviewers before production, give a discount and get the cash upfront before products are shipped and mass market testing occurs. I like a discount or cheaper products as much as anyone... who doesn't like a bargain. I'm just finding it challenging to trust the reviews, when conclusions are made that just don't add up and I wonder if financial considerations are at play. In the "good old days" I would love when Will or others would make it clear up front that the products they were reviewing were paid for with thier own money and hence a trust relationship was built that the teardown, testing or conclusions made were credible and not paid shill material.

As the solar technology becomes more mainstream, bigger dollars are at stake and no doubt the major players are willing to extend more dollars into the marketing of the products including sustaining the reviewers/reviews out there. As a lowly consumer I'm finding it challenging to evaluate the products through others eyes or experience as I once could. Will was right that you need to wait 6 months after available on the market to make the purchase. Unfortunately the products/technology is moving so fast that product that was released 6 months ago is now obsolete (or "sold out") or at a much higher retail price. So it is helpful to me that an upfront disclosure at the start of any reviewer video that they have not received any kind of financial remuneration from the company whose product they review would help quell my doubts or concerns.

 

[Will Prowse]

OP here. My original post was directly related to my observations of the latest Bluetti vs EcoFlow tome that is out there and how one reviewer made conclusions about one product over the other that did not make sense when making a side to side comparison with truthful specs.

Regarding the whole Kickstarter/Indiegogo thing, for established companies like Bluetti or EF may still use those platforms as marketing tools (rather than development cashflow), although Bluetti now calls these "Presales" which IMHO are quite frankly really the same thing. It's all still crowdfunding no matter what you call it. Put out field untested products to a few select reviewers before production, give a discount and get the cash upfront before products are shipped and mass market testing occurs. I like a discount or cheaper products as much as anyone... who doesn't like a bargain. I'm just finding it challenging to trust the reviews, when conclusions are made that just don't add up and I wonder if financial considerations are at play. In the "good old days" I would love when Will or others would make it clear up front that the products they were reviewing were paid for with thier own money and hence a trust relationship was built that the teardown, testing or conclusions made were credible and not paid shill material.

As the solar technology becomes more mainstream, bigger dollars are at stake and no doubt the major players are willing to extend more dollars into the marketing of the products including sustaining the reviewers/reviews out there. As a lowly consumer I'm finding it challenging to evaluate the products through others eyes or experience as I once could. Will was right that you need to wait 6 months after available on the market to make the purchase. Unfortunately the products/technology is moving so fast that product that was released 6 months ago is now obsolete (or "sold out") or at a much higher retail price. So it is helpful to me that an upfront disclosure at the start of any reviewer video that they have not received any kind of financial remuneration from the company whose product they review would help quell my doubts or concerns.

Typically, my "free" products that most companies send out fail miserably. Have you seen my review videos? Usually the products I buy on my own do well. This has happened many many times. Have you missed all of those videos? Also, I do not care whether I get a product for free or not, it does not change my review. And it does not incentivize me or any other channel to change our test results or favor one vs another. If a product sucks, and a youtuber recommends it, everyone will remember that and stop following that channel and their recommendations. I do.

And there is no "trust relationship" between me and the companies. You should call them up yourself and ask them what they think of me. They usually hate me. I yell at them on the phones, I get mad when people post problems on the forum and I blame the company directly, and I try to find a way for the company to fire the individual responsible. When these companies screw up, it inadvertently makes ME look bad, and I hate it. I am not a nice person when it comes to this stuff. I have zero loyalty to these companies, and I make my profits from affiliate sales. If a company pisses me off, I move my affiliate sales to another distributor that supplies the same products. If they do not have the products I want, I make them get the products for me. If they do not practice good customer service with my viewers, I make them fix it fast. If they don't, I drop them.

"In the good ol days"?? I was one of the first channels to declare "affiliate links below" above every single link I post. Even if it is not an affiliate link! I was also the first one to tell other youtubers that they were not following affiliate operating agreements, and that they would get their accounts cancelled if they didn't comply. This made me angry to no end and I made sure it was fixed. In the "good ol days", no one mentioned this stuff at all. Now you legally have to. If it states "paid promotion", they got the product for free. Even if they recieve $0 and hate the company, they still have to post that. This was not enforced in the "good ol days", so I would love for you to share what you are talking about because I have never seen it in the past.

 

[dgallen]

Typically, my "free" products that most companies send out fail miserably. Have you seen my review videos? Usually the products I buy on my own do well. This has happened many many times. Have you missed all of those videos? Also, I do not care whether I get a product for free or not, it does not change my review. And it does not incentivize me or any other channel to change our test results or favor one vs another. If a product sucks, and a youtuber recommends it, everyone will remember that and stop following that channel and their recommendations. I do.

And there is no "trust relationship" between me and the companies. You should call them up yourself and ask them what they think of me. They usually hate me. I yell at them on the phones, I get mad when people post problems on the forum and I blame the company directly, and I try to find a way for the company to fire the individual responsible. It makes ME look bad, and I hate it. I am not a nice person when it comes to this stuff. I have zero loyalty to these companies, and I make my profits from affiliate sales. If a company pisses me off, I move my affiliate sales to another distributor that supplies the same products. If they do not have the products I want, I make them get the products for me. If they do not practice good customer service with my viewers, I make them fix it fast. If they don't, I drop them.

"In the good ol days"?? I was one of the first channels to declare "affiliate links below" above every single link I post. Even if it is not an affiliate link! I was also the first one to tell other youtubers that they were not following affiliate operating agreements, and that they would get their accounts cancelled if they didn't comply. This made me angry to no end and I made sure it was fixed. In the "good ol days", no one mentioned this stuff at all. Now you legally have to. If it states "paid promotion", they got the product for free. Even if they recieve $0 and hate the company, they still have to post that. This was not enforced in the "good ol days", so I would love for you to share what you are talking about because I have never seen it in the past.

None of this was a criticism of you, nor was that my intent.

When I speak of trust relationship, I speak of the relationship of me the viewer and the reviewer... nothing to do with any trust relationship between the reviewer and the company. When I mentioned the good old days, it was a reflection of the time when reviewers purchased products themselves and did not depend on a company to provide them free hand picked merch for the reviewer to review. You were/are the posterchild for this kind of transparency and I continue to believe you won't change this. For this reason I have subscribed to your channel and watch all the reviews because I trust your content.

I know it is more difficult to review when new products are often not yet on shelves and you can't just pick one out randomly to perform tests. The nature of the rapid change in technology and products makes this more difficult as the time goes on. I do depend on the reviews to make informed decisions and at times it is just a little more difficult to to this as a purchaser. These are big ticket items/purchases and hopefully I get most of them right.

I may show up as a "new user", but am a long time lurker and only commented, not to criticize your review(s), but my concern as a consumer, that I find it difficult to find the best product in this whole crowdfund or presales environment. There is another reviewer (I won't delve into names) who is presenting products (and in this case a particular product) who is making recommendations, that when comparing apples to apples just don't add up. I had to wonder what the motivation was. He talks of one product in one review as being so heavy and then talks about another product that is 30 lbs heavier as easy to manage. or glosses over that fact. Price, efficiency, warranty, capacity, weight, ecosystem, etc. all all superior on the first reviewed product over the other product he reviews and recommends... and I'm trying to work out the rationale for this recommendation.

Like you I think open/honest/transparent reviews leads to more viewers and yes the trust relationship between viewer and reviewer. Goodwill is hard to build but easy to break down.

 

[Will Prowse]

Ohh ok, I see what you mean. Sorry I misinterpreted that. I get pretty worked up about this because I get accused of things that are illogical or otherwise. I see your point now.

I think a new issue that we are not realizing is that all of these products are getting better. The tech has improved drastically. It can be hard to clearly state which product is "better" now when they all work as advertised or have very little issues. That's a problem I am having. And there are so many products available! It can paralyze me when choosing a favorite. In the recent past, this was never an issue at all. Usually there was a clear leader in the market. Now, there are multiple leaders for each use case.

Hmm I see what you mean about the weight and I think I know what you're referring to. Maybe it's due to the fact that one is more mobile (has wheels, correct?), And the other one is made for stationary use. I could see how a different use case could change the relative meaning of "heavier".

 

[upnorthandpersonal]

I get pretty worked up about this

Doesn't help that there are tons of ignorant/accusatory/uninformed/idiotic comments on every video you post...

 

[dgallen]

Ohh ok, I see what you mean. Sorry I misinterpreted that. I get pretty worked up about this because I get accused of things that are illogical or otherwise. I see your point now.

I think a new issue that we are not realizing is that all of these products are getting better. The tech has improved drastically. It can be hard to clearly state which product is "better" now when they all work as advertised or have very little issues. That's a problem I am having. And there are so many products available! It can paralyze me when choosing a favorite. In the recent past, this was never an issue at all. Usually there was a clear leader in the market. Now, there are multiple leaders for each use case.

Hmm I see what you mean about the weight and I think I know what you're referring to. Maybe it's due to the fact that one is more mobile (has wheels, correct?), And the other one is made for stationary use. I could see how a different use case could change the relative meaning of "heavier".

I'm thrilled that the products are improving, quality is better and technology is moving quickly. Competition is such a good thing. Makes for even better products, faster delivery, improved support and competitive pricing. All good. My observation of this particular reviewer regarding the weight thing is just the way it was framed and presented... almost to the point of non objective bias (no use case involved). To make it clear a side by side comparison of real world specs would help define which might be a better choice over another. Simple matrix chart. Yes use case might be a determiner of what best product is, which the buyer can determine based on their own needs.

Anyway, thank you Will for what you do. I appreciate the content you deliver and at this point will go back to my status of interested lurker.

cheers!