Who are Will's sponsors?

[Dzl]

I've never looked that hard, but I've also never heard him mention them or list them anywhere. If I were to guess, I would assume Battleborn, and maybe Victron and Epever.

It would be helpful to know what products he uses in his videos because he bought himself, wants to test, or just likes, and what products were provided to him. He is pretty good at stating whether the primary product being reviewed is sponsored or not, but I'm particularly curious as to whether the Battleborns or all the Victron components that frequently feature in his videos as secondary components or comparison components are sponsored/compensated/donated product placement or not.

I'm not bothered if they are sponsors, but I do value transparency.

 

[Deleted member 783]

@Will Prowse just thought I would tag you so you could reply.

 

[bulrush]

Will rarely has sponsors but if he gets free stuff from a company he mentions that in the review video.

 

[Deleted member 783]

He's a busy guy. Im sure this thread just slipped through the cracks.

 

[Dzl]

Will rarely has sponsors but if he gets free stuff from a company he mentions that in the review video.

Yeah, its usually pretty clear whether he paid for the primary product being reviewed/used in his videos or not, and I appreciate that he does that, I respect transparency.

What got me thinking about this though, is that I've noticed that Victron, Battleborn, Vmax and maybe to a lesser extent Epever products are products he often defaults to when doing comparison videos, when offer alternatives (e.g. when doing a video on prismatic cells that aren't sponsored, saying a line about "if you are a beginner, you are probably better off with drop-in replacement batteries like Battleborn"), or building a system around whatever product is being reviewed. This could be for any number of reasons, maybe they are the products he has on hand, maybe they are products he really likes or are easy to build with, maybe they were given to him for free with no strings attached, or maybe they were given to him for free with strings attached or are paid product placement. All of these reasons would be totally okay, he makes quality content and deserves to be compensated, and is much better than most youtubers at placing honesty and quality before chasing profit. But it does make a difference to me whether he uses a product on his own accord, whether it was donated for free, or whether he is actually being directly compensated for mentioning or using it in videos.

And I want to reiterate, because I'm aware this topic could come off as accusatory, that my impression of @Will Prowse is that he seems like a stand up guy, and I appreciate the transparency in his videos, and his openness and enthusiasm for DIY solar, electrical, and batteries, and for teaching others!

 

[Deleted member 783]

I don't think it was accusatory, and it's a fair question. I think he mentions and uses the products that he has tested and knows are quality.

 

[Will Prowse]

I've never looked that hard, but I've also never heard him mention them or list them anywhere. If I were to guess, I would assume Battleborn, and maybe Victron and Epever.

It would be helpful to know what products he uses in his videos because he bought himself, wants to test, or just likes, and what products were provided to him. He is pretty good at stating whether the primary product being reviewed is sponsored or not, but I'm particularly curious as to whether the Battleborns or all the Victron components that frequently feature in his videos as secondary components or comparison components are sponsored/compensated/donated product placement or not.

I'm not bothered if they are sponsors, but I do value transparency.

No contracts and no sponsors. The only type of "sponsorship" I get is free batteries/solar panels etc. So I have to say that the video is sponsored. I make my money with my book and YouTube ad revenue. And affiliate commission if someone clicks on my links and makes a purchase. Every link and description has the affiliate policy. It is easy to find

 

[Will Prowse]

Yeah, its usually pretty clear whether he paid for the primary product being reviewed/used in his videos or not, and I appreciate that he does that, I respect transparency.

What got me thinking about this though, is that I've noticed that Victron, Battleborn, Vmax and maybe to a lesser extent Epever products are products he often defaults to when doing comparison videos, when offer alternatives (e.g. when doing a video on prismatic cells that aren't sponsored, saying a line about "if you are a beginner, you are probably better off with drop-in replacement batteries like Battleborn"), or building a system around whatever product is being reviewed. This could be for any number of reasons, maybe they are the products he has on hand, maybe they are products he really likes or are easy to build with, maybe they were given to him for free with no strings attached, or maybe they were given to him for free with strings attached or are paid product placement. All of these reasons would be totally okay, he makes quality content and deserves to be compensated, and is much better than most youtubers at placing honesty and quality before chasing profit. But it does make a difference to me whether he uses a product on his own accord, whether it was donated for free, or whether he is actually being directly compensated for mentioning or using it in videos.

And I want to reiterate, because I'm aware this topic could come off as accusatory, that my impression of @Will Prowse is that he seems like a stand up guy, and I appreciate the transparency in his videos, and his openness and enthusiasm for DIY solar, electrical, and batteries, and for teaching others!

Yes this is because most products are low quality. Everything I recommend is products I used for years while living off grid for nearly a decade. New products will come out and I will not recommend them till they have a good track record. If they are safety certified/listed/code compliant, then I will mention them.

 

[Will Prowse]

And ask away. Everything I do has to be transparent by law and it's pretty straightforward. Let me know if something I said does not make sense.

 

[Will Prowse]

Yeah, its usually pretty clear whether he paid for the primary product being reviewed/used in his videos or not, and I appreciate that he does that, I respect transparency.

What got me thinking about this though, is that I've noticed that Victron, Battleborn, Vmax and maybe to a lesser extent Epever products are products he often defaults to when doing comparison videos, when offer alternatives (e.g. when doing a video on prismatic cells that aren't sponsored, saying a line about "if you are a beginner, you are probably better off with drop-in replacement batteries like Battleborn"), or building a system around whatever product is being reviewed. This could be for any number of reasons, maybe they are the products he has on hand, maybe they are products he really likes or are easy to build with, maybe they were given to him for free with no strings attached, or maybe they were given to him for free with strings attached or are paid product placement. All of these reasons would be totally okay, he makes quality content and deserves to be compensated, and is much better than most youtubers at placing honesty and quality before chasing profit. But it does make a difference to me whether he uses a product on his own accord, whether it was donated for free, or whether he is actually being directly compensated for mentioning or using it in videos.

And I want to reiterate, because I'm aware this topic could come off as accusatory, that my impression of @Will Prowse is that he seems like a stand up guy, and I appreciate the transparency in his videos, and his openness and enthusiasm for DIY solar, electrical, and batteries, and for teaching others!

What cracks me up the most is how many companies send me products that are absolutely awful! And I love doing bad reviews on them and making sure my viewers avoid them. But many products I recommend seem to come from me buying/testing products on my own with my personal systems. I would imagine that these companies would send me their best products, and rarely does that happen. It's pretty funny!

 

[Deleted member 783]

What cracks me up the most is how many companies send me products that are absolutely awful! And I love doing bad reviews on them and making sure my viewers avoid them. But many products I recommend seem to come from me buying/testing products on my own with my personal systems. I would imagine that these companies would send me their best products, and rarely does that happen. It's pretty funny!

Those ARE the best videos ?

 

[MrNatural22]

In the immortal words of Popeye,
You is what you is and that’s all what you is your Will Prowse the solar man.
Toot toot!! ? (old school)
Yep Capt. Morgan an me on a chilly evening out by the fire sez that. LOL

 

[Dzl]

No contracts and no sponsors. The only type of "sponsorship" I get is free batteries/solar panels etc. So I have to say that the video is sponsored. I make my money with my book and YouTube ad revenue. And affiliate commission if someone clicks on my links and makes a purchase. Every link and description has the affiliate policy. It is easy to find

This is really good to hear. So if I'm understanding correctly you sometimes receive free products but state that in your vids, and the products you do receive for free don't come with strings attached beyond reviewing them (such as much be mentioned x number of times, must not be criticized, etc)

I bought your book with the specific intent of supporting your content, its a useful resource for sure, and a good reference, but my primary motivation was supporting content since I've gotten a lot of value out of your video and website (and this message board). I use the affiliate links to, and think that is one of the least obtrusive, best (from a UX) standpoint ways to monetize content!

 

[Daybyday]

I’m going to buy the book for this reason as well. Thanks for the reminder.

This is really good to hear. So if I'm understanding correctly you sometimes receive free products but state that in your vids, and the products you do receive for free don't come with strings attached beyond reviewing them (such as much be mentioned x number of times, must not be criticized, etc)

I bought your book with the specific intent of supporting your content, its a useful resource for sure, and a good reference, but my primary motivation was supporting content since I've gotten a lot of value out of your video and website (and this message board). I use the affiliate links to, and think that is one of the least obtrusive, best (from a UX) standpoint ways to monetize content!

 

[Supervstech]

This is really good to hear. So if I'm understanding correctly you sometimes receive free products but state that in your vids, and the products you do receive for free don't come with strings attached beyond reviewing them (such as much be mentioned x number of times, must not be criticized, etc)

I bought your book with the specific intent of supporting your content, its a useful resource for sure, and a good reference, but my primary motivation was supporting content since I've gotten a lot of value out of your video and website (and this message board). I use the affiliate links to, and think that is one of the least obtrusive, best (from a UX) standpoint ways to monetize content!

Free to be reviewed products cannot state what must be said in the review.
SPONSORED reviews may require certain verbiage, and have suggested results... but i doubt Will would perform for the man that way...

 

[Deleted member 783]

Will is the only person on the internet I believe.

 

[Dzl]

Free to be reviewed products cannot state what must be said in the review.
SPONSORED reviews may require certain verbiage, and have suggested results... but i doubt Will would perform for the man that way...

What do you mean by "suggested results"?

 

[gnubie]

If you listen to certain youtube channels that have been approached to do sponsored reviews by certain promoters you are basically signing your life away if you accept. The sponsor wants to see and curate the content before you publish it, place conditions on what you can say about the product at all, you name it, they try it on. They throw lots of money at reputable youtube channels regularly to try to win them over.

 

[Dzl]

If you listen to certain youtube channels that have been approached to do sponsored reviews by certain promoters you are basically signing your life away if you accept. The sponsor wants to see and curate the content before you publish it, place conditions on what you can say about the product at all, you name it, they try it on. They throw lots of money at reputable youtube channels regularly to try to win them over.

I'm not sure if I'm in the minority or not, but I consider this type of youtube or instagram 'influencer' to be so trashy. The whole for-profit influencer thing in general is largely a pretty trashy, morally compromised, self-serving endeavor, but when there is such blatant and unrepentant paid product placement, compensated endorsement/reccomendation, and shilling on behalf of whichever company is willing to throw a few bucks their way, its an even lower low, on par with multi-level-marketing. /end rant

edit: and to be clear, I'm not directing this rant at all (or even most) content creators. I vaguely but importantly differentiate content creators from influencers in my head, but can't quite articulate how.

 

[MrNatural22]

Yep there’s quite a few “hobos” out there. They’re easy to spot right after their cheesy intros. ?