Conflicts of interest in camera reviews

cptobvious · Feb 9, 2015

This is not an indictment of any camera review site in particular, but rather a suggestion of "best practices" for camera review sites. One site operator recently mentioned that a certain camera company told him they would only provide a review copy of a new camera if he would give it a positive review.

This same company recently paid to fly a number of camera reviewers to Bermuda to preview the new camera. Apparently last year they paid to fly a number of camera reviewers to Ireland for another new camera release. Coincidentally (or not), all of the previews I read from these reviewers gave the products positive (or even rave) reviews.

Obviously camera reviewers aren't held to the same standard as journalists (although a few of them describe themselves as such) but it would just be nice if every reviewer disclosed whether they received any compensation from the company in connection with the review.

Roses · Feb 9, 2015

cptobvious said:
This is not an indictment of any camera review site in particular, but rather a suggestion of "best practices" for camera review sites. One site operator recently mentioned that a certain camera company told him they would only provide a review copy of a new camera if he would give it a positive review.

This same company recently paid to fly a number of camera reviewers to Bermuda to preview the new camera. Apparently last year they paid to fly a number of camera reviewers to Ireland for another new camera release. Coincidentally (or not), all of the previews I read from these reviewers gave the products positive (or even rave) reviews.

Obviously camera reviewers aren't held to the same standard as journalists (although a few of them describe themselves as such) but it would just be nice if every reviewer disclosed whether they received any compensation from the company in connection with the review.

Sooo... which camera company is it?

nuke12 · Feb 9, 2015

I think that is why a person should never buy into just one review. Always read as many as you can before you spend your $$$$$.

Neez · Feb 9, 2015

The same can be said for just about any review site, not just for cameras. Manufacturers give loaners for review, if you print a bad review they most likely won't give you another loaner. You burn enough bridges, you'll have no cameras to review and therefore no sight.

In other industries i find the best reviewers tend to not publish bad reviews. They instead say thanks to the manufacturer, here's where i think your product could improve, then hand the loaner back. The review never gets published, so it appears to the readers that all the website or magazine does is print praise reviews for everything.

I think that's the best way to go about doing it, bad reviews are bad for everyone.

AlphaTikal · Feb 9, 2015

Its not the rating what interests me and I think, most others. It is the description of the camera and features. Most cameras on similar price range are on same level today.

In example: If I want to have high mp without AA-filter, then I would go with 36mp Fullframe, instead of 12mp. Then the rating is irrelevant.

gloaming · Feb 9, 2015

Roses said:
Roses said:

...

Click to expand...

Sooo... which camera company is it?

brianj · Feb 9, 2015

cptobvious said:
This is not an indictment of any camera review site in particular, but rather a suggestion of "best practices" for camera review sites. One site operator recently mentioned that a certain camera company told him they would only provide a review copy of a new camera if he would give it a positive review.

This same company recently paid to fly a number of camera reviewers to Bermuda to preview the new camera. Apparently last year they paid to fly a number of camera reviewers to Ireland for another new camera release. Coincidentally (or not), all of the previews I read from these reviewers gave the products positive (or even rave) reviews.

Obviously camera reviewers aren't held to the same standard as journalists (although a few of them describe themselves as such) but it would just be nice if every reviewer disclosed whether they received any compensation from the company in connection with the review.

Many here realised this a long time ago, so its been a long time since I have read a review, preferring to use only the test images to make my own evaluation.

Brian

Prime85 · Feb 10, 2015

A few sites are merely praising all cameras. What could be their motivation?

No one has made a perfect camera yet. Why should reviews be glowing?

cptobvious · Feb 10, 2015

I won't list names (they can be found doing a bit of digging which company hosted product previews in those places), but they certainly include reviewers that show up on the first couple of pages of Google searches when you search for various camera reviews.

TheDevil · Feb 10, 2015

Steve Huff Just got back from Bermuda.

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2015/02/07/home-from-bermuda-and-i-brought-the-e-m5ii-with-me

"Before I write more I want to thank EVERYONE at Olympus for the great week, as well as the great friends I was able to see again during the trip! Was great seeing and working with you ALL! I am truly blessed to be able to do what I love in life."

Shouldn't be biased at all.......

TNSean · Feb 10, 2015

It is pretty much like this with all manufactures of all products. If you give a bad review, the manufacture will no longer support you. No support, no business unless you have deep pockets.

Roses · Feb 10, 2015

TheDevil said:
Steve Huff Just got back from Bermuda.

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2015/02/07/home-from-bermuda-and-i-brought-the-e-m5ii-with-me

"Before I write more I want to thank EVERYONE at Olympus for the great week, as well as the great friends I was able to see again during the trip! Was great seeing and working with you ALL! I am truly blessed to be able to do what I love in life."

Shouldn't be biased at all.......

I'm working in the wrong field...

KCK14 · Feb 10, 2015

To avoid this accusation, a reviewer would have to adopt the CR method. Buy a production model in a regular store.

That means:

Money upfront for the gear
No First Looks or Previews
Lag time after item is on market
Be scooped by all other review sites
Raise money independently
Just how many of you would pay for a review or subscribe to a site to pay for the review?

I suspect few of us would really spend any bucks for true independence.

cptobvious · Feb 10, 2015

I'm not suggesting all reviewers must be independent, but any reviewer who claims to have any independence should at least add a disclosure to their reviews if it's not truly so, something like 'Company X provided me airfare/lodging/free camera etc. in connection with this review' or 'Company Y provided this review copy to me on the condition that it be positively reviewed.'

nikonson · Feb 10, 2015

The reviewer should also disclose what camera he's using and what camera he's told his friends/father/mother to buy.

nuke12 · Feb 10, 2015

cptobvious said:
I'm not suggesting all reviewers must be independent, but any reviewer who claims to have any independence should at least add a disclosure to their reviews if it's not truly so, something like 'Company X provided me airfare/lodging/free camera etc. in connection with this review'

I agree and many are up front about this. Many are not.

cptobvious said:
or 'Company Y provided this review copy to me on the condition that it be positively reviewed.'

You won't get them to state that. That would cut off the supply/money chain. No company wants it to look like they are forcing their reviewers to provide good reviews.

In all fairness to some reviewers. I've noticed that even if you know they are receiving support via hardware/monetary etc. some will still criticize certain aspects of the hardware. I think it's worthwhile to note that criticism because it never came lightly.

MichaelKJ · Feb 10, 2015

TheDevil said:
Steve Huff Just got back from Bermuda.

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2015/02/07/home-from-bermuda-and-i-brought-the-e-m5ii-with-me

"Before I write more I want to thank EVERYONE at Olympus for the great week, as well as the great friends I was able to see again during the trip! Was great seeing and working with you ALL! I am truly blessed to be able to do what I love in life."

Shouldn't be biased at all.......

Not at all

Three full days of travel, two days in Bermuda and loads of fun, shooting, and testing the brand new and pretty damn incredible E-M5II. Most of you here know how I operate..I write ONLY about cameras that I love.

Hen3ry · Feb 10, 2015

Reviewers who receive favors from the the manufacturer promoter -- of anything, from washing machines, through cameras, to tourism destinations -- should always disclose what they have received.

There is no bar to them doing favorable reviews but readers/viewers should know what is happening off stage as it were.

A great example is Robin Wong, an employee of Olympus Malaysia, who does excellent user reviews of the company's Micro Four Thirds cameras and lenses, criticizes the products and/or points to their limitations when he feels moved to do so, and includes some Panasonic stuff too in his blog.

Robin always makes it very clear that he is an Olympus employee. he just takes these dang pictures I would love to have taken …

phaedin · Feb 10, 2015

I visit a couple of sites that disclose if they are given a free license for software, or a product to review.
I appreciate that they are up front about it.
I have even seen them say they have been given a free license and then be pretty honest about a piece of softwares short comings

MichaelKJ · Feb 10, 2015

KCK14 said:
To avoid this accusation, a reviewer would have to adopt the CR method. Buy a production model in a regular store.

That means:

Money upfront for the gear

No First Looks or Previews

Lag time after item is on market

Be scooped by all other review sites

Raise money independently

Just how many of you would pay for a review or subscribe to a site to pay for the review?

I suspect few of us would really spend any bucks for true independence.

Not really. They could simply do what several reviewers do, which is to accept a loaner camera and then return it when they have completed their evaluation. Taking photographers on expensive trips is designed to corrupt them because the photographers know that there won't be a repeat invitation unless a glowing review is forthcoming.

Conflicts of interest in camera reviews

Leading Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Leading Member

Forum Enthusiast

Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts