[marvin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ċãţ /img/forum/go_quote.gif I can imagine this being needed more for the brands that focus on the wood grain used or the 24ct gold plating than the actual sound quality.

Doubtful.

Those brands are already selling on cosmetics and fit/finish which are rather easy to quantify and verify. If newbie user purchases one and it looks like crap, guess what, an "it looks like crap" review is going to show up PDQ. With pictures. No amount of shilling and fanboyism can really negate the fact that the product, indeed, looks like crap.

The brands that sell on sound quality claims have a much bigger incentive to cultivate a network of highly regarded shills. Sound quality is rather difficult to quantify and as you know "everyone hears differently"... That being the case, strong reviews from trusted sources have a tendency to improve perceived sound quality as long as the quality is in the ballpark. You know the mindset: "poor extension" becomes "great midrange", "muddled sound" becomes "smooth presentation", "painful to listen to" becomes "fun and exciting", etc.

That combined with ownership bias can easily turn newbie user's "eh, it's decent" impression into a "bestest <insert product classification> evah!". Which promptly reaches critical mass once enough newbie users post similar impressions, and all of a sudden a FOTM cult forms around a rather mediocre piece of gear. It's happened here before, and it'll happen here again.

 

[dazzer1975]

Quote:

Originally Posted by boomana /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't even have a problem with members receiving items for reviews as long as they're upfront about it. There is a thread just started in the iem forum about a new company producing customs that are not yet out, and a member is openly acknowledging that he's a friend of the owner/head/not sure of the company and will be receiving a pair for review. Now, he's not hiding anything at this point, and I've got zero problem with his reviewing the item, but if and when a review appears, there should be a statement, front and center, that he's a personal friend and he's been given this pair of custom iems. People can then gauge for themselves how much bias may or may not be in the review.

I'd agree with all of that, provided people actually do it, at present not everyone does.

 

[applaudio]

What really ticks me off is when someone comes up to me and says, "zpromsui-fpe'oio-quiduf'sap-ikin-mook-mook."






(Comic relief.)

 

[majid]

Quote:

Originally Posted by leeperry /img/forum/go_quote.gif all the reviewers work like this...or at least 99% of them. you get free review samples all year long, all you have to say is that it's "fantastic"! who wouldn't fall for it, who? and even if you're sincere and untouchable, it will have an effect on your feelings anyhow.

Except if the product does suck, a free sample is not much of an incentive, unlike a monetary sweetener thrown in for good measure.

Marketers have long been interested in mapping social networks, identifying influencers and giving them special treatment to spread a marketing message. Most people would probably be surprised how sophisticated and ruthless these techniques are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kirosia /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm quite saddened I've never been approached by Big Pretzel.

I've been offered free samples of Kakawa chocolate-covered cocoa nibs by Cocoa Puro in Austin, but dumbass that I am, refused them and bought some with my own money.

Quote:

Originally Posted by leeperry /img/forum/go_quote.gif the whole world is like this anyway, doctors get expensive "gifts"/plane tickets from laboratories if they reach their prescription targets

There is a significant minority of doctors who are corrupt, as evidenced by Atul Gawande's expose of exploding costs in McAllen, tx: McAllen, Texas and the high cost of health care : The New Yorker

Quote:

Originally Posted by buddhashenglong /img/forum/go_quote.gif Too bad those willing to bribe aren't willing to spend more money and time in the R&D process.

Whenever faced with a system of incentives, the universal impulse seems to be to attempt to game them rather than play along with them. That's how mainstream economic theory (like Agency theory) collapses because simplistic models underestimate the perversity of human agents, and you end up with a financial meltdown.

Quote:

Originally Posted by boomana /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't even have a problem with members receiving items for reviews as long as they're upfront about it.

Disclosure is good, but the gold standard for reviewing is Consumer Reports - they refuse donations or advertising, and anonymously buy products to be tested in regular retail outlets to ensure they don't get specially selected "golden sample" products that are not statistically representative of what normal consumers would get.

 

[mbriant]

Quote:

Disclosure is good, but the gold standard for reviewing is Consumer Reports - they refuse donations or advertising, and anonymously buy products to be tested in regular retail outlets to ensure they don't get specially selected "golden sample" products that are not statistically representative of what normal consumers would get.

This is true and I agree with you up to a point. The problem with Consumer Reports however is that they test everything from tooth brushes to fishing tackle ... and aren't necessarily overly knowledgeable about any of them. They'll often weigh their results and base their recommendations on criteria that isn't necessarily most important to the reader or a true, real-world representation of a given product's worth.

 

[Uncle Erik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbriant /img/forum/go_quote.gif The problem with Consumer Reports however is that they test everything from tooth brushes to fishing tackle ... and aren't necessarily overly knowledgeable about any of them. They'll often weigh their results and base their recommendations on criteria that isn't necessarily most important to the reader or a true, real-world representation of a given product's worth.

In the Consumer Reports Test Labs: New headphones.

Prepare to cringe.

 

[kydsid]

I for one am deeply sadened that the OP was banned. This thread was so full of WIN up until that point. It has been completely downhill and solely based on rational thoughts since then. Bleh.

 

[Jeff E]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbriant /img/forum/go_quote.gif This is true and I agree with you up to a point. The problem with Consumer Reports however is that they test everything from tooth brushes to fishing tackle ... and aren't necessarily overly knowledgeable about any of them. They'll often weigh their results and base their recommendations on criteria that isn't necessarily most important to the reader or a true, real-world representation of a given product's worth.

I am a CR fanboy. Unabashedly. Primarily because theirs is generally the most useful information I can find about a purchasing decision. That does not mean I always agree with them, particularly when I happen to be knowledgeable of a product category, like cameras or high-fi. In those cases where I disagree with their recommendations I still value their attempt at objectivity and rationality. I find those qualities to be exceedingly rare in most purchasing decisions. For instance, how do you think most folks choose which vehicle to purchase?

 

[Aslan123]

I would probably consider the bribe for a second, but I wouldn't take it unless if it was for a crazy amount of money ($100,000+ US at least) Even then, my silly conscience would bother me and I would end up coming clean eventually.

In my case, I did also do product reviews for a very small computer website before. I was never approached with a bribe, probably because the site had such a minuscule readership that no one apart from the site owners had actually read my reviews. I did learn that Logitech will give product samples to practically anyone though.