Pugwash Posted February 3, 2008 Report Share Posted February 3, 2008 As you may have seen, recently I reviewed the IWC Top Gun chrono and that review was sponsored by PureTime. What that means is that he sent me the watch for free and I wrote a review. As I hope you can see, the review was just one of my regular reviews with a thanks to Angus and mention of his price, which isn't out of place in a review. Nothing was requested by Angus and I just did what I thought was fair. The review itself was written the same as if I'd have bought the watch with my own money or been lent it for review by a friend. However, it has been brought to my attention that it may be considered in some way controversial. I would love your comments on this subject. Do you like the concept of sponsored reviews? Are they in some way biased and dishonest? Is the reputation of the reviewer (ie. me) damaged by accepting watches for review? Reviews are, and should always be, for members, not dealers. Does the concept of sponsored reviews in some way blur this line? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terje Posted February 3, 2008 Report Share Posted February 3, 2008 I don`t have a problem with that at all. I appreciate that you bring it up for discussion. I could elaborate I guess, but for me it boils down to whether or not I trust your integrity. Needless to say, you have proven your integrity time and again on this board. Even as a newbie I know that. I think it`s great that dealers give you watches to review. It means more high quality reviews and photos for the rest of us! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victoria Posted February 3, 2008 Report Share Posted February 3, 2008 I have no problems with it, since I judge the reviewer first, and how trustworthy he or she is normally. I trust you, By-Tor, Pix, and others to give me a fair and balanced review. You've never disappointed me yet. EDIT: Full disclosure, of course, is a reason why you and others are trustworthy. There would only be a problem if provenance were hidden (which it's not). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodwc Posted February 3, 2008 Report Share Posted February 3, 2008 Reviews are, and should always be, for members, not dealers. Does the concept of sponsored reviews in some way blur this line? Very fine line here that may have been crossed. Ok. so in the end the members get a review, which is to their advantage, but at the same time the "reviewer" gets a free watch for their trouble. Bit of give and take really, but ethical ??? Some will say yes, to get what they want ( watch or review ) Some will say no ( watch ). So you are damned if you do and damned if you dont. Ones own choice really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
takashi Posted February 3, 2008 Report Share Posted February 3, 2008 Nothing wrong with that... really. It's the same in other industries especially in IT sector. Just look at Anandtech, Tom's Hardware, etc... they are getting stuff for free (for review) and they did an excellent job reviewing these products. Well, there is a small tendency that biasness may occur. The bottom line is; you presented facts which really don't matter whether you bought the watch with your own money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victoria Posted February 3, 2008 Report Share Posted February 3, 2008 Well, there is a small tendency that biasness may occur. The fact that there are so many potential reviewers out there, also keeps Pugwash and others honest. These are not $20,000 plasmas which CNET get as freebies to review. We can all own a $250 watch. For example, Bazonkers reviewed his PAM 229 first, but another member followed suit closely. If there is a big discrepancy in their opinions, people might justifily wonder. But there was none. Moreover, watch pics are crucial. We can judge for ourselves that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodwc Posted February 3, 2008 Report Share Posted February 3, 2008 PS. Thanks for the review. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodwc Posted February 3, 2008 Report Share Posted February 3, 2008 PPS. If you feel you cant keep the watch I will help you, by taking it off your hands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
takashi Posted February 3, 2008 Report Share Posted February 3, 2008 I want that 20000 Plasma TV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoTone Posted February 3, 2008 Report Share Posted February 3, 2008 This topic has been discussed off and on within Admin... Have to say [as I always have] that ones integrity will be challenged if the Watch is received for free... "Hmmm... Let me see... Give a Positive Review and get another Watch... Give a Negative Review and "Say Goodnight Gracie"..." Doesn't take a Brain Surgeon to know that a Dealer won't give up a Piece for a less than favorable review... I for one would push for the Forum Rules to be changed... And compensated [the right word] Reviews could not be posted... Even though they probably already have been... justmy2cents TT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
takashi Posted February 3, 2008 Report Share Posted February 3, 2008 That's where the grey area is. Like having to trust EuroNCAP purchasing those cars at their own expenses and test crash them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted February 3, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2008 Have to say [as I always have] that ones integrity will be challenged if the Watch is received for free... So, it comes down to the integrity of the reviewer? Someone like By-Tor could be expected to be unbiased yet Noob McNoobson would be looked upon with disdain? This is one point I will agree on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodwc Posted February 3, 2008 Report Share Posted February 3, 2008 So, it comes down to the integrity of the reviewer? Someone like By-Tor could be expected to be unbiased yet Noob McNoobson would be looked upon with disdain? Just take the watch , wear it well and enjoy it for all your troubles and time. Dont know who this disdainful Noob McNoobson is though, I thought you were Pugwash. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkerouac Posted February 3, 2008 Report Share Posted February 3, 2008 I do not think this is a positive or desirable trend. Even if someone is an impartial reviewer-- and I would not think of impugning Pug's integrity especially since he started this thread -- a person could be swayed by the knowledge that if the current review is favorable, it might result in the collector selecting you to receive and review a subsequent watch. On top of that, if collector x selects member p to do a review, then the collector is obviously going to cherry pick a perfect rep for purposes of the review. Certainly that is likely to happen anyway, if an active reviewer such as Pug purchases an early release of a rep. But it's even more likely when the review is prearranged. With restaurant reviews, most reviewers try to maintain anonymity to ensure that they do not receive preferential service. With car reviews, the reviewer generally does the same, or borrows the car for a day or a period of days and then returns it. This is to ensure that reviews are impartial. We should do everything we can to ensure that our reviews remain untainted as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UB7 Posted February 3, 2008 Report Share Posted February 3, 2008 I don't see any problem with this..In fact I think it's beneficial to all parties involved. Good for the dealer, and good for the customers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HauteHippie Posted February 3, 2008 Report Share Posted February 3, 2008 Of course it's controversial. Does that mean it's a problem? Not necessarily, but I'm surprised you even "need" to ask. Either way whether it be a watch, AR, or a bed mattress - it's still quid pro quo. Enjoy your free stuff and thanks for the pics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodwc Posted February 3, 2008 Report Share Posted February 3, 2008 Lets look at this another way. Angus sends a watch which he would liked reviewed. Review is done and posted. Reviewer tries to arrange return of reviewed watch. Angus says , many thanks, please keep the watch for your time and trouble. No bias there on the part of the reviewer, as he was getting nothing for the review initially. Whatever transpires afterwards is history. I see no conflict of interest with that timeframe of events. So was the watch given BEFORE or AFTER the review. ( and why the hell didnt you give him 20 pence for the watch, then you would have Bought it and this whole situation wouldn`t have arisen ).) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkerouac Posted February 3, 2008 Report Share Posted February 3, 2008 I've thought some more about this, and once again I want to commend Pug for raising the question in the first place, and for clearly stating the circumstances in his review. I'm sure this isn't the first time that a member has received a watch in exchange for a review, and most such reviews have not been as clearly labelled as Pug's. On the other hand, some early "reviewers" have been able to identify flaws that a dealer subsequently fixed, thus directly benefitting later purchases who received better versions than they would otherwise have received. But I'd like to think that I would receive treatment equal to that received by Pug, Bytor, or any of a number of more distinguished members, and I would hope that a newbie with only a handful of posts would receive the same kind of treatment that I might receive. Otherwise I think the quality of the information and guidance we receive on the boards will be diminished. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corgi Posted February 3, 2008 Report Share Posted February 3, 2008 Everyone agrees that these reviews affect sales. Honestly, as soon as I read that he got the watch for free with the express purpose was for it to be reviewed, I shut off the topic knowing automatically it would be biased. Of course the person sending it to him did not ask for a positive review, but how could he saying anything bad when dealt such a gesture of kindness? Moreover, the more positive things he writes, the more watches he will likely receive in the feature. Here's my hypothetical extreme example; I am not a huge fan of Ford Winstar van. Ford gives me a free Winstar van and says "write a review for the local newspaper" I will write the most dazzling and positive essay humanely imaginable so that maybe next year they send me a GT40 !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishgodeep Posted February 3, 2008 Report Share Posted February 3, 2008 Well it has been touched on already - Pugwash has had the integrity to raise this question and he has to be commended for that This is in it's simplest form PR ...no differerent to Gucci giving their latest clothes to Vogue etc....to ensure they get "quality visibility" to prospective purchasers. It's down to the integrity of the recipient to determine if the aim of the review is to benefit them, their "readers" or join the circle and keep everyone satisified.....which is where the real win is. I think that within this approach is a strong rationale - leveraging the knowledge of experienced members to improve the finished product. It would be of great benefit to this forum if the distinguished and knowledgable members had the opportunity to review pre-releases with a view to delivering an "improved" finished product for the benefit of all. If this "Eutopia" is a step too far for now ....enjoy the perks that seniority deserves and stick to your guns... All the best FGD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Carl Posted February 3, 2008 Report Share Posted February 3, 2008 Not really a lot of material gain here, if any. From a trusted member such as Pugwash, it's an objective and realistic review. Few of us have the time and money (at least one or the other, probably both) to do these reviews, so I think this is a good idea which should be encouraged. Let's continue with this and hope for the best. Carl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest avitt Posted February 3, 2008 Report Share Posted February 3, 2008 The key is disclosure. Just as the jury deserves to know who is paying the expert witness for his testimony, so do the readers of these reviews deserve to know who has sponsored them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodwc Posted February 3, 2008 Report Share Posted February 3, 2008 Honestly, as soon as I read that he got the watch for free with the express purpose was for it to be reviewed, I shut off the topic knowing automatically it would be biased. Moreover, the more positive things he writes, the more watches he will likely receive in the feature. Here's my hypothetical extreme example; I am not a huge fan of Ford Winstar van. Ford gives me a free Winstar van and says "write a review for the local newspaper" I will write the most dazzling and positive essay humanely imaginable so that maybe next year they send me a GT40 !!! "knowing automatically it would be biased." Really dont think you can apply that here. "Moreover, the more positive things he writes, the more watches he will likely receive in the feature. " I think that if the positive things he writes are true, and informative, then we are the winners also. "I will write the most dazzling and positive essay humanely imaginable so that maybe next year they send me a GT40 !!!" But pugwash wasnt writing the review SOLELY for a free watch, and if you knowingly and wrongfully do something for material gain , then you are being true to no-one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terje Posted February 3, 2008 Report Share Posted February 3, 2008 In the long run, nobody will really benefit from writing positive reviews one after the other in order to receive free watches. If Pug would do that (I know he wouldn`t) what would happen to his reputation on the board? He would lose our respect and therefor not be regarded as a good member by us hens not as a good "sales person" by watch dealers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodwc Posted February 3, 2008 Report Share Posted February 3, 2008 The key is disclosure. Just as the jury deserves to know who is paying the expert witness for his testimony, so do the readers of these reviews deserve to know who has sponsored them. Why do we need to know who has sponsored the review. At the end of the day we make up our own minds ( or should do), based on the facts given. And why for heavens sake should a jury need to know who is paying the expert witness, they are only listening to his TRUE testimony. It doesnt matter to anyone if its not raining in Tokyo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.