Victoria Posted February 3, 2008 Report Share Posted February 3, 2008 Ok, this has to be the most surprising post I've read in the thread. I haven't gotten to the other replies, yet, so I don't know how this pans out but... I agree with Emmzy. I take only the technical from a "professional" review. Then I hunt around for other "lay" opinions -- people closer to me, in terms of knowledge and expertise. The reason is that a lot of the things rep watch experts find bad in a watch, I could overlook. I'm pretty sure that's what he meant. Followup: Ahh, I see it garnered a bit of controversy. The inverted commas ("official") were not some kind of slap, IMHO. I used them in much the same way above! And Pix' reply below that, is almost exactly what I think on the topic! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victoria Posted February 3, 2008 Report Share Posted February 3, 2008 What part of my having said this in my original response wasn't clear? No, it's not that. You were clear, Pugwash. Since I've been "on your corner" so far, let me take a somewhat oppositional stance now. Why does it surprise you that certain people wouldn't pay attention to your estimate of a watch? Because that sounded pompous, you see. And if there is one thing I AM an expert on, is being pompous. Anyway! AMK000 said it best. You've been nothing but truthful throughout. Haven't read the Repgeeks thread, but even more kudos for publishing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emmzy Posted February 3, 2008 Report Share Posted February 3, 2008 Like I said, most people appreciate reviews. The surprising part of your comment is that you don't. What part of my having said this in my original response wasn't clear? I'll quote from my original post so: They are fun to read and in the main well put together Is that appreciation or not? Thanks Victoria for spotting the inverted commas on 'official', you are quite correct, this wasn't a dig just a way of presenting my opinion. I'll leave it at that and will add that the response from Pix was nicely rounded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HauteHippie Posted February 3, 2008 Report Share Posted February 3, 2008 People have to stop thinking of this as a Pugwash thing. It's not. Don't use this as an opportunity to sharpen your spurs on an old gunslinger when that will get in the way of the core debate. Yes. Let's keep separate the Pugwash review and the concept of dealer-bribed reviews in general. As far as the Top Gun review goes, yes there is certainly an element of "if I emphasize the good and gloss over the bad then I might get more free watches in the future" and yet the review itself, IMO, is still fairly blase'. One might even say that Pug's review could have been performed without even seeing the watch in person. The actual review in summary: it's a fantasy watch and not a replica (already known), a subdial hand hadn't been reset on arrival (who cares), the date window spans yesterday today and tomorrow (already known), the crown and chrono pushers are identical to the 3717 (already known), there's a top gun logo on the back (already known), Pugwash has never seen real PVD but this looks good to him (no useful info there), the AR isn't that great (par for the course, thus already known), there is no split seconds feature only a faux pusher (already known), the hands are just like the 3717 and have crappy lume (already known), and Angus sells it for $268 (already known). Nothing glowing, nothing even terribly informative, and nothing really endorsing any particular dealer. In fact, I'd even question whether Angus got his $268 worth. So, yes, while the concept is obviously controversial, the content of the actual "review" is not in any way objectionable as I see it. I've been very open about the whole thing and still think I have done nothing wrong. What's done is done, so let's see what we as a community can gain from this. You haven't. What would become problematic is if you receiving free watches in return for fairly uninformative, uncritical reviews were to become a pattern. But perhaps the current review isn't a fair example given that the piece in this case isn't a replica of anything. And as previously stated, I'd much prefer to see a community benefit approach taken, with the watch being actioned post review, but clearly that's not what you're in it for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victoria Posted February 3, 2008 Report Share Posted February 3, 2008 You haven't. What would become problematic is if you receiving free watches in return for fairly uninformative, uncritical reviews were to become a pattern. (My third reply in one hour -- I'll bow out until later because it's too much) That's it in a nutshell! If it would become a pattern. To the best of our collective knowledge, this is the first time this has happened. So far, it's been handled in a transparent way by Pugwash, who indeed, should be separated from the topic itself. The topic is: "Does RWG as a forum condone reviews of rep watches which are gifted to the reviewer for an IMPARTIAL review?" Yae or nay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted February 3, 2008 Report Share Posted February 3, 2008 (edited) "Does RWG as a forum condone reviews of rep watches which are gifted to the reviewer for an IMPARTIAL review?" Yae or nay. It depends entirely how 'the transaction' is handled. If it was as TTK suggested on pg5, then yes. It it was a case of someone being sent a watch gratis (with the specific intention of it being reviewed (and then getting to keep it) ) then no, as the issue impartiality comes in to question. As above, with Pugwash, it was not as if he promised to write a review, just made a comment about posting photos if he were given the watch. I'd say by posting high quality photos of the watch, he kept his end of the bargain. Wether the promise/ability to post high quality photos merrits a free watch, is a whole different kettle of fish As is being on the receiving end of a random act of generousity (afterall, Angus could've told him to jog on rather than giving him a freebie, so no real conflict of interest there ) [Edit for clarity] Edited February 3, 2008 by TeeJay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
By-Tor Posted February 3, 2008 Report Share Posted February 3, 2008 "Does RWG as a forum condone reviews of rep watches which are gifted to the reviewer for an IMPARTIAL review?" Yae or nay. I think this is a non-issue. I doubt we're going to see "organized reviews" like this a lot in the future. I think that people exaggerate the meaning of the reviews. Maybe they increase their sales a little, but I doubt the numbers are as significant as people think. And like I said previously, many of these articles increase the sales of all dealers simultaneously, when some popular watch model (such as the "UPO") gets reviewed. That watch, for example, was freely available through almost all our dealers. The UPO review watch came from Precious Time, simply because he's a trustworthy EU-based dealer, not because he's my "best buddy", or because I want to help him to sell more UPOs. All dealers are your "best buddies" if you send your money to them. If my review benefited the sales a little, it benefited the sales of ALL DEALERS WHO WERE SELLING THE "UPO", not just Precious Time. I was reviewing the WATCH, THE PARTICULAR REPLICA MODEL, not Precious Time. So why would a particular dealer "sponsor" a review alone? So the reviewer could write that "his service was excellent, he shipped the watch, which is working... and didn't take my money and run". All our veteran dealers are good and trustworthy. So where's the catch here (from their POV)? I could understand if the watch was EXCLUSIVELY provided by one single dealer (like the WM9 Sub for example). And about "us getting compensation for our hard work" doesn't fly, either. For me it's not "hard work" at all. It's all pure fun. If I didn't enjoy photographing and writing about the reps... or educating the membership about them, I simply wouldn't do it. Making some big reviews have taken DAYS... and if I considered it "hard work" I would never do it. Not for a stinkin' $250 anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pivaro Posted February 3, 2008 Report Share Posted February 3, 2008 My 2 cents : i'm not too happy with this freebee-review surfacing . I hope it won't become the new thing . Allthough I have the greatest esteem for Pug , i can not imagine how anyone can not be influenced by the fact the watch was a gift . There are so many different ways to describe certain flaws ; i believe by reviewing a free watch one might (subconsciously) be afraid to be too harsh. I love reviews and i read all of them with great pleasure . I prefer the reviews by paying members though . Personally i believe Pug's photographical skills were an important factor in the deal . Let's face it , it sells watches and that's what the dealers want . No harm there . Maybe it should be restricted to just that : a pictorial and nothing more . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KB Posted February 3, 2008 Report Share Posted February 3, 2008 At the end of the day I believe this whole discussion has become academic as it is highly doubtful that paid reviews will ever be given official backing. And second Angus may have come to the table on this watch but I'm sure he hasn't started a precedent amongst the dealers. Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightstroker Posted February 3, 2008 Report Share Posted February 3, 2008 Should I create a poll to determine if we the people approve or disapprove of sponsored reviews???? or Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted February 3, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2008 Should I create a poll to determine if we the people approve or disapprove of sponsored reviews???? or Sure, as long as you break it down a little. Approve of anyone doing it Approve of certain people doing it Disapprove in most cases Disapprove in all cases etc. ps. Your poll, ask what you like, really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightstroker Posted February 3, 2008 Report Share Posted February 3, 2008 Sure, as long as you break it down a little. Approve of anyone doing it Approve of certain people doing it Disapprove in most cases Disapprove in all cases etc. ps. Your poll, ask what you like, really. Okay....I will do it....but commenting on this poll will be disabled.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victoria Posted February 3, 2008 Report Share Posted February 3, 2008 ps. Your poll, ask what you like, really. Absolutely. But... Closed, so it doesn't spawn another huge thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emuozz Posted February 3, 2008 Report Share Posted February 3, 2008 I think that the discussion in some points lost his center. I think that the integrity of pug shouldn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llsteve80 Posted February 3, 2008 Report Share Posted February 3, 2008 I dont see anything wrong with it, you are a reputable member of the forum, and I trust that your opinions were unbiased. In fact, I see this as a great way to get honest information out about new arrivals faster. If we have to wait until someone pays for it, it might be somebody who does not really know what they are doing, or is uninformed about gen/rep comparison. If you or a few others were to receive it for free for the purposes of writing a review, I think that is ok. Perhaps as a group, we should vote on whose "sponsored" reviews count instead of if it is ok? Maybe there should be a select few who are approved to write up official reviews for the sake of the forum, members selected by the memebers. For my vote, I would say By-tor and you, pugwash. Add-on: few mins later Perhaps, to keep the checks and balances in place, an auction thread can be started for the watch, with the proceed going straight to RWG. That way everyone benifits, whether they read the review or not, and the reviewer cannot be accused of being biased. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pix Posted February 3, 2008 Report Share Posted February 3, 2008 (...) I find very strange than some members are asking that he sells the watch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lanikai Posted February 3, 2008 Report Share Posted February 3, 2008 It would seem this thread has grown into the "drama' of pug's reputation... sheez... i think certain members should focus on what the topic of discussion is .. that pug intended... not should "pug" be compensated for reviews .. this was not the topic ..IMO the "principle" of this thread needs to be focused on... not the "personalities" I think polls are just adding to the drama... it seems like the consensus would be ... No .. members should not be paid for reviews.. no matter how good they are .. or at least that is my stance.. no one is questioning pugs character or integrity .. but by defending the person.. it would seem like this is the case.. which IMHO ...IT IS NOT.... nor was it ever meant to be Now i read the review.. and it stated that the dealer sent this rep to the member and "asked" him to do the review.. so it was not solicited.. ...PERIOD.. and pug took the initiative to ask the members .... not about "him" but about the principle of the action... so if anything can the "principle' be focused on and not the "member" who posted it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodwc Posted February 3, 2008 Report Share Posted February 3, 2008 "YES....Sponsored watch reviews are OK....as long as they are appropriately conducted....(An appropriate system has yet to be created)...." If anyone really thinks this is going to happen , then they are just out of their tree.!! Kenberg and Offshore have allready stated as much. So why on earth would a question like this go into a poll? It aint goin to happen. Understand? , comprendez ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddy333 Posted February 4, 2008 Report Share Posted February 4, 2008 The UPO review watch came from Precious Time, simply because he's a trustworthy EU-based dealer, not because he's my "best buddy", or because I want to help him to sell more UPOs. All dealers are your "best buddies" if you send your money to them. If my review benefited the sales a little, it benefited the sales of ALL DEALERS WHO WERE SELLING THE "UPO", not just Precious Time. I was reviewing the WATCH, THE PARTICULAR REPLICA MODEL, not Precious Time. I had pretty much said all I have to say on the general subject of reviewer compensation, but By-Tor's comment opens another can of worms that I feel merits a separate discussion. When it comes to referencing sources within a 'review' (I draw a bold journalistic line between what constitutes an uncompensated review & a compensated promotion -- the compensation (whatever form it takes) being the key here), it seems to me that a reviewer has 2 options -- 1. either leave out all references to the source of the item under review, or 2. include (as part of the research/reviewing process) all RWG sellers that offer the same model, so the seller who provided the item for review will not receive a boost in their sales as a direct result of the 'review' & the taint of seller/reviewer collaboration cannot be raised. That, to me, is the only way for a reviewer to be able to honestly & accurately state that their review is neither a promotion for a particular seller/source, nor does it directly benefit the seller or source of the item under review. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted February 4, 2008 Report Share Posted February 4, 2008 (edited) "YES....Sponsored watch reviews are OK....as long as they are appropriately conducted....(An appropriate system has yet to be created)...." If anyone really thinks this is going to happen , then they are just out of their tree.!! Kenberg and Offshore have allready stated as much. So why on earth would a question like this go into a poll? It aint goin to happen. Understand? , comprendez ? I'm sure folks understand that it's not going to happen, but are giving the option they hypothetically agree with. Basically, as said: "YES....Sponsored watch reviews are OK....as long as they are appropriately conducted....(An appropriate system has yet to be created)...." That allows slightly more flexibility than: "NO....It is NOT OK for ANYONE to provide a sponsored review of a watch on our forum where as the person doing the review is given a free watch for providing the review" If, and that is a big 'if', an appropriate system was created, then it would negate the above option, as the person doing the review would not be receiving a free watch. [Edit for clarity] Edited February 4, 2008 by TeeJay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pix Posted February 4, 2008 Report Share Posted February 4, 2008 Seriously, if this poll is going to affect the way members (including me) have been doing reviews for their pleasure here, I'll keep the right to move from the place. I personally don't agree to be told what and how to do things in what I see as a hobby and pure free contribution to this very board. I won't vote as well : I don't see who is entrusted to organize a poll of this kind, except maybe the boards administration. Any other organization is not legitimate. Enough said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodwc Posted February 4, 2008 Report Share Posted February 4, 2008 Seriously, if this poll is going to affect the way members (including me) have been doing reviews for their pleasure here, I'll keep the right to move from the place. I personally don't agree to be told what and how to do things in what I see as a hobby and pure free contribution to this very board. I won't vote as well : I don't see who is entrusted to organize a poll of this kind, except maybe the boards administration. Any other organization is not legitimate. Enough said. Pix, I dont think you will have a thing to worry about. The main thing in question is PAID REVIEWS, and no-one here is going to see any more of those. ( believe me ). As far as organising a poll goes, anybody can do it, but they certainly won`t have an ounce of control over it, so vote with confidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted February 4, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2008 The main thing in question is PAID REVIEWS, and no-one here is going to see any more of those. ( believe me ). If I were offered another watch to review, I'd probably accept it, depending on who offered it. ps. Ok, maybe not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest carlsbadrolex Posted February 4, 2008 Report Share Posted February 4, 2008 OK, I think I posted on page two of this insanely lengthy debate... I have to now ask, is it REALLY that important of a topic to warrant 7 pages??? Pug, you wrote and very nice review and included some great pics. Who really cares where the watch came from or if you were compensated for your review. Based on your review, the pictures and further investigation I WOULDNT buy the watch anyway. In fact, if we wanted to start a really interesting poll... Lets ask WHO WOULD buy this watch based on the review. I think the numbers would be low. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cornerstone Posted February 4, 2008 Report Share Posted February 4, 2008 If I were offered another watch to review, I'd probably accept it, depending on who offered it. Today's your lucky day.... Guess what I'm sending you for review..... 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.