Sponsored Reviews, controversial?

[rodwc]

In the long run, nobody will really benefit from writing positive reviews one after the other in order to receive free watches.

Come on guys you really are missing the point here.

Of course we will benefit from positive reviews , IF THEY ARE TRUE.

The fact that he got a freebie wasn`t his aim.

He is asking ( in a nutshell ) is it ok to receive something for his services .

[freddy333]

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?

Having done a bit of (audio) reviewing myself, this is the general guideline I follow:

To avoid any appearance -- real or imagined -- of special consideration or impropriety, the item under review must be returned to the seller immediately after the review is completed. If the reviewer wishes to keep the item, he/she must purchase it (at retail or whatever is the generally advertised price) through normal distribution channels. The seller or maker of the item under review may not participate (beyond answering questions that may be posed by the reviewer) or be present during the reviewing process, which includes any article that may result from that process.

As a consumer, I tend to discount (or take with a huge grain of salt) any commentary from a reviewer who received the item under consideration for free or at a discounted rate below the currently advertised price.

[Guest avitt]

He is asking ( in a nutshell ) is it ok to receive something for his services .

...and I'm saying YES, as long as it's mentioned in the review...disclosure...very simple.

[rodwc]

...and I'm saying YES, as long as it's mentioned in the review...disclosure...very simple.

We will have to agree to dis-agree.

I fail to see any reason whatsoever, the need to know, just who the sponsor is, its simply none of our business.

We all make our own decisions in the end, and if we can be swayed by a review, then we shouldnt be in this game.

This is assuming all facts are true in the review.

[rodwc]

As a consumer, I tend to discount (or take with a huge grain of salt) any commentary from a reviewer who received the item under consideration for free or at a discounted rate below the currently advertised price.

In these general terms I wholeheartedly agree, but,

in this case it is our very own , trusted, helpful and un-biased Pugwash, someone beyond reproach.

Doesn`t that make some difference here?

[Victoria]

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.

Maybe it's because I'm British, and trusting -- but I am used to Jeremy Clarkson being bloody-minded no matter if he owns a car or not.

It may just be down to integrity. Do we trust a reviewer, or not?

And I know who I trust. They've earned it.

[lanikai]

First off,.. Hat's off to Pug for having the integrity to step up to the plate with this topic.. IMO it can be very controversial (to say the least) .. and everything does happen for a reason..

I have been contemplating adding a disclaimer on my threads of new releases stating that all watches that I post are paid in full by me and are not gifted in return for any "reviews" or positive post toward the collector for the purpose of monetary gain..

I have been .. let me put this correctly .. because I don't feel that I am in the same "league" as bytor, Pug, nor Pix... they to me have the "suavivity" (yeah I made that word up) .... in their reviews with studio pics and great presentation... What I attempt to do is give members ... the same visual as "I" see it meaning ..natural lighting and a "real time" kind of image... I attempt to list the points of interest.. and the "fixable" flaws that up until recently all reps have had.. do I post bad negative reps....no because i do my best not to buy those.. i trust my collector to tell me yeh.. or neh.. and if a genuine has been disected or if it was reped from pics..

But notice I do not list my collector.. and for a very good reason,... i do not represent his product line..and actually I have PMed some members with this fact.. when asked to name my collector.. I do not do this on the board (naming my collector) or if I have .. I have changed my mind set on that..

the reason being that "to me".. (i speak only for myself and not as a hint to what should be done by others) this would be tantamount to "advertising" IMHO

For me.. ethically I would have to be aligned with a company to accept any complimentory products... thus I would "be part of the team" and with being a part of the team I would have to "back" and "support" that team .. weather I think that they are right or wrong...this brings up another issue ... If I were a collector that was not investing in product development .. as was started by Honpo ... I would not get the exclusive selling period as the collectors that invested in the genuine watch would.. would this lead to mis-information... ie. false rumors about my competitor? .. which could divide the RWG or groups into taking sides .. this is evident on the forum IMHO. Yes there are certain collectors that do not have access to the replications that some do .. and I believe it is like any other commodity.. they invest in what the factories produce.. they have a vested interest in the product..

All support and warranty that I get now I have gotten for the last year .. before I started posting new releases ... and this is how it should be straight across the board for all members ... our factory collectors ..IMHO are the best as far as replications .. if there are better for the price i have not seen them..

My collector has never pushed or requested that I post a "review" .. I do this in part to give back.. for information .. because without information we are "lost' in all areas of life...

In closing I enjoy the great reviews by Pug..bytor and pix... it does not "bother" me that someone may recieve complimentary items .. in other words I am not lobbying to reach this level .. i only speak for my fellings pertaining to me .. and how "I" approach this topic..

thanx again Pug..

Aloha Ke Akua

Lani

[freddy333]

In these general terms I wholeheartedly agree, but,

in this case it is our very own , trusted, helpful and un-biased Pugwash, someone beyond reproach.

Doesn`t that make some difference here?

If Pugwash follows the guidelines, then it makes no difference.

[offshore]

Doesn`t that make some difference here?

IMHO, No! The fact that it has disclosure, does not alleviate the question of implied bias.

Not for one moment suggesting this is the case here.....however we now will all be asking ourselves how many other reviews, may have had "Strings attached"

At the end of the day, we will probably form an opinion in Admin, that it is better to have disclosure than not.

However, when you then read a review, that has no statement of disclosure... I'm sure "eyebows will be raised"

It has probably been happening for some time...if not with free watches, certainly discounted or "at cost" watches.

It is a subject that has been discussed in the Admin area, as we have been asking ourselves questions relating to some other reviews.

Here I want to state emphatically, that to the best knowledge of your Admin team... no member of that team has ever received a benefit, for promoting a product or a dealer.

So do you see the dilemma this raises? Here we are, almost having to go into defence mode... due to the questions which now will be in members minds.

These sorts of practices will always create levels of doubt.

Some sayings from years yon-

"Sold his soul for sixpence"

"The precursor to moral bankruptcy"

Well I'm sorry, but it really isn't my cup of tea! And oh, the aftertaste!

Offshore

EDITED to add: This is not to be seen as a criticism of Puggs. I most certainly acknowledge his honesty, integrity, and up front nature.The fact that he gave us disclosure is evidence of that.

More these are MY feelings about the nature of, lurks, perks, and "cash for comment" (which has been a hot topic in Oz of late.)

[rodwc]

OK. I will hold my hands up here.

After posting 10 times on this topic, an agreement and mutual understanding has been

made , that Pugwash will pay to my Swiss bank account the sum of CH 5000,

in recognition of my un-biased comments and humble opinions.

I truly hope that no-one is offended or in any way jealous of this remarkable and generous gesture.

Many thanks.

[Guest carlsbadrolex]

I personally look for FACTS and PHOTOGRAPHS in any review that I give any merit to. I could not possibly care less if you "like the watch" or if its your " all time favorite". Just give me detailed pictures, technical data and comparative information between the replica and the genuine item. Now, with that said... I have given away 15 electric guitars in the last four months to people for the sole purpose of getting their HONEST opinion of the guitar. I have posted both the favorable ones and the dis favorable ones on my website. So in order for me to find what you did unethical... I would have to admit being unethical myself. And I see NOTHING wrong with either situation!

Pugwash, I felt your review was well written and contained all of the important details I mentioned above. I think that you put alot of time and effort into the review, and that you SHOULD be compensated for your efforts.

[Victoria]

Well I'm sorry, but it really isn't my cup of tea! And oh, the aftertaste!

At the end of the day, we're at the behest of the Mod Team, and their say-so.

I just think it might encourage true dishonesty (double IDs, though I realise you guys are on top of that), if the rules were strengthened.

Not Pugwash obviously.

OTOH, you can see the difference instantly between this and other rep watch forums. Just the fact that there is dissension even in the Mod ranks, is good. It creates a feeling of accountability and fair play.

Whatever happens, I for one will be comfortable with the final decision.

[lanikai]

I think the point should be brought up .....

If a member is asking a collector for a gifted watch in return for a review that would "sell" his or her watch .. then the question of ethics should be raised.. if a collector approaches a member and asked for an honest review.. good or bad on a watch .. then that should be taken into consideration in deciding guidelines

edit.. but then again what collector would gift a watch for a negative

[bruce79]

First of all, those of us that have been here long enough know to take reviews of reps for what they are. If all of the reps we receive were as pristine (or flawed) as the reps reviewed! But that is not the case and we should know better. Do your due diligence and don't trust anyone else to do it for you.

We all must know and/or assume that the watch a dealer sends to one of our esteemed members for review, has been inspected meticulously by that dealer and is the cr

[Terje]

Come on guys you really are missing the point here.

Of course we will benefit from positive reviews , IF THEY ARE TRUE.

The fact that he got a freebie wasn`t his aim.

He is asking ( in a nutshell ) is it ok to receive something for his services .

I`m sorry. I didn`t make myself clear. I meant to say that writing positive reviews just to please a dealer might not be as lucrative in the long run as it might seem. If course I don`t think Pug would do that.

[AMK000]

Very clever move from

[Victoria]

- The free watch (after the review) should immediately go up for sale (bargain price) and the funds should go to RWG.

Dibs on By-Tor's Explorers!

Kidding aside, let me just say that if this is in some way acted on, that I would not like to see Pugwash's Top Gun watch be its first victim.

I think it's commendable that he took the bull by the horns, and started this thread -- his motives are transparent. Having him fall on his sword, as I suspect he's already considering..., would be MUCH TOO HARSH.

[Nightstroker]

I agree that a sponsored review is not a good idea....

The person giving the review feels OBLIGATED TO MENTION ONLY THE GOOD STUFF....even if he is reviewing a watch that he does not like....

If a customer buys a watch that differers from what was in the review....then suddenly the seller AND the reviewer are to be held accountable....not good....

The best way to do a sponsored review and avoid any bad juju....is to do a review that is free of all OPINIONS from the reviewer....the review would be based entirely upon numerous facts and specifications and detailed photographs....

This way only the seller would be held accountable for poor quality and it would be very clear as to what you are going to get if you buy the watch....

[HauteHippie]

Here's an idea... After reviewing the piece, the reviewer puts it up for auction and donates the proceeds to RWG (or spreads the wealth across multiple forums). And there is no reason the reviewer himself couldn't be the high bidder.

[By-Tor]

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.

Hmm, people are gossiping about this, but does anyone really have any evidence at all to back up this claim?

Let's make a few things clear here:

I have never, ever received a DIME, nor a free watch from ANY dealer. I've got a small discount from Precious Time, but I think it's the same discount all his regular customers get. I got the Noobmariner as a gift from another member, but that was clearly stated in my review. I also reviewed TW model of GMT Master from Precious Time, pointed out all the flaws as accurately as I could... and sent it forward to another EU-based member (PT's customer). I reviewed it because I wanted to see this rep. I even paid all the postage from my own pocket.

Some members have offered to *borrow* their watches for a review, but that's a different thing. A good friend of mine at RepGeeks offered to send his Super SeaDweller for a review, but I refused. I don't want to review reps that I don't like. Also, being European there's always the customs risk when the watch is shipped from the US or Asia.

Another good friend of mine, Stephane, once offered to send his "Perfect Sub" for a review (which was really nice gesture) but I told him that the watch is crap and reviewing such rep wouldn't serve the community in any shape or form. I don't want to write a negative review of a bad rep, because it wouldn't be any fun. I'm not doing this for a living, it's all fun, and just a hobby for me. But I reviewed his Daytona, which I think came out pretty well. It was good and useful article (I hope).

There are lots of watches I'd love to review and photograph for the membership, but I wouldn't take a free watch from a dealer, personally. Not because I think it would affect my integrity... but I'd hate to read anyone questioning it. But I'm not saying Pugwash shouldn't take one. It's his own business, his own financial situation, his own values and his own moral ground, and who am I to judge him? I'm not jealous that he got a free watch... good for him.

And he clearly stated in his article, that it's a "sponsored review". He's 100% honest about it, so I don't see any problem there. AND THE WATCH HE REVIEWED WASN'T SOMETHING THAT ONLY ANGUS CAN GET, EXCLUSIVELY. ALL DEALERS HAVE ACCESS TO THIS SAME WATCH. I think this is an important thing that people seem to forget here.

And even if we start to get more of these "sponsored reviews" (which I doubt)... I'm sure our membership has enough expertise to call them out right away. You simply can't post an untruthful, fake review of a rep here... if you think someone could, you're under estimating the ability and expertise of our membership.

PS: I'm not singing gospel here, these are just my own opinions. I can appreciate different views as well... and I think this is a good thread and discussion.

[Guest TTK]

It has nothing to do with whether other dealers have access to the same watch or not....it has to do with being PAID for your review or not.......the item in question is available at MBK.....cost is 8500 Thai baht.....that equates to around 135 GBP or $270........so this reviewer earned 135GBP.... for his review.......not calling into question his integrity.......or whether he's biased or not......but at which point does RWG become Replicascamcenter....!

Edited February 3, 2008 by TTK

[capice]

Isn't it always a personal opinion from the reviewer? Sponsored reviews, a good marketingpoint. No matter who writes the review there will always be a cloud of bias over it.

If you want to avoid that, don't do it

I like the idea of Eddy, a dealer just sends the watch for review and get it returned after that...

By-Tor doesn't review watches he doesn't like, that's an hobest point of view.

Every review can be linstructive to all of us, no matter who wrote it.

[By-Tor]

@Neil: I think it does matter whether all the dealers have access to the same watch or not. If it was available only from Angus, then the review would only serve his personal agenda. Most of the reps are available for all the dealers. If my review of say, the "UPO", affected positively in the sales of this watch, it has probably given business to all dealers (who were selling this particular model).

When it's about freebies, and "free" something, very large percentage of people are willing to compromise something from their integrity and self-respect right away. I have seen this many times in real life. Just open the reality TV if you don't believe me. And I'm sure it would happen to some people who post to this thread as well... the same people who say that sponsored reviews are "bad". Many people claim that they never download porn or masturbate, either.

I understand your point though... call me a cynic, but I also understand something about the human nature.

Even if we agreed that Pugs lost his "cool" when he received a free watch, we have to agree that at least he was 100% honest about it. I think there IS a difference.

You judge him for that, I don't. I'm not saying you're wrong though, but personally I don't think this particular case was such a big deal. But yeah, I agree that this shouldn't become a habit. And like I previously stated, I'm sure our membership would take care of the potential "paid" reviews in the future... and frankly, I don't think the dealers are willing to (regularly) give out $270 watches to anyone, either.

And this place could never become another ReplicaScamCenter, because the administration of this board don't do this for financial reasons... and the forum isn't censored or manipulated by anyone.

[Victoria]

Hmm, people are gossiping about this, but does anyone really have any evidence at all to back up this claim?

You know the only bad outcome about this topic? That a newbie would get cold feet about doing a watch review, after having read this thread. I hope not, though.

I have never, ever received a DIME, nor a free watch from ANY dealer.

Qui s'excuse, s'accuse, By-Tor! Don't give in to the cynics, please.

(Honestly, though, I think there are few on RWG. We're talking of potential rather than something which happened)

[takashi]

This thread has raised up really good points. I stand by my previous posts. However, a few members have raised good ideas such as returning the watch after review or auctioning it for forums fund. But hey, if the collector asked you to keep the watch, why not? It's yours anyway. Pug, don't be discouraged to write more reviews (sponsored or not).

PS- Off topic: Gimme more Aquatimer on bracelet and I will write an EXCELLENT review