Jump to content

Can we trust "fan" sites and channels?


HollowHills

Recommended Posts

lets also not forget that the only circulated publication with reviews and product info is White Dwarf - there's almost nothing else out there. So basically there's no press or public news outside of the net for independent reviewers. And as we all know, the online community is only a drop in the ocean compared to the "real world" one (seriously most clubs might only have one or two people who are heavily active online). So by and large its a niche company with a very niche market with a limited market reach through its 3rd party advertising networking. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 90
  • Created
  • Last Reply
21 minutes ago, kenshin620 said:

If Im honest....am I the only thinking this topic seems like making mountains out of mole hills?

I think it's a good conversation to have! It's good to talk about ethics, biases, and even conflicts of interest in reviews and community spaces, especially as the hobby grows.  It's also good practice for applying critical thinking skills, because knowing what someone's biases are can really help understand their perspective.  But of course what I find engaging can differ from what you do!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great thread.  I'll just note here, for the record, that Warhammer Weekly receives absolutely zero support from GW.  All of the product we have reviewed has been purchased with our own resources and we aim to provide our perspective on product, good or bad, without the threat of a company removing future preview content because we were critical of a prior release. We have operated like this from the very beginning and I don't see this changing any time soon.

I felt it was worth sharing given that there were questions of transparency from current content producers. We do what we do for the love of the hobby, community and game.  We will continue to do so as long as we can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess maybe I enjoy reviews wrong?  Reviews are 100% entertainment, 0% utility.  I'm a grown human person, I can fairly accurately guess if I'm going to like something or not, and I'm "in the loop" enough to know already about any actual issues like gaps in assembling, or binding falling apart, or whatever.  I don't need to "trust" anything, because there are no stakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Thomas Lyons said:

Great thread.  I'll just note here, for the record, that Warhammer Weekly receives absolutely zero support from GW.  All of the product we have reviewed has been purchased with our own resources and we aim to provide our perspective on product, good or bad, without the threat of a company removing future preview content because we were critical of a prior release. We have operated like this from the very beginning and I don't see this changing any time soon.

I felt it was worth sharing given that there were questions of transparency from current content producers. We do what we do for the love of the hobby, community and game.  We will continue to do so as long as we can.

One of the reasons I enjoy and can trust what I see and hear on Warhammer Weekly!

The Honest Wargamer takes a similar stance  - its is run entirely without sponsors and is "free press" for the people by the people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, amysrevenge said:

I guess maybe I enjoy reviews wrong?  Reviews are 100% entertainment, 0% utility.  I'm a grown human person, I can fairly accurately guess if I'm going to like something or not, and I'm "in the loop" enough to know already about any actual issues like gaps in assembling, or binding falling apart, or whatever.  I don't need to "trust" anything, because there are no stakes.

Interesting, I think the purpose of a review is to give a purchaser the essential information they need beyond what's displayed in just the marketing.  If it's entertaining at the same time, great!  Companies obviously won't advertise any issues their products have and, short of buying it yourself, how can you determine any potential issues without reviews?  Pointing again to  gap issues, imagine how disappointed a new player (who's also a grown human person) would be after seeing all these positive reviews online and shelling out their cash only to find out some of their push fit, well, doesn't push fit?  That could potentially turn someone off of the hobby altogether! Anecdotally, it was frustrating as heck putting together my "easy to build" Chainrasps, I had to do some plastic surgery to get some of them together properly.  I appreciate that veterans and people who know about this site are "in the loop", but I think that ignores the whole demographic that isn't here.  There are certainly stakes for them!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, relic456 said:

Interesting, I think the purpose of a review is to give a purchaser the essential information they need beyond what's displayed in just the marketing.  If it's entertaining at the same time, great!  Companies obviously won't advertise any issues their products have and, short of buying it yourself, how can you determine any potential issues without reviews?  Pointing again to  gap issues, imagine how disappointed a new player (who's also a grown human person) would be after seeing all these positive reviews online and shelling out their cash only to find out some of their push fit, well, doesn't push fit?  That could potentially turn someone off of the hobby altogether! Anecdotally, it was frustrating as heck putting together my "easy to build" Chainrasps, I had to do some plastic surgery to get some of them together properly.  I appreciate that veterans and people who know about this site are "in the loop", but I think that ignores the whole demographic that isn't here.  There are certainly stakes for them!

Yeah- after being back in the hobby after a hiatus and seeing all the early reviewers telling people how great soul wars was I bought it. Not a good experience building and even worse finding out there are only a couple actual playable units in the box. If I was a brand new hobbyist that would have put me off big time. 

#pleasantforplastic is IMO actually worse for the hobby as a whole than good unbias reviews.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly I find the overly negative/controversial content creators out there more disingenuous and a bigger problem.  It's not as big a problem in the AOS community because I feel we have cultivated a pretty good atmosphere but some of the 40k creators and other games like MTG go way overboard with criticism and vitriol for the sake of clicks and subs.  I have had to veer away from some creators because they seem more interested in their enterprise than the health of the hobby. 

I will usually give someone the benefit of the doubt if they seem a little too positive because that positivity usually has some net gains for the hobby.  The opposite that descends largely into negativity tends to benefit only the creator (either through popularity or as a personal catharsis). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is we all know there are negatives with new products that come out. We hear our friends and community members mention them in real life and feel them ourselves. Yet, I very rarely see that criticism reflected in "first impressions" or reviews. 

As LLV said, Soul Wars had some real issues. Models were tricky to put together and sometimes the easy to fit required green stuff filler. Some of the models, like your executioner, break very easily or are difficult to transport. You don't get a legal amount of evocators in the box. The sequitors all come with the worse of two main weapon options. 

EDIT; it's fine if some of this is a sacrifice to experienced hobbyists in order to support new players, but that's exactly the kind of thing I'd want a reviewer to say. END

I love my Deepkin and I've spent over £250 on my army so far, but there are problems with them too. The whole range frustrates me with how hard they are to transport and protect. The lack of parity between nemarti lists and eel lists is so extreme its hard to see how it wasn't picked up by play testers. Lotann, great as he is, costs more than all the regular heroes without any explanation. 

Of course some of these things are difficult for early impressions to pick up, they only become apparent as time goes on. Others could definitely be picked up, such as the issues with the fragility of models or the moulding of soul wars. 

If I watch two or three review / first impression videos and they are all saying how great something while omitting the flaws, to me that is problematic.

It does seem that there are some content creators out there who are praising GW products, receiving freebies or benefits for doing it and never seem to have any actual criticism. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Thomas Lyons said:

Great thread.  I'll just note here, for the record, that Warhammer Weekly receives absolutely zero support from GW.  All of the product we have reviewed has been purchased with our own resources and we aim to provide our perspective on product, good or bad, without the threat of a company removing future preview content because we were critical of a prior release. We have operated like this from the very beginning and I don't see this changing any time soon.

I felt it was worth sharing given that there were questions of transparency from current content producers. We do what we do for the love of the hobby, community and game.  We will continue to do so as long as we can.

I love WHW for these reasons.  I think you are a shining example of all the best things that have been held up as a paragon of great community content.

Exciting, fun and cool but also critical when it's warranted - sometimes with gusto! You clearly love the hobby but are bold in calling out things you aren't so keen on. 

Like Vince's views on the Khorne dragon, where he went to town on everything from the sculpt to the rules (even though I loved the Dragon personally), or the "Proud Nails" video which picked up on specific flaws (as Vince saw it) in the rules and dissected them very clinically.  Definitely a very critical video without resorting to insults or a rant - in fact it showed you guys genuinely love the system because you are brave enough to look at it more than a superficial way. 

I love it when Vince gets agitated about Wyldwoods (the worst thing about AOS for me, and I wish they would just go back into hibernation).  But I also love it when you guys get excited about a release or a combo you've spotted.  Please keep doing what you're doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

8 hours ago, HollowHills said:

@zedatkinszed You've used the phrase "savvy marketing" twice. Now, I don't necessarily disagree that a strategy of creating "influencers" via non-disclosed gifts or forms of sponsorship is likely to be a successful tactic. However, as consumers why would we defend or encourage a company for adopting strategies that we may see as unethical? 

You see there is an actual legal definition of this. As I've said twice it's not sponsorship if it's a gift. It's not paid content UNLESS and UNTIL the gifter demands a specific action (i.e favorable review) or a specific formula of words. You see this kind of content disclosed as such on Youtube ALL THE TIME - the Wisecrack channel for example as well as many others. There is nothing unethical here.  NDAs are not demands for favourable reviews. Gifting journalists stuff for them to freely review is not a breach of advertising standards - I don't know what strategy exactly you're pointing to.

8 hours ago, HollowHills said:

Companies cross the line with marketing and advertising all the time, that's why many countries have regulatory bodies to ensure this doesn't happen. However, this whole sphere of online content, relationships between fan advocates and companies themselves is the wild west right now. GW aren't immune to that any more than any large company that runs a marketing department.

Except this is not "crossing the line". IF a reviewer gets "too cosy" with a company and you don't like it - stop watching their channel. And BTW the UK and EU have bodies that regulate advertising and IF GW were breaking their rules they would find against them.

1 hour ago, HollowHills said:

As LLV said, Soul Wars had some real issues. Models were tricky to put together and sometimes the easy to fit required green stuff filler. Some of the models, like your executioner, break very easily or are difficult to transport. You don't get a legal amount of evocators in the box. The sequitors all come with the worse of two main weapon options. 

...

It does seem that there are some content creators out there who are praising GW products, receiving freebies or benefits for doing it and never seem to have any actual criticism. 

Honestly the first soul wars video I saw was Uncle Adam - he literally has a video on the difficulty with push-fit models and gaps. Sure it's NOT a review but to infer that the "big" AOS Youtubers are not talking about this is wrong. As @PlasticCraic said Vince from WHW was very critical of the new Forgeworld Dragon. Being totally honest I don't like the general inference that Youtubers are corporate shills for GW - that's not fair or accurate.

1 hour ago, HollowHills said:

I love my Deepkin and I've spent over £250 on my army so far, but there are problems with them too. The whole range frustrates me with how hard they are to transport and protect. 

Dude I've been in this hobby nigh on 20 years. I can say this for the majority of my stuff. Seriously it's GW models. 

1 hour ago, HollowHills said:

The lack of parity between nemarti lists and eel lists is so extreme its hard to see how it wasn't picked up by play testers. Lotann, great as he is, costs more than all the regular heroes without any explanation. 

Of course some of these things are difficult for early impressions to pick up, they only become apparent as time goes on. Others could definitely be picked up, such as the issues with the fragility of models or the moulding of soul wars. 

If I watch two or three review / first impression videos and they are all saying how great something while omitting the flaws, to me that is problematic.

Fundamentally NO reviewer is going to be able to tell you at launch how a force will fare in the Tourney scene or whether you'll like it or not. I really don't know what you're expecting from people who's HOBBY it is to make youtube videos about plastic soldiers. Because with the exception of Miniwargaming I don't know of anybody who is a professional (i.e full-time) warhammer youtuber. And sorry but I really don't think it's fair to throw shade at people because their first impression videos aren't an in-depth longitudinal review of an army. By definition first impression videos are worthless for this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're the sort of person who needs an "affiliate content" warning/disclaimer on a YouTube video or blog to help you figure out if someone is 'trustworthy', then you are also the sort of person that needs the "Warning! The beverage you are about to enjoy may be hot!" printed on the cup of coffee you just bought.

 

(PS. It's not  actually 'trustworthy' you're after, any way. It's 'reviewer who assesses things in exactly the same way I would'.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, zedatkinszed said:

 

You see there is an actual legal definition of this. As I've said twice it's not sponsorship if it's a gift. It's not paid content UNLESS and UNTIL the gifter demands a specific action (i.e favorable review) or a specific formula of words. You see this kind of content disclosed as such on Youtube ALL THE TIME - the Wisecrack channel for example as well as many others. There is nothing unethical here.  NDAs are not demands for favourable reviews. Gifting journalists stuff for them to freely review is not a breach of advertising standards - I don't know what strategy exactly you're pointing to.

Except this is not "crossing the line". IF a reviewer gets "too cosy" with a company and you don't like it - stop watching their channel. And BTW the UK and EU have bodies that regulate advertising and IF GW were breaking their rules they would find against them.

Honestly the first soul wars video I saw was Uncle Adam - he literally has a video on the difficulty with push-fit models and gaps. Sure it's NOT a review but to infer that the "big" AOS Youtubers are not talking about this is wrong. As @PlasticCraic said Vince from WHW was very critical of the new Forgeworld Dragon. Being totally honest I don't like the general inference that Youtubers are corporate shills for GW - that's not fair or accurate.

Dude I've been in this hobby nigh on 20 years. I can say this for the majority of my stuff. Seriously it's GW models. 

Fundamentally NO reviewer is going to be able to tell you at launch how a force will fare in the Tourney scene or whether you'll like it or not. I really don't know what you're expecting from people who's HOBBY it is to make youtube videos about plastic soldiers. Because with the exception of Miniwargaming I don't know of anybody who is a professional (i.e full-time) warhammer youtuber. And sorry but I really don't think it's fair to throw shade at people because their first impression videos aren't an in-depth longitudinal review of an army. By definition first impression videos are worthless for this.

A few points of response, 

Firstly your argument seems to hold the implicit premise that if something is legal then it's moral, or at least fair game. 

I think that's a demonstrably untenable position to hold. For example, a corporation registering an office in the cayman Islands and paying no tax revenue might well be legal but as consumers and citizens we abhor such behaviour. 

It's also an unfortunate fact that regulators tend to work slowly and are reactive bodies. Payday loans are a good example, or fixed odds betting machines. Law and regulation recognised these practices as harmful, but it took quite a long time for that to happen and for the practices to become wide spread. 

In the real world I work in risk, in financial services. I know too well how some companies attempt to circumvent, outwit and evolve past barriers. 

When those changes do come its often a result of consumer pressure and complaint. 

My personal view is that the current situation with influencers and companies is so new we don't know how to regulate areas like gifts. 

All I'm ultimately arguing for when it comes to content creators and warhammer is... 

If content creators have an agreement with GW, or receive free product from them, this should be declared. 

Especially if they are given anything which is outside the direct purview of their content. For example, if they were given models, paints or event tickets that did not relate to the content they are creating but are for their own personal enjoyment. 

On your final point, about it not being fair to judge first impression videos on in depth variables, I already conceded that in my earlier comment. But when you're creating an hour or longer video discussing a rule book I think it's fair to expect some insight into positives or negatives of the rules. 

I applaud those content creators, some of whom are posting in this very thread, who do not receive free product from GW and affirm their desire to be independent. They are proof that there is an alternative way to do things. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, HollowHills said:

If content creators have an agreement with GW, or receive free product from them, this should be declared. 

Especially if they are given anything which is outside the direct purview of their content. For example, if they were given models, paints or event tickets that did not relate to the content they are creating but are for their own personal enjoyment. 

On your final point, about it not being fair to judge first impression videos on in depth variables, I already conceded that in my earlier comment. But when you're creating an hour or longer video discussing a rule book I think it's fair to expect some insight into positives or negatives of the rules. 

I applaud those content creators, some of whom are posting in this very thread, who do not receive free product from GW and affirm their desire to be independent. They are proof that there is an alternative way to do things. 

 

100% this. 

In fact if the #pleasantforplastic creators want to keep their dealings with GW off the record, I'd love if the WHW and Honest Wargamers of the world would start to mark their offerings with #NOTpleasantforplastic! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been reading this thread on and off all day trying to get a read on the situation. For the most part I agree with what most people are saying here. Having reviewers review content that was given to them by the company for the sake of a good review is wrong and that most people here are saying that GW does not involve themselves in that practice.

Period.

I've dug around all sorts of blogs, new websites and youtube videos ever since I started this hobby two years ago and I've yet seen any discernible evidence pointing to reviewers being coerced by GW to give them good reviews for the products they give them to review. For a lot of those videos they even said up front that the product was given to them by GW to do an initial impression or review. In my experience and with what I've seen and dug around in I have to agree with the majority here.

The thing that has chilled my bones since the creation of this thread is the tone of the thread's original post and poster @HollowHills. It's clear from the get-go that while this was built up as a question, the poster has already made up their mind in what they think the situation is. This is proven again by the tone of the post and subsequent posts later by Hollow in defending the view that it seems very likely that there is something fishy going on with GW giving products to reviewers and prominent fan sites despite the fact that there is absolutely no evidence to support this. Hollow is going by their feelings rather than evidence, and with the way the world has been in lately (in the 1st world countries and the political climate at least) that terrifies me.

@zedatkinszed has pretty much explained the way I feel about this (only with a more slant citing the rule of law). While the general subject of corporations influencing certain individuals for the sake of sales and fake praise is a thing worth talking about, I don't not think GW will risk alienating their customers by doing something like this, if only because they are savvy enough to know they will get caught doing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@CaptainSoup

Regarding the subject of the thread, it is a question. I want people to express their opinions on the subject and explain their reasons for doing so. At the same time I'm not going to pretend that I don't have my own stance on the subject. 

I'm not someone who leans on feelings rather than logic, I think the tone of my posts and attempt to engage with objections flin a fair and even way demonstrates that. 

Here are some facts;

1) We know GW provides certain bloggers, Youtubers and so on with free product. 

2) We know some of them, not all, tend to give very favourable opinions on GW products without much significant criticism. 

3) We know a relationship of sorts exists between these content creators and GW that contains at least one formal element, an NDA relating to when they can release their content. 

4) We know these content creators are not professional journalists and not bound by any official code of conduct etc. 

I have also had some sources state to me personally that certain named individuals in the warhammer community receive favourable treatment included free product from GW. However, this is anecdotal and as such it cannot be relied upon. 

Even if there are no formal agreements but GW constantly give free product while nurturing a positive relationship with certain amateur creators, I believe this could foster a bias without the content creators necessarily being aware of it. 

As such my personal opinion on the subject, as actively stated prior, is that there is nothing wrong with receiving free product or making agreements with GW that are designed to provide material for content. However, this is something that should be declared by those that do so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2) Some people review the sets without in-depth analysis and speak only about value - with all problems Soul Wars box had, it was really a good value (two armies, full rulebook and other thing - in comparison with first starter set it was really nice). And you couldn't know that there will be gaps if you didn't try to assemble miniatures. Most of the reviewers was only unboxing that set.

3) Someone already said it - NDA is not "give me positive review", just "don't talk about it before [INSERT THE DATE HERE]".

And I don't know if you listen carefully to these reviews, because people often mention that they got it free from GW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, HollowHills said:

@CaptainSoup

Regarding the subject of the thread, it is a question. I want people to express their opinions on the subject and explain their reasons for doing so. At the same time I'm not going to pretend that I don't have my own stance on the subject. 

I'm not someone who leans on feelings rather than logic, I think the tone of my posts and attempt to engage with objections flin a fair and even way demonstrates that. 

Here are some facts;

1) We know GW provides certain bloggers, Youtubers and so on with free product. 

2) We know some of them, not all, tend to give very favourable opinions on GW products without much significant criticism. 

3) We know a relationship of sorts exists between these content creators and GW that contains at least one formal element, an NDA relating to when they can release their content. 

4) We know these content creators are not professional journalists and not bound by any official code of conduct etc. 

I have also had some sources state to me personally that certain named individuals in the warhammer community receive favourable treatment included free product from GW. However, this is anecdotal and as such it cannot be relied upon. 

Even if there are no formal agreements but GW constantly give free product while nurturing a positive relationship with certain amateur creators, I believe this could foster a bias without the content creators necessarily being aware of it. 

As such my personal opinion on the subject, as actively stated prior, is that there is nothing wrong with receiving free product or making agreements with GW that are designed to provide material for content. However, this is something that should be declared by those that do so. 

The only point I think is worth hashing out is to remind people that reviewing or doing a first impressions video of a product is in itself a form of bias by design. You are hearing their opinion of the product and giving a verdict based on their views whether this was good or not. It is up to the reviewer to decide how much of their bias will effect their overall review.

Maybe they didn't have a hard time with the soul wars kit like others had. If they don't mention the flaw others found does that mean they are purposefully giving a review to praise GW because GW told them to? It's a lot of heresay that can get into some nasty places if you are not careful.

It is my personal belief to give most bloggers the benefit of the doubt, take what they say with a pinch of salt and know that at the end of the day they love the hobby as much as we do. Even so that they may give slightly higher praise for things than some might expect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, HollowHills said:

Here are some facts;

1) Absolutely zero big deal. Company with product to sell sends product to people who have a platform to talk about said product, is not really news. Everyone from razor to car manufacturers do. If you're doing a review or something like that ahead of release then you obviously got it from the company, it's either that or you're the world's dumbest thief.

2) That's up to the bloggers not GW, but again this is a niche field, the people whop spend time writing about it are almost by definition going to be fans and more often than not be excited about a big new release. Still with Soul Wars I saw several people in their 'reviews' talk about the issue with push fit models, but also understand that it's a trade off, you get these amazing looking models that can be clicked together and ready to play with that day but there might be some gaps that if you're super fussy will need to be dealt with. I think most people understand that trade off.

3) Again not sure this is news and it feels like you're viewing this as something dubious and not just standard journalist/PR practice. When I send something to writers ahead of its release, I'll often put a timed embargo on it. A huge % of press releases that go out whether it's about a big important genuine news story or about some plastic toys will have that. It's so you can send stuff to people well ahead of time so they can digest it and write their stories BUT you know their stories will go up when everything's ready, so in the case of GW I imagine they put an embargo on these things tied to the date the pre-order goes up.

it's no use to you as a company if the vast majority of people writing stories about your product do it 3/4 weeks before it's available in any way shape or form.

4) But then if you know they're not 'professional' journalists then that should colour your view of what they say anyway. Not to say you should dismiss it, there's juts not enough money in this small area of hobbydom to sustain more than probably a handful of full time journalists covering it in the world, so amateur bloggers, 'influencers' etc fill that gap, and certainly 'instagram personalities' and people like that are already well covered by existing laws on product placement and 'advertorials'.

44 minutes ago, HollowHills said:

I have also had some sources state to me personally that certain named individuals in the warhammer community receive favourable treatment included free product from GW. However, this is anecdotal and as such it cannot be relied upon. 

Again though, what's the problem? As stated by many others there isn't exactly a flourishing publishing industry devoted to RPGs and war-games, so to promote your products an obvious solution is to work with people who are 'faces' on the scene. It's how it works in every industry, though unlike most where people are picking up big money endorsements from clothing lines and the like here some people are being given a few free models. 

Likewise if you're the company and you know that x, y and z are cool people that others take note of then you will obviously develop a relationship with them, maybe that will involve taking them out to Warhammer World once a year, giving them sneak peaks of new stuff, that's what you do, you develop relationships with these people and look after them, nothing nefarious there just standard industry practice.

99/100 times it's not so much about ensuring positive reviews but about just being noticed. Real journalists get bombarded with stuff (I've barely written for anyone for a few years now and have received 200+ press releases, invites to new bars and product launches and the like just this week, when I was writing it could be 100+ a day), as a PR you build a relationship with them so when you have something you want them to write about they at least read your email.

aybe, and I mean this honestly, it's one of those things where if you've worked in any industry that works like this it just seems normal, and if you havent you're horrified by what seems like malpractice but I genuinely don't see what the big deal is. Nearly every review I've seen its been obvious they were sent it for review. Yes maybe some of these reviews are a bit gushing but that's because they're fans, and importantly dont have time to do a serious critical review.

Let's think for a moment what a gold standard review of, say, Soul Wars, the major GW release this year would have looked like and entailed.

Ok, first up massive book to read, and if you're a genuine reviewer, you'll be burning through the whole thing, you'll have to make notes on it, compare to previous editions etc. That's at least a full day's work if not more.

Assembling the models, even push fit that's still a good couple of hours work if not more. Especially if you're filing them, etc etc, making them right.

Painting them, well if it's a really good review and you want it to look great then you've got to paint at least a decent amount of the models for photos and video.

Test games, well after all if you're reviewing a new games system you've got to play it at least a few times with the models in the set. So that's a couple of days 'work'.

If you're just writing this all up, editing still photos etc that's half a day to a day's work, if it's for film then with editing etc that's even longer.

So assuming you're doing this for your own site that's several days worth of unpaid work right there to get something vaguely professional made for essentially very little return. So in the big scheme of things getting £80 worth of models for all that work isn't the best deal and is done by people who totally into al this anyway.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also I should say my hackles are raised whenever I see any talk of 'ethics in nerd-hobby journalism' as it gives me flashbacks to vile little ****** using just that as a fig leaf for their hate campaigns in other corners of the nerd universe. Not saying that's what you're doing at all, but it brings back bad memories of a lot of people acting in bad faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think I've actually ever seen a 'review' of a GW product by any of the GW-centric media that was anything other than an excuse to reveal the contents of said product a week early anyway, so surely this is all completely irrelevant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, JPjr said:

maybe, and I mean this honestly, it's one of those things where if you've worked in any industry that works like this it just seems normal, and if you havent you're horrified by what seems like malpractice but I genuinely don't see what the big deal is. Nearly every review I've seen its been obvious they were sent it for review. Yes maybe some of these reviews are a bit gushing but that's because they're fans, and importantly dont have time to do a serious critical review.

Another insightful post, I think you make some good points here. Regarding the amount of effort required to accurately review a product like Soul Wars, you're right. It clearly is a large undertaking and I'm not saying those who do so shouldn't have access to free items for doing so.

I've picked out a particular quotation because it's something I want to respond to. When  it comes to mainstream journalism you can often find official policy on receiving goods or services from a company. For example The Guardian has a specific sub section in this code of conduct that discusses freebies, one paragraph states;

GNM will not allow any payment, gift or other advantage to undermine accuracy, fairness or independence. Any attempts to induce favourable editorial treatment through the offer of gifts or favours should be reported to the editor. Where relevant, payments, gifts or other advantages will be disclosed.

Now I know you can say that most of these bloggers and channels are small and fan operated while The Guardian is a major international newspaper. That's true, but I don't think it would be hard for content creators to have a short policy in video descriptions or on their websites that states something similar.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...