Read on Twitter
Some thoughts (possibly a bit of a rant) on reviewing: The other day, somebody said to me that I was a "harsh" tech reviewer, always looking for faults. (thread)
That thought resonated with me, and I'll be honest; I kinda wear it as a badge of pride. But that relates to, I think, what you think a review might be for. It's a little more complex than many folks appreciate.
Most think a review is just a buy/don't buy thing, and sure, there's plenty of scope for a review to be that. This is the mindset I use, because while I'm not paying for review gear generally, I always keep top of mind that somebody buying it will be. It has to be worth the money
Aside: To answer the inevitable question, very little review gear doesn't go back.
However, a lot of tech manufacturers view reviews just as "cheap ads". So a review (or reviewer) that is overly critical of their product is very much seen as a problem. They've supplied the review product, but it's not good marketing copy…
This isn't a new phenomenon – years ago as a very young journo I was accosted by the makers of a fish-themed PC that was DREADFUL, because they'd also bought some ad space in the title I was writing for at the time. They figured they bought ads, therefore reviews would be +ve.
However, the Net has accelerated the cosy-cosy relationship between some "reviewers" (quotes deliberate) and tech companies. I see a LOT of very fluffy, spec-list reviews that don't really tell you about the use of a product, or where it might not suit.
(This isn't to say that locally and internationally there aren't good, diligent, CRITICAL reviewers. Love those folks!)
The fluffy types get the quick access, because they create good marketing tag lines, add hefty star ratings to their "reviews" and… not much more that actually helps a consumer make a decision about whether a given thing is good for them or not.
Now, that's up to the reviewer and, just like with movies, books or other critiques there's also other ways to approach a review, and you can like and resonate with who you like.
Aside: I'm a middle aged white dude. I'd love more diversity in the tech reviewing space, and this isn't a knock on anyone having a go at it. More voices are better. Aside over.
But I think I'll stick to my critical grounds. Yes, it's meant that in some years I've had brands been very slack in terms of review gear (not loved: PR reps lying to me about product availability, because clearly journos are too stupid to talk to each other…)
One local brand hasn't sent me review kit for literally years. If you've not seen a review of their product with my name next to it, that's why. Won't name because Aussie defamation laws are brutal and journo pay has never been great.
Doesn't suit their marketing obviously, but I'm not here to market for them. That's an ad. I'll keep writing reviews and try to help people make the right calls when they're buying tech gear. I just hope I'm good at it for somebody's purpose.
Rant over.
