There are a couple of other things to talk about.
Affiliate Breakup
I broke up with an affiliate retailer in November for a couple of reasons, but it was mainly over their ignoring my request to reactivate free shipping for our referral code. This retailer actively advertises their own free shipping codes in emails and on their product pages, and those codes basically deactivate our own.
They created a situation where either ToolGuyd gets an affiliate commission if readers pay shipping fees, or readers get free shipping and ToolGuyd gets nothing.
Advertisement
I’ve brought it up with them before, and would have accepted a “no, sorry we can’t do that again.” When my 3rd email went ignored, I realized it was intentional, and that they don’t care if ToolGuyd or its readers lose out, as long as the store gets the sale.
While not a requirement, I strongly prefer direct lines of communications with affiliate retailers, in case a reader has an especially egregious issue that I can help with. If an affiliate won’t respond to simple questions about free shipping reactivation, I can’t rely on them for anything.
Review Manipulation
A few years ago I talked with a brand contact about the potential for advertising. They said they didn’t have the budget, but could link to my reviews on Facebook, and that this could help drive affiliate sales to get me/ToolGuyd paid.
That sounds like a good arrangement, right? But do you think they would share reviews that weren’t glowingly positive? I thought about the math:
Glowing review + social media sharing = more sales = greater commissions = more money for me/ToolGuyd.
While they didn’t directly encourage positive reviews, they created a difficult situation. I kept reporting on their products, but avoided praise, and even stopped reviewing that company’s products for a while.
Advertisement
This happened a long time ago, but I’ve never forgotten.
In General
I don’t respond to conflicts of interest very well. If a brand says “play ball for a bit, and we’ll talk about a big ad/sponsorship arrangement,” I tend to pop the ball, or kick it over the fence.
For example, I was talking with a brand about a sponsorship opportunity. They were terrible at PR, and info about a new tool release was spreading online. I posted about it, because it was a very high reader-interest topic, even though I also knew there was a good chance doing so would torpedo the sponsored review sample opportunity.
Maybe I might have waited a little longer if not for the sponsorship talks, but I felt that the potential for a sponsorship could affect editorial matters, and that pushed me forward.
I tend to avoid conflicts of interest and also the appearance of a conflict of interest.
Similarly, I simply cannot be in an affiliate relationship where ToolGuyd wins at readers’ expense. Or if a brand says they’ll promote my reviews to boost affiliate clicks, I won’t review that brand. Even if I’m confident that I won’t allow such things to bias me, the perception or possibility of a conflict of interest or bias is still there, and that’s not acceptable.
Social Media Numbers
A few years ago, an industry friend told me that a tool review site was buying social media followers. I chalked it up to gossip, but out of curiosity I checked their follower count. I checked it again the next morning, and noticed that it increased by an exact amount – 5,000 if I recall correctly.
I don’t know how long that went on for, or if it’s still happening today, but I can tell you that I will NEVER trust them.
Almost every day I get new emails where someone is trying to sell me on paid followers, likes, and engagement, and so I guess some businesses and influencers are still doing this.
If you see a channel with 200,000 followers, and a post has 2,000 likes, but there are 0 real-looking interactions or comments, what do you think is going on?
There’s also kinds of things going on. Buying followers and likes is pretty low, although I think the selling of tool review samples for cash is even worse. If an influencer sells tool samples for cash, are they really testing them, or generating positive hype to ensure their next high-value request is easily approved?
Private Equity Firms and Investment Groups
I hear from private equity firms and investment groups on occasion. You should know that private investment companies have been acquiring independent digital publications and review sites across different industries and topics.
Looking at some of the examples they’ve shared with me, there are rarely any signs, indications, or disclosures anywhere.
“Nothing will change” is a common broken promise.
ToolGuyd remains privately owned and operated, by me.
The industry keeps changing, but I don’t think I will ever sell the site. I’ve seen too many publications bastardized, and I don’t think I could ever voluntarily subject ToolGuyd or its audience to the same.
Most recently, the co-founder of a small group wanted to talk with me, and still do even after I looked into them and said I am not interested in selling ToolGuyd. They manage a non-tool-related site I’ve visited on occasion. With Black Friday behind us and my schedule easing up a little, maybe I’ll connect anyway.
Editorial Conflicts of Interest
Things are getting messier.
I emailed an industry contact: [Your tool brand] has rejected every ToolGuyd sample request for the past few years. I’d appreciate some clarity.
Here’s the response I received:
Thanks for reaching out and for asking for clarification.
As you can imagine, we get many, many requests for product – daily. I wish we could say “yes” to them all. But in the end we must be judicious about our placements to yield the greatest returns. We are small company. We don’t work at the same scale as the major market-share competitors.
As you may notice we haven’t placed any tools with any review sites, tool blogs, mass marketing sites, or even the largest content creators with millions of followers. We have a select number of people we work with that are in the trades, whether woodworking, carpentry, remodeling, or painting. And surely you have noticed their online content, chiefly on social media, that shows our products in use in their environments. This is our targeted approach.
As [Brand] continues to grow and gain further market share there will be an opportunity for us to work together more.
I’ve been told “no” before when it comes to test samples or similar, but this was different, and far from what I expected.
In part of my reply, I said: What you said gives rise to an interesting question – perhaps magazines, reviewers, influencers, and small online publications should only work with brands that “yield the greatest returns?”
This particular brand’s media communications have been amateurishly subpar for a few years.
Although this brand describes themselves as a “small company,” they’re not.
As a tool user and shopper, influencers “showing products used in environments” don’t answer my questions. I’ve seen sponsored or partnered unboxings from this brand. Unboxings!
I want to know about the performance and dust collection of the latest cordless miter saw. Maybe it’s so bad, and that’s why they haven’t provided test samples to magazines or reviewers.
If all I can find online are influencers going “WOW” as they unbox a tool, I’m not taking a chance on that brand or product.
Frankly, that’s all I’ve seen from this brand – no questions answered, no review insights, just a lot of b-roll footage and at least one partnered unboxing.
I thought it was just me/ToolGuyd they have a problem with. But apparently it’s not, and they just have marketing policies that exclusively prioritize “product placements” over actual testing and reviews.
Pretend that you’re a tool review, media channel, or influencer. What would you do?
Ignore the brand and work towards readers’ interests? That’s the plan, but this will cause headaches. Am I supposed to avoid those headaches? If not, do I hold back so as to make it clear the headaches aren’t on purpose?
Frankly, I’ve learned nothing in the past 16 years for dealing with tool brands that decide they won’t support magazine and tool reviews because they want all their test samples to go to influencer product placements.
Other Situations
There are other situations with other tool brands.
I asked a brand if we can talk about upcoming tools. They ignored the request, spent an enormous amount of money on influencer hype, then came to me weeks later asking if I still want to talk about a product I’ve never seen in person.
This is like talking about who might win the Super Bowl, but a month afterwards.
Generating news content about a product after others’ paid-for reviews are up doesn’t help ToolGuyd or its readers.
I’m going to have to recalibrate ToolGuyd’s policies and practices in 2025.
I know I keep saying that, but there are brands in the middle between “full media support” and “will only pay for influencer hype” that are still friendly to ToolGuyd and willing but incapable of supporting a media relationship.
The line between media content and influencer content is narrowing and getting fainter. A lot of the “partnerships” being pitched to me are increasingly sounding like unpaid influencer and sponsorship type campaigns rather than media opportunities. I’ve tried pushing things back to media territory, even spelling out explicitly what’s needed, but it’s turned into a Sisyphean task.
I thought that intent was the only issue, but it’s not. Except for a few PR teams that have skillfully adapted to modern times, media relations are gone, replaced by “social media influencer marketing” trends and strategies, and it has made a huge mess of things.
BobH
Thanks, very interesting. Keep up the good work, this increases my trust in what I read on your site.
avi
I know it’s not directly about the actual tools, but I really enjoy these editorial posts. It seems your site isn’t just a tool review place, but a virtual trade magazine. Maybe the exact opposite way regular news sites do tool guides (horribly) when you’re up for expanding, this will turn into a full blown trustworthy, reliable news source.
Doresoom
I had a company reach out to me recently to review a very expensive snow blower, They wanted a 7 day window from me receiving the tool to when the review would be posted. I told them definitely not, there’s no way I could legitimately test the tool if it doesn’t snow in that one week period.
I think they were relying on the value of the tool to get me to agree, and hoping to get a no-substance unboxing video out of it. Not gonna happen.
Stuart
Im guessing it was the robot blower?
Kyle
I had to google that…
“The First-ever Robotic Blower in the World” is absolutely, and probably unintentionally hilarious. Or maybe it is intentional… We seem to have entered the twilight zone some years ago where it doesn’t matter whether the discourse is positive or negative, it’s added brand value regardless.
Doresoom
Hahaha, you got the same one?
Stuart
No, but they emailed me again this month.
They emailed in the past at a bad time, and when it was actually snowing they wouldn’t send one.
They then sent me numerous spammy newsletters that I didn’t sign up for.
They emailed recently with a review offer. I did a quick search and found deep customer dissatisfaction, with more than a few decrying the company’s poor support.
The product price is very high. There are complaints about customer support. And I doubt that the battery pack is thoroughly tested or UL-rated (or similar).
I did some quick due diligence and declined to respond. I was interested in the past, but there are too many red flags.
Doresoom
Ah, to clarify I meant the same email. I declined the snow blower even after they offered to extend the review period.
Stuart
Maybe?
I got one email from a pitches@marketingfirm email address with “request a sample” button links, and another direct from the brand manager with details and inviting me to sign up for their affiliate program to promote it.
Jared
The brands focusing are influencer hype are doing themselves a disservice. I guess they must have marketing people who do the math and think that’s the best way to drive sales. That seems impossible, but maybe I’m just not part of the group that buys tools that way, so it’s hard for me to understand.
Tim+E.
One has to wonder… tools are not inexpensive. Aside from that I don’t do much in the way of social media, if some tiktok influencer shows off their “fancy new Milwaukee drill” that costs $300 regularly, how many people are actually going to rush out and buy it? Then if a month later they show off their “fancy new DeWalt drill”, who is going to rush out and buy that? I don’t get where people have enough disposable income to spend on tools based on a 30 second hype from someone who presumably hypes tools all the time.
I kind of understand it from influencers who are “brand loyal”, like if I only hype DeWalt products and use them pretty exclusively and continually in my videos, then that would have more value and things like “check out DeWalt’s new sander” would carry *slightly* more value. But just an unboxing of the newest tools DeWalt sent over? Maybe that gets some folks who didn’t know something existed, but says nothing of the tool. So again, I have to wonder why folks would spend not insignificant amounts of hard earned dollars on something because some random person online took it out of a box?
What particularly irks me is the Amazon and Home Depot free product reviews (Vine and Seed Program respectively), like Stuart mentions. 5 star reviews and the thing is still sealed in its box in all the pictures, like a vacuum “this will do great on my floors!” but it’s sealed and unused. Pretty obvious they’re just planning to resell it, and I wish those companies would do more to remove people who do that from the program. I understand that sometimes you can’t use everything you get, and if you do it for a while accumulate way more stuff than you need, but to me part of participating should be using it for at least a short period, at least once even, and then you can do whatever you want with it after your review. But purposely leaving it sealed to (presumably) drive higher resale value when the expectation is you use and then leave a review of the product, companies should police that better to help drive up quality output of those programs. I guess that conflicts with the volume goals though, better 50 5 star unused-product reviews than 10 insightful reviews, even though I’d personally definitely be more likely to buy the 10 review product (if it works well in those reviews).
Jared
Well put. It doesn’t make sense to me, not because I’m unusually careful or smart – but because I can’t imagine making a purchase decision that way.
Maybe this REALLY is how it works and you and I are weird tool fanatics that pay more attention. It doesn’t seem that way though – like you said, who is buying an expensive tool because they saw an influencer promote it?
I can’t discount that just putting eyeballs on a product is part of marketing. Some people who wouldn’t otherwise be aware will decide they are interested and follow through with a purchase.
But even if that works – how often does it work versus targeting an audience that’s interested in your tool and giving them reason to want it? If I’m shopping for a tool, I think my purchase decision is most likely to be swayed by:
1. Some research I did (e.g. toolguyd, TTC, PF,…etc.);
2. A deal (provided the tool is in the ballpark, there’s no denying that a special price makes the decision easy); or
3. Because it fits with one of my existing battery platforms (if we’re talking about cordless tools).
If I notice an ad or influencer content, it might make me look into a product – but will it actually drive me to buy it? Not likely.
Stuart
Influencer/creator marketing can be beneficial if done well, and as part of a complete marketing strategy.
Just throwing tools, cash, or both at hand-picked influencers and relying solely on that does not work.
Goodie
Agreeing with you on this.
I don’t like a lot of influencer content, but some of it is very useful.
I don’t fully drink the green kool-aid (I am not in their cordless line at all), but the influencer work that Jason Bent does for Festool is very good. He knows their offerings well. And Festool’s own videos with Sedge are quite good. There’s a bunch of accessories with Festool, and well done videos do help to understand that complex line-up.
Scott K
I think this mirrors some of what Stuart is saying. If I’m a social media influencer with the goal of a revolving door of free products, then everything I open may deserve some “wow!” Since it was free and more wows = more free products. This is a short term game that can’t be sustained forever. This may sell products via affiliate links but it doesn’t build brand loyalty which is more valuable long term.
I don’t mean this to be political – I hope the TikTok ban goes through. This influencer craze adds no meaningful benefit to anyone (in addition to all of the social issues these platforms create).
Stuart
To be clear, I don’t blame influencers.
Influencers have fewer revenue paths to support content creation.
Scott K
I think there’s a distinction to be made between people creating meaningful content that is mutually beneficial to brands and consumers and “influencers” who add no value and trade hype and inflated reviews for free products.
Stuart
Some brands only want hype, and have said as much.
A W
Your approach and integrity are what keep me coming back to this site consistently.
Thank you Stuart.
Stuart
Thanks, I’m trying my best!
The hard part is that there’s no rule book, and the game keeps changing. I have to make it up as I go along.
There are no role models anymore, no examples to follow. Many magazines are gone, or have gone rotted.
It feels very desolate.
I had guidelines, but they don’t work when brands shifted entirely to influencer marketing.
I feel myself relying more on the same content-sourcing strategies as before a big shift in 2013.
When a brand says “why didn’t you come to us with questions,” my answer is no longer “I was too excited to wait,” but “why did I have to learn about it through paid influencer reviews.”
I will be more vocal in content about where post info comes from, and whether the brands could be relied on to answer questions. It seemed worthwhile to give everyone a heads-up.
A W
I can certainly understand the frustrations.
However, I wanted to push back a little on singing you said above: “Generating news content about a product after others’ paid-for reviews are up doesn’t help ToolGuyd or its readers.”
As someone who gets my tool news almost exclusively from Tool Guyd, I would rather see something on here that’s ‘old news’ than miss it altogether. Maybe it’s because of my old age (39), or my limited use of social media (mostly YouTube and FB), but my algorithms aren’t targeting me with tool content at all.
A W
*something
Stuart
Let’s say you have a question about “old news” that follows in the wake of influencer content. There’s no opportunity for follow-up.
If all I’m doing is sharing what can be gleaned from a product listing or sales page, most readers might have already seen it, and there’s generally very low added value.
Jim
Amen A W
Kentucky fan
I only use this site because of the objective content and the transparency. In the days of the dead internet it’s important to get actual objective information when I’m going to spend my money. I weld for a living and I don’t have the best knowledge on non welding tools so it’s nice to know I get a true review on here instead of some influencer that doesn’t use the tools and isn’t a true enthusiast
Ray
Why won’t you name names? I not only base my buying decisions on tool quality but the way the company does business. If you believe that ToolGuyd job is to only review tools, then why write this article? I believe that not naming names protects bad companies and leaves us consumers uninformed.
Stuart
Naming names should be done with a specific purpose, and cannot be taken back.
If you want me to tell you who to trust and not to trust, I’d say start off by trusting no one.
TomD
It’s also not important to “know the bad” when all you really need to do is “know the good” and that’s pretty clear by just reading Toolguyd.
I don’t need to know ten thousand crappy brands and marketing departments as long as I know a few good ones.
Scott K
Although I’d love to know each company behind these posts, that would likely irreparably ruin a relationship. Hopefully the pendulum swings back towards meaningful reporting/reviews – a post “naming a name” would ensure you’re excluded in the future.
Tim+E.
Not wanting to put words in Stuart’s mouth, but if it were me I also wouldn’t, to the extent it isn’t egregious behavior. There’s no real positive outcome on either side. If ToolGuyd names a company, and you (and other readers maybe) don’t buy products from them anymore based on that company’s behavior, it’s naïve to think that will be more than a minor fluctuation attributable to a million other things, let alone that they’d connect it to their marketing strategies and make adjustments. It wouldn’t drive the change we want to see (better engagement with more “traditional” / “with-integrity” media sources), so gains nothing. On the flip side, if it did inspire change, it would also still damage ToolGuyd’s relationship with that company as being someone who called them out, so they’d probably rightfully be reluctant to do business with this outlet. Maybe to regain the small amount of people who enter through this channel and see a “correction” that the company is okay to work with again, but there’s also the adage that the damage was done. Plus, other companies may see that and also rethink their own relationships. Here again, no benefit. The exception I’d say is if there’s some sort of egregiously bad circumstance, like an unprofessional e-mail reply saying “sorry we only work with influencers please don’t contact us again”, that’s something that both one would hope the higher up company would address if brought to their attention, and potentially merits a callout addressing.
Calling people out has become much more prevalent in today’s world than it was 10, 20, 30 years ago, partly I think because it’s easy, fun, and drives views to create such content. Bash a business, and the loud detractors every business has will flock to that and draw more into the fold. Like Ego said in Ratatouille, “we thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read”. There’s an argument around this information would help us make “informed purchasing decisions” around supporting (or not) company behavior, but I think really it mostly would be fun to know who it is, and that isn’t a good enough reason to cause potentially irreparable damage.
Stuart
There’s also purpose behind not naming names.
Leaving doubt can prompt companies to self-reflect.
Sometimes bad marketing is done at the lower levels, with higher ups in the dark.
eddiesky
Then there are the litigious buggers.
I follow Gamer’s Nexus (Puck Gamer’s Nexus!). Its clear they have alot of viewers, an online store selling unique merch to help the site, and legal person that intervenes when vendors cross the line.
Because they, GN, will investigate and clearly shame (see NZXT) a bad company and in the video have their legal team backing them up.
If you named the bad brands, it looks bad for all. And since the web doesn’t forget, even if you are spot on, others might see it as a taboo or bad site to deal with. Like you said, “This happened a long time ago, but I’ve never forgotten.”
Robert
This rot of controlling the narrative is human nature, just think back to singles bars. I worked in independent assessment and validation of major industrial projects. Though that was our acknowledged and paid for role there was often immense pressure to control, or at least finesse, our “objective” narrative. Money talks.
Daniel Block
I just want to say thank you. Your integrity, and the fact that you are so public about it is why I keep coming back here. So keep on keeping on.
MM
Exactly.
I copied this line as soon as I read it:
“I don’t respond to conflicts of interest very well. If a brand says “play ball for a bit, and we’ll talk about a big ad/sponsorship arrangement,” I tend to pop the ball, or kick it over the fence.”
That is why I keep coming back here.
Scott F
Reach is difficult, but my question on the backside of the change in media relations/marketing direction within most companies is to understand how their perception of ToolGuyd could be changed from “typical review site” to something more “meaningful”?
i.e. you won’t be a typical social media influencer – but how do WE (collectively, how can WE help YOU) get ToolGuyd into their heads as something more than a review site/tool blog, to the point that they can work past those boundaries? Can it be done at all given the sector of the Internet/media you operate in, or is policy always going to prevail?
Or maybe the solution lies in discrediting (continuing to discredit) the current norm, with the hope that companies come to their senses. Like others here, I can’t understand how influencer marketing is effective enough to have meaningful ROI.
Stuart
Some understand, many do not.
Marketing is also different today than 10 years ago. Skills are gone. Best practices are gone.
I can’t change the industry.
What I’m really trying to do is control how I/ToolGuyd adapts. Posts like this are speed bumps, mixed in with other things I’ve wanted to talk about, but not in separate posts.
I’ve spoken with more brand presidents, CEOs, and VPs in the past year than probably the past 10 years combined. I’m not sure what to make of it.
eddiesky
Its great to have your perspective. This is work. And coming here to see what is new in tools, its what I want to see. Thanks to the comments as well, because I know there are options that a reader can provide feedback. Numerous times I’ve both read and asked about X tool that could do YZ. And readers here would post. Some spot on brands I never heard of. Others with helpful suggestions. No trolls as you moderate/weed out, or self-regulate.
I also note the shills on Youtube. Many say they love watching “some yahoo tool tester”. I don’t. Or how a brand is showing up across numerous “Makers” or “wood workers” or crafting channels. Trust me, when I see a Sawstop Cabinet saw (the $6000 5HP, 52″ fully spec’d out one) on a channel, and the ‘tuber doesn’t state they paid for it, I’m not taking their pushing “reviews and tools” seriously or credible. Even that tool tester guy that shouts and has so many ads inbetween his takes…nope.
There is even a famous maker that shills his own brands, or started his own group of makers like a mob..ster. Nothing like an “ice pick” in the back…right? But I want to learn and when I like a channel, I notice a tool, and the channel …say Essential Craftsman…if he uses it and tells it like it is…I trust him. But when I see Vevor brand on someone’s feed… they are shilling or it was free. Atleast you aren’t some snarky brother and sister tool pusher from Ohio… entertaining but not serious, no hart in it.
Keep at it Stuart! I wondered…would we buy a ToolGuyd Calendar with a tool of the month? 🙂 I wood!
TomD
The YouTube “using” of tools is getting so bad that I’m hesitant to ascribe it being good to those types unless they complain about it in some way – someone who complains about a tool, but continues to use it, must be pretty happy with it overall.
If they’re open about it being a free review unit _and you see them continue to use it for months/years_ it’s not so bad, but some are so blatantly obvious it should require an FCC label.
Champs
First of all, I need to ask because I get this a lot, too: are you are okay?
Your recent editorials are relatable and I don’t think that we are alone in sharing frustration over the degradation of journalism into sponsored content. Those decades between opinion being driven by wealthy newspapermen and corporate marketing were nice while they lasted.
“Integrity? We’ve heard of it” isn’t the joke it used to be.
Stuart
Mostly, thanks!
I always get a look exhausted this time of year, but I’m building up momentum for fun stuff in 2025.
There are just so many changes working against the way I want to do things. Almost every aspect of how I approach ToolGuyd content needs to be constantly adapted to everchanging times.
And as a tool user, I see things most do not, and I feel compelled to help inform readers.
It seems best to group a bunch of these discussions and posts together, so that we can get past them quickly.
Robert
Stuart, how do private equity firms sufficiently monetize “ independent digital publications and review sites” to be worthwhile?
It doesn’t seem those scale up enough to be on their radar.
Stuart
The Best Cordless Drill
Cordless drills are…
(AD)
and what you want to look for..
(AD)
Drill chuck size
(AD)
Speed gear thingamajig
(AD)
Torque clutchamabob
(AD)
Drillin’ holes for stuff
(AD)
1. top Amazon pick
2. top Home Depot pick but sold on Amazon
3. an outdated model
(AD)
4. an impact driver
5. something else
(AD)
blah blah blah
(POPUP AD YOU MUST CLICK TO CLOSE)
James
😂
MM
Yep, DCD771 is going to feature in that list for sure.
TomD
As Stuart mentioned, you can make quite a buck from this – after all, Stuart (apparently) makes decent money or he’d not do it.
So you buy him out, replace him with a cheap AI and affiliate junk links everywhere, milk that for a few years and repeat.
One low-paid intern can manage multitudes of similar-style sites and you can rake in the dough.
Sometimes you even get the previous author to hang around and keep working, usually at lower wages than he was making before. Once you’ve a stable of 5-10 of these sites, you’re talking some decent money, at least enough to keep rolling it.
Not all Private Equity is “buy Facebook and take it private”.
James
I meant to say: funny not funny.
TomD
It’s getting so bad that unless you have (perhaps undue in some cases) trust of the reviewer himself, you have to look for other “unapproved” signals – reviews that destroy the tool or otherwise involve “brand-unfriendly” activities, as a sign that they’re not bought and paid for.
Saulac
What is the possibility of a Toolguyd Store to recoup some of the $ spent on the samples? Open only to verified readers to void bad buyers?
Stuart
Zero. I don’t want the hassle or liability.
Matt
First, thank you. Not much out there to trust anymore, clearly.
My 2 cents is to keep up the real reviews, and the comparisons. I understand this becomes a lot more difficult if brands won’t provide tools, but if it came to it I bet some of your readers would share their tools for objective comparisons (torque test channel does this a lot). We come hear to hear the truth, and I specifically reference this when looking for a new tool, both for price and function. You have not let me down yet -but there are also plenty of tools that I would still be thrilled to see hands on tests/reviews of.
Or maybe those posts don’t get the traffic – idk, the metrics are probably not what I think they are.
Stuart
A company provided new string trimmer samples, and I put them together before stashing away for the winter. I emailed them, basically asking why the assembly process was different and why one of them felt like they cut corners.
If I purchased that sample, there’s no path to insights or answers, and the tool user in me would have gone to lengths about the cheapened accessories and assembly process.
The brand explained the *why* with clear details, and that informed my “media voice.”
My tool user voice would have complained about the cheapness – and I did just that in my email – and my media voice is better informed and can explain the design choices.
When I buy a sample, you can be sure I’m not going to give a brand the opportunity to answer questions.
Many brands and stores have satisfaction guarantees (some influencers often test-and-return), and retail friends and affiliates are usually willing to step in with samples.
I’m not sure if it makes sense, but I prefer to get samples a specific way, otherwise it throws how I approach things out of alignment.
When a brand provides a sample, it’s worth $0 to me, because 99 times out of 100, it’s going to be given away or donated. That tends to flatten out my voice a lot of the time.
Saulac
Your expectations from brands could be too high. Your point about insight from the insiders is valid, but who would that be? “Design in the USA” may make one think all China does is build and build. Fact is, lot of product decisions came from production. The guy you want to get insight from may know even less than you. Project Farm would not be what he is today if he relies on specification test from brands. Some of this test is too simple…but it based on what he has…and that what make people feel related.
Stuart
Who would that be? Sometimes a product manager, sometimes an engineer, sometimes a VP or higher.
My PR contact got me details and an annotated image from the product manager in a couple of hours.
With some brands, a PR might get back to me 3 weeks later with a non-answer.
Yes, I have high expectations, from experience.
Matt
Fair and reasonable, as expected. I just hope they keep supporting you – we want the content!
It’s interesting what goes on behind the scenes to create a place like this.
Josh
I just wanted to say for little while I thought your site was “Tool Guy D” and your name started with a d.
When I read it out loud and realized it was Tool Guide it made more sense and I actually laughed out loud. Great work Stuart keep it up! Also note for you marketing folks, I bought that beta rolling toolbox after seeing it here, and never would have otherwise.
Stuart
Thanks!
lol, everyone gets there eventually. Next thing you’ll notice is that the hammer in the logo is “backwards.”
How do you like the Beta box so far?
Josh
Box is nice so far from a build quality standpoint. I’m not fully setup yet, it’s going to bring my “nice” tools out to my unheated hobby wood working shed. I’ve tried a bunch of approaches to keeping the rust off while leaving the tools there and it’s a losing battle without climate control. So now I’m going to try wheeling the Beta out and working out of it and then back in at the end of the day.
I may replace the big hard wheels with something pneumatic if need be but will try it out first.
Alex
Stuart I have a lot of respect for what you do, and understand the tension between delivering the best possible content for your users and maximizing your revenue. I worked for a large publisher in that world for a better part of a decade, and also started my own little agency for a few years. That’s actually where I discovered you- I did some consulting for one of the big box tool stores
I have a hypothetical question for you- let’s say a brand new, direct to consumer tool brand launched. It didn’t have an affiliate program or any marketing spend that could reach Toolguyd, but the tools were truly Milwaukee quality at a sub-Ryobi price.
Would you review those tools and/or feature them?
Stuart
Feature? Probably.
Test? Maybe.
Review? Maybe.
Not everything needs to be monetized with affiliate links or direct sponsorship. e.g. https://14cyiuhvcgv.com/ceenr-universal-cordless-power-tool-battery/%3C/a%3E , https://14cyiuhvcgv.com/lee-valley-veritas-workshop-knife/%3C/a%3E , https://14cyiuhvcgv.com/panasonic-cordless-drill-impact-attachment-system/%3C/a%3E , https://14cyiuhvcgv.com/metabo-tool-tracker/%3C/a%3E , https://14cyiuhvcgv.com/hilti-dust-extractor-vacuum-continuous-bag/%3C/a%3E , https://14cyiuhvcgv.com/techdry-tools-x3-multi-blade-drywall-knife/%3C/a%3E .
I consider a lot of pitches on a case by case basis. Not everything is a good fit. Sometimes new tools are interesting but there are barriers to review.
Monetization doesn’t really factor in, or at least it can be more of a barrier.
Direct to consumer can be tricky too, which is why I say probably. Whether the batteries are UL or NRTL-rated or not could be a factor.
The barrier for posting about B2C products is higher than for something available via separate sourcing, even if there’s no affiliate potential or marketing spend.
Still available: https://14cyiuhvcgv.com/westling-socket-organizer-review/%3C/a%3E%3C/p%3E
Unreachable for years: https://14cyiuhvcgv.com/volcanic-tool-usa-screwdriver-bit-holder/%3C/a%3E%3C/p%3E
Gone: https://14cyiuhvcgv.com/northern-machining-tap-wrench/%3C/a%3E%3C/p%3E
Reach can be limited for tools that broader users are not actively searching for. ToolGuyd generally serves 2 types of readers – regulars who enjoy the subject matter, and visitors either looking for specific information or who discover a post in their news feed.
Regulars generally aren’t looking to make purchases, and this includes tool users and industry members (like yourself), and so we can freely explore interesting topics.
Alex
Thank you for the thoughtful response.
Joe A
I just want to say that I appreciate your commitment to your site and to the quality of the content you provide. I like to support entities like that
S
“Generating news content about a product after others’ paid-for reviews are up doesn’t help ToolGuyd or its readers.”
I’d like to interject about the quoted part of your post.
I’m not ever interested in the latest/greatest, or pre-release reviews.
What I always want in tool reviews is honesty, and interaction in terms of being able to answer questions about the product in real use case situations. Most of the early influencer crap is exactly that. A WOW! Look at this box! I know things come in boxes. I need to know how it works. What problems it solves, and also what doesn’t work. What’s not ideal. Is it set up for right handed people and left handed people will find difficulty using it? Are the guides nice, but have a weird grinding that tends to stick on more porous surfaces? Is the RPM lower for a different intended use that can make other specific materials harder to cut, or leave tool marks in the finish?
I live in the Midwest, so my retail locations are hardly at the top lists of places that new tools are released. If I can get my hands on a new release within 6 months after the official hype, that’s considered very fast. There’s always more than enough time for me to watch for the hype to die down and the real reviews to start showing up.
I haven’t been handed a winning lottery ticket, so I can only ever buy so many tools, but all new tools are promising to be faster, and better than before. So if I need to wait for a review from an honest source for a product I’m interested in, it’s far more preferable than burning my limited funds on something that doesn’t work the way I need it to.
Stuart
Ooh, a new tool came out.
Question 1: What’s that?
Question 2: Why should I care?
Question 3: Is it any good?
Q1 is easy and takes little effort. Q2 takes more effort and understanding. Q3 requires hands-on testing.
Q1 and Q2 and free, Q3 will cost someone money (brand, retailer, me/TG).
I like not having to require a test sample to create content.
Not every tool I test will get a formal review. Sometimes I go back and update the news post.
Not every tool is interesting enough for me to test. That will usually become apparent from the comments section or pageview count.
Focusing solely on long-term hands-on reviews would be too limiting.
Cullen
“The industry keeps changing, but I don’t think I will ever sell the site. I’ve seen too many publications bastardized, and I don’t think I could ever voluntarily subject ToolGuyd or its audience to the same.”
Thank you.
Brian
Stuart – Read this the other day and thought this was a great article showing what you go through with some of these vendors and how some of them are sketchy with how they handle the whole ‘influencer’ thing. I started paying more attention to reviews/etc. when researching a new shop vac for the garage. I found one that had an almost perfect rating on one of the big box store sites, but when I want to look at the reviews, every single one had the disclaimer “This review was collected as part of a promotion.” Every. Single. One.
Needless to say, I’m still looking for a decent shop vac…
Stuart
Incentivized reviews aren’t bad, you just have to look closely at the details.
Sometimes there’s good information, and it’s just the opinions that should be scrutinized.
Steven Phillips
“The industry keeps changing, but I don’t think I will ever sell the site. I’ve seen too many publications bastardized, and I don’t think I could ever voluntarily subject ToolGuyd or its audience to the same.”
Thank you for this, your objectivity, and honesty.