Smaller tool brands continue to treat tool samples as a form of compensation, and I can’t help but object to this.
A well-known tool company, one I’ve communicated and worked with in the past, contacted me on social media. They want to send me tool samples from some of their brands. Great.
The brand did away with press/media communication efforts a couple of years ago, and after a long period of inactivity, I stopped checking their site for news.
Advertisement
As I haven’t heard from them in a while, and their tools haven’t been highly visible to me, it could be fun to explore any new offerings.
We ship samples for review to post on your social network – Instagram, TikTok, or YouTube. We require one post per brand. In return, you can keep the items that we sent for review!
Please provide your name, address, job title, brands you are interested in, and email so we can send additional details.
This has become standard “influencer marketing” type language, and I greatly dislike it. Wow, I can keep the tools this brand wants exposure on? Gee golly, my good luck!
Generally, unless as part of a paid sponsorship, I don’t guarantee coverage – favorable or otherwise – on any particular platform, and I’m always willing to send something back.
I asked the company rep to email me, as I don’t like providing my address via social media messages. Discussing these things via email provides a good history, and also helps me see who I’m talking with, whether it’s directly with a brand or a third party marketing agency.
Advertisement
For [brand1] and [brand2], we ship one pre-determined item from each brand every other month. In most cases you will receive an informational one-page sheet that describes the product features and benefits.
The [brand3] program is a bit different. We are in the process of finalizing the timelines, but 2-3 samples will be shipped out per year. We will reach out as a heads up to let you know when to expect the next sample. These products will be tailored to your profession, so please confirm your profession with us, if you have not already.
This part seems straightforward, and roughly matches what some tool brands have done in the past.
But, this was also in the brand’s email as “reviewer program” requirements:
The samples ship the first of every other month and we require you to post on social media before the 30th. In return from a social post, you keep the product that is used.
The same thing goes with posting the [brand3]; submit one post before the 30th of that month, and tag our brand.
As soon as a brand says “we’re sending you a tool, and you must post about it, and by a certain date,” that’s no longer a media or review relationship.
“we require you to post”
When a reviewer does not have freedom in test sample selection, must guarantee a minimum number of posts, and have the content published at a certain time, that’s basically an unpaid sponsorship arrangement with unfavorable terms.
Reviewers should never enter an agreement, paid or unpaid, where they are required to review something without foreknowledge.
In my experiences, unsponsored press and media relationships rarely involve any requirements. (An offer for very high-valued welding equipment, which I declined, required a posting agreement.)
Tools are not compensation. Test samples are ways to answer questions and gain insights that simply are not possible without hands-on time.
This is important enough to repeat. Test samples are ways to answer questions and gain insights that simply are not possible without hands-on time.
For product brands, it is well understood that test samples and review opportunities are a means towards increased exposure. In a press or media relationship, goals can align without having to match.
Brands get exposure, I gain insights, readers or followers benefit from answers to questions and whatever added information or opinions I can provide. My goal is to provide information that can help readers with their purchasing decisions. When a sample is no longer needed for editorial purposes, I give it away.
There’s nothing I need tool-wise that I couldn’t or wouldn’t buy myself. Accepting a tool sample and working it into my use and test schedule? That doesn’t do me any favors, and hasn’t for a very long time.
That’s why “digital marketing,” “social media marketing,” and “influencer marketing” contacts’ offers, where I can “keep the tool for free in exchange for content,” always trigger an eye-roll from me. “Free tools?!” stopped being a novelty for me well more than a decade ago.
To sum things up, this brand wants specific product exposure, a minimum amount of posts, and by a certain date?!
Last month I wrote about earned, owned, and paid media in the tool industry.
A “review” where the reviewer is obligated to post x-number of times, by a certain date, and in exchange for the ability to keep the tool for free – that’s not earned media.
To me, that’s paid media, with the tool intended “in lieu of cash compensation,” which is explicitly how another tool brand phrased a different review opportunity last month.
I treat press/media content as earned (free) content, and any content with time, quantity, or other conditions is paid/sponsored territory, and ToolGuyd has strict rules for each.
In this case, things didn’t work out, as the brand is entirely focused on sending predetermined tools to trade-specific social media influencers. But if that wasn’t the case, there are too many conditions that I couldn’t agree to.
I’m simply unaccustomed and unwilling to treat tool samples as a form of compensation. I can’t sell tools, and I have all the tools I need for project or ToolGuyd use.
I have outright declined “tools for exposure” offers over the years, but more and more brands of interest have been framing sample opportunities with similar terms and conditions. What’s the alternative, for times when I am interested in a review opportunity, but not under conditions or requirements?
I could also buy the tools myself, and in some cases I have, but most of the time the tools or brands are interesting but not enough to win an allocation from my sample budget.
So if I don’t decline outright, it seems the only paths forward are to push things over to wholly earned media or wholly paid media. How does that go?
I have gotten burned a few times over the years and am now wise enough to know not to provide commercial services for free. For instance, I’ll help journalists and such, but I won’t help research companies (many have asked for information to be used in extremely expensive professional reports and won’t even provide a free copy!), or TV producers (a show once solicited and used my ideas and recommendations without any credit).
I also don’t treat or accept tools as a form of compensation. Maybe I can forgive the language if there are no conditions or requirements, but there are almost always conditions.
So when a brand is explicitly trying to buy exposure with conditional tool samples, I hit a “can’t do that for free” wall.
I don’t know how to work with marketers who think they’re paying for exposure with tools. While many tool brands might hope for exposure, and maybe even expect it, that’s very different than outright requiring content in exchange for tools.
I think that some marketers and “social media marketing professionals” need to rethink their strategies. Earned media = exposure from unconditional review sample opportunities, paid media = exposure from paid partnership relationships.
Maybe I’m a dinosaur in my way of thinking.
You tell me – when you see an unsponsored tool review, whether on web, YouTube, or social media, where the tool is supplied by a brand or retailer, do you expect there to be post count and timing conditions or other such requirements?
Based on reader comments from time to time, I know some of you think there are all kinds of hidden dealings, but there aren’t.
In my nearly 14 years here at ToolGuyd, tool review samples outside of paid partnerships are usually provided with a simple “here’s the sample, let us know if you have any questions!”
Modern “here’s what you are required to do, and you can keep the tool!” nonsense just doesn’t seem right to me, and it’s nothing like what I’m used t.
Looking at things objectively, I can understand where these marketers are coming from. When you put a tool in someone’s hand, and ask for a review, there’s a small chance you’ll hear back. (ToolGuyd readers have a high response rate, but there’s a reason why I don’t require giveaway feedback, photos, or other types of winner submissions.)
So, by requiring a certain number of posts or by a certain time, and treating tools as “you can keep it after you post a review” compensation, brands can increase the actual short-term exposure for a given number of review samples.
But what about channels like ToolGuyd that are willing to provide free exposure? Or seasoned influencers who recognize content requirements as typically being part of paid/sponsored arrangements that involve a check instead of “tools as compensation”?
The way I see it, it would serve everyone better if brands allocated some of their samples and attention to earned media efforts, and some to paid media efforts.
Some brands that went all-in with paid media efforts have been seriously burned in recent years, and so that’s not a great strategy.
Paying reviewers under the table – EVERYONE TALKS, YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE! – is definitely a bad strategy.
Larger brands can remain all-in with earned media efforts thanks to immense reviewer and end user interest.
Many brands seem to have found a good balance with a mix of earned and paid media efforts and relationships.
There are different approaches to modern product marketing, some more effective than others.
Conditional review opportunities, with posting requirements and tools treated or leveraged as compensation is not a good middle ground strategy. Its motivations make sense, and some content creators might be okay with it, but it’s still unfavorable practice.
These types of offers and opportunities keep coming up, some from brands I’ve had earned media/press relationships in the past.
To put it bluntly, earned media reviews shouldn’t have any conditions or requirements tied to them, and if going the paid media route, tool samples aren’t a valid form of compensation. There are exceptions to this, but I’m talking about $10-50 hand tools, not $1000+ shop equipment samples.
What’s your honest opinion – am I a dinosaur with an old-fashioned way of thinking? Or do you agree that there’s something inherently wrong with conditional tool reviews and tool samples being considered a form of reward or compensation?
Am I wrong to be upset about this becoming a trend?
Jared
You’re not wrong, but I suspect you’re swimming upstream these days. It sounds like some brands are struggling to recognize the value in earned media when they can buy it cheaply. That is disappointing.
This is the best forum for tool news and reviews I know of. I certainly value reviews I read here a lot more than any other platform.
If a brand doesn’t see the importance of exposure in earned media channels, it makes me wonder how they’re measuring marketing success. Maybe too much emphasis on quantity vs. quality.
Stuart
With things like this, I know I’m swimming upstream, but I don’t have to be quiet about it.
I can adapt to evolving marketing practices, but in this case what would that mean? I have thought about this quite a bit, and I don’t like the answer.
J. Newell
I was going to say exactly what you said…now I don’t have to! 🙂 Totally agree.
eddie sky
You aren’t a dinosaur. Something IS inherently wrong with conditional. If they want to send it, and want conditions, then its not an unbias review.
I’m curious. When an “influencer” like a youtuber that has over 250K but under 1M subs, I see these “woodworkers” all having Sawstop and other 4-figures pieces of hardware. Now, some credit, I’ve watched a fellow make tables with epoxy and he was very cavalier in how he received said product. And that he was paid, along with given exclusive reseller deals (so click the like button and use the affiliate links below…blah blah).
And then you get the honest to goodness youtuber that is kind of nubs, and doesn’t take “graft” which allows for honesty. And if the u-tuber likes a product, then endorsement follows with disclaimer “I don’t get paid, but I pay out of my pocket and if you want a good product, take my word for it”.
What do you do when some marketer blindly sends you items, and asks for review to keep?
I think almost all sites and channels need to post a warning or clear-ID that it contains sponsored-paid and endorsed products. Curious how the ‘taxman’ can check up on some that “it is income”…
Stuart
Content agreements or sponsorship arrangements for high-dollar equipment isn’t unusual, otherwise content isn’t guaranteed. Thousands of dollars of equipment is very different than a $20 tape measure.
It is best to assume that every independent content creator is rewarded or incentivized in some way. Even those that buy tools with their own money earn revenue via ads and affiliate revenue.
Why are they doing what they do? Out of the goodness of their heart? Maybe. Me? This feels like my calling – I enjoy exploring tools and the tool industry.
The key question to ask is if the content creator is manipulated or influenced by any incentives, and whether their recommendations are different because of this.
There was one time, at a media event, where this YouTuber got drunk and basically contradicted everything they had been saying in recent videos. That brand they “loved” in all of their videos? “Junk, junk, junk.”
Regarding taxes, that’s part of why I have had a “donate or give it away” policy from the start, just in case. If there’s nothing gained, there’s nothing earned, and zero-net that can be taxed. I also have a policy against selling samples, which simplifies things. Editorial samples have $0 net value to me.
One company once reported samples as income, and that was a small problem.
Mateo
I think your first paragraph here is the best way to sum up the topic. The value of the items involved should be proportionate to any stipulations attached at the very least.
If we’re talking about a brand wanting to hype a new cordless bandsaw that’s a $600 kit it only stands to reason they want more assurance that shipping them out will ultimately be a marketing win and even in a certain timeframe. Vs a $25 new wonder tape measure with the same demands is just ludicrous.
Ct451
If you receive it as payment for services you provided you still have to declare it and pay taxes on it. In some jurisdictions free samples are also subject to sales taxes.
Jbongo
Like Jared said, I don’t think you’re wrong. Out of curiosity, what happens if you don’t meet their timeline or requirement? Do you have to send the tool back or do you just not get future tools.
Stuart
Good question. I don’t know.
In this case, we weren’t a good fit since the brand is looking specifically for tradesmen who will definitely be able to use every predetermined tool they want to send.
In other cases, I ignore or politely decline review opportunities where contracted content arrangements label tools as compensation. Earned media review opportunities don’t have requirements, and sponsored opportunities don’t list tools as compensation.
Christopher
You may be a dinosaur, but I think your readers like dinosaurs.
I used to read many tool review websites regularly; but these days I only read ToolGuyd regularly and check in on the others once a month or so.
A W
^ this. I don’t even comment all that much any more, but Toolguyd is one of the few websites that I check daily for new posts and insights.
Stuart
Thank you both – and everyone – I appreciate it!
J. Newell
Stuart, you are way out on the straight-up end of the spectrum. There aren’t many people on the web, YT or elsewhere who I think are in that category. :thumbsup:
Ken
I’m actually surprised there isn’t more pressure put in there for it to be a favorable review. I can see wanting it to be timely review, but can’t tell how much wink wink nudge nudge the brands are trying for. It seems moderately slimy, but still slimy. I can see some tools that need more time to wrap your head around and actually appreciate.
I will say I like these insights into the inner workings of reviews and that is another thing that keeps me coming back here.
Jared
I wondered about that too – e.g. subtle pressure for a positive review. I don’t think brands would put that in their terms explicitly, but I wonder how many tools you get if your reviews are positive vs. negative.
Stuart
Zero brands have ever pushed me for a favorable review.
One tried to object to my test methods but I disagreed and they never asked anything like that again. (This was maybe 10 years ago.)
One brand asked me not to post an unfavorable review (a so-so miter saw I complained to them about), and if I remember correctly, the saw never officially launched here. They no longer have any presence in the USA.
I don’t work with brands that impose content conditions on reviews, whether officially or unspoken.
One brand manipulated me once – “please hold off on posting about the unreleased tools you asked us about, and we’ll give you an exclusive first-look” but they lied and held a private media event for a competing channel. I no longer fall for such tricks.
I do have a “tool leaks” policy, resulting from what happened in 2013, but this is more for the sake of professionalism and doing what’s best for reader interests.
Maybe there are other atypical occurrences, but I cannot think of any more at the moment.
I tend to avoid wasting time on tools that are immediately terrible – wouldn’t you? When there are unexpected issues, it’s a good practice to bring it to a brand’s attention. Sometimes there’s a good explanation, other times “that’s just how it is.”
Some brands have issued review guidelines, more or less asking reviewers to refrain from using tool samples for destructive stunts. Not destructive testing, but stunts where tools are destroyed simply for entertainment purposes.
Even sponsorship arrangements are very non-pressuring. If there are requirements, beyond timing or frequency, they’re in regard to visible adherence to proper PPE guidelines, avoiding minors in photo or video coverage, and things like that.
Aaron SD
I think you’re right with keeping your integrity intact. You’re time is more valuable than the value of the tool. Besides, doing what others do won’t set you apart anymore and devalue the site. I appreciate the independence and transparency. I’m fine not seeing every single tool out there.
Keep up the great work!
Leo B.
There’s an interesting example you can see on Scott Brown Carpentry’s channel (highly recommend) regarding sample disclaimers. At a certain point, the laws in New Zealand changed. After that point, he’s had to put the word “Advertisement” on the screen to indicate the product was given to him, in just about every capacity. Some YouTubers or influencers do the same voluntarily, but if a similar law was enacted here in the U.S., I’d be curious what a lot of videos would suddenly look like. Just an interesting case study. Keep up the good work Stuart!
MM
I don’t know anything about the US laws in that regard, but I have seen disclaimers pop up several youtube channels that I follow based in Canada, England, and the US. I think it has been a general Youtube policy change. And I wonder if it may be algorithmically applied because in some cases I am 100% sure that there is no product placement in the video at all yet I still see the disclaimer at the beginning of a video. In other cases the youtuber will very clearly state that something in the video is part of a promotion in some way but the video doesn’t have that official-looking disclaimer message like most do.
TomD
Many of the disclaimer laws allow you to just always state the disclaimer “product may contain chemicals know to the state of CALIFORNIA to cause cancer” being the most famous.
The laws should be very specific about what has to be disclosed and that you can’t disclose if there is no activity to disclose.
Hamish NZ
Scott’s channel is fantastic. As to his description of a gifted product as an advertisment, there are likely two things in play. NZ adverts are governed by the Advertising Standards Authority. Its advertising code requires that adverts are labelled a such. If the products Scott talks about/uses are pure gifts, then he may be mistaken in thinking he has to label them advertising for this reason. If he has some form of contract such as Stuart has talked about in this post, then it is a commercial action and the content is an advert and likely needs to be described as he does.
However, recognising the international nature of the viewership, then the Federal Trade Commission rules on sponsored content also apply, as well as YouTube’s own rules if the products are part of some deal.
TonyT
Stick with your way – you’ve been in it for the long haul, but if you start acting like an influencer, you’ll erode the trust that makes Toolguyd different.
I think this influencer craze is a craze or short term phenomenon. I’m already tired of “perfect” IG channels – they look perfectly fake to me.
hon cho
Let them send you stuff and if it’s worthy of mention or review, then do so. also tell them you don’t want the stuff when you’re and ask for return/ disposition instructions. They have no enforcement mechanism and if they don’t like how you review/mention (or don’t as the case may be), they’ll stop sending you stuff. The guy who runs dcrainmaker.com, who reviews sports electronics, states he returns review items and buys his own if he wants the product. I think that’s a good approach. Related, I know you need revenue to support your efforts but I don’t like your posts where you appear to shill for your site aponsors. The sponsors may have decent products but I reflexively discount whatever you publish because you’re being directly paid by the brand. Being an honest broker is hard when you’re being fed by the folks you discuss.
Stuart
I do things a little differently.
Rather than give away a sample I want to keep, I buy a fresh tool to give away, or a gift card equivalent to its retail value.
There are some exceptions to this, such as the Proto tool cabinet I have zero interest in parting with anytime soon. At the least, it’s still a fantastic standard of comparison for every other tool storage product that has temporarily entered my workshop since I received it.
If a brand doesn’t want to send samples, there are multiple alternative options – 1) I can ask a friendly retailer, or 2) I can whip out a credit card. I’ve done both, but I most often whip out my credit card.
Sponsorships are difficult, because I hold my tongue way too much until an interesting post idea comes along and then I just let everything out at once and it comes out unnaturally.
Making things worse, I tend to partner with companies I am naturally excited about, and I sometimes forget how to filter myself. But, I also don’t want to be too subtle, lest the nature of the relationship be missed, and so I let my filter and tone loosen a bit.
I’ve been working towards a more natural approach to sponsorships, and am always open to feedback.
Leo B.
I think you handle sponsorships well. You speak honestly, and disclose it’s a sponsorship in several places. If it’s a straight recommendation for something you found, that does carry a little more weight for me, but sponsorships pay the bills and are a perfectly legitimate way to show tools. As long as you disclose it, I think you’re doing just fine. If you’re excited about it, it must be pretty good. However you choose to tone it down later is working well. Keep up the fine work!
Robert
“Maybe I’m a dinosaur in my way of thinking.“ Dinosaurs had evolved to some fairly sophisticated competitors until being wacked by a big asteroid. No shame in losing to gigaton equivalents. “Dinosaur” shouldn’t be such a pejorative, think of it instead as the 1950s ambitious “Dynosoar”. So stick to you guns. The proliferation of controlled narrative is precisely why Toolguyd is valuable. I will critically read sponsored tool reviews, keeping for mental retention some points that make sense, to compare against other info. It’s why I’ve been a Consumer Reports magazine subscriber for a long time, trouble is CR is often pretty clueless on other than their core coverage (cars, appliances, some electronics). God help the DIY that goes by their tool recommendations.
Mike McFalls
I don’t think you’re wrong for having morals and standards and I think you’ve done a great job articulating them.
Reading this did leave me wondering though, who is this post for? If I’m not mistaken, this is the third post in roughly that last 3 months that an article discussing paid media/samples for reviews/etc..
I believe, most of your regular readers are familiar with and believe your stance to be sincere and continue to come back to toolguyd for the honest reviews and integrity that comes through. I know Ive posted that sentiment, as have many others, in the prior posts.
So I have to ask, Is this for newer followers? Or Is the post an outlet resulting from the repeated ridiculous asks of toolguyd? Or Is this post for the brand marketers in hopes they’ll change their ways or a way to send a message to them without putting that message in an email directly to them?
I’ll end by saying that your previous posts were just as thorough – if they didn’t change readers minds I’m not sure this one will either. It may led Some to question why you’re giving this so much airtime and if you’re trying to convince yourself or others.
Jim Felt
Maybe Stuart gets so many wonky requests like that it simple helps him understand both his position and our (readership’s) relationship with him to repeatedly post about the rapidly changing online marketing environment. Sorry for the run on sentence.
But TikTok and all the others to my mind are basically useless clickbait and that’s where so many learn about tools in general. Miles wide but an inch deep.
Several photo oriented blogs I follow have affinity links to buy things that are discussed. That doesn’t bother me but the tool world is so physically different then photography I doubt it would even begin to work out. For him or us.
Stuart
Who is this post for?
1) Readers – I’m a stickler for transparency.
2) Brand managers who might not be aware of the strategies some of their marketing people are employing, or why they’re less than ideal.
3) Junior marketing people who don’t seem to understand the differences between earned media and paid media.
4) Myself, as venting helps me move past or push aside frustrations.
5) Myself, in hopes readers validate my standpoint, or if I’m wrong, point towards alternative ways to respond to such practices and opportunities.
I talked with a tool brand manager a while back, and after an enjoyable interview, they sent over a product sample. I posted about all of that when the tool launched. The company has expanded its marketing efforts, and the firm they hired resulted in another “can we partner with you again and send a tool as compensation” offer.
I am willing to provide free/earned media content and coverage! What they’re asking for lands in “free content” territory. But then here too there was a proposed contract with all of these sponsorship/paid partnership-like requirements that automatically send me into “I don’t accept tools as compensation” mode.
A new tool is launching, and the brand wants to send out a test sample for review consideration. Great, into the “earned media” bucket it goes. A brand I like and buy from desires x-number of posts per month/year, with the freedom to select products of my choosing, and also a standalone holiday gift guide with my choice of products. That goes into “potential paid media opportunity.”
“We want you to review these tools, with x-number of posts and within y-weeks/months, and we’re considering the tool we supply you with as payment.” This doesn’t fit earned media, and sounds a lot like paid media to me.
I want brands to leave some room for earned media. Barring that, will I eventually have to figure out how to treat such opportunities as paid media? I really don’t want to, which is why I’m hoping to open some marketers’ eyes.
So, this is me stamping my feet and venting for everyone to see. Readers and brand higher-ups need to see how social media marketers are approaching review samples, because I can’t be the only one who disagrees with it.
Yadda
You are definitely thinking straight. If the tools are sent with conditions and required deadlines it is definitely paid.
Hugo
Controversial opinion: name and shame these brands. It’s important for the tool-buying public to know which brands have sensible, fair and responsible influencer marketing programs and which do not.
Stuart
Naming and shaming is an extreme measure reserved for more heinous offenses.
Ignorance and inexperience, especially with the absence of malice, is not enough to name and shame.
Ct451
They are just trying to get more advertising value for their buck:) They contact 20, one might stick. I don’t think advertising is inherently wrong. As long as product placements are disclosed and no one tries to deceive the audience it’s ok. A lot of similar products are just fine and the only real difference between them is that some you know about and some you don’t.
Don
It seems to me that your ethical obligation has two parts: Keep your commitments and tell the truth. Since that’s what you do anyway, it should be easy. I not worried that you would sell your integrity for a $40 hand tool.
You don’t have to keep a sample just because you can. You can offer it to readers or a school or charity. You can send it back or throw it away. You can keep it. Just tell us.
The vendor wants a review? If you think a particular item isn’t worth your time or ours then decline. If you think it probably is, go for it. You promise an honest review, as good as the product deserves. Just tell the truth as you see it.
If someone offers something in exchange for a guaranteed good review I already know what you will tell them.
Stuart
While logical, I can’t do that.
ToolGuyd policies bar me from accepting product samples that are i) provided conditionally, and ii) provided as a form of payment. If any form of payment is involved, that’s a sponsorship arrangement. If there are any conditions involved, that’s a sponsorship arrangement.
So, requirements have to be stripped away, or the arrangement has to be negotiated as a sponsorship or paid partnership. For sponsorships, I cannot sign on if I don’t know or won’t have a say in what will be featured or reviewed, and I also don’t accept tools as payment.
Even if it didn’t violate multiple ToolGuyd policies, if a review arrangement is structured as an unpaid sponsorship or partnership arrangement, I simply cannot consider it as a regular earned media review arrangement. I have also had several proposed contracts sent my way, which definitely isn’t the norm for earned media.
All of these proposed arrangements so far are worth my time to do for free without requirements, but with requirements, they’re not worth my time as unpaid sponsorships/partnerships with strings attached and the tools intended to be considered as compensation.
Jim Felt
To quote their list likely intern or for sure millennial: “These products will be tailored to your profession, so please confirm your profession with us, if you have not already.”
“Your” profession? That’s both hysterical and so telling. Like they bought a nearly useless list from LinkedIn or something as poorly curated?
I’m sorry. Hard to not burst out laughing.
Fyrfytr998
I agree with you 100% Stuart. Unfortunately there is an ever increasing amount of shills willing to accept product for the review to build their collections.
I see it a lot on YouTube. The channels start off with a rag tag bunch of tools. Get some exposure. Next thing they are a brand X ambassador and have completely forgotten their roots in unbiased testing.
Once they are all Festool and talking in millimeters I tune out, lol.
Stuart
My review sample experiences built up slowly over time. Offers came in slowly, and I built relationships before I asked for anything, as information and someone to answer press/media questions were my top priority.
For someone on social media to go from nothing to a full workshop in weeks, there’s no adjustment period. Many tool users would probably respond in the same way.
Some influencers also sell tool samples, and each sample is a paycheck, so they accept, feature, sell, repeat.
I saw a small brand’s post, and there was a comment, something like “my audience would love for me to review this.” I took a look, and they had less than 100 followers. Less than 100 followers and asking for free tools?
Everyone wants to win free tools in a giveaway, right. When brands start sending you tools for review consideration, it’s kind of like that, winning a giveaway over and over again.
I’m over the novelty, but I still get excited about trying out the latest and greatest tools, tools that are new to me, and interesting new brands. (If my credit card could talk, it would say that I enjoy all of this a bit too much.)
When I receive something now, there’s a “woo!” moment, but also “where can I put this,” and “how can I put this into my schedule.” I’m not a happy camper when large and heavy boxes or pallets arrive unexpectedly.
So, I try not to judge too much. I had the benefit of being able to take things slow. Tools are practically thrown at social media influencers.
There are very good content creators and influencers out there. And there are some I can’t stand. Similarly, there are many great brands out there, and also ones with incompatible strategies and marketing ideals.
One brand has been trying to get me to sign on as an affiliate, and I might be willing, but they only ever want to talk about money-making opportunities, with not a single word yet about why I or readers/followers should care about their products. I see plenty of endorsements on social media, and much wine-and-dining rewards enjoyed by their influencers, but it’s simply not for me.
Social media marketing is big business these days, but judging from what I’m seeing, a lot of brands are doing things wrong. Nobody really telling them as much, and so that motivates posts like this one, beyond simply venting.
fred
I was in my 20’s when the Congress investigation on payola in the music business started heating up. While Alan Freed seemed to bear the brunt of the focus – the practice was found to be much more pervasive. Radio back in the 50’s had some analogies to the Internet today. But I suspect that Congress is probably more concerned about other aspects of how the Internet can impact our lives than to focus on the unscrupulous relations between influencers and tool or other commodity vendors. It’s a pity – but not surprising that some will compromise their ethics (if they have any) for money (or free tools). I guess that some may rationalize their nefarious behavior away and claim that they are not doing anything wrong. I’m glad that you and Toolguyd are not among this ilk.
MFC
They are going for quantity over quality. You are quality and they should want you, but the advertising portion of their department is obviously going for quantity. There are a million cheap reviewers out there trying to make their mark that would jump at a “free” sample but, once they become popular, would share your same ideology. This is how it goes and it has nothing to do with you or them. It’s just how it works and, once again, comes down to what the advertising department thinks will be the most beneficial to their company at the moment.
Bill K
If you’re a Dinosaur, you’re a lovable one…. one with commendable ethics that I value and appreciate. Thanks for that!
JoeM
…I know this is ironic, coming from me… but I had to stop reading about half way through your article… I’ve heard you have problems with this in the past, and I know where you’re going with it. So I didn’t feel the need to read further, because I’ve answered you so many times.
Your way is better than the Metaverse-inspired way. You have a Doctorate, you’re not a pleeb with a channel that feeds your ego, you have a well-established connection within the tool industry. You’re not a Dinosaur, you’re a Pillar of Progress. You uphold what we believe at our cores, and that hase earned you our respect and loyalty over all these years.
I know you prefer the nice ways to do things, you don’t want to alienate anyone, and you want to give the future a chance… but I think you have more of a right to “Flex Your Muscle” a bit, than these companies are asking you to do. Quote the Bosch Oscillating Tool Blade test you were commissioned to do a while back. Quote your PhD. Create a form letter to respond to them with, outilining your Minimum Requirements for coverage of their products by you, and your loyal following. Something that isn’t counted in Likes, but rather in Posts on ToolGuyd, and the proof of how well-established the site is.
Make demands, Stuart. Make demands of these companies who want free exposure, and remind them that you don’t work for free. You own and operate ToolGuyd, and you got your education bonefides for a reason! You’re not an Influencer, you’re an Information Dealer. You don’t influence, you Undo what Influencers are trying to do, by exposing what is really going on with tools. If this scares the tool companies away, you still have PR E-Mails for them, and You, UnlikeThem, have an entire Community that listens to You first, not the Popular Twits on Social Media.
In all honesty…I don’t think you need to question your value like this, or let anyone else question it. You are infinitely more valuable for your own, tried, tested, and true methodology, than any Influencer will ever be. You don’t pull punches in your reviews, so don’t pull punches when shooting down Influencer culture. The pricetags on the tools you deal with require a lot more information than any Influencer can do with a goofy video.
Stop asking us if you’re crazy. You’re one of the most sane people I’ve ever met in this field. You have more rights to flex your muscles over all you’ve built, than any of these companies will ever be able to keep up with. So come up with a standard “Not an Influencer” form letter, and tell them it’s Your way, or the Highway. Simple as that.
Steve
Yup, you must be a dinosaur. You’ve got Fred talking about sleeze from the middle of the last century, and using words like ilk. (Always like your knowledge Fred, keep it up)
Stuart I enjoy and trust your site because you don’t post like a shill or lackey. Those who do are almost unreadable. “The 10 best ………… of 2022”; and then they write worthless marketing blurbs about all of them.
Thank you for your ethics and clear thinking.
Dave Cannon
This is the only tool blog I follow for these kinds of reasons. I get tired of seeing a row of undriven lags screws and some guy with 4 different colored right-angle impact transfer pumps or whatever. I don’t care about those demonstrations. I sell tools (and construction supplies) for a living, I have reps to show me those demonstrations. Thanks for the content you provide as i take that knowledge home.
Zack
Thanks for telling us about this. The verbiage of “requirements” here is bad, I completely agree.
The psychology in play here is fascinating. Reviewer doesn’t like tool -> doesn’t want to keep it -> doesn’t write review, as the only compensation for the review is to be keeping the tool.
Implicitly, you don’t get these samples if the company feels that your reviews are unfair (read: insufficiently favorable).
The community for 3rd party reviews of PC components has had some high-profile dramas about this, with some executives declaring via email that they would be denying review samples to Hardware Unboxed (YouTube channel). In this email, the notion of samples as compensation was explicitly invoked. After broad protest, senior Nvidia executives overruled the decision but trust in the Nvidia brand was eroded.
It’s a fascinating dynamic. The various 3rd party reviewers compete with each other for views on a daily basis, but collectively they hold the hardware manufacturers accountable in matters of marketing accuracy and proper handling of recalls and warranty service.
I’d love to see a roundtable conversation with you (Stuart) and Steve from Gamers Nexus. He’s a very thoughtful guy regarding ethics and scientific testing.
As always, thanks for the excellent content!
Stuart
There’s definitely a lot of unscrupulous behavior and activity in the tool review industry, and there’s also executive backlash and retaliation.
Some backlash is fair. Post about tools clearly leaked under NDA? Don’t be surprised when you get the cold shoulder.
If a brand sends you a product, you don’t go “ha, this is such a POS” and smash it to the ground before throwing it into a fire like garbage.
Not talking about defects, the reasons why I might not like a product are important, because everyone has different needs or wants. Explaining the negatives about a product should never get a reviewer in trouble.
There are rare occasions where something is so truly terrible it’s unsuited for anyone to buy or use. For instance – https://14cyiuhvcgv.com/kobalt-triple-cut-review/%3C/a%3E , but I bought that.
One brand often harassed me about my news post discussions being “unfair reviews,” as if I’m not allowed to have opinions or preferences. And I also heard complaints whenever I posted about significant international launches. They once offered to send me a particular product for review, and I asked about a potential defect numerous readers brought to my attention after seeing complaints online. Instead of answering my question, they kept praising an Instagram influencer’s gushing review. They never sent the tool either.
Obviously reviews are a means of exposure, promotion, and potential sales for tool brands, but the more professional, experienced, and competent marketers don’t treat reviewers in such a manner.
When someone essentially says or implies “do all this stuff and keep the tool as compensation,” that’s mixing paid and earned media, which isn’t so much an ethical dilemma as it is simply inappropriate.
For earned media, review samples shouldn’t have conditions, and tools cannot be considered compensation. For paid media, reviewers should know what they’re going to be asked to review, and tools are not valid forms of compensation.
Marketers trying to mishmash everything together with contracted terms and compensation might simply be inexperienced. It’s as if nobody understands the process anymore.