Some of you expressed interest in reading about behind-the-scenes stuff. This isn’t a short post, so maybe save it for when you have a few minutes.
“Asking for Permission”
Below, I’ll mention a time when I asked a tool brand if they’d object to a post. That might sound a bit weird, and warrants explanation.
As many of you know, I tend to be very excited about tools and the tool industry. When I hear about something new and interesting, I feel compelled to share my excitement with you. While perfectly fair to draw from public sources*, it can cause problems in my and ToolGuyd’s cooperative media relationships with tool brands.
Advertisement
*As an aside, I was once told by a PR contact that executives at their company really thought I had hacked into their computer systems or was paying foreign agents to supply me with information from their factories. No, I just tend to be good at learning about new tool releases from public sources.
There’s an expression – it’s better to ask for forgiveness than permission. At this point, I can usually predict when breaking news with a post is likely to cause headaches for the people I rely on for media cooperation, and when it won’t.
When there’s a good chance a post can cause problems, and I’m prepared to hold off, I’ll drop a note.
While most brands hope for positivity and few give me grief about negativity, that’s not at all what I’m talking about. A long time ago, one particular marketing executive would call me up whenever I posted about a new tool before they were ready to talk about it. The problem wasn’t that I was positive or negative; there were concerned that I was alerting their competitors prematurely.
My stance was “if I can find it, so can they, this isn’t a big deal.” They didn’t see things that way, and we butted heads about it.
But, there was one final post, and it led to a fight that broke our professional relationship. There had been one contact from the brand still talking to me at the time, and they said they and a couple of others and product managers were in my corner. After a couple of drama-filled months, the company asked to work with me again.
Advertisement
I saw that as a win, but more importantly as an opportunity to grow.
During one of our frequent disagreements, the marketing exec asked me if I wanted ToolGuyd to be like a tabloid, or if I wanted it to be taken seriously.
So, I thought about what type of guidelines a serious publication would adhere to, and what would be in readers’ interests.
Regarding tool news, do you want a teaser? Or do you want me to be able to get details and answers to your questions? Sometimes these will be mutually exclusive if I cause big enough headaches.
Is a product manager going to agree to an interview, or answer some of my or readers’ harder questions if I cause them headaches all the time?
So, for stories I’m prepared to postpone, I’ll check with a brand. Sometimes they’ll give the green light along with added info or details to fill in blanks. For example, a reply might read “sure, and here are the latest images.”
On occasion, they’ll give indication about how long they’d prefer for me to wait. I’ll usually oblige.
If I’m going to sit on a story, I want it acknowledged. I feel – or at least hope – that this balances out the times when I break news about something before a brand’s ready to send out official info, because I don’t always ask.
I started doing this following a course-changing incident in 2013, and I think it’s worked out well. It just seems like a fair and professional courtesy that works out to readers’ benefit.
Thus, it’s not about asking for permission, but expressing I want to post about something prematurely if it doesn’t cause headaches or jeopardize the opportunity for deeper follow-up.
Sometimes there’s no benefit in waiting, and so I don’t.
More than a decade ago, I would have seen this as giving in. I learned with experience that asking about objections when there’s not much at stake can build trust and good will for when it really matters – not with brands or companies, but the people I at times rely on to help me do what I do here at ToolGuyd. Or at least that’s what I believe and hope.
I’ve been writing the manual as I’ve been going along. While I’ve made some mistakes, my course correction over a decade ago was one of the best decisions I’ve made.
Do you think I’ve done a good job of steering ToolGuyd towards a serious and professional direction?
A Story About Brand Manipulation
Here’s something that happened, with specifics simplified and obscured:
ToolGuyd: Hey, I see you’ve got a big surprise on the way. Looks exciting, I’ve got a draft ready! Any objections to a post?
Some Tool Brand: We prefer for it to stay a surprise. If you can hold off until we’re ready, we’ll give you an exclusive early peek.
ToolGuyd: Okay, sounds fair. *postpones tool story*
ToolGuyd: (one month later) Hey, why are other tool channels talking about the big surprise, and that you paid for them to have the first peek?
Some Tool Brand: Things changed.
If you think you can infer the brand that did this, please keep it to yourself. Please do NOT name names.
This was not the first or last time I’ve felt manipulated by this brand; there were more empty promises and disappointments. I don’t forget, but I occasionally forgive.
Influencer Transactions
I mention the previous story because it was an extremely rare example of media cooperation that turned transactional.
Now, as I’ve brought up before, there’s an increasing number of tool brands that have completely abandoned media cooperation in favor of paid influencer sponsorships and partnerships.
Such brands are now only about transactional relationships. They might still reach out when they need a favor, and then quickly go back to focusing on social media hype.
I’ve complained about this for a while, and now I am finally adapting. Simply put, media cooperation requires media cooperation.
One Pen, Two Voices
It continues to surprise me that even some regular readers sometimes forget that I’m a tool user, and one with very deep opinions.
I often try to separate my personal voice from my press/media voice – this is why a lot of new tool posts have a separate “discussion” section.
But I can’t silence it.
Sometimes it seems like I’m harder on some brands than others. The truth is, I have strong opinions about nearly every tool, brand, and retailer.
There’s this one tool brand that paid for a special influencer launch party. There was no press release or other such materials, so I covered the products to the best of my ability. A VP called me up to complain about my coverage, and said I really had to use the tool with my own hands to understand it. Sure.
I think it’s an overhyped and overpriced gimmick, and one I’d never buy. The company never provided press materials, deeper insights, or a test sample that might change my mind, and so all I have are my strong opinions. So, that’s what you’ll see in the post.
Every brand has the opportunity to change my mind.
Even if they don’t take advantage of it, the comments section is there for open discussion, whether you agree or disagree. If you disagree, convince me!
I posted about the new Kobalt mobile workbench the other day – New Kobalt Portable Workbench at Lowe’s Looks Clumsy – and a rep for Kobalt’s OEM partner contacted me on social media.
(Apparently Lowe’s is expected to receive more than $80 billion in sales this year, but that’s not enough for them to have any tool-related media or PR contacts anymore. I don’t get it.)
We chatted a bit, and what they told – and showed – made me feel a lot better about the product – I might even try it once I spot it in stores. I made a minor edit or two, and also added a lengthy update at the end of the post, summarizing what we talked about. They seemed satisfied, and I was happy for the greater insights.
Information and insights often make the difference between “what were they thinking with this design?!” and “it’s not for me, but I get it.”
If my press/media voice is ill-informed, you’re more likely going to hear from my personal voice.
I get that not everyone will like this, but keep in mind that ToolGuyd only exists because I am strongly opinioned about tools and the tool industry.
Does Consulting Create a Conflict of Interest?
In a post over the weekend, I disclosed that I contributed input towards development of the new Hyper Tough Hyper Stack tool storage system that’s launching at Walmart.
An industry friend expressed concern that the disclosures and discussions might harm my relationships with other tool brands or retailers who might think I’m helping their competitor.
I considered this from the start, and about what types of conflicts might arise. I can’t help what anyone thinks, but I sought to minimize the potential for conflicts of interest.
To start, the arrangement was limited-time and fixed-scope. There are no royalties, ongoing responsibilities, or long-term incentives. When we discussed the arrangement, the tasks were clear and – as with sponsorship arrangements – I would have walked away from the opportunity if it didn’t align with my ethics.
During a separate project earlier this year, things did get a little tricky.
I made a typical media-type interview request with a tool brand that I have a good working relationship with. Before they could get back to me and set a time, another opportunity came up quickly, and it was time-sensitive. While not directly conflicting with the requested interview topic, the product categories could be considered to overlap.
I then heard from the tool brand about setting up the interview with a product manager. I did not see any conflict of interest, but I realized there could be the perception of a conflict of interest.
I tend to ask a lot of questions, and not just about surface details, but about design intent and things like that. I find deeper insights to be interesting, but they also help craft my understanding. The better I understand a tool, brand, or matter, the better I can answer readers’ questions.
If I didn’t mention the current project and it came to light later, the product manager might have gotten the wrong idea.
So I wrote to them, saying:
Could we possibly push this back a little?
I am on a short-term consulting project.
I have a lot of questions about the [new tool product], but want to avoid any chance you, the PM, or [tool brand] could misinterpret my motivations.
To be able to ask ToolGuyd-typical questions freely, and avoid any doubt as to how the answers will be used, my blackout period on [tool category] products ends on [date].
The brand called me up and asked for a little more information. I was as open as I could be about who I was not working with (they had asked a very specific question), and we set up an interview call for after my self-imposed blackout period ended.
I should also mention that this isn’t an everyday thing. I’ve been invited to participate in other projects and opportunities before, and they are very rarely a good fit. Some of them – the ones from investment firms and such – scare me away real fast.
Could transparency about having a concluded tie to Hyper Stack hurt my relationships with tool brands or other retailers? Perhaps, but it’s as necessary as being transparent with readers about advertising, affiliate links, or sponsorship arrangements, even though disclosures about such things could potentially harm my relationship with readers.
Transparency can be awkward and uncomfortable, but it’s necessary.
Personally, I think press/media blackout periods in direct and adjacent categories made sense.
I don’t anticipate there being any new projects or opportunities soon, let alone any with close overlap. But if something comes up, I can create new guidelines as need.
I have had to create new guidelines many times over the years, such as when working for magazines or on sponsored content.
Site Optimizations!
I found a code error, where the “related posts” links on the desktop sidebar, or at the very end of the page when you scroll down on mobile, apparently had a deprecated function. I created a plugin a very long time ago, and it created a widget that inserted related posts into the sidebar.
There’s a built-in version now, but I feel my code is much more streamlined, and it also adds a bit of code that lets me check on how many people actually click those links. Things like that come in handy when I reevaluate the look and layout for possibly improvements. If a feature doesn’t get used, there’s no need for it, right?
I updated the code, and it broke things.
So, I rewrote a bunch of new code, built it into a more modern package, and replaced the widget-creating plugin that I wrote at least 10 years ago.
I’m guessing that you should see a performance difference of up to 0.0005 seconds per visit! Maybe coding is an area where AI will be a good thing.
Sorry, I wanted to pat myself on the back for all the work that went into something that needed to be done but probably won’t provide a meaningful difference.
Anyway, if there’s anything that really bugs you about your ToolGuyd-reading experience, please let me know! There are things I can fix, and others I can’t.
Yes, I know – the comment reply link! It has been extremely difficult to rework the behavior of the comment form “reply” button. So far, the only sure fix is to eliminate threaded comments. If you want the ability to reply to comments, the button has to stay, and there’s been no good way to make accidental clicks less annoying.
I scrapped a couple of site redesigns in the past 2 years. Everything has looked a little dated for a while, but it’s clear, speedy, and functional. I’ll revisit this again after the holiday season.
I was on Lowe’s site today. When browsing on a desktop computer, why do I have to click on “overview,” “specifications” and other tabs to reveal the contents? Home Depot did similar too, where I now have to click on “product details,” specifications” and other tabs.
Modern user interfaces seem so clunky. Please chime in if you ever feel the same way here. I can’t fix something if I don’t know it’s a problem for you!
fred
“There’s an expression – it’s better to ask for forgiveness than permission. ”
In our GC/Remodeling business we were often asked by prospective clients to start work before or permits were issued or even without permits. We always felt that this would never be in the best interest of our clients or our firm. We’s hear from some prospective clients about how we might save them and ourselves money and aggravation by not adhering to local or national ordinances – forego lead paint inspections, rip out asbestos containing materials on the sly, not use all that PPE or fall protection etc. Refusing to cut these sorts of corners or to do other things on the quick and dirty probably lost us work – but we felt good about walking away from jobs where we might not hold our heads up high or endanger our workers and clients too.
Eliot Truelove
Here here! I’ve fired clients before, but most of the time don’t even take those jobs to begin with. Every now and then I get duped by a nice personality that then reveals their true face, but not too often anymore.
Integrity matters, and dishonest people may say “integrity doesn’t pay the bills”, but I’d rather eat ramen with my integrity then caviar with corruption.
To that end, and getting back to this post, I respect Stu alot. We disagree and come from complete opposite sides on many matters, but I don’t question his passion or integrity. Id rather him be overhanded than underhanded.
fred
I’ve said it about tools etc. – having choices is always nice. For client- contractor relations that goes two ways. We tried hard to make our clients’ experience with us a great one that would result in repeat business and/or recommendations. But we might not win jobs based on low bid or “cash discounts.” We knew that a prospective client always had a choice but wanted to have them select us based on the quality of our work and our reputation for standing squarely behind what we did. We would inform them about the cost implications of different design or material choices and help them select what they needed to buy versus what we’d be supplying. But we’d also counsel them away from buying subpar or shoddy goods. We tried to treat our employees with the same sort of respect – managing to retain many of them for many years – sometimes their entire working career. The idea of picking up day labor at the parking lot of a local Home Depot was not part of our business philosophy. On the topic of tools – we as a business supplied all the tools that were needed to complete a job. We did not want a new “apprentice” to have to go into debt to buy their own tools (unless they wanted to do so for other reasons).
Jeff Thelen
Hey Stuart,
This seemed as good of a context as any to let you know how much I appreciate this site and the work, thought, and care you put into it. I trust you and ToolGuyd overall, which is a rare and wonderful thing. Thank you for this!
Stuart
Thank you, I appreciate it!
Scott K
Well said!
Andrew Struchen
I personally love the site aesthetic! I appreciate your in depth analysis of tools and have certainly made better informed decisions about tools I plan on purchasing and have purchased.
Brian
The relationships of Lego review websites with the LEGO group might be a useful example. They get free sets to review: they can choose to write about them or not. LEGO also lets them interview designers, sometimes with an embargo (“don’t cover this part until June”). There’s also a lot of interest in info about sets before they’re announced (a store puts them out on the shelves too early, etc.). Apparently the deal is these sites can cover a set once it’s announced online by a retailer, even if not yet formally announced by LEGO, but if they announce other things ahead of time they lose access to LEGO reps, review sets, etc. There may be other rules and understandings, but sounds like a working model of a relationship between a manufacturer and reviewers.
Stuart
One of the common unwritten understandings is that if a brand supplies a tool and there’s a problem, such as a defect or deep dissatisfaction, that the reviewer bring it up privately first. You can post about it, trash-talk the tool, criticize the brand, etc, but if they provide the product, it’s a courtesy to give them the opportunity to talk to you about it. I once discovered an issue with an early production sample that resulted in an additional quality check during manufacturing.
If you sensationalize the defect, such as “you’ll be shocked at this problem, 99% shouldn’t buy it,” you’re not going to be working with that brand for very long.
What I’ve learned is that the brand won’t get mad that you’re being negative, but that you didn’t give them a fair opportunity to talk things over. Emails won’t say “why are you being so hard on us,” they’ll read “why didn’t you come to me/us?” It’s not going to reflect well on the people working with you. Do that enough, and when you need something, they won’t be so willing to work with you or your channel.
The brand I talked about above repeatedly baited me with a carrot on a stick that always got pulled away. And yet I still went to them before additional big secrets. There’s the risk that it gives them the impression I’m desperate for their cooperation, while I feel mine would be so much more valuable to them, but it’s about looking forward.
Word spreads and people sometimes move between tool brands.
You never know who is reading a post. It could be a CEO, brand President, marketing VP who will be in charge of the advertising purse strings at a different brand next year, an engineer who will quickly answer a reader’s question about their latest project, a radio station host in Texas who will tell their listeners about a tool blog they’ve got to check out, or a reader who will find the site, follow along, and leave nearly 9,000 comments over the next 13-1/2 years (hi, Fred!!).
I think that trying to be fair to people is a sound strategy that benefits everyone (at least most of the time), and one that also avoids obsequiousness, unctuousness (I just learned that one), and sycophancy. Doing right by people doesn’t mean having to make any brand or company happy. I repeat this as often as I can because it seems a lot of reviewers and influencers don’t seem to have gotten the message yet. It’s not a quick or easy lesson to learn.
fred
Even manufacturers who strive for the highest quality can have a piece of finished goods that slips by QC and reaches the store shelves as the proverbial “lemon”. So, unless the test sample has gone through some (unlikely) extraordinary cherry-picking process you might just get that lemon. That’s one of the reasons (along with many others) that there may be a sort of Poisson Distribution of reviews on Amazon.
It’s good to know that you give vendors who supply test samples an opportunity to respond to your observations. For many of us human nature cuts in and if we have a bad experience with a particular tool or a brand – we may shy away during a next time buying decision. Our employees across several businesses all understood the idea that the customer will feel that “you are only as good as the last job you did.”
Richard Miller
What’s the radio talk show host Mark Davis?
Stuart
I don’t know? A reader sent me a note about hearing a plug on the radio.
This was a long time ago. I can’t remember if it was an email or DM, and can’t find it.
Fans of yours, something something, Texas, something something, recommended to listeners during their show.
Rog
I like the simplicity of this site’s layout, adds to its “community” charm. Doesn’t feel fancy for the sake of fancy and low pretense.
I’m glad to stumbled onto this site X number of years ago and hope to stick around for years to come!
Scott K
I agree – the layout is very clean and easy to navigate. I’m also finding some of the sites like HD that have added layers of drop downs to be frustrating to navigate.
Robert
Stuart, can you talk about your philosophy on accepting sample tools versus buying the tools yourself? Not to be mean, actually a bit of a complement in mentioning you in the same sentence, but Consumer Report makes a big deal that they buy all the items they test, so there is absolutely no perception of conflict of interest.
TomD
As an aside, as long as it’s explicit it doesn’t bother me, especially since Stuart makes a point of not SELLING the tools he gets this way (he’ll use them, or donate them, but not convert them to cash).
Consumer Reports has its own issues especially around things that aren’t as simple as cars. Stuart avoids some of these by HEAVILY using tools and giving updates years down the road (sometimes we never hear about something he was given until he mentions that he’s been using it for two+ years and got a new one).
Stuart
That’s another part of the problem with purchased samples. “I’ll check out that feature/performance for review *next time.*” It’s like using a particular knife for cutting hot peppers and never getting around to testing it on things like tomatoes, oranges, pears, or meat.
Robert
Oh, I agree Consumer Reports certainly has flaws. Over the last couple of decades CR seems to have moved from just providing objective test data of products (which is what I plunked down my money) and drifted to being an advocacy and editorial group. And their reliability methodology relies on voluntary responses. Omitting unmotivated users’ experience undermines the reliability data. True reliability engineering doesn’t have that shortcoming.
And I’ve noticed for products I am reasonably well versed in, such as tools/cameras/computers, CR’s evaluations are simplistic and a few times incorrect (in my view), which makes me uneasy about the other consumer products they review. Still, for general consumer product coverage, they are the best game in town. I’d loved to be made aware of a better alternative.
Stuart
Consumer Reports also makes money when you purchase through their links. There are a couple of other reviewers that buy what they review, and they seem to solely pick products from Amazon, even if they’re not the latest or most competitive offerings from the brand. No approach is perfect.
I buy an inordinate amount of tools and samples, and it gets cost-prohibitive with things like power tools.
Relying solely on purchased tools would severely lower my exposure to emerging technologies.
I give away or donate a large majority of test samples, and purchase what I need or want for my own or ToolGuyd use. Ultimately, I see tool samples as a way to fill in the blanks. If a brand can do that without sending over a sample, that’s great. But often, holding and using a tool in my own hands tends to save a lot of time.
If I bought more tools, I’d probably have to sell them rather than give them away, and that’s a policy violation.
I have learned that I don’t need to be positive, and sometimes I don’t even need to spotlight everything I test, and that most brands are okay with how I do things.
If a brand can’t provide a test sample, a friendly retailer might. There are also sales rep willing to help out, but I try to avoid indirect relationships like that.
With the company I mentioned above, that argued I have to use their tool to understand it but wouldn’t send a test sample. We could potentially get around that with a virtual demo that takes a couple of hours, but that would be an unproductive use of my time.
I shared a car with an influencer at a media event recently, and they complained that everyone that reviews a particular brand’s tool is always overwhelmingly positive. I told them that it’s the reviewers doing this, not the tool brand. Maybe they think they need to be positive, or maybe they’re looking for a sponsorship contract.
As long as I’m fair, I’ll rarely be penalized for being honest and even negative. And even when I’m penalized, there are other ways to get my hands on test samples, either out of pocket or on a retailer or independent sales rep’s dime.
Let’s say a brand says “sorry, you’re not positive enough, we want our reviewers to build more hype.” I rarely share editorial intent with tool brands. They don’t know if I wanted a quick hands-on assessment, if I was planning on doing a formal review, or if I am working on a cross-brand comparison or roundup. Excluding a brand isn’t fun, but it tends to hurt brands more than me, or at least I think so.
There’s definitely the potential for the perception of bias, but there’s really no pressure at all.
Part of that is because I don’t need a sample in-hand to produce content. I don’t have to love a tool to earn revenue. Last year I posted about a tool kit that I thought looked cheap, and I shared my sentiments in as frank a matter as possible, and readers bought it because it suited their needs.
I know some reviewers that buy and return test samples once they’re done with quick testing and photo/video coverage. At least one magazine that I worked with did that, too.
When I was an contributing editor for Make, I called up the founder of Knew Concepts and requested a photo sample for the magazine. He was not happy with that. I spoke with him and explained that I bought the tool for myself/ToolGuyd review, and that the magazine was requesting a photo sample because I couldn’t send them mine.
I requested a sample from a knife company, and they sent me a long questionnaire. They said they receive countless requests of reviewers with hands out for test samples. I told them I understood and that I’d get it back to them when I could. I never did, and a month or two later they emailed me back asking what I’d like to test out.
You see something that’ll cost you $120, but I see something that’ll answer questions and fill in gaps in my insight and understanding.
If a $1000 miter saw landed on my doorstep today, I’d be excited to see what it could do, and how it’s different from all of the other saws I’ve tested or used before it. Maybe I’d keep it around for long-term testing, but in that case I’d have to part with one or two others that I’ve been testing for long-term, and even purchased samples.
Let’s say I’m excluded from a sample “seeding” opportunity, but I think it’s really cool and could benefit my work. If I buy it, and it proves to be great, saying “they wouldn’t send a sample, so I bought one out-of-pocket and it’s awesome” could potentially build more trust and drive more sales, which could mean higher revenue via affiliate sales. Right?
That could be why some channels keep repeating “we buy everything we review,” because doing so makes them more money than the tools or equipment costs.
If I buy a sample and it performs poorly or is ill-suited for my needs, and I discuss buyer’s remorse in a post, a brand might say “hey, we can explain this,” but at that point it’s too late.
I can be positive or negative, and either can improve access to test samples. Or I can leave a sample out of a roundup, gift guide, or recommendation, and for the next time a brand might offer a sample for a chance to be included.
The novelty and excitement has never worn off, and I am still constantly reassured that no brand will try to interfere with my honesty or objectivity.
All of what I said here still might not convey everything that goes into “nah, there’s little potential for conflict of interest.” That’s where transparency is essential, and posts like https://14cyiuhvcgv.com/milwaukee-tool-guidelines-reviewers-influencers/%3C/a%3E .
Having guidelines in place, such as prohibiting the sale, trade, or barter of tool samples, even if a brand says “they’re yours to keep and do whatever you want with,” also help to create clear boundaries.
If the way I do things means I miss out on a hype-filled launch, there’s always the next one.
The Husky Pro Tool box is the most expensive sample I’ve given away so far – https://14cyiuhvcgv.com/home-depot-husky-pro-duty-tool-box-review/%3C/a%3E . Tools come in, then they go out. Some will be spotlighted in reviews, others will be talked about in gift guides, roundups, deal posts, or other such content.
If one brand doesn’t like how I do things, the space on my test bench will be filled with another brand’s samples or purchased samples.
I suppose there is still the potential that I could be leveraged somehow, but tool samples won’t provide any brand or company with a long enough pry bar.
Scott K
I think this is a fair question – I like Stuart’s transparency, but I think provided samples are mutually beneficial in that he’s able to review more tools than would be economically possible. I believe a number of the tools that ToolBoxBuzz reviews for their head to heads are provided by brands.
avi
I no longer remember how I first found toolguyd, I also am not a big commentor. But in a testament to Stuart’s quality and relevance, aside from my email, there is no website I have been visiting for longer.
TomD
You ask about “tabloid vs seriously” – I don’t think the dichotomy is there, but I do think that “rumored X might be released by Y” posts are NOT usually interesting. Forum discussions and YouTube comments can talk about potential and theoretical tools.
That doesn’t mean never talk about anything before it’s been released. Things like “Milwaukee is working on a snowblower” is obvious and not terribly useful – but a note from PipeLine that “I asked about the snowblower and they said wait and winked” is.
Posts about patents alone are kind of boring – but when expanded and discussed in depth, they provide real news.
A recent example – the Makita storage solution was interesting the first post, boring the next fifty billion teasers they dropped, and then interesting once we actually saw it. I actually really preferred the Walmart storage post because it was “all at once, many questions answered” instead of drip feeding information and forcing me to think about Makita so many times. Also that color-swapped Milwaukee set kept making me feel weird.
I think you’re on a good path – you’re definitely distinguishing yourself from “YouTube tool reviewers” who are a dime a dozen and obviously operate at the whim of the manufacturers. (As an aside, it blows my mind that people who get millions of views care about free tools; with that kind of viewership you should be able to buy most any tool that isn’t in the multi-thousand dollar range. I guess I don’t get the idea of “selling out” for a few $100 tools; at least hold out for a multi-thousand dollar workbench or something!)
Mr. C
In our corner of the world, we have a saying: “Friend-DA” (instead of an NDA – nondisclosure agreement.)
We chat a lot with professional friends, semi-competitors, cross-functional peers in the industry, etc. It’s not a crowded space, so we’re all mostly amicable. Generally speaking, we all kinda know what each other is mostly doing at any one time. Most of the stuff is entirely open-source to begin with, so if you know how to navigate github….you already know what’s in the pipeline for the next 2-6 months.
If we have specifics, we chat with them and get their OK before running our mouths. We don’t want to steal their thunder. Now although there is no formal legal agreement in place for non-disclosure, you better believe if we let slip something we aren’t supposed to (and were asked to be discrete about)….it’ll be the last time they tell us or work with us on *anything*.
We genuinely want to see each other succeed, because the loss of any one of us is going hurt the other more than help us.
——
With that said, if it’s someone who’s a large commercial entity….and they’ve burned customers/us in the past….and we can easily find out “the big surprise” by a google search or basic public sleuthing. Then we don’t forget when we were burned.
Naturally we respect the terms of any formal agreements/review embargos. And unofficially, if there’s something cat-ass-trophy wrong with a review copy, we reach out to them for an informal touch-base. “Hey, are you aware that X feature does Y bad thing?” Now if they don’t care or make no attempts to fix it, then we run with it – usually with full transparency that we reached out to them about it. Most of the time, it’s “oh shit, thanks for catching that” or “dammit, our quality control is catching that in production, but you have an engineering sample where that slipped through. please be kind to us about it.” In those cases, we might make a mention we found a flaw in the sample that’s been corrected in the production run. Transparency is cool, but we can be really gentle about it.
We don’t endeavor to be cruel or unkind. Because that’s how you guarantee you only do a single review. But more than once, we’ve been burned by “oh hold off on it, it’s a surprise”…..just to have someone else get priority treatment for early (paid) reviews. Like…gee….thanks. You better believe we’re not as kind in the future when it comes to nitpicking their flaws.
Al
Thanks for the faster page load time. I was able to breathe in 4.2×10^16 more oxygen molecules today. I am feeling much better.
Steve
Simply put, I like your serious opinion vs promotional hype and hoopla. If I didn’t, I’d have joined a hype site many years ago but I check yours each day and enjoy it. I also totally agree that having to check all the different tabs when looking at an item is an unnecessary pain. Thanks Stewart
Stuart
I still get extremely excited about some things.
Jared
It must be annoying when some commenters react to enthusiasm by accusing you of bias. I don’t think long-term readers to that, but it seems to happen every time you publish an article when you come across as excited or appreciative of some tool.
Stuart
As long as it’s not trolling, criticism is an opportunity to candidly talk about things.
More than one exchange resulted in a “thanks for explaining, I didn’t see it like that” or similar.
Discussion is good, and so is skepticism and doubt.
Walt Bordett
Stu, you do a great job here and we trust you. What keeps me here is you, the news, and the great depth of user experience and insights in the comments.
Stuart
You guys – everyone that comes back whether they comment or not – make ToolGuyd feel like a round table discussion.
Lyle
Stuart, I think the way you do things is great. I respect your transparency and your ethical standards. I like to read all these stories with interesting details and often wish that you’d name the names and call people or companies out but I understand why you can’t.
I’ve said it before, but a big portion of why I visit this site everyday is not only the content, but the community surrounding it. I think so many people respect you and your ethics and they are willing to spend the time contributing their knowledge. This two-way sharing of information is very powerful.
Here’s another reason why I really like this site. You! You are very interactive with us and I find that exceptionally helpful. I watch a lot of YouTube videos and only some of those people are responsive. Also since YouTube is clearly their business and since more and more people are trying to be influencers there, I find the content getting thin with more effort being placed on pumping out more quantity rather than quality. I feel like anyone that asks you a question in a comment will usually get an answer. That interaction with us is really meaningful, at least to me.
Ok so I wanted to ask you about something and this seems like an appropriate place to ask. I’m mostly on team yellow and I think I’ve posted before about how I converted from all of my traditional batteries to PowerStack. I think I have about 14 of the 1.7Ah batteries and 8 of the 5Ah ones. I still have 6 FlexVolt batteries that I will eventually replace with PowerStack/PowerPack versions whenever they come out. I was commenting on a YouTube channel and someone commented that there was already a 3.5Ah PowerStack battery available. I asked them for more info and they said they’ve been available for a while in Europe I guess.
Here’s where I feel like our relationship with you is or can be powerful. Can you reach out to your contacts at Dewalt, or if you know already, would you mind explaining why Dewalt would release a new battery or product like this in Europe before their home market? I’m just trying to understand why Dewalt might do this. If it was Bosch I could understand something being released in Germany first, or if Makita, Japan first, but it makes no sense to me for Dewalt.
Thanks!
Stuart
Generally speaking, a lot of tool brands tend to different regional-specific releases and strategies.
For example: https://14cyiuhvcgv.com/milwaukee-work-boots/%3C/a%3E%3C/p%3E
I’ve seen rumors about a 3.5Ah PowerStack, but seem to have missed the EU announcement. I think your question is going to be difficult question for me to get a publishable answer to, but I’ll see what I can find out.
Farkleberry
“Do you think I’ve done a good job of steering ToolGuyd towards a serious and professional direction?”
Yes, yes, of course.
I certainly liked the site when I just used it for finding Black Friday deals, but it’s become a fascinating source of info from you and the peanut gallery. The glimpses into the mechanics of a blogging career are also quite interesting and inspire trust.
-Permission/Transaction/Manipulation-
Obviously fostering relationships with manufacturers and retailers has given access and insights that benefited you and us.
If a brand is run or marketed by dirt bags, you probably don’t want to be in business with them, but how should you cover them? I like your points about them acknowledging requests.
If a brand requests you sit on a story then burns you, and then blows you off when questioned, that is a challenging angle to report on. Certainly I would not reach out, nor honor any requests in the future, absent some serious contrition and/or house cleaning.
I understand your reluctance to name names (hope springs eternal in some part of my mind, though). This does lead to all kinds of conjecture about bias and why/where it might stem from – is it justified, is it just preference, is it all imagined?
Many buyers would give some weight to how businesses conduct themselves were they informed, but this would undoubtedly negatively affect the information flow of future developments, probably from unrelated brands as well.
If you won’t air the laundry, should you outwardly remain neutral, and how do you?
There have been lots of amazing artists who were terrible people in some ways, and that’s a personal decision if we should still appreciate and enjoy their art. This gets to the modern shifts from neutral journalism towards advocacy, whether ideological or incentivized. Can we, or should we separate and judge the “thing” on it’s merits, apart from messy concepts like business practices, ethics, COO, politics, etc.?
-1 Pen, 2 Voices-
The discussions on modular storage have really underscored how different many tool buyers needs are:
-Different trades and specializations within them
-Sizes of crews
-Transportation setups
-Locations and markets (rural vs urban, residential vs commercial)
-Price points
-Expectations of performance, longevity, features and value
Experience of and even empathy for every situation is impossible, and this is where the comment section excels. Some spicy debate is often entertaining and educational, if we can keep and open mind.
-Conflicts of Interest-
Your explanation of consulting guard rails, as well as your invitation to criticism in this post illustrate how seriously you take this site. This suggests Toolguyd has become a viable way to support your family. It suggests you are constantly self reflecting on how it can remain viable long term, and yet balance the personal satisfaction and self worth from creating and running it on your own terms.
It would really go a long way to dispelling any suspicion of bias if you could just become independently wealthy and stop taking any samples, sponsorships, affiliations, or advertisements. Most of us would just retire in that situation, though. Bias will always be there, from memories of manipulations, 1 pen 2 voices, and, as much as anyone tries to minimize it, a financial relationship. I think the most important thing is the transparency you seem to strive for. I want to know what’s an ad, sponsored, affiliate, etc.
I can see some conflicts of interest in you consulting, just like in any industry or arena. Freelance consultants deal with it, but your also a journalist, as well. Your guard rails seem to be an acceptable counterbalance given the financial benefits, as well as the relationships and expertise you’ll gain.
-Site Optimization-
What about the ability for users to edit comments?
-Holiday Deals
I think you already aggregate the deals from commenters, so I’m requesting users keep posting what they find.
Thanks, keep up the good work!
Stuart
There is no safe way to enable comment editing with the current system. Editing comments essentially requires admin-level permissions. There are some plugins that allow access to database entries for modification, and I don’t trust them.
Comment editing – for readers – really requires a 3rd party system, but the ones I’ve seen result in a huge site-loading performance hit and also gather an abundance of information, giving me concerns about privacy.
The back-end was built as a blogging platform, and as far as I have seen, commenting features haven’t been updated by the software company in over a decade. A lot of content creators, magazines, and reviewers have shut down the comments section, and so I don’t see much potential for modernization.
Hypothetically, sure. Realistically, I do make other decisions to help reduce the potential for bias, such as avoiding situations that put me or ToolGuyd into debt, such as construction or leasing of an industrial space for a larger workshop.
I took down the holiday deal coverage question, in case anyone’s confused. The plan is similar to last year – frequently updated posts will likely be closed to comments, but there will be others that will be open. The comments will be closed on the roundup posts to help with loading times and avoid stale deals from confusing readers and visitors later in the season when Black Friday and Cyber Monday hit.
Farkleberry
I figured there were good reasons not to allow editing.
My hyperbolic/sarcastic sudden independent wealth windfall comment was to illustrate how unrealistic and, really, undesirable it would be for readers, if we want Toolguyd to continue. You might prefer a private island life with no more whiney commenters or slimey marketers. Absent some lottery luck, hopefully you’re able to keep growing Toolguyd in a way that agrees your ethics and still get your shop eventually.
Thanks for explaining the nuts and bolts of deal posts and all the rest.
Farkleberry
Also, how about a dedicated holiday reader deals page? Caveat emptor/shopper with no ongoing verification. I seem to remember direct links often require moderation, maybe just a sku description and seller name. Seems like last year the best deals were from people you have business relationships anyway, though. I know zero about affiliate links, etc., and understand they are a substantial part of your revenue stream that you and your partners would not people steered away from. On the other hand, highlighting the best deals would seem to grow the channel most, and benefit ads and sponsorships, etc.
Stuart
I’ve done that before; readers will leave deal mentions anywhere/everywhere it’s convenient.
I think it was 2 years where I closed the comments to posts where this caused headaches, and it worked well last year too.
I’m spread thin as it is, and so I tend to focus on the stores I shop at, which is usually also the ones I have affiliate relationships with.
It’s not that I shop where I have affiliate relationships with, but that ToolGuyd will work with retailers where I shop, if that makes sense. If I wouldn’t shop there with my money, why would I link to them?
I’m not interested in one of those automated “find a store” tools, and so it takes me a while to build relationships with new affiliate retailers.
Most retailers have affiliate programs, I just don’t sign up for them. Readers being steered to non-affiliate retailers isn’t a concern.
Jager
Really appreciate the way you report on things. I’ve been checking the site at least once a day for over a decade now. A lot of sites are just affiliate Link farms, but you’ve always had substance to your articles that others lack.
Sometimes influencers announce new products before you, but at the end of the day you always have content that I go out of my way to look at versus content that goes out of its way to get the most views. I don’t pre-order. I don’t buy anything that’s been out for less than a year. I only buy things on sale.
You’re also a good writer. I’ll swipe by a video set to the latest song and go “ah yeah that’s neat.” Won’t knock influencers or the coverage they provide, but you’ll have me read every article just because I like to hear your opinion and take on a tool. I read every article. Most of your articles are about woodworking tools. I’m a mechanic. I haven’t had time for woodworking in a long time and the tools aren’t relevant to my current job, but I read every one just the same because I like to read what you write and hear what you think.
Thank you for what you do and for still doing it after all these years.
Stuart
Thank you, I appreciate it!
There are a lot of influencers whose content I enjoy, but I also find that it’s different.
I asked a manager a question today, and they remarked that none of their influencer partners had asked them that question yet. I’m not sure if they said it in a positive way or negative, but I feel it’s usually a good thing. I’m here to inform, not to drive hype or sell tools.
From what I’ve been told, ToolGuyd is extremely effective, but I try not to think about that.
One thing that I like about video – or at least the idea of it – is that it can show certain things quicker than in written content. I’ll give it another go at some point.
Jeff
Finally getting around to reading this one. Thanks for sharing, Stuart, I appreciate all the thought you put into the relationships and letting us have a peek behind the curtain. Thanks for your site and your emails – they are literally the only emails that I am guaranteed to open every single day. 🙂