Quote from: RPGPundit on March 06, 2023, 09:22:08 AM
...

There are some complexities though, because it certainly seems like certain companies send things for "review" (in the RPG field, WotC) with the understanding that you must do a glowingly favorable review if they're ever going to send you more "merch" again (outside the hobby other companies apparently do this with youtubers as well, like Disney).

This kind of thing is exactly why Gun Tests Magazine exists.

The rising popularity and 'mainstreaming' of D&D is starting to create lots of parallels with other industries.

You will never find a gun magazine that accepts ads from gun manufacturers, that will ever give any firearm a bad review.

Things have gotten a bit better with the internet, as gun mags have had to compete in other areas. But the more that gun magazines - or anyone rely on the money coming from the industry that they are supposed to review - the less independence they have to be honest in their opinions.

Gun Tests Magazine's whole shtick is that they accept no ads from gun makers. So you get honest reviews, but they are also harder to find on your typical magazine rack that carries gun magazines. Funny how that works...

If you are dependent on access, or take money to review a product from the people that make it - the people that make the product have a vote in what you can say about it.

Pundit is spot on to point these practices out as a BAD THING, because these practices have become the norm in other 'mainstream' hobbyist sphere's. To their detriment.

Quote from: Jaeger on March 06, 2023, 02:35:39 PM

Quote from: SHARK on March 05, 2023, 10:26:04 PM
As far as Kelsey's Shadowdark promotion and marketing goes--and the numerous glowing reviews--I don't think there is anything nefarious or corrupt going on. Questing Beast requires everyone to payfor reviews, as I understand.

Which makes them non-reviews.

He's doing infomercials.

Questing Beast claims that he takes payment to do a review, but still gives his honest opinion of the game. I don't know his reviews at all, so I don't claim whether this is true. However, if he is telling the truth, then there is a difference between his reviews and an informercial. It is an ethical bias, but so are other common cases like:

1) The review comes with a free gift - usually the product itself. Just like money, this can benefit the reviewer so they get more free stuff in the future if they give more positive reviews.

2) The reviewed product is by a friend or business associate. The reviewer will benefit indirectly by helping their friends and associates.

3) The reviewed product is something the reviewer themselves worked on. Even if paid up front, it clearly benefits the reviewer if their own products do better in the market.


I think the most important thing is to disclose if there is any such potential bias. All of these (#1 through #3) are very common in the industry as far as I've seen. I'm not sure how common sponsored reviews are, where the reviewer is directly paid.

Greetings!

Well, I think many people define "Review" in different ways. It seems to be applied very flexibly in a variety of topics and subject matter. *Shrugs* It is what it is. Personally, I'm quite familiar with the standards embraced and expected in professional, Academic Reviews.

When it comes to movies, pop-fantasy books, or hobbies like RPG's, I expect that the "Review" is more of an "Infomercial" than some kind of professional, academic review. I've also seen this as a common dynamic in paint reviews, miniatures, and on and on. I expect everyone in these kinds of circles to be biased and I don't expect them to vigorously embrace professional academic review standards taught to me at my university. I'm also not surprised that people desire to be paid or somehow rewarded for their time. It seems like everyone is getting paid, given free merchandise, little kickbacks and other goodies. I expect that everyone involved in these circles benefits from such, everyday and in every way possible.

I don't expect people to know what professional academic review standards are--nor do they care. No one would give a fuck if I thought it was actually important. They would likely tell me, "If you like the product, if you agree with my take on it, great. If you don't, go fuck yourself." So, I just let people define "Review" however they choose to express it. Whatever. At the end of the day, it is myself that looks at a particular product, whether it is a paint set, a box of miniatures, an RPG game book, and decide to buy it.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: jhkim on March 06, 2023, 03:42:07 PM

Questing Beast claims that he takes payment to do a review, but still gives his honest opinion of the game. I don't know his reviews at all, so I don't claim whether this is true. However, if he is telling the truth, then there is a difference between his reviews and an informercial. It is an ethical bias, but so are other common cases like:
...

The former makes the latter impossible. He is lying to himself.

If you take money you will moderate your response in some manner, because the people sending you money will eventually vote with their wallets if you don't.

Quote from: SHARK on March 06, 2023, 03:48:15 PM
When it comes to movies, pop-fantasy books, or hobbies like RPG's, I expect that the "Review" is more of an "Infomercial" ...

... I'm also not surprised that people desire to be paid or somehow rewarded for their time. It seems like everyone is getting paid, given free merchandise, little kickbacks and other goodies. I expect that everyone involved in these circles benefits from such, everyday and in every way possible.
...

As these practices become more pervasive in the hobby, they should also be pointed out and made widly known.

And as we have seen in this recent kerfuffle; you will not receive any thank yous from those indulging in said practices by doing so.

Thinking about this more, and reading the other comments, I have to say I don't blame Kelsey or any content creator who pays for reviews in order to market their product. If I created something, was going to release a KS, and I could toss some dude $50 for a paid review to get additional reach, I would.

Reviewers should always disclose pay, relationship, etc. If they don't, that is on them and they are wrong. If they are using their status as influencers to make money for a scam or a bad product, they are also wrong.

Here is a clear example of something shady...Pfizer.

Jean Smart, Michael Phelps, Questlove, and Pink are scumbags. They are taking money to promote product that very likely hurts and possibly kills people. There is no way they are not aware of the science at this point.

In the above case, I hold both Pfizer and the people expanding Pfizer's reach accountable. But in Kelsey's case, because there is nothing ethically wrong with her product, the only people on the hook are the reviewers themselves. And as long as they fully disclose, more power to them.

I am smart enough for myself to understand that friends or people who are paid for reviews are going to pile on the praise, and I am also smart enough to factor that out.

Quote from: Jaeger on March 06, 2023, 04:26:37 PM

Quote from: jhkim on March 06, 2023, 03:42:07 PM

Questing Beast claims that he takes payment to do a review, but still gives his honest opinion of the game. I don't know his reviews at all, so I don't claim whether this is true. However, if he is telling the truth, then there is a difference between his reviews and an informercial. It is an ethical bias, but so are other common cases like:
...

The former makes the latter impossible. He is lying to himself.

If you take money you will moderate your response in some manner, because the people sending you money will eventually vote with their wallets if you don't.

What about the other common cases that I mentioend: reviews for free stuff, reviews for friends/associates, and reviews for products that you yourself worked on?

I think all such potential biases should be declared in a review. And I also think that people should find less value in them.

As long as the bias is openly declared, I don't think it is unethical. But pure, unbiased reviews should be more sought after. If customers don't do that, then the culture needs to shift to more informed customers.

---

But the biggest thing is that given how common all of these are, I don't think singling out one product like Shadowdark makes sense. It shouldn't be seen as an individual problem with the Shadowdark creators, but a bigger cultural problem.

Quote from: jhkim on March 06, 2023, 03:42:07 PM

1) The review comes with a free gift - usually the product itself. Just like money, this can benefit the reviewer so they get more free stuff in the future if they give more positive reviews.

Almost all the major, fan ran, rpg facebook groups work this way. The publishers hand out new products to the page owners like candy, as long as those positive affirmations keep rolling in and the dissenters are squelched or banned.
   

Quote from: jhkim on March 06, 2023, 04:42:15 PM

Quote from: Jaeger on March 06, 2023, 04:26:37 PM

Quote from: jhkim on March 06, 2023, 03:42:07 PM

Questing Beast claims that he takes payment to do a review, but still gives his honest opinion of the game. I don't know his reviews at all, so I don't claim whether this is true. However, if he is telling the truth, then there is a difference between his reviews and an informercial. It is an ethical bias, but so are other common cases like:
...

The former makes the latter impossible. He is lying to himself.

If you take money you will moderate your response in some manner, because the people sending you money will eventually vote with their wallets if you don't.

What about the other common cases that I mentioend: reviews for free stuff, reviews for friends/associates, and reviews for products that you yourself worked on?

I think all such potential biases should be declared in a review. And I also think that people should find less value in them.

As long as the bias is openly declared, I don't think it is unethical. But pure, unbiased reviews should be more sought after. If customers don't do that, then the culture needs to shift to more informed customers.

---

But the biggest thing is that given how common all of these are, I don't think singling out one product like Shadowdark makes sense. It shouldn't be seen as an individual problem with the Shadowdark creators, but a bigger cultural problem.

I'm not sure anyone has a problem with the creator, the product is being mentioned because it has to be when you talk about the % glowing reviews.

The problem is with the reviewers not disclosing upfront (at the start, in big fucking letters) they were paid by and/or are friends with the creator and/or got the book free to review.

Quote from: jhkim on March 06, 2023, 04:42:15 PM
What about the other common cases that I mentioend: reviews for free stuff, reviews for friends/associates, and reviews for products that you yourself worked on?
...

Not reviews.

Infomercials, Promotions for friends, Shilling your own wares.

So long as they are up front about what they are doing, and why - I have no issues.

Quote from: jhkim on March 06, 2023, 04:42:15 PM
But the biggest thing is that given how common all of these are, I don't think singling out one product like Shadowdark makes sense. It shouldn't be seen as an individual problem with the Shadowdark creators, but a bigger cultural problem.

Shadowdark was just a convenient visible example due to its full-court press pro marketing campaign.

The creator's bread and butter was riding the 5e adventure train for years until they said:"Here's my OSR game + professionally marketed KS..."

So it should come a surprise to no one that many took one look and said:  "WTF!? who is this?"

If anything, Pundit's tweets gave them a boost...

At 600K and climbing, they're not hurting.

Quote from: FingerRod on March 06, 2023, 04:32:56 PM
Thinking about this more, and reading the other comments, I have to say I don't blame Kelsey or any content creator who pays for reviews in order to market their product. If I created something, was going to release a KS, and I could toss some dude $50 for a paid review to get additional reach, I would.

Reviewers should always disclose pay, relationship, etc. If they don't, that is on them and they are wrong. If they are using their status as influencers to make money for a scam or a bad product, they are also wrong.

Here is a clear example of something shady...Pfizer.

Jean Smart, Michael Phelps, Questlove, and Pink are scumbags. They are taking money to promote product that very likely hurts and possibly kills people. There is no way they are not aware of the science at this point.

In the above case, I hold both Pfizer and the people expanding Pfizer's reach accountable. But in Kelsey's case, because there is nothing ethically wrong with her product, the only people on the hook are the reviewers themselves. And as long as they fully disclose, more power to them.

I am smart enough for myself to understand that friends or people who are paid for reviews are going to pile on the praise, and I am also smart enough to factor that out.

Correct, as long as the reviewers disclose relationship, payment or getting the product for free to review I have no problem with it, I'll stop watching the ones who get paid because it can't be an unbiased review IMHO.

A friend that gives a glowing review is to be taken with a huge mountain of salt.

The ones who get the product for free should be judged on a case by case basis, if they ALWAYS give good scores and you buy something and find they didn't talk about a problem or bad design choice an asterisk, if it happens again well...

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 06, 2023, 05:53:28 PM
Correct, as long as the reviewers disclose relationship, payment or getting the product for free to review I have no problem with it, I'll stop watching the ones who get paid because it can't be an unbiased review IMHO.

A friend that gives a glowing review is to be taken with a huge mountain of salt.
...

I'd go as far to say that they shouldn't even call it a "review".

Nothing wrong with being up-front and saying that you are Promoting your homies work.

Quote from: Jaeger on March 06, 2023, 05:58:29 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 06, 2023, 05:53:28 PM
Correct, as long as the reviewers disclose relationship, payment or getting the product for free to review I have no problem with it, I'll stop watching the ones who get paid because it can't be an unbiased review IMHO.

A friend that gives a glowing review is to be taken with a huge mountain of salt.
...

I'd go as far to say that they shouldn't even call it a "review".

Nothing wrong with being up-front and saying that you are Promoting your homies work.

Pundit has reviewed several of Venger's products, I recall ONE glowing review and others where he's really mean to Venger.

If I only saw the one glowing review knowing they are friends (Pundit discloses it) I would take it with a mountain of salt. Given that I've seen the other reviews I can say you totally CAN honestly review your homie's work.

Quote from: Jaeger on March 06, 2023, 02:35:39 PM
While I get why he may only want to do 'positive reviews', that also makes them infomercials by default, and not reviews.

No really... There are quite a few YT channels that only do positive reviews. By that, I mean reviewing stuff they actually like. I'd do that myself... I wouldn't want to waste time reviewing a product that I didn't like. Unless I was deliberately taking the piss out of it.

I definitely value reviewers far more when they give negative reviews. Tenfootpole.org "I bought these adventure and review them so you don't have to" is the obvious go-to example. Bryce's reviews tend to be extremely accurate too, IME.

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on March 06, 2023, 06:18:22 PM

Quote from: Jaeger on March 06, 2023, 02:35:39 PM
While I get why he may only want to do 'positive reviews', that also makes them infomercials by default, and not reviews.

No really... There are quite a few YT channels that only do positive reviews. By that, I mean reviewing stuff they actually like. I'd do that myself... I wouldn't want to waste time reviewing a product that I didn't like. Unless I was deliberately taking the piss out of it.

But here's where that makes things difficult in determining whether I'd like it.

Normally I'd hear about something being mentionefd and then go to Google and type in "RPG product review".

If people are only reviewing things they like - then there will presumably be a lack of negative reviews (because most people won't be reviewing it), and only be positive reviews (from either fans or 'paid' reviewers). I now need to determine what methodolgy for publication the reviewer uses to know whether this is a paid review (quite possibly less reliable) etc.. I can understand not wanting to 'waste' time on reviewing something I don't like. But if no negative reviews exist, I can't tell whether its because its bad and no-ones reviewing it or its good (hence the good reviews).

Things were so much simpler before things were monetized.