Not defending them, but it seems like a lot of online websites have kickbacks. I mean hell, you can set up an amazon referral link for your youtube channel in like 2 seconds. The intensives of the review "industry" are fucked... it's not like movie reviewers make 10 cents if I see Star Wars
It's for this reason that I find myself watching amateur video reviews of phones and other expensive gadgets. You know the type; bad lighting, shaky narration with lots of pauses and uhhs, and not-great camera work. The fancier the production values are (splash animation, music, pro lighting), the more likely it is that I'll be hit with a "like and subscribe" ask, and a sponsor message. If by some chance the video do…
Wirecutter CEO Sells Top Reviews for Kickbacks (2014)
21–28 of 28 posts
Re: Wirecutter CEO Sells Top Reviews for Kickbacks (2014)
#22It's worth clarifying that this is from 2014/15. The New York Times bought Wirecutter in 2016, and Lam isn't CEO any more. The site doesn't hide that it makes money from affiliate links: https://thewirecutter.com/about/ FWIW, the XDesk post mentions The Wirecutter's response to their initial post, but doesn't link to it. That response is here: https://thewirecutter.com/our-response-to-nextdesk/ They suggest the Wirec…
At first I thought this was a disappointing scandal and then I realized it wasn't. What confused me was the word kickback by the Wirecutter business team. If they'd said affiliate fee, which is what they really meant, then it would have fit perfectly with my model of what they do. That model is review products as best as they can and make money through affiliate fees. I'd never thought through the edge cases of that…
Except it wasn’t new, if the article can be believed. It was one they’d already reviewed and found to be inferior.
Re: Wirecutter CEO Sells Top Reviews for Kickbacks (2014)
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
At first I thought this was a disappointing scandal and then I realized it wasn't. What confused me was the word kickback by the Wirecutter business team. If they'd said affiliate fee, which is what they really meant, then it would have fit perfectly with my model of what they do. That model is review products as best as they can and make money through affiliate fees. I'd never thought through the edge cases of that…
> B) On the other hand, as explained by The WireCutter, it was downgraded because of a new option that was half as much. Except it wasn’t new, if the article can be believed. It was one they’d already reviewed and found to be inferior.
Re: Wirecutter CEO Sells Top Reviews for Kickbacks (2014)
#24Re: Wirecutter CEO Sells Top Reviews for Kickbacks (2014)
#25I highly recommend a Consumer Reports subscription. Yes, you have to pay for it, but that's the point, no conflict of interest.
There were still some places they did a good job, e.g. their car reviews provide good information for the average consumer, and I will turn to them next time I'm in the market. I certainly applaud that their unbiased viewpoint.
Re: Wirecutter CEO Sells Top Reviews for Kickbacks (2014)
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
> B) On the other hand, as explained by The WireCutter, it was downgraded because of a new option that was half as much. Except it wasn’t new, if the article can be believed. It was one they’d already reviewed and found to be inferior.
It was found to be inferior to some extent, and half the price.
(Allegedly.)
Re: Wirecutter CEO Sells Top Reviews for Kickbacks (2014)
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
At first I thought this was a disappointing scandal and then I realized it wasn't. What confused me was the word kickback by the Wirecutter business team. If they'd said affiliate fee, which is what they really meant, then it would have fit perfectly with my model of what they do. That model is review products as best as they can and make money through affiliate fees. I'd never thought through the edge cases of that…
> B) On the other hand, as explained by The WireCutter, it was downgraded because of a new option that was half as much. Except it wasn’t new, if the article can be believed. It was one they’d already reviewed and found to be inferior.
> Here’s what the Wirecutter writer of the article said:
> “I don’t part with that kind of money easily, but after seeing all the desks out there, I bought a NextDesk Terra.”
> The Wirecutter ultimately said: The best electronic adjustable height desk is the NextDesk Terra.
> Also important is what the Wirecutter said about another desk, the Ergo Depot Jarvis Fully desk (later name changed to Fully:
> They are noisier and clunkier. It’s a more basic technology, so it’s cheaper.
> - The Wirecutter Writer
Except if you follow the article's link to the web.archive.org version of the review (captured 2014-01-06), you'll see this is what the Wirecutter actually wrote:
> There are two cheaper options that I looked at: ErgoDepot, and VertDesk. These are cheaper desks first and foremost because of the motors. The expensive desks hide their motors in the legs, they work quietly, and they become something you almost forget about. The cheaper desks instead hook a motor to a rod that attaches to the other leg on the desk, and as the motor runs, the rod turns. These are motors that you notice. They are noisier and clunkier. It’s a more basic technology, so it’s cheaper. That’s how the desks can cost so much less.
That is, they looked at a desk from the company Ergo Depot (the company is now named Fully) - they did not look at the Ergo Depot Jarvis.
If you scroll down later in that snapshot, you'll see a mention of the Jarvis - in the comment section, where someone notes that it's brand new.
So, the Wirecutter did not review and could not have reviewed the Jarvis at the time they made those quotes about it being "noisier and clunkier," because it didn't exist yet. The Jarvis was released after their review. (That also provides a legitimate reason for the Wirecutter to have put a "hold" marking on their review, commenting that new options had just come out.)
The Wirecutter's official response to NextDesk/XDesk agrees with that timeline: "When we changed our top pick in February 2015, we did so because another company had entered the field with something nearly as good but for half the price. ... We still recommended the NextDesk product when there wasn’t an affiliate relationship, up until February 2015."
And if you look at the Wirecutter's February 2015 review, also from the web.archive.org link graciously provided by NextDesk/XDesk, you can see that they have several positive things to say about the NextDesk Terra - but the Jarvis is cheaper and almost as good overall, and better in a few ways. Look back at the 2013 review, as quoted in the article, and you can see that they're clearly unhappy with the price - they only think the Terra is the top pick because there aren't competitive cheaper options.
Another hint - the old web page for the Jarvis, http://www.ergodepot.com/Jarvis_Desk_p/jrv.htm , has its first web.archive.org snapshot on 2013-11-05. The review that favors the Terra is from 2013-08-29.
Re: Wirecutter CEO Sells Top Reviews for Kickbacks (2014)
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
> B) On the other hand, as explained by The WireCutter, it was downgraded because of a new option that was half as much. Except it wasn’t new, if the article can be believed. It was one they’d already reviewed and found to be inferior.
NextDesk/XDesk is lying, and you can determine this by reading their own webpage carefully. Quoting from it: > Here’s what the Wirecutter writer of the article said: > “I don’t part with that kind of money easily, but after seeing all the desks out there, I bought a NextDesk Terra.” > The Wirecutter ultimately said: The best electronic adjustable height desk is the NextDesk Terra. > Also important is what the Wirecut…