Lance Hedricks shares a video on bias, companies giving machines for reviews, and the small crowd on reddit / forums who think if a machine is provided for review, there must be bias. I have some thoughts.
/1
So, we've been reviewing #coffee and #espresso equipment for over 20 years now on CoffeeGeek.
In that time, about 75% of what we've reviewed has been supplied by either a) a vendor of the equipment, or b) the manufacturer for review.
Every single time, there is a clear and written agreement between CoffeeGeek and that vendor / manufacturer that they have no say or influence in the outcome of those published reviews. I won't review without that agreement.
/2
I have published very critical reviews of equipment, as well as very complimentary reviews when the product warrants it.
What's interesting is what happens after the reviews. Some equipment (usually provided by a vendor) reviews resulted in those vendors ending any advertising or other relationship with CoffeeGeek, because we very fairly criticized a bad product. These companies expected kudos for advertising + product supply, and got honesty.
/3
Also a few manufacturers have done the same, after we posted some criticisms of their machines. One I will mention - La Marzocco - ended interaction and involvement with CoffeeGeek after I did the First Look on the La Marzocco Linea Mini. They didn't like that I criticised the paddle group for being just a facsimile of LM's paddle group, instead of a real one.
That said, many manufacturers, and some vendors feel us doing unbiased reviews is a good thing, even if their products rank poorly.
/4
We don't have a patreon account for CoffeeGeek. for 18 of our 21 years online, we did not solicit any "tips" or fund requests from our readers. We don't have an active income source from any social media account (youtube, instagram, etc).
About 80% of our income is from ads we sell direct to the coffee industry. It's enough to a) pay our bloggers / site admin, b) pay hosting, c) provide about $2K a month income to me.
It's not enough to buy equipment to review, and never has been.
/5
Even at its peak, the entire income per month at CoffeeGeek was around $7,000 a month. Back then, expenditures were around $6,000 a month. Still not enough to buy equipment for reviews. So we came up with a contract for anyone providing equipment for review. It clearly stated the supplier had no input into the editorial content, and there are no guarantees the product reviews positively.
Vendors got a) exclusive URL links, and b) 3 mentions in review. That was it. Manufacturers, even less.
/6
We still operate under those terms today.
Some equipment I do buy; especially from the cottage industry, small scale makers who don't have a Breville or La Marzocco budget. In those cases, I ask to pay factory cost / wholesale for equipment. If the small, batch-built manufacturer cannot meet that term, I usually don't acquire that gear for review, because we can't afford to do so.
/7
Anyway, a bit of a ramble. Lance is obviously hearing and feeling calls against him for "bias" and posted his video today to address it.
I've heard "bias" thrown my way for 2 decades, though to be honest, a lot more of it in the last 3 years than the previous 17 combined. People just don't seem to trust any longer. They automatically assume that if you're given a product, you are beholden to the company or there's some kind of back room cash handshake going on.
/8
I can assure you, at least for CoffeeGeek's coffee and espresso machine reviews, there has never, not once, been any kind of backroom deal for a positive review, or cash handshakes, or anything. We do not do vendor affiliate or commission links on anything on CoffeeGeek (except for Amazon), and never take payment for a positive review.
I've actually lost advertisers and income because of honest reviews.
Our goal, 100% of the time is a fair and balanced review, to inform + educate.
/end
@coffeegeek Remember, you only hear from those who lack the trust. The silent majority trusts and is grateful for your work.
@chetwisniewski @coffeegeek If we read/watch your content is because we trust you.
@coffeegeek I wonder if the rise of paid influencers has really eroded that trust.
@tebriel It definitely has, which is why I think in the last 3-5 years, there's a lot more mistrust out there about online reviews, especially with paid influencer quick stuff on IG and TikTok.
@tebriel @coffeegeek
Paid influencers, and I would argue the general increase in collateral damage from the ongoing political war on reality.
@tebriel Wow, I hadn't read that. But interestingly enough, I know Brian Lam, at least online. I know he read our reviews on CoffeeGeek to see how we structured our more detailed reviews. I also told another early Wirecutter contributor my own model was DPReview's exhaustive product reviews.
Going to share this article, crediting you.
@coffeegeek yeah it was something I’d started realizing and then someone shared it with me and made so much sense (also very sad). It’s the reason I subscribed to the Atlantic this year!
@coffeegeek sucks that the bad actors ruin it for everyone. Not just in coffee, but pretty much all industries. Too many people who want to be Internet famous and make a few bucks. Keep up the honest work!
@coffeegeek great thread and explanation. I think you're on v v sound moral footing. Keep up the great work
@gpollara Appreciate that Gabriele!
It's a delicate balance. For instance, I'm currently negotiating the sponsorship for our 2024 newsletters (a new one, Espresso Pulse, is coming), and I have to be super clear on editorial autonomy in those, while still finding ways to make the sponsors happy.
@coffeegeek sounds to me that your post about the monitor was an ad then! You Dell shill!
Just kidding.
*Posted from my 34" curved Dell monitor*
@devnull Man, i wish Dell had some affiliate link I could have used :) :) :) Those posts actually got a ton of interaction too.
@coffeegeek Why not start a Patreon (or similar) account? I think it’s one of the best, if not the best, alternative to ad-based revenue. I’ve seen many content creators who, at one point or another, made it clear their Patreon income made the difference when times were tough. And there’s a lot of loyalty among patrons. Just look at Diana Cowern, who hasn’t posted a video in a long time due to her illness, but who maintains a healthy income from her patrons who stick with her.
Thank you for sharing the process behind your work. I found it enlightening.
I feel like you can usually tell when a video is biased because they go on and on about the product or service in an unnatural way. But I tend to be trusting.
Keep up your good work. Glad I found you on Mastodon!
@seanbala thanks Sean!