this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2024

195 points (91.5% liked)

Technology

34798 readers

215 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.

Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.

Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

195

Google threatened tech influencers unless they ‘preferred’ the Pixel (www.theverge.com)

submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

33 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 34 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 74 points 2 months ago (2 children)

This was just incredibly dumb. Now any positive news about their new phone is going to be seen as planted.

[–] [email protected] 45 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I always assume that anyway

[+] parpol 20 points 2 months ago (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago (3 children)

It really isn't, which is why it's news when something like that comes out. People sometimes confuse being cynical with knowing how things work.

That said, this one is confusing, because it really does seem like Google is blurring the lines here between an ad spot or a product placement spot and pre-release samples for tech influencers intending to review them.

Honestly, cynicism aside, The Verge does a good job of breaking it down, including clarifying that they are under no such stipulations for their own review, so I'd recommend just reading the article in full.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

In published media it's getting really frustrating to find articles that seem like honest reviews. The NYT did an article on toaster recommendations and they praised one for having something like a 3 year warranty because "toasters aren't known for their longevity."

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

I am... unfamiliar with the ecosystem of print newspaper appliance reviews, but I can tell you that having sloppy or obsequious reviews isn't generally a sign of having taken a bribe or even having any direct influence from the manufacturer. Reviewing things is hard, by definition you are not in the same position as the people who will buy the thing later. It can be difficult to make that shift and appreciate value, particularly when it comes to tech where reviewers are often assessing the cool factor of whatever is new on the market while users just need a tool for everyday life.

Also, good reviews and hostile reviews aren't the same thing. This depends a lot on what is being reviewed, and it's not to say extremely protective reviews are bad themselves. This is more true in media reviews than on tech reviews, but even on tech reviews, some of my favorite people working generally provide fairly positive reviews, or very neutral spec reviews with relatively little judgement. Very often I don't need to be protected from harm, I just need a savvy overview of a thing before I pull the trigger.

But also, let's be clear, don't book product placement that looks like a review. And if you do, make it a full on ad and make sure it's presented as a sponsorship, although even when big names do that while trying to stay honest, or because they genuinely like the thing I don't particularly like it.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Find an article with a review, and there's a 90% chance it links to an Amazon ref link, or similar.

Which means they completely ignore products that are only sold on other stores.

And they probably don't even look at the product, half the "top 10 lists" obviously just base the list off of Amazon reviews and SOMETIMES reddit posts.

You really have to search to find decent reviews sites like rtngs or similar.

[–] MagicShel 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Ultimately the reviewer should be paid for their efforts because honest reviews are their livelihood. Saying, "I liked this and if my review helped, buy through this link to support me for free," is a fairly innocuous way.

Is it completely unproblematic? No, but earning money for your opinion is always going to be fraught.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I don't mind them making money, but if they're only pushing products that can make them money, then you can't trust them.

What if the best product is only sold at Target? Forget it cause they'll claim a worse product that's sold on Amazon is #1 cause they get a kickback.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

See, this is the exact process I am trying to describe. I'm sure that made sense in your head, and I'm sure if you think about it for a second you'll realize that Target will very happily set up an affiliate link, just as Amazon does. And, of course, a whole bunch of the SEO listicles are the SEO hooks of bigger traditional review sites, including RTINGS, IGN or whatever. For the sake of argument, punching in "best bluetooth speaker" on DDG returns SEO listicles from Tom's Guide, Wired, RTINGS, the New York Times, CNET and The Verge, in that order.

Which is not to say it's not annoying, affiliate links and SEO have done terrible things to how practical reviews on websites are presented and parceled out. But that's not to say they aren't done honestly or lack validity on the sites that do it right, which are also the more successful ones.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I mind them making money. Getting anything in return for a review is advertising, not reviewing.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

So all reviewing should be volunteer work, I guess.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Any review that doesn't begin and end with "its a great phone, but it's 4x the price of last years budget model and only provides a modest improvement" is just an advertiment

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

Well, then you don't need a phone review, do you?

Which is fine. Most people don't need a phone at any given time. You go check reviews for phones when you need one and when you care about the differences between them. If you just need a phone-ass phone you can just go to your carrier and grab whatever is packed-in, no need to check reviews for that, most phones just fine work out of the box these days.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

They don’t care, the massive majority of normies will never hear about it and those that do won’t care

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Normies buy Redmi Note Pro Max + (or iPhone if they're rich). Pixel is for devs and photos.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Can I just say, I'm incredibly pissed off at Xiaomi (and at the redmi sub brand by extension) at how difficult unlocking the bootloader is on newer devices. Like, you have to make an account with them, log in, and then wait 7 days, to unlock the bootloader, like WHAT? Why? I kinda understand the account, cuz spyware, but why the 7 day wait? So you're forced to use their crappy bloated and spyware-and-ad-ridden system? It's just really frustrating. Left a bad taste in my mouth to the point where I'm considering a switch to another brand for my next phone.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The Redmi brand is aimed at a mainstream audience, and there are probably enough people who will try to unlock bootloader without thinking through that Xiaomi wants to put some deterrance. Although I feel the Poco brand should allow easier unlockong, since it is aimed more at power users.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

They're the same phones. And use the same Android distro/ROM.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Poco phones are based on Redmis. They do change some things, even hardware. So nothing is stopping them from changing their unlocking policy.

[–] [email protected] 58 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Influencer is a fancy word for salesman. Instead of going door to door like grandpa did in the old days, they stream directly to your device.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

influencers used to be called attention whores but you can't really use that term if you want to shill products

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

Yeah that's kinda my whole disconnect from this stuff from the get go. These guys were begging for attention! Huge turn off

[–] [email protected] 30 points 2 months ago (1 children)

So these influencers are against this type of practice? That means they all really do play Raid:Shadow legends.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago

There's a big difference between being sponsored by the very product you are reviewing in this specific video, and being sponsored by something unrelated while being openly and obviously presented as sponsored content.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago

This is for "brand ambassadors" says LTT (WAN show).

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (3 children)

I don't see what's the problem. It's a proposal of a sponsorship with payment in nature (the expensive phones) instead of money. If the influencer disagrees, there's no problem and they can buy the phones by themselves, Google is not forced by law to send free phones to influencers.

I don't think that all those influencers are actually playing raid shadow legends or eating factor or using betterhelp.

Google is giving free review samples to real reviewers

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

The first problem is that Google is giving an incentive to influencers - who are supposed to be (more or less) impartia - to review their phone favourably compared to alternatives.

The second problem is that, despite being one of the biggest companies in the world, they did this in the most obvious way possible. Now who will trust any positive review of their phone? Anyone with common sense, let alone the lawyers whom I suppose cleared this - should have told them not to do something so dumb.

Edit: corrected reviewers to influencers, for the reasons explained below.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

There are YouTube channels/instagrammers that exclusively review sponsored products. Bigger ones like Unbox therapy, LTT shortcircuit, and so on. Never a bad word about the shitty product they're reviewing, because it's a paid ad.

Take a look by yourself. The product they're "reviewing" is clearly non functioning e-waste, yet they don't say it to make the advertiser happy.

This is a program dedicated to influencers, not reviewers. The verge, Engadget, marques, Mr mobile, they didn't sign this contract. If Google believes that the outlet is legit, they give the review device for free without the sponsorship contract.

Edit for clarity as I didn't add a paragraph between this sentence:

When the influencer that got the free phone under this ad campaign shows the phone on camera they need to flag the post with #giftfromgoogle and #teampixel - you can use that as a hint that the review is biased

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This is a program dedicated to influencers, not reviewers.

Corrected. Thanks!

There are YouTube channels/instagrammers that exclusively review sponsored products.

I don't use instagram, and stick to the more reliable youtube channels. Didn't know this was a thing.

If Google believes that the outlet is legit, they give the review device for free without the sponsorship contract. When they talk good about the device they need to flag the post with #giftfromgoogle and #teampixel

This feels like one of those stories where one person misleads another without technically lying.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

I read your quote of my post and realized to have wrote in a way that's not clear. If someone gets sponsored to become a Pixel fanboy, needs to use those two hashtags

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

Found the Google employee

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

Advertisements should be explicit. You'll often see sponsored segments of videos when a YouTuber is talking about a product, where they explicitly say it's sponsored. These influences are being asked to treat the product preferential to other devices without being a sponsor.

Advertising is one thing. Asking people to advertise your product without revealing that it's an ad is something else.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

For those considering to buy a Google product, remember project Nimbus.