Study Reveals Payola in Online Tech Coverage

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
DailyTech conducted a three month study of the online technology publication industry and concluded that a surprising number of review sites would take money for favorable reviews.

Over the past three months, DailyTech put together a series of faux companies, product portfolios and trademarks. In a combination of phone and email correspondences, our team of journalists set out to find illicit and unethical review behavior in the English-print, computer hardware review industry.
Click to expand...
 
Was hoping they would release the sites that did accept their bribes.
 
I ended up finding this forum because I realised monitor reviews are especailly untrustworthy and needed to hear what people were discovering first hand. In reviews on other sites I've seen great monitors get trashed over tifles and exaggerations, and junk praised to the sky.
 
No f'ing way. I though everything I read on the internet was 100% gods honest truth. How will I ever be able to go on surfing the web.
 
Skrying said:
Of all people Kyle, I would think you know how easy it is to get sued over little stuff. Honestly they could have posted quotes with any assertion or conclusions might have had a legal leg to stand on, but its far to late with this article posted. I'm sure the people at Daily Tech (and the larger organization behind Daily Tech: AnandTech) would like to be without lawsuits. In the end though I'm willing to bet you don't care, less competition for [H] and apparently [H] was not a site into bribing, seeing as it was formed in ~1997.
Click to expand...

I think that was Kyle's point. If you're going to say something, say it, or shut the fuck up completely. If you can't handle a potential lawsuit, you shouldn't even try in the first place. Case in point: Phantom
Would you have any respect for a TV station that does an investigative piece on dirty restaurants but doesn't name names?
 
Vertigo Acid said:
I think that was Kyle's point. If you're going to say something, say it, or shut the fuck up completely. If you can't handle a potential lawsuit, you shouldn't even try in the first place. Case in point: Phantom
Would you have any respect for a TV station that does an investigative piece on dirty restaurants but doesn't name names?
Click to expand...

QFT.

The reason I've loved this place is that the truth has always been more important than anything else, see Infinium if you don't believe that.

To me this article simply states something that people in the enthusiast community have at worst case suspected for years.
 
Vertigo Acid said:
I think that was Kyle's point. If you're going to say something, say it, or shut the fuck up completely. If you can't handle a potential lawsuit, you shouldn't even try in the first place. Case in point: Phantom
Would you have any respect for a TV station that does an investigative piece on dirty restaurants but doesn't name names?
Click to expand...

I'm not really a take it or leave it type of person. The article was good at what it did, it was clear they didn't want to push it further and therefore stopped. I can respect that not everyone wants to put things on the line for this. Unlike this restaurants were guilty of the act, they were caught red handed 100% proof, this however was nothing more than a conservation and therefore never actually went all the way, so drawing conclusions that said site would have went with it all the way could get you in nasty legal trouble. "Reporters" on TV going into a restaurant? Not so much legal trouble...
 
Skrying said:
I'm not really a take it or leave it type of person. The article was good at what it did, it was clear they didn't want to push it further and therefore stopped. I can respect that not everyone wants to put things on the line for this. Unlike this restaurants were guilty of the act, they were caught red handed 100% proof, this however was nothing more than a conservation and therefore never actually went all the way, so drawing conclusions that said site would have went with it all the way could get you in nasty legal trouble. "Reporters" on TV going into a restaurant? Not so much legal trouble...
Click to expand...

So why not publish the corrispondance? IANAL, but it seems unlikely they could sue you for libel when you're simply sharing copies of e-mails
 
That article is like me saying to you, I know something you don't . Then walking away.thats just fucking dumd !!
 
I dont see anything wrong with this? They are just saying they will supply more reviews and more ad time, but they are not saying they are going to flat out 5 star the products, and give it a gold recommendation...?? who cares.. more money = more advertising.. theres nothing wrong with that.
 
Vertigo Acid said:
So why not publish the corrispondance? IANAL, but it seems unlikely they could sue you for libel when you're simply sharing copies of e-mails
Click to expand...

They did post the quotes, they simply did not name who they were form. The article when into as titled of a break down as possible without directly naming any person or site. Conclusions drawn in the article make it to late to now name them and not be sued for libel (most likely, I'm not a lawyer...). What is done is done as far as that goes, personally if I were the site and gone through that much trouble I would have checked with a lawyer on the legal standing on naming names, but DailyTech didn't. And unless there is a loop hole somewhere I doubt we'll ever know.

cerebrex said:
I dont see anything wrong with this? They are just saying they will supply more reviews and more ad time, but they are not saying they are going to flat out 5 star the products, and give it a gold recommendation...?? who cares.. more money = more advertising.. theres nothing wrong with that.
Click to expand...

Not all said that however. More ad money = better coverage or products is a bit of a gray area. I would think your advertisers are already sending you more review items then other companies in the first place. Personally I support a separation of the ad revenue and the editorial and review of a site. Like the person from The Tech Report mentioned in the article, their policy might not pay off the most but it will always keep them in the clear (as long as they follow it) and will not upset their community.
 
Skrying said:
They did post the quotes, they simply did not name who they were form. The article when into as titled of a break down as possible without directly naming any person or site. Conclusions drawn in the article make it to late to now name them and not be sued for libel (most likely, I'm not a lawyer...). What is done is done as far as that goes, personally if I were the site and gone through that much trouble I would have checked with a lawyer on the legal standing on naming names, but DailyTech didn't. And unless there is a loop hole somewhere I doubt we'll ever know.



Not all said that however. More ad money = better coverage or products is a bit of a gray area. I would think your advertisers are already sending you more review items then other companies in the first place. Personally I support a separation of the ad revenue and the editorial and review of a site. Like the person from The Tech Report mentioned in the article, their policy might not pay off the most but it will always keep them in the clear (as long as they follow it) and will not upset their community.
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced... I think it's a lot of drama stirred up when there wasn't much of anything to begin with... seems like they are just trying to make a story.. not impressed.
 
Review sites take money for favorable reviews. Studies of review sites take money for non-disclosure.

Twice anti-climactic.
 
Riddlinkidstoner said:
Wow. I wonder who gets bribed.

Infact, I wonder what physical magazines get bribed...
Click to expand...

That's one reason I like MaximumPC. You know how many times I've read a review for a product that got like a 3 or a 4 rating out of 10 and then a few pages later there was an ad for it (or just that company in general)? They also printed an article from one of the editors that said that he felt that they were giving out too many reviews with high ratings and I'm sitting there thinking "Wait... You mean that set of speakers that got a 2 last issue was an inflated rating? LOL"
 
I like and read Anandtech / Dailytech every day. I don't have a problem with them not naming the names. I think they should have found a way to name the names without getting sued however, before publishing. Maybe they did try but their lawyers couldn't find a way. Or maybe they didn't... I dunno. But their "investigative journalism" piece, while decent now, could have been a lot more valuable to us had they gone about it another way.

Btw, is there some sort of Anand-Kyle rivalry? I rarely see stories cross-linked. And AT and [H] are my two favorite computer enthusiast web sites.
 
EODetroit said:
Btw, is there some sort of Anand-Kyle rivalry? I rarely see stories cross-linked. And AT and [H] are my two favorite computer enthusiast web sites.
Click to expand...

I believe so, but don't quote me.
 
caboosemoose said:
Sheesh, grow up.

There are plenty of good reasons why publishing the names of the offending publications would be extremely problematical.
Click to expand...

It is the same as writing an article warning people about restaurants that are dirty / rodent infested and then not telling your readers which restaurants to avoid. Articles like that are self serving and do nothing to protect your readers interests.

Also, if I own a competing restaurant, I might not be the best person to write an investigative article on other dirty restaurants. Independent evaluations done by a third party would no doubt be the best option. That way, no one could cast doubt on your methods, results or motivations.

Using a restaurant probably isn't the greatest analogy, but you get the point.
 
Hell's Kitchen is dirty! But that's because most of the cooks suck, and most of the dirt consists of Gordon's expletive-ridden spit.

Look at [H] Consumer. Shut down because it gave honest reviews. Advertisers saw that it was cheaper to pull advertising and more beneficial to get the honest review.
 
caboosemoose said:
Sheesh, grow up.

There are plenty of good reasons why publishing the names of the offending publications would be extremely problematical.

I also happen to beleive that this kind of payola takes place on almost every site. It may not be a formal thing as in:

"Hey, if I advertise will you review more of our products?"

But more along the lines of the simple fact that if a company is spending a lot of money on advertising that will absolutely, definitely influence the relationship it has with a site, even if only a quite subtle manner.

It just means when a company rings up a publication trying to place a review the call gets answered and requests listened to properly simply due to the established relationship. Another company with no relationship making a cold call will inevitably be treated differently. That's just life and how relationships work. Any web editor that flatly denies this is a liar.

Anyway, for me this kind of reaction from Senor HOCP samcks of the lady doth protest too much.
Click to expand...

Killer NIC?
 
spotpuff said:
Totally true; when TR posted this story I said basically the same thing: this article is worthless without names.

Some people said libel was an issue, but libel is only if they make FALSE statements and if they're reporting facts of their investigation, it's not libel.

This article is worthless.
Click to expand...

Sorry dude. Libel isn't about truth, it's about burden of proof, legal technicalities and costs. Especially in the US where the legal system is badly skewed against the poor but innocent. From what I understand, if someone with more money than you or with more incentive to spend their money wants to take you to court in the US, you'll end up paying your own legal fees even if you win.

In the UK, the losing side has to pay the fees, which works much better for the innocent but poor.

For a website accused of this behaviour, they will probably judge it worth going to court, even if they are guilty because they know the burden of proof is on the individual or entity that made the allegedly libelous statements. For TechDaily, do they really want to risk forking out for silly legal fees since even if they are telling the truth, it will cost them?
 
Steve said:
It is the same as writing an article warning people about restaurants that are dirty / rodent infested and then not telling your readers which restaurants to avoid. Articles like that are self serving and do nothing to protect your readers interests.

Also, if I own a competing restaurant, I might not be the best person to write an investigative article on other dirty restaurants. Independent evaluations done by a third party would no doubt be the best option. That way, no one could cast doubt on your methods, results or motivations.

Using a restaurant probably isn't the greatest analogy, but you get the point.
Click to expand...

You are right, the restaurant is a poor analogy. We all know that there are dirty restaurants. But can you honestly say you already knew that a third of websites take kick backs in return for editorial coverage? Obviously it would be handy to know who exactly we are talking about. But that doesn;t mean there's no value in knowing that a large minority are doing it.

More to the point, if anything this survey probably underestimates the prevelance of this problem. Here's why:

Dailytech posed a company / company rep that these websites had never had contact with before. So that means for the websites there was no existing relationship and no reason to trust this guy calling them up and offering to buy review coverage.

And yet 33% supposedly still did! Ballsy! :D

If that is true, you;d have to think that some of the other sites who refused the offer were probably just being prudent with an unknown / new customer. You have to think some would turn down this offer while still occasionally electing to sell reviews space to tursted clients etc.

Slag this off as much as you like, but asuming this thing isn't completely made up, there is plenty of value in what they have exposed.
 
caboosemoose said:
You are right, the restaurant is a poor analogy. We all know that there are dirty restaurants. But can you honestly say you already knew that a third of websites take kick backs in return for editorial coverage? Obviously it would be handy to know who exactly we are talking about. But that doesn;t mean there's no value in knowing that a large minority are doing it.

More to the point, if anything this survey probably underestimates the prevelance of this problem. Here's why:

Dailytech posed a company / company rep that these websites had never had contact with before. So that means for the websites there was no existing relationship and no reason to trust this guy calling them up and offering to buy review coverage.

And yet 33% supposedly still did! Ballsy! :D

If that is true, you;d have to think that some of the other sites who refused the offer were probably just being prudent with an unknown / new customer. You have to think some would turn down this offer while still occasionally electing to sell reviews space to tursted clients etc.

Slag this off as much as you like, but asuming this thing isn't completely made up, there is plenty of value in what they have exposed.
Click to expand...



bah, smoke and mirrors, fire and brimstone... it's the way things work in every industry.
 
No kidding, for a long time I would have thought it was clear that there were a number of sites giving favorable because of influences. The most amazing part of the article is that so many sites accepted the offer from a company that is fictional and people they've never worked with before! Besides the moral honor of said people running the site, it just speaks volumes about how stupid they are. Company you've never heard of, dealt with, or anything and you're right away going to do such a deal? What a joke.
 
Indeed, which leaves plenty of scope for additional sites with just a few scruples but a bit more brains who will have turned down the offer.
 
caboosemoose said:
Indeed, which leaves plenty of scope for additional sites with just a few scruples but a bit more brains who will have turned down the offer.
Click to expand...

even so, the method of thought spins both ways... if I was a website that did reviews and had advertisers/companies (I was a reviewer for a 100k hit site a month) contacting me regularly I would certainly be wary of a juicy offer from a newcomer... and probably suspect something like this and give a front. so no matter how you approach this article, theres not much evidence either way.
 
caboosemoose said:
Slag this off as much as you like, but asuming this thing isn't completely made up, there is plenty of value in what they have exposed.
Click to expand...

What value is there exactly? I've been reading enthusiast sites for the last 6 or 7 years and have made my own conclusions on which sites to support and which ones to stay away from.

You can't tell me that you probably haven't done the same thing.

This article doesn't prove anything. It doesn't name a single offender. It simply recants something we (the readers) in the enthusiast community have been discussing for years.

Without facts there isn't really such a thing as the truth, merely perception.
 
cerebrex said:
I dont see anything wrong with this? They are just saying they will supply more reviews and more ad time, but they are not saying they are going to flat out 5 star the products, and give it a gold recommendation...?? who cares.. more money = more advertising.. theres nothing wrong with that.
Click to expand...




You need to learn more about ethics then if you see nothing wrong here.I want to see a report done on forum shills for corporations,a problem that I think,hugely dwarfs the one
that was half heartedly addressed in this article..

Oh and whoever brought up monitor reviews is totally on the money.I think that some of them,are nothing more then bought and paid for advertising.

Payola,It goes on in every industry,but I want to see the computer world and more specifically forums,more closely examined.Shills,have been rooted out on places
like Newegg.

To think places like this,and many of the other larger ones (hardware forums) arent just crawling with them is naive and very foolish ! I am sure there are companies out there
that will hire out 'posters' to the highest bidder,who then join sites like this and post about
the positive expiriences they are having with the latest popular (or .....soon to be popular) hardware,or trashing their competitors hardware.... or both ! Just look at how influential places like this can be.

A piece of hardware can be made or broken on a site like this.People say they trust personal reviews and 'user feedback' on forums far more then regular 'reviews' Why ? because they think the info and anecdotal 'evidence' is coming from a real user ? :D

Word of mouth advertising is far more powerful (posts) then print ads,and Intel and AMDati,and Nvidia,and Ageia,and a long,long list of others are far more aware of that
then we are.
 
If payola is a HUGE deal in the industry (as implied by this article)....what about the companies who are offering bribes? Why no "investigative journalism" when it comes to which companies are actively buying off this supposed 20% of the hardware review sites.

I mean, hey....going after the drug user is fine (the websites taking the bribes) but what about going after the drug dealers (companies offering the bribes)? Well, unless you are afraid of upsetting the drug dealers that is.
 
I definitely agree with Kyle on this one.

If you are going to do a story like this one, you better give out the details of your investigation and do it properly. If you aren't prepared to be taken to court over something like this, then don't do it in the first place. It's that simple. If you aren't ready to back up your journalism, then find another line of work.

That sounds harsh, but it's the truth. Countless numbers of publications, electronic or print, have been taken to court over their journalism. It's nothing new and it won't stop anytime soon. It's a part of business.

My suggestion for DailyTech would be to do one of two things. Either stick to just having blurbs of other news posts or be prepared to write a full article and be prepared for the consequences. The half assed nature of this article has brought the average consumer nothing good. The only true result of this article will be that those sites accepting payola will be more careful about how they go about accepting it and their methods of carrying out what they were bought for. It will actually make things worse for the average person looking for a good review.

Either oust the sites which were "caught" or just bury everything you did and ignore it even exists without publishing the article.

Do I personally have the money to defend myself over what this article should have been? No. But I'm not a web journalist and would never have done this in the first place because I have no way to afford defending myself and the article in court. Making sure you can "afford" to publish an article is just part of being a journalist.

If DailyTech was so worried about being able to defend themselves in court, they should have sought out a "partner" to jointly publish the article which would have given them help in defending the article.

I frequent DailyTech (mostly from having Hardforum and most every forum blocked by the web filer at work) and enjoy many of the news blurbs and the comment sections. This half assed article annoys me, though.

 
I agree the names should be made public,but if Kyle feels so strongly about it,why doesnt he offer to publish them then ?
 
Wait...so the point of this article is:

1. Don't trust online tech sites.

2. Brought to you by an online tech site with no proof.

I enjoy anandtech and that makes me lean towards trusting them, but that is just silly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top