Please note before I start that i'm not questioning any of the editorial teams's integrity, more so the 'bean-counters' / business & management side's... I always worry when any media that review products sign up commercial tie-ins with a manufacturer. Picture the scenario: one of the WHF review team tests a Samsung product. It's not great and gives it an absolute trashing in their verdict - such a review then must strain the commercial aspect of the 'The Leisure Lab', where Clare or other WHF person has to stand up and film a DVD/CD/Game review that will be used as part of a Samsung promotional tool to flog said TV or whatever that WHF has slated. Would the WHF team be happy with that situation? And can you assure us that a poor review rating would still be allowed to stand and that reviews of Samsung products won't be compromised to avoid upsetting them and any commercial deal that exists between Haymarket / WHF and Samsung? I know you have had other commercial tie-ins before, but this appears a bigger one. And the fact that it's Samsung whose product quality is somewhat variable does make me concerned I have to say......
The Leisure Lab - Samsung WHF product review integrity concern
- Thread starter Dazmb
- Start date
I'm sure Clare or Andy C will be along soon with a definitive answer, but from where I sit I can assure you that the reviewing of software, be it DVD/Blu-ray, music or games, and the appearance of these reviews on the Leisure Lab site, is entirely independent of the testing of Samsung hardware either online or in the print magazine.
You can be assured our editorial integrity is unaffected!
The next Samsung review may be anything from a one- to five-star rating, depending on (and only depending on) whether the product's any good. Pretty much how IAG advertise on the premium back-cover position of our magazine every single month, despite them getting a real mix of ratings for its family of products (Audiolab, Mission, Quad etc).
If Samsung gets upset by one of our ratings, that's their issue - the Leisure Lab would continue with or without a sponsor, as both ourselves and Stuff were keen there was a software review site online that mentioned factors like audio formats and picture quality rather than just whether the movie/game is any good.
The next Samsung review may be anything from a one- to five-star rating, depending on (and only depending on) whether the product's any good. Pretty much how IAG advertise on the premium back-cover position of our magazine every single month, despite them getting a real mix of ratings for its family of products (Audiolab, Mission, Quad etc).
If Samsung gets upset by one of our ratings, that's their issue - the Leisure Lab would continue with or without a sponsor, as both ourselves and Stuff were keen there was a software review site online that mentioned factors like audio formats and picture quality rather than just whether the movie/game is any good.
[quote user="Dazmb"]And can you assure us that a poor review rating would still be allowed to stand and that reviews of Samsung products won't be compromised[/quote]
Yes! As Clare has already pointed out, lots of companies advertise with us (both in print and online), and obviously a bad review can (and often does) strain the commercial relationship. But the review stands. Simple as that. And The Leisure Lab is a software review site, based on movies, music and games, not hardware.
Yes! As Clare has already pointed out, lots of companies advertise with us (both in print and online), and obviously a bad review can (and often does) strain the commercial relationship. But the review stands. Simple as that. And The Leisure Lab is a software review site, based on movies, music and games, not hardware.
The integrity of reviews seems to crop up as a concern every so often but I think its a subject that really doesn't hold any validity. Magazines like WHF rely on the reader trusting their reviews in order to secure a reputation as an impartial 'testing ground'. Sales of the magazine would drop dramatically if it ever became evident that a review had been fixed because of a business agreement with a manufacturer. Can you imagine the number of disatisfied customers there would be if a poor quality product was rated highly and everyone rushed out to buy it?! I've never known a recommended product to be a poor performer (although sometimes I think the review team are a bit harsh on Sony 😉 )
[quote user="oeurf"]although sometimes I think the review team are a bit harsh on Sony 😉[/quote]
That's great - people often accuse us of being Sony fan-boys (and -girls), so if you feel that way I guess we have the balance just about right.
That's great - people often accuse us of being Sony fan-boys (and -girls), so if you feel that way I guess we have the balance just about right.
[quote user="Andrew Everard"]
[quote user="oeurf"]although sometimes I think the review team are a bit harsh on Sony 😉[/quote]
That's great - people often accuse us of being Sony fan-boys (and -girls), so if you feel that way I guess we have the balance just about right.
[/quote]Err I think he was winking when he said it .
[quote user="oeurf"]although sometimes I think the review team are a bit harsh on Sony 😉[/quote]
That's great - people often accuse us of being Sony fan-boys (and -girls), so if you feel that way I guess we have the balance just about right.
[/quote]Err I think he was winking when he said it .
[quote user="Snoffy"]Err I think he was winking when he said it [/quote]
Which was why a wry smile was flickering all but imperceptibly across my lips when I wrote my reply.
Which was why a wry smile was flickering all but imperceptibly across my lips when I wrote my reply.
possibly related to this, but not questioning integrity, do you ever review a product and then not publish the review ;for example because the company decides to re-work the product as a result?I'm thinking along the line of Koenigseg (spelling?) apparently adding a spoiler to their car based on top gear's stig suggesting it.I know you mention in the magazine some speakers you reveiwed that turned out to be pre-production models? does this happen often?
[quote user="fast eddie"]do you ever review a product and then not publish the review ;for example because the company decides to re-work the product as a result?[/quote]
No, because manufacturers have no idea of the result until the review appears in print. Or, increasingly these days, in pixels.
[quote user="fast eddie"]I know you mention in the magazine some speakers you reveiwed that turned out to be pre-production models? does this happen often?[/quote]
Not knowingly - we have a strict policy of not reviewing pre-production items. But occasionally products mysteriously become 'pre-production' after a less than favourable review
, and a 'finished' version appears later, equally mysteriously addressing some of the criticisms made of the original.
See also rapid MkII versions, SE versions and so on...
No, because manufacturers have no idea of the result until the review appears in print. Or, increasingly these days, in pixels.
[quote user="fast eddie"]I know you mention in the magazine some speakers you reveiwed that turned out to be pre-production models? does this happen often?[/quote]
Not knowingly - we have a strict policy of not reviewing pre-production items. But occasionally products mysteriously become 'pre-production' after a less than favourable review
See also rapid MkII versions, SE versions and so on...
Yep, no-one sees it until it's published.
Also - re the original title of this thread - hope everyone who's read the current issue's TV Supertest realises how independent we are. (If you haven't read it, the two Samsungs get four stars).
Also - re the original title of this thread - hope everyone who's read the current issue's TV Supertest realises how independent we are. (If you haven't read it, the two Samsungs get four stars).
Similar threads
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram