Comment by GavinMcG
3 years ago
I've used the Wirecutter, so I'm not going to claim to be totally unbiased. But I'm just not seeing any nastiness there: the reason they gave for switching their recommendation (while retaining their original recommendation as an upgrade pick) seems entirely legitimate. And as much as the company wants to emphasize the use of the word "kickback" it's not really apt: Wirecutter's model has always been affiliate linking, and that's exactly what they reached out about in their first and second emails. And when turned down, they still published the recommendation and (later) still identified it as the best option if cost isn't an issue.
But the problem is that it ultimately skews the incentives and contradicts their claim that the editors are totally isolated from the commercial part of their business.
Their homepage currently suggests the following:
> We independently review everything we recommend. When you buy through our links, we may earn a commission [emphasis mine]
The "about" page claims:
> There’s no incentive for us to pick inferior products or to respond to pressure from manufacturers—in fact, it’s quite the opposite [emphasis mine]
That's not really true when the same person who writes the reviews is the one trying to solicit kickbacks in the background, and puts the credibility of the entire website into question. Their adjusted review could be completely legitimate but there's no way to be sure so it's better to err on the side of caution.
Sure, and I'm not saying there's no possible influence in any direction. At the same time, I suspect things are more separate than in 2014, and I don't see that claim on their pages from back then [0][1]. In fact they seemed to have independently reviewed the desks and only then asked about an affiliate program.
When they switched their recommendation to Fully, they apparently didn't have an affiliate relationship with them, either. NextDesk calls that "false" — but based on Wirecutter linking to Amazon to earn a commission. That's a bizarre conflation (although like you said it's not nothing) but it's what Wirecutter usually did regardless of the product, and they were up front about it at the time [1].
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20150603092537/https://thewirecu...
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20150518125823/http://thewirecut...
(Wirecutter used the word "kickback" here, too, so if anything it seems like they were trying to be as uncharitable as possible about their own model.)
Wirecutter's "business team" won't let their "editorial team" review the new iterations of the NextDesk product because if their "unbiased recommendation" is NextDesk, revenue will go down.
The CEO was explicit in his email that he looks to maximise revenue on the standing desks page (and by implication, every other page on the site).
The "business team" was explicit - the editorial team doesn't act directly, they can only get review units arranged by the business team - which is refusing to receive review units because no affiliate program is in place.
4 replies →
They make more money from me if their reviews are accurate. If they’re are only motivated by money, then that incentive favors honest reviews.
If I buy products that they recommend and they’re shit, I won’t go back and click anything again in my life. Making an extra $3 from on purchase isn’t worth it.
But the problem is that there's a difference between "okay" and "shit". They indeed won't make money if they recommend shit that gets returned, but a lot of products can be "okay" enough for people to keep around even if there are better products out there (that the review site doesn't recommend because the "okay" product provides better kickbacks). The standing desk situation is actually a very good example of that - the hassle of shipping and assembly means that once you've received it you are unlikely to ship it back unless it's absolutely bad despite other models being even better.
Frankly, for "okay" products, most of us don't need review websites. Even with the shit-show that Amazon reviews are it's usually easy enough to tell an outright bad product. The purpose of a review website (as a consumer) would be to find the absolute best product possible out of a sea of mostly "okay" ones.
1 reply →
It works if you, the reader, doesn't suspect malice. Which it seems there is.
But the editors are isolated from the commercial side.
Regardless of what they pick, they do not manage the affiliate links. Thats an entirely different process.
>> That's not really true when the same person who writes the reviews is the one trying to solicit kickbacks in the background
No. The person doing the review has no insight or commission on any affiliate income.
Whether you like the NYT or not, their coverage and reviews are made to the best of the abilities, and while mistakes happen, the writers are not trying to nickle and dime you.