No More Fake Reviews - So Who’s Gonna Tell Us What To Buy?

So the problem with the speakers was that they sounded awful or were too expensive? 

Difficult for me to imagine listening to a product over a period of weeks or months just to abandon the review. Might lead me to believe that after a quick listen, products that dont impress initially are quickly abandoned and possibly not given their due. 

Regarding the lack of negative reviews: in my case, if I don't like a product for one reason or another, I don't write a review. I have never in my 30 years of writing audio reviews been asked by either publisher for whom I've worked to plug unduly a product from an advertiser or anyone else. I once wrote a review of an integrated amplifier that was paired with two stand-mount speakers from the same manufacturer. I gave the amplifier a glowing review because I thought it was spectacular; I did not submit a review of the speakers because I thought they sounded awful and were far too expensive for the sound quality they produced. The audio world doesn't need any more negativity - it gets enough on this forum. You can believe anything you want about reviews and reviewers but I will stick up for most of my group. My suggestion: if you don't like a reviewer's work, DON'T READ IT!

The FTC ruling is an attempt I think to weed out the obvious conflict of interest of giving great reviews for free stuff.  So on the surface, it’s actually a good policy.  I wonder how it will be enforced however, and if it is enforceable. 
Regardless, if you spend time watching YouTube reviews, you notice that sometimes there are product cycles through two or three or four reviewers or within about a month because the manufacturer is sending them sample copies. “ Sample copies” which may or may not have strings attached who knows.

and although I used to love watching audio reviews on YouTube, I have far less appetite for it now mostly based on my experience of such products or the fact that every month or two the best product is always the latest one.   I can count several off the top of my head several reviewers that are certainly guilty of having the best product they’ve ever heard at this price point several times a year.  And it’s much easier for reviewers to say good things to be critical. The flipside of that is that being critical over device can get you sued.

So either scenario Is likely to be tainted via positive info, free or negative influence being afraid to accurately review something.  It’s really crappy overall for us as consumers and as the brick and mortar stores are drying up we literally have no options to listen to music unless you purchase in return or you actually believe what these Talking Heads are saying on YouTube. 
Best option is to join an audio club. I suppose listen to gear with friends and acquaintances. but how difficult is that to arrange?

No industry accommodation does not taint a review. Any member of this forum could start a business related to our hobby and get this discount.

The real question is do the reviewers that claim they buy product at this reduced price actually paying this amount? Means reviewers like Fremer would have invested probably over $ 500K in their reference systems. Stereophile claims this is the only system used by their reviewers.

@rooze 

Then I guess I’m agreeing with the FTC.😎

...and I think that's pretty much exactly what the FTC are saying they should do

No its just a witch hunt that will prove very difficult to enforce with the same pitfalls and inequalities experienced in other legal matters.

Curse the FTC and most other government entities. 

This is just EXCELLENT NEWS....time to put the squeeze on some of these hifi charlatans and the hifi banana republic.

File complaints a plenty O’ empowered hifi consumers and ensure that the FTC is introduced to some of these charlatans (get their names on the radar first, familiarity is key). A couple of examples should be made to instill some fear in the tender hearts of all the other charlatans.

God bless the FTC.

@gs5556 

You said:

If a reviewer states that he was given or purchased the product at a discount then to me the manufacturer wrote the review.

I think that's a safe default position. But consider this, which I think is a common scenario:

I'm a reviewer. Company A sends me a product to be reviewed. Both parties expect the product to be returned once the review is finished. I write the review and it's glowing, extremely positive, because I really like the product, so much so that I would like to keep it in my reference system. I contact Company A and they say fine, you can have our standard industry accommodation, (say -40%) and it's yours to keep. The only stipulation is that you can't sell it for 12 months from the date of purchase.

I write the review, and I say the usual: I liked this product so much that I decided to buy it....blah blah.

Is that still considered a tainted, or 'paid for' review?

If a reviewer states that he was given or purchased the product at a discount then to me the manufacturer wrote the review.

@curiousjim 

So in conclusion, I feel that if they tell you upfront that they bought the item at a greatly reduced price or that they were outright given the piece, there shouldn’t be a problem.

...and I think that's pretty much exactly what the FTC are saying they should do...

@curiousjim  Thank you Brother !

👍🏾🤟🏾✌🏾🎵🎵🎵

Yes if you must use reviews attempt to find a reviewer whose taste resembles your own. Harry Pearson kept equipment he liked for years and then returned it often beat to sh*t. 

My two cents.

In the end, every reviewer is getting paid, whether it working for a magazine or YouTube likes. I for one can’t remember ever seeing a truly bad review, I have seen some with some dislikes. I have also heard many reviewers say that they won’t do bad reviews and that they turn down some products and that all makes perfect sense to me.
So in conclusion, I feel that if they tell you upfront that they bought the item at a greatly reduced price or that they were outright given the piece, there shouldn’t be a problem.

....turn me loose.....

@y'all....."...problem solved...."

What?!  Don't trust 'The Experts' anymore?!

Silly 'phile.....next you'll be claiming that your ears 'n emotions Don't get in Your Way....even if you've just gotten 'gifted' with the gadget AND the tour and golden shower option.....🙄

Guess it'll come down to dragging your ears and the rest of you off to the site and Listen To said gadget for yourself and making the yay/nay call on it....

"...the Pasttence 4100 sounded like a brick encased with overused stall sweepings..."

That'll make friends.... ;P

@rajugsw 

I just subscribed to your YouTube channel.

Don’t let me down.😁

Yeah the late not so great H.P.  

What celtic66 said. Hey look we actually did something.

The last thing the FTC will care about is audio. At least buyers can hear a product themselves and decide it it is good or not. Youtubers who get equipment samples to keep or flip are not their concern. Reviewers who get gear to review who require the vendor to cover all shipping costs both ways are not an issue. The targets will be mass online promoters of products who get cash or significant "emoluments" from their work will be targets (think TikTok "influencers raking in big money for promoting certain products, celebrity shills, etc.) Target industries will be ones where there are significant information differentials between sellers and buyers: health and medical, financial services and investment products, expensive capital personal goods like home construction, renovation and automobiles. Luxury goods like high-end audio carry a bias of "if you have that kind of money you should be smart enough to know better" and won't attract much interest. It isn't like audio anywhere is making billionaires.

FTC is brilliant… at rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.  Read Lina M. Khan‘s bio.  She is a classic study in Ivy League machinery-cog dynamics.  With her PhD (Probably hasn’t Done it), she will slay the dragon…of what?  Human behavior?  What actual laws broken will be applied to such cases?

These people have a crushing lack of understanding Homo sapiens.  She would last 5 minutes on the real mean streets of business.  The expended energies and capital on such endeavors reminds us of why an understanding of “Gulliver’s Travels” is far more valuable than that PhD… in the real working world.

Our tax dollars at work targeting fluff.  Cats chasing laser pointers.

I read audio reviews for “entertainment” purposes only.  If they peak my interest, I do my own due diligence. 

Maybe 90% of the time reviews are just promoting a product advertised in the publication or website running the review.
Rarely is there anything negative said about the product. Occasionally there’s a rave review where you can sense it’s more than just a plug.

On the rare occasion when the product is not advertised and there’s no financial incentive to praise it, you might find a sincere review. (Absolute Sound was like that many years ago, when the late, great Harry Pearson was the publisher.)

And if that reviewer thinks highly enough of the product to actually buy it - at the retail price, you can be reasonably sure there’s some genuine value in his opinion.

Here are some examples of that sort of review:
https://silversolids.com/frames/revbuys-2.html

@oddiofyl

If I can’t see it and hear it in person I am generally not interested. Lack of in home demo or decent return policy is usually a deal breaker for me.

 

Same here. 

PLEASE,FAKE NEWS & REVIEWS PERMEATE our society..From hamburgers to Presidential elections,lobbyist & big $ corporations manipulate,CENSOR & LIE to the world every single day!!!
This will change NOTHING!!!

I’m not into fake reviews but the FTC can barely do its day job. How about let’s make sure that we have competition in grocery stores before we worry about what freebie someone gets for posting their whatever online.

Sorry... I just haven’t been a fan of the recent FTC. What with wading into employment law and now nanny-ing consumers.

When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail. 

Look at my Subscriber count in over 5 years of YT "fame". I get "some" free stuff but I ALWAYS declare that I am an unpaid Schill for certain brands. And when I'm given "an offer I cannot refuse". I disclose it in my Videos but never the price I paid.

https://www.youtube.com/@joeygsaudiochannel3972/videos

@realgoodsound +1

All it takes is one or two or three anecdotal accounts of knowing someone who knows someone who's confessed to receiving something for something and it's off to the conspiracy races. 

It actually happened a lot back in the days of print so it's become something like a Sasquatch sighting. Toss in the internet and everyone's in on something and can't be trusted. 

This had been discussed to death with the qualifier being getting to know your reviewer and ascertaining if his/her tastes align with yours. It doesn't need to be as deep and wide as some make it out to be. Times change but morals and ethics don't, as much. What used to be verboten is now normal (as a courtesy) so the values needed to do an honest review can still occur. 

@larsman +1, 

It's so simple a way to do things but there has to be something to complain about.

All the best,
Nonoise

I review equipment for an online audio zine. I have reviewed gear for 30 years. In that time, I have received exactly two freebies: a pair of Linn interconnects and a set of vibration absorption feet for a turntable. I reviewed the interconnects favorably because I thought they were quite outstanding and I use them to this day. I've never used or reviewed the turntable feet because I don't believe they are necessary for my set up. In my career, I've written more than 120 published reviews, I know there are a few reviewers who write good reviews in the hopes of getting the piece for nothing but I sincerely do not believe it is all that common. Believe what you wish but I think most reviewers are honest.

Rooze +1 agree. Larsman very true at the end it’s up to us decide and do the work.I bought my X1 Borensen because I was so impressed hearing the C1 at axpona 2024. Then To confirmed I read Steve Huff reviews.

I’ve been verklempt ever since hearing about this ruling but I do think the FTC has captured the gestalt of the issue and I support any drive for improved transparency for audiophiles.

 Wont change a thing. 

Reviews make good bathroom reading.... If I can't see it and hear it in person I am generally not interested.  Lack of in home demo or decent return policy is usually a deal breaker for me.  

I actually prefer reading about how great something is that I just bought NOT based on a review but by hands on,  real world listening .

rooze

I think 'consumer reviews' means reviews for the consumer not specifically 'reviews by a consumer', so professional reviewers generate consumer reviews and are affected by the ruling ...

There's nothing to suggest your interpretation of the FTC announcement. The ruling addresses "Fake Reviews and Testimonials" and is explicit:

"Fake or False Consumer Reviews, Consumer Testimonials, and Celebrity Testimonials: The final rule addresses reviews and testimonials that misrepresent that they are by someone who does not exist."

You're reading w-a-y too much into this ruling.

Your ears should be the only influence on what you buy.

@cleeds I think 'consumer reviews' means reviews for the consumer not specifically 'reviews by a consumer', so professional reviewers generate consumer reviews and are affected by the ruling. You could also consider that many consumers who are unpaid generate reviews, but I can't see a situation where a consumer who isn't being paid for the review could do or say anything that would lead to prosecution by the FTC.
As far as I can see it's mostly positive on the side of us, the consumer, and the only downside I can foresee is the loss of some of the reviewers' channels on youtube, etc, when they figure out that it just isn't worth the risk and they don't have enough traffic to support other means to generate revenue. But what the heck do I know.. lol.

I may be wrong, but my guess is this is an attempt to weed out the 4,217 positive reviews tomorrows' newly introduced gadget gets on the day of introduction, all posted by bots from different IP addresses in the first few hours the product has existed.  Amazon, et. al. are going to be, if not already, rife with this nonsense.  

Personally, I tend to read the 1-star reviews first, as they are least likely to be fake, although often over represented since moderately satisfied folks are usually more sanguine, and don't bellow their feelings as often.  

Unfortunately, a lot of reviewers will see a change in the nature of their revenue stream.  Hopefully, the market will adjust.  I remember when I was working in a small HI-Fi shop back in the 70's and one key reason I worked there was to get  50% off retail from almost every line we represented.  Working for a couple of bucks an hour plus commission, that was a major incentive, and items I purchased were chosen after extensive in-store comparitive demo'ing of the exact item. There were also "spiffs" where extra commission was paid on occasion to highlight certain items, but if a product wasn't a good one, it wouldn't be in our store in any case.

I still have most of those purchases which were based on weeks, not hours of evaluation.  The market moves too fast today to allow such luxuries except on a forum like this where the discussions are only "tainted" by the difference in hearing ability and personal taste, as it should be.  If you love Wilson, you may not choose a set of Mag's for your second system, but that does not mean either are "bad", just different, and perhaps each is best for the listening environment it serves in. As always, YMMV.

rooze

... the ruling also includes provisions that protect reviewers from retaliation by manufacturers, per Erin, Tekton, the Goldensound guy ...

The ruling applies to "consumer reviews," so presumably "professional" reviewers such as the YouTubers who generate revenue are excluded.

Pay to play has been a factor in reviews for years and is even happening with the large Stereo magazines when it comes to what products they review. I see some of these reviewers with CRAZY expensive systems that they own, and I would imagine being a stereo reviewer doesn't pay that well. I've always had my suspicions and still do.

Don't forget that the ruling also includes provisions that protect reviewers from retaliation by manufacturers, per Erin, Tekton, the Goldensound guy, and a couple others who escape mind. This has to be positive, right?

@jayctoy + 1 - I trust YouTube or any other reviewers no less than I trust people on forums, who are much more anonymous. I read and I watch opinions and I listen to what gear I can, and I decide what makes sense to me. Nobody tells me what to buy. 

No matter what, most people will buy their equipment based on reviews from sources like Stereophile or recommendations from authorized promoters in the hi-fi industry on audio forums.

You may disagree, of course, but it’s a fact of life.

It looks that many of you are expecting too much from this FTC ruling. For the most part, it applies to "consumer reviews." Those are reviews written by consumers, not by ostensibly "professional’ reviewers that would be writing for a real publication, such as TAS or Stereophile. Even many of the YouTube audio "experts" are arguably "professional," especially if their YT channel generates revenue.

Audio is a luxury product. Obviously manufacturers take care of reviewers. It's part of capitalism. As a consumer you must be ruthless. Government intervention is not the solution. Just take a break if it stops being fun.

As an older guy I look at these older guys with their idioms and genuflections telling me some circuit board has a slightly bigger soundstage that is beautiful when it is angry. It's a sales job and a pretty decent one at that. I used to work for rich people. They eat that stuff up. 

@jayctoy I think the argument made is that being honest and truthful doesn't go hand-in-glove with being paid: "As long as the reviewer is honest and truthful. Perks benefits is ok with me." 

I suspect nothing much will happen until someone we know is made an example of. Then everything will change.

As long as the reviewer is honest and truthful. Perks benefits is ok with me.

In addition to any suspected bias from any payola or financial incentives, even a legit honest review is written according to the reviewers preferences and natural bias, which may or may not match my preferences.  Sort of like depending on someone else to season your food.  Not that a review can't be interesting and/or useful, but it should not be a substitute for auditioning audio gear for yourself and forming your own opinion.  I think too much emphasis is put on other's opinions. 

@dekay, I always wondered how you amassed your great wealth. Enjoy the music

Mass migration to Canada or Mexico for internet reviewers...

Great. Now we're gonna have to trust our own ears instead of being influenced and groomed. What has the world come to?

All the best,
Nonoise

Sigh, it would be really helpful to get more honest reviews but I'm willing to bet anyone a dollar this doesn't change anything.