Gerald Undone's video about the state of the review industry

[Markuswelder]

Please calm down.

I'm perfectly calm thanks. Completely.

I have the impression the whole story is bigger than I or we thought and the starting point seems not to be the video of Gerald.

Yes. I wrote as much earlier in the thread.

P.S: People try to badmouth Panasonic on social media for a marketing event, which is nothing special in the industry. All brands are doing this. There is nothing bad about it per se. If people do not understand how marketing works since 2000 years, they should not complain about it. Either they are naiv or jealous or both. Just my 2 cents.

And that is all that I have been pointing out, all along. Except for the jealousy bit. I'm not going to go there, but there's got to be some sort of ulterior motive, for Panasonic to be singled out here

 

[Markuswelder]

And here we go again - accusing me of having a "negative and depressing outlook" on life. You know zero about me. How dare you accuse me of that? Have I made any personal criticisms of you? You wouldn't dare say these things to my face I'm sure, so why do it here?

You would be quite wrong there. I would absolutely say that directly to your face. It would not be the first time I've done it, and it wouldn't be the last.

 

[Quentinquirelino]

....
I think the problem is that he tried to make too many points in that video. It's way too long and it rambles a bit. He also conflated the general point about how these sort of marketing extravaganzas distort the impartiality of reviews with various personal moans about Panasonic etc.

....

Yes, but I think that's no new information. That problem is much older than YouTube. So why now that outcry, triggered by a entry level model he is not even interested in and he wouldn't have made a review about anyhow?

 

[AlanC]

I have the impression the whole story is bigger than I or we thought and the starting point seems not to be the video of Gerald. I thought at the beginning this was all about his video. But I was obviously wrong.

This is something that’s been going on for a while and it concerns YouTube product reviews in general. The objection is that these are sponsored reviews: the reviewer gets the product for free and also benefits from making the video since they will inevitably include their affiliate promotions. Positive reviews get more views giving the reviewer the potential to earn more and increasing the chances of their getting further products to review from the brand in the future. So it’s good business sense for them to be positive.

Gerald may have jumped on this because there’s a real problem with disclosure in many of the review videos: he is careful to make a clear statement concerning the product at the start of his reviews and also mentions that the review is sponsored. I’ve watched 5 or 6 reviews of the S9 so far and the only absolutely clear disclosure I’ve seen is from Richard Wong in the Disclaimer section right at the start of his video where he explains that Panasonic paid for the trip to Japan, gave him the camera on a long-term loan and did not pay him to make the review. Plus Richard has no sponsor for his video and no affiliate links in the Youtube description. A good deal of the resentment might have been avoided if other reviewers had been so careful instead of leaving the impression that they got a trip to Japan and a $1,500 camera in exchange for a review that they will then profit from if it’s popular.

 

[pdk42]

You would be quite wrong there. I would absolutely say that directly to your face. It would not be the first time I've done it, and it wouldn't be the last.

Well, bully for you. How can you be so sure of your own righteousness? A bit of kindness and humility goes a long way.

 

[pdk42]

@Markuswelder

Please calm down. We are all adults here and know how to behave. We do not want to have a discussion culture like at dpreview here. Thanks.

@all

I have the impression the whole story is bigger than I or we thought and the starting point seems not to be the video of Gerald. I thought at the beginning this was all about his video. But I was obviously wrong.

I do not know yet, on which social media channel this rant about YouTube Reviewers started, but it seems to me that this rant started way earlier and with other YouTubers too, before Gerald even decided to make a video about it.

Watch the following video. It is a bit "unusual" but it shows clearly, that there is a lot of emotions from the subscriber side of YouTubers against the YouTubers who where in Japan.

Obviously people forget that almost every brand is doing such events and in all industries, not just photography and not just for YouTubers.



Maybe I should change the title of this thread. I do not know yet. But Geralds video is obviously only a reaction on what was and still is going on regarding hate and envy against YouTube reviewers. I do not have the tine to dig deeper, but if you listen to what TerryWarfield is saying in the above video, it is clear that something gets out of control with some video-viewers and their way of thinking and acting in comments below Reviews and on social media channels of the reviewers. I am shocked about this behaviour. We are homo sapiens, not animals.

I have nothing about a good and intense discussion and not everybody has to have the same opinion, but there is a red line which should not be crossed. In the old times we called this "netiquette". As we can see again, social media is able to show the worst of human behaviour and nobody can control it.

P.S: People try to badmouth Panasonic on social media for a marketing event, which is nothing special in the industry. All brands are doing this. There is nothing bad about it per se. If people do not understand how marketing works since 2000 years, they should not complain about it. Either they are naiv or jealous or both. Just my 2 cents.

I'm really not close enough to the reviewer landscape to really understand what's going on this time, since it seems to me that the S9 launch is really no different in its approach to earlier Panasonic events (e.g. the S5ii) or to events from other brands. Maybe Panasonic made some bad choices on the invite list (missing names, names that should have been missed !)? I don't know.

However, I do think that reviewers should disclose the circumstances of their reviews. That should definitely include any links they have to the brand - whether that be some long term role (e.g. Ambassador), attendance at a launch event, loan of gear, or whatever. For sure, if I were into making money from camera reviews, then I'd want to be uber scrupulous to ensure I was as open and transparent as possible.

 

[pdk42]

I'd not come across this guy before, and TBH, he's not the sort of YT type I'd listen to anyhow (talks too much, repeats himself a lot, draws pointless analogies). His take on the S9 is however somewhat similar to many others, and it goes like this:

- It's a flawed design with too many compromises for use as a main camera for a serious photographer/videographer.
- It's too expensive, considering what's been chopped out - especially when compared to the S5ii for only a little more.
- However, it has its uses as a compact B/C cam for use in limited scenarios and for people who don't want complex cameras (TikTok makers etc).
- This latter market must be big because Panasonic told me so!

But what I just don't get is why people who do not want complex cameras would want an inter-changeable lens camera with a full-frame sensor. Surely there are much cheaper, smaller, and lighter cameras that would satisfy their needs in stepping up from a smartphone?

 

[Markuswelder]

Well, bully for you. How can you be so sure of your own righteousness? A bit of kindness and humility goes a long way.

Your sarcasm is noted. I'm more than happy to admit when I'm wrong. First to put my hand up when I've screwed up.
Anyway, I made an appointment to meet face to face with the last person who was running his mouth off on a forum, accusing me of stealing photos etc. Guess who never showed his face lol lol lol (hint -it wasn't me)

Edit -read the handwritten note on the newspaper. That's my username on another forum I used to frequent

P1000430-23085 by speedygz, on Flickr

 

[Pete_W]

I’ve watched the GA video a few times now. In my view his motivation was that he was disgruntled at not being invited. Which is a bit of entitlement mentality.

His business is built on reviewing cameras so he relies on the camera companies for his ‘stock in trade’. If they withdraw that ‘stock’ then it impacts his business so he will be upset.

Others have shown that it’s possible to maintain the relationship with the vendor and still be open in their reviews and point out negative facts.

The problem Gerald has is that he uses a lot of absolutes and employs emotive language in his comments, which no camera company will appreciate.

 

[Pete_W]

I'd not come across this guy before, and TBH, he's not the sort of YT type I'd listen to anyhow (talks too much, repeats himself a lot, draws pointless analogies). His take on the S9 is however somewhat similar to many others, and it goes like this:

Thanks Paul. I will take a look.

- It's a flawed design with too many compromises for use as a main camera for a serious photographer/videographer.

The other review that Dirk posted earlier (Terrence?) also said the S9 was a “flawed design” and I think this is wrong.

By definition, Panasonic has designed and built the S9 exactly as they intended so it can’t be ‘flawed’ unless it doesn’t do what they say ICT can do. It works as they intended with the features they chose to include.

Panasonic’s pitch to the market for the S9 might be regarded as ‘flawed’ but that’s simply a view about who it’s for and most reviewers say it’s not for them because they need a lot more features.

Which goes to the point that if you need more features, you buy the S5II.

- It's too expensive, considering what's been chopped out - especially when compared to the S5ii for only a little more.

I agree with that, but it’s fair to say that the S5II has been out a while so the price has dropped. The S9 price will also drop in time.

- However, it has its uses as a compact B/C cam for use in limited scenarios and for people who don't want complex cameras (TikTok makers etc).
- This latter market must be big because Panasonic told me so!

But what I just don't get is why people who do not want complex cameras would want (let alone buy) an inter-changeable lens camera with a full-frame sensor. Surely there are much cheaper, smaller, and lighter cameras that would satisfy their needs in stepping up from a smartphone?

 

[Quentinquirelino]

I'm really not close enough to the reviewer landscape to really understand what's going on this time, since it seems to me that the S9 launch is really no different in its approach to earlier Panasonic events (e.g. the S5ii) or to events from other brands. Maybe Panasonic made some bad choices on the invite list (missing names, names that should have been missed !)? I don't know.

...

I think Panasonic didn't invite some of the bigger names. Some not the first time. I know Jared Polin was left out for the S5II and made some sulky comments and he was also not invited for the S9. Also here in Germany Stephan Wiesner is the biggest camera influencer in terms of followers, but he was also left out for the S5II and S9, however smaller names where invited. Probably there are more. But nobody of them is famous because for making well balanced and objective gear reviews.

 

[HarisO]

I am no stranger to access journalism. I wrote, for a few years, about video games, so I had plenty of opportunities to "enjoy" the perks of access journalism. Goodies, travel, lodging and food, cool locations and events, all provided free of charge. And this definitely does lead to a bit of a symbiotic relationship: having early access helps against the competition in a game where being first is what brings in 90 % of your lifetime viewers/readers/etc., but in the back of your mind you also know that the kind of access you have is a courtesy - one that can be rescinded at any time for any reason with no recourse on your part. You can get cut off from access and it might not even be your fault, because PR strategies change or the new marketing guy just does not like you personally or whatever.

And I think that kind of influence is not necessarily something you an turn off. Which is not to say that everyone is going to be influened by it. I've seen videos where people were critical enough of the S9 (or other camera launches in the past from various manufacturers) and where it's hard to claim any sort of bias at play. But at the end of the day, it's always in the back of your mind. At least from my perspective, when I watch or read reviews, especially the kind of review that has obviously been generously supported by the subject of the review through access and luxuries, I am aware of what goes on in the background and try to discern who's a cheerleader and who's giving me a genuine opinion or at least a scientific, methodical approach that is going to minimise biases.

Coming to the video that is actually the subject matter of this thread however it definitely feels like sour grapes. This does not sound like someone realising that there is a major ethical dilemma in his own profession trying to find a way out. It sounds much more like someone who's salty that he got cut off, for whatever reason, and is now trying to get back at the company that denied him his (rightful? deserved? entitled?) access. I probably would have been more sympathetic and less cynial if he had clear proof or examples of critical journalism that might have led to him getting ostracised, but considering that he was pretty positive about the S5II, for example, there might be a myriad of reasons why he is one of the bigger creators not invited.

Either way, this is a topic that has been around in tech journalism for literally decades. It has led to various controversies, debates, attempts at change and god knows what else. Has anything changed? No.