[snth]

> If you want a review for something that came out today, there is no way that work could have been done, so there simply isn't anything to find.

That's not strictly true, given that reviewers are often sent pre-release versions of things in order to do that work before release day.

[loceng]

Not sure why you're being downvoted, as you're correct - however to point out there seems to be a trend where reviewers are only given pre-release versions if they practically always give favourable reviews to the products they list, especially if they're provided the product for free; there doesn't have to be an express relationship or contract between a reviewer and a company either, it's the reverse of how Bill Gates apparently has given $200 million+ to different news channels/media organizations - and so they're less likely going to as freely share negative news about him or perhaps his organizations, so then ; this makes me think, similarly to how stocks being sold by CEOs (etc) must be pre-planned to avoid shenanigans like market manipulation, that anyone giving large sums of money to any media/journalism organization must divide the amount up over 20-40+ years, so that organization at least has a runway and not dependant on larger "dopamine hits" at shorter intervals.

[_delirium]

Yeah, that's been a problem with reviews for a long time. In fact it's what Consumer Reports used initially to differentiate themselves: their "thing" was that they only reviewed products bought anonymously at retail (no free samples or manufacturer-provided review items) and didn't accept any advertising from manufacturers either.

Sites that receive free review samples and are supported by affiliate links are kind of the exact opposite model.

[wyattpeak]

It does in a funny way provide something of a metric for how willing the site is to be critical. Several video game reviewers I follow have stopped receiving product from some studios, which I think is a badge of honest review. Although it's not something you'd know easily so it doesn't help much in terms of finding good reviewers.

[nradov]

I trust DC Rainmaker's reviews of fitness tech products because he always returns products back to the manufacturers after writing reviews. So there's no conflict of interest based on free products.

https://www.dcrainmaker.com/product-reviews

[ceejayoz]

If companies don't like his reviews, they'll stop sending review units. That hits both in the pocketbook and the race to be one of the earlier reviewers of a new product. Reduced conflict, perhaps, but not none.

[nradov]

If companies don't send him review units then he just buys them retail. He has already done this for many products.

[ceejayoz]

Yes, I'm aware. That's less money in his pocket, and less ability to have the review be available on or before the product launch. There's still some conflict of interest, even if it's lessened.

Only purchasing review units at retail would remove this conflict.

[bobthebuilders]

Incorrect. He can then return them.

[bluGill]

Depends, if someone is popular you can't afford not to have them review your things. A a certain point a bad review will still generate more money than no review at all. Few reach that level though, most reviewers don't have that much following.

[whakim]

This presupposes that companies think their products are bad. If you have (what you believe to be) a good product, you definitely want DC Rainmaker to review it. I think this is a reasonably general point across industries - companies want to get their products into the hands of the most reputable reviewers.

[tchvil]

In DC Rainmaker's case it is probably the opposite. A fitness product not reviewed by him is a bad signal.

[KarlKemp]

Any serious publisher has that policy. Here's Wirecutter's (NYT) take on it: https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/blog/yes-i-work-at-wirecu...