Recommend
111 
 Thumb up
 Hide
137 Posts
[1]  Prev «  1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »  [6] | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Gaming Related » Podcasts & Blogs

Subject: Table Talk - Show Me The Money! (Paid Reviews) rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: Getting_a_review_copy_of_a_game_is_NOT_a_paid_review [+] [View All]
Ian S
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Avatar
I guess it comes down to how much we value reviewers and whilst I do read reviews to inform buying decisions, I don't value them enough to directly fund them.

If that's the case across the board, then it's their choice of whether to:
- Just do the reviews for the love of it (plus to experience pre-release review copies of games)
- Seek funding by having some paid reviews / some unpaid reviews

For me the latter really needs to make a clear distinction, so the viewer knows exactly what the background to the review is. If I were reviewing, I'd definitely want to distance paid review 'ratings' from my unpaid ratings, be that a different scale, or making a point of not 'rating' the products that have paid reviews. Perhaps even better would be paid 'introductions / overviews' that are paid for, that really marks a clear line between review (and the reviewers credibility) and stuff that pays the bills. Having a 'paid promotion' message sitting in the top corner would be even better for showing the reviewer doesn't want to mislead people.

Regards
Ian
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John B
United States
Mountain view
California
flag msg tools
mbmb
Thanks Mr Smith, you brought up some good ideas worth thinking about.
My biggest pet peeve is the labeling of previews (prolly paid) as Reviews. It's like people don't understand the difference. This happens alot on KS campaigns. When I see it, I immediately go onto something else.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jo L.
Belgium
Gent
flag msg tools
badge
My scythe... I like to keep it next to where my heart used to be.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
emaorny wrote:
So reviewers which are paid not by the publisher but by the readers may be a possible solution.


I agree. This seems the most logical solution to satisfy viewers who are wary of paid reviews. By using a platform like Patreon, the reviewer is compensated for their time and at the same time they get to keep their integrity. Viewers would be paying for the videos and nothing else: no promos, nothing.

I would argue that the more viewers and subscribers you have, the more your credibility goes up and the easier it gets to ask publishers for money without having to worry about compromising your integrity. Just look at Tom Vasel. He isn't particularly shy to say he dislikes a game, to the point where he threw a box off a roof in one of his videos. That doesn't stop publishers from sending him their games. They know he's got the viewers and they're willing to take the risk.

Another closing thought on integrity: I think most publishers would be okay if you chose to (respectfully) give the game they sent you a bad review. I used to have a small time blog and when I just started I raised this topic with the marketing director of a VERY big publisher. She told me (and I'm paraphrasing): "We're gonna send you copies of all our games, you decide which of them you want to review, and don't worry about giving your honest opinion about them. We want you to be honest because otherwise your reviews won't be credible in the long run, and neither you nor us will benefit from that."

On that final note, I think it would be interesting to hear from the publishers, too. What do THEY expect in return for a paid review? Do they want it to be sincere, or do they expect to receive plain advertising? Would they prefer not to have the game reviewed if the reviewer lets the publisher know that they didn't like it? I think we just might be surprised at some the answers we'll be getting.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adam P
United States
Renton
Washington
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
I'll probably never donate to someone for an unbiased review.

After playing many games, I've learned my own preferences, so reviews don't always effect my decision. Plus I usually go for the aggregate, not just one single review.

So biased, unbiased, paid, or unpaid, I don't care -- when it comes to board games, video games, lego sets, whatever. I'm probably a rare breed, though.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Giancarlo Caltabiano
Canada
flag msg tools
designer
mb
Great video Rodney.

This is why we don't do paid recviews at Board To Death but paid PREVIEWS. Basically, a lot like your show, we talk about the rules, and not our impressions of the game (also in part because most times it's not the final product or even final rules).

Once we do Reviews of Boardgames, those aren't paid, and therefore our opinions isn't affected by monetary compensation per say.

So yeah... I get people's concerns, and they are right to be concerned in terms of trusting the reviewer.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
RIK FONTANA
United States
St. George
UT
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Great Video Rodney, but then I doubt anyone is surprised at another interesting presentation.
Also enjoyed Giancarlo's Reply about his Board To Death philosophy.

I've had this discussion with other local gamers and everyone I know shares pretty much the same opinion: I don't care if it's Paid, or Not. As long as the Paid Reviews state as such! I thoroughly enjoy MvM because they help me decide if a game is for me or not. Same with other paid vids.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nicholas Smith
New Zealand
Auckland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It seems to me that one obvious solution to the unpaid review is exactly what you did for many years running Watch it Played before joining forces with BGG: running a regular fundraiser. That way, viewers who appreciate the videos that the reviewer has made can support them financially and allow them to continue producing more videos.

The obvious challenge is first getting to the point of having a large enough fan base to generate enough income to make a fundraiser viable - something that took you a few years to get to. However, the quality of a content creator's work typically isn't as great early on as it eventually becomes a few years down the track, so by taking a few years to build up a fan base you're also developing your skills to the point where your channel/medium is something to which fans will want to donate their money.
To be clear, by "quality of work" I'm not referring to the use of better equipment but to improved skills of delivery of the person themselves i.e. more charisma, more confidence, better scripting, better editing etc.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim Chaney
United Kingdom
Dry Drayton
Cambs
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Almost no cases of paid reviews, Rodney?

I think you are missing the fact that almost all 'semi-professional' reviewers do not pay for the games they review. Which leads you to the same issues; an incentive to be positive so that the publisher(s) will continue to send them games to review.

(There is the opposing bias from people that review games they did pay for, where there is an unconscious bias towards justifying the initial purchasing decision)

I worked in the video game industry for a decade or so, and most print journalism for the official and unofficial console magazines included a tacit agreement between game publisher and editorial staff. There were often "expectations" set that an early access or cover feature would be dependent on a positive review, perhaps months later. Enforced by a lack of early access to future titles. This phenomenon isn't new.

Steam has a simple flag that a videogame review was for a paid for copy. That's a start, right?
4 
 Thumb up
0.07
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Amy M
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Thanks for your thoughtful discussion on an interesting topic. As an academic, I study certification and accreditation and the issue of independence is an important dimension of legitimacy in both.

A couple thoughts came to mind while listening to the video.
First, there’s the issue of whether paid reviewers are being dishonest. Although it’s possible some are, I think the bigger issue is that lack of independence created by incentives influence the reviewer at a subconscious level. I recall (but not clearly enough to link to discussions, gamers being upset about a paid review, feeling that they have been deceived, as though assuming the reviewer had malicious intent. I think that type of response represents a type of black and white thinking that oversimplifies the situation and unrealistically vilifies the reviewer.

Second, your characterization of the “problem” of unpaid reviews surprised me. I appreciated your point that reviewers deserve to be compensated for the value they create for viewers who rely on their opinions to influence purchasing decisions (mitigating the game buyer’s risk). What surprised me was your assertion that reviewers don’t already have a way to gain compensation from their audience. I thought Patreon, Kickstarter, and other donation-based platforms did just that. Granted, the system is imperfect, as it allows free riders (and in the case of campaigns that offer rewards (like promos) provided by game publishers may also interject potential bias).

I also understand that reviewers posting on YouTube can generate revenue from ads that run before their videos. Ads would seem to be an ideal way for reviewers to be compensated for their work. Watchers provide some small amount of their attention to an advertisement (a cost) in exchange for the value they gain from the review (a benefit). Thanks to the power of Google Adsense, an advertiser with no skin in the game (ha! Boy is that statement apt in this context), joins the exchange to facilitate compensation without introducing bias into the review process. I do admit that I have no first-hand knowledge of YouTube’s ad revenue rates or whether reviewers can generate sufficient revenue from ads to fully compensate them for their work. Still, the system seems like it SHOULD work.

Although this breaks away from your topic, I’ve always been most interested in what factors influence people’s desire and willingness to essentially “proxy” their opinion forming to certifiers/reviewers, and what (if any) impact the process has on their satisfaction of the outcomes of those opinions (like purchases made).

Again, thanks for posting the video. I hope it generates further thoughtful and respectful discussion on the topic!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
mike paul
United States
Milwaukee
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
You have been hexed!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Nice homage to Scott Nicholson, Rodney is such a class act.

Those rough edges on the placards though, yikes!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Erik R.
United States
New York
NY
flag msg tools
designer
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
The closest parallel you can draw is to something like film criticism. People like Siskel and Ebert and Leonard Maltin got paid a lot of money to publish well-tuned opinion pieces about movies - and ultimately gave consumers the word on whether to spend the money or not.

If you want to get paid to write reviews, the classical method was to get hired by a publication that pays you a salary to do it, and charge a subscription or run ads. But we don't live in that simple of an age anymore.

The internet has changed reviews in two big ways:

Democratized reviews: Everybody is a reviewer now, because the internet has created a landscape where people are encouraged to comment or leave a rating, and the aggregate is presumed to mean more than an expert's journalistic take. Even the 'real' critics have their reviews rolled into one faceless average on Metacritic.

BGG itself is wedged in an awkward spot here, because it institutionalized both the 'expert' game reviewers as well as the (completely wonky) BGG ratings and Hotness. BGG could not make up its mind on what system made more sense, and I feel like in a lot of ways, nobody is happy.

There are many flaws in a 'review democracy', quality being just one of them. But we're in the middle of a sea change that is definitely pulling review authority away from centralized people.


But the second way reviews have changed...

Paid online reviews, across the whole internet, are widespread and deceptive: The reality of online marketing these days is that many companies are in fact paying "review sites" (completely bogus "top 5 / top 10" web sites that appear frequently on Google), and those sites do in fact take cash or favorable commissions for top-ranked reviews. [geekurl=https://www.fastcompany.com/3065928/sleepopolis-casper-bloggers-lawsuits-underside-of-the-mattress-wars]This article in particular[/geekurl] shed a lot of light on how insane and deceptive these practices are.

Whether or not this has happens in the boardgame industry, the context is that underhanded and "moneyhatted" marketing practices are everywhere on the internet. I don't think discerning consumers are not blind to this stuff, and it does create cynicism and suspicion about online reviews in general. That's why sites with reviews, like Amazon, have implemented features like "Verified Purchase" to ensure the public that a review is being written by an actual consumer.


4 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Mihealsick
United States
Orlando
Florida
flag msg tools

Hey Rodney, thanks for the video, and for sparking the discussion of this really important topic. This is a topic that I've struggled with myself, and I hope that some of the clarity that I feel I've reached along that journey can help contribute.

This is definitely a gray area in our field, and it's a gray area that other media formats have run into and handled very differently. A radio host might recite a paid product endorsement as though it were their personal opinion, and nobody minds that at all...but if a movie critic accepts money and ends up giving a positive review, then it can damage the community's trust.

Our industry is working on finding that place, and I don't think we're quite there yet. We're faced with unique challenges, like low margins and crowded platforms, and we're going through some growing pains as we navigate our way through those challenges.

In my personal search for answers, these are the conclusions I came to. They may not be absolutely correct, but I'll stand by them.

1) If you are a reviewer, you are an editorial journalist - An editorial journalist's capital is trust, and it should therefore be extremely important to preserve that trust as best you can. Sometimes this means avoiding even the appearance of a conflict of interests. This doesn't mean that outlets like the Secret Cabal can never review their sponsors' games, but it means that they should understand that it has the chance to damage their credibility in the eyes of the community, even if that sponsorship in no way affects their reviews. Flirting with this line is a decision that every media outlet should make on their own, and for their own reasons.

2) If you are an editorial journalist, and have accepted payment for promotion, then it is necessary to be transparent regarding that arrangement - There are two media outlets I know of that have accepted payment for reviews, and then have failed to disclose that arrangement upon releasing the review. There's no way around this: this is a betrayal of your audience's trust, even if you would argue that the payment made no difference in the review.

3) It is absolutely okay to create paid content, as long as you do not brand or promote it as editorial content - Paid previews are fantastic! I've worked for several companies that have made good use of them, and I'm glad that many of the major media outlets in hobby gaming are shifting over to models where they are responsibly creating this kind of content. However, it should always be abundantly clear what content is paid for and what is not.

4) It is not the publisher's responsibility to pay you to create editorial content - To be clear, the publisher should absolutely pay for promotion, advertising, etc... but editorial content cannot fall under this umbrella.

The term "unpaid review" is problematic, in my opinion. This implies that the publisher is the one that is expected to foot the bill for the reviewer's time and effort. This is insidious, because part of it is absolutely true: a reviewer really should be paid. It takes a Herculean amount of effort and time to create and maintain a following, dive deep enough into a game to form an intelligent opinion on it, and then also create and edit video or print content.

But if you're waiting on a publisher to pay any meaningful amount of money for your editorial content, then that's going to be a long wait for a train that's almost certainly not coming.

Who pays a restaurant critic? Certainly not the restaurant. Who pays a film critic? Certainly not the movie studio. These editorialists' pay comes through their outlet, directly from their consumers.

--

Good media is something that people want, but just slinging it out Youtube and sharing it on Facebook isn't going to earn money for you until you monetize it. Build your audience, do something unique that they can't find elsewhere, launch and curate a website, file for an LLC, start up that Patreon, sell shirts and bags and pins, launch a convention, use a crowdfunding platform!

Yes, it's hard to start a media company from nothing, even without the unique challenges in hobby gaming. The scene is crowded with people just like you, competing for the same relatively-small demographic... but keep at it, make smart business-oriented decisions, and create something new and better to carve out your piece of the pie.

You can do it! I believe in you!
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sean O'Grady
Canada
Etobicoke
Ontario
flag msg tools
Thanks for the detailed and thought provoking video Rodney. I wanted to echo one of the questions from a previous poster. I just wondered what sort of revenue is generated for reviewers by Youtube itself? Active subscribers to a channel and view counts of videos that are posted generate revenue after a certain threshold if I'm not mistaken? Is the revenue generated this way by popular channels enough to to sustain the reviewers who create them? I'm unclear of how that system works and would love to hear you discuss it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Queen Thunderfist
msg tools
Furey wrote:
Being objective is quite difficult


I would argue that there is no such thing as an objective review. A review is, by definition, the opinion of an individual on some kind of media. Opinions are not universal, they all come from some type of bias based on personal likes, experiences, personality, etc. This is precisely what Rodney is pointing out when he says his videos are not reviews - which I agree with. I enjoy Rodney's videos because I know they're sponsored, but he never gives us his opinion on whether or not the game is good or bad. I get an idea for the rules and that's it. Beyond that, I either have to know my own likes and dislikes well enough to decide if I want the game, find a way to play it, or watch other videos that show gameplay. It's very different from, say, Rahdo - who very much reviews games and is very animated and emotional toward them and gives us his opinions on how much he loved this game or that game.

It makes me wonder if modern monetization of media would possibly help here. The Patreon, the Twitch channel, or YouTube. Twitch seems like the worst option because it's a full-time job and you still need to get sponsors to really be able to live off of it. People can donate though, and subscribe for a monthly fee. Patreon would probably give the best results, as another user mentioned. You're paying the artist for the content more directly and you don't get free access to it regardless.

Part of the problem, as mentioned, is that people in general do not think they should have to pay for this content. This happens with a lot of different media. There has been a push to monetize things like webcomics, so services like Tapastic are now charging users to access the content. But people think, "Why would I pay for what I can get for free?" Ultimately, there will always be reviewers offering their reviews for free through YouTube or similar and I feel like most people would rather not spend money to see reviews.

It's a hard question to answer and it begs another question: how much should people pay to get reviews? Again, possibly pointing to Patreon as the better solution because it has tiers that start at $1 and scale up so people can decide what that content is worth to them, but it still might not end up paying enough to support the reviewer.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Scott
United States
Houma
Louisiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi, James Scott here with Board on the Bayou game reviews.

Great video! As a un-paid, hobbyist reviewer I can agree on many many of your points. While Paid reviews are just a nature of the beast, I wish they would be clearer when they are paid and/or receive a demo copy. I never got into reviewing to make money and don't expect to. I do it for the love of games, and maybe some swag from time to time (haha). Like Rodney said, as an unpaid reviewer there are bunch of things I never realized. Like costs, the amount of time to set-up, film and edit. And I think there are a few more things that people don't realize.

Below is somewhat of a rumbling rant from a unpaid reviewers view. Let me first say, its not complaining. I LOVE reviewing games and wish I could do them more often.

Background, I started reviewing games as I had bought a few games that I bought after seeing paid previews/reviews (which I didn't know at the time were paid for). While them games were ok, if I had known the preview/reviews were paid for, I would of taken them with a grain of salt. I also found there were a few games I played which I fell in love with, but either had no reviews or poor reviews. So I bought some equipment from Amazon, watched a few videos on YouTube on how to use Power Director. And jumped in reviewing games I thought would be the easiest to review. At first I went with the "Dice Tower" style of review. Then after learning some of the ropes, I started changing to my own current style. With feedback from some friends, I believe I have come up with a nice semi-professional look.

I give you my background so that you understand, I am a gamer first. I also want to see others enjoy games with honest opinions from a fellow gamer. My unwritten rules I set for myself was; 1)Never accept money to review a game, 2)If a publisher sent a free copy to review, clearly state at beginning of video, 3) if ever offered money to do a preview, then clearly state it is a preview and not a review. Also, if I get paid to preview a game, I won't review the game due to possible biased. Granted none of the above has ever happened, but maybe after I get a few hundred reviews in and I become more popular.

Now with all of that being said, I have learned a lot making and reviewing games. Some of them;
1) it's harder trying to balance being honest and fair, while also being respectful, than you might think. I realize that these designers put months or years into their games.
2) hard trying not mentioning the cost/value of the game in review. In order to cut costs, I get a lot of those "daily deals" on some sites. I sometimes want to say "At the $20, I got it on clearance, this is a MUST BUY for any collection. But at its $70 retail, it is a hard pass" I try to review the game for what it is.
3) Rodney hit the nail on the head on costs. This hobby got expensive fast. Granted I went el-cheapo on some things but basic costs; Mic-$30, Mic extension-$10, Camera (use Galaxy S9), Umbrella Lights-$40/pair, Camera stand-$30, Camera mount-$10, software-$100. Total-$220
4) To look more professional, Camera boom-$30, HD camera to look down at table for unboxing/demo-$80, Green Screen-$60, intro-graphics-$20, royalty free music-$20, total-$210
5) Time - takes an average of: Set-up/breakdown equipment-30 minutes, filming-2 hours, editing-1-2 hours, uploading and posting - 1 hour. So, about 5 hours for an average 20 minute video.
6) Hard being biased to a designer/publisher you admire. Mike Gnade/Rock Manor Games and Chip Theory games are two of my favorites publishers. And I own/kickstarted nearly everything they have. But you have to force yourself to be biased, which ends up making my film time double. Ex. Brass Empire took me nearly 6 hours over two days to get a take where I felt I was honest enough to both the game and designer.
7) The Anxiety, my stomach still twists when I hit that upload button. Then wait to see if anyone bothers to watch, much less comment. Did the designer see the video? Did they like it?
8) You can pay to have your video get more views and likes!!! I know most people are aware, but it still blows my mind that people do this.
9) Buying games, on top of everything you have to track down and buy a copy of a game, sometimes paying over retail to get the new and popular game. So $40-80 per video.
10) Playtesting to satisfaction, finding a group of friends that are willing to try a new game a few times. Harder than you may think on some games.
11) Satisfaction - But at the end of it all. I enjoy it and I take it all in stride.
7 
 Thumb up
5.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Gagné
Canada
Gatineau
Québec
flag msg tools
Game Summit 2019 - Canada
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Totally agree. Being paid for a review is not the problem, being paid by the publisher is the issue. Just like politics :-)

OMG our Canadian money looks fantastic!

We could kickstart a review board kinda like Watched it played did a few years back. It went well I think. I don't see why it wouldn't work for a review board.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Forrey
United States
Dallastown
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Really good topic to bring up Rodney. I especially like the throw back to Scott as he was the guy i first found reviewing BG's that i genuinely got REAL information from. When i first found your series years ago Scott was the person i thought of first.

All i have to say about this topic personally is that when i see a reviewer give no negatives and all positives in a review i am immediately suspect. There's no such thing as a perfect game. Even Rhado(who openly acknowledges he reviews only games of his taste) has something negative to say in his reviews. The inverse also applies. When a reviewer spews nothing but hate for a game it is suspect.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Zak Mussig
United States
flag msg tools
This is a little more in the weeds, but I think that publisher paid vs fan paid is a false distinction. All of these videos are on YouTube and I would be shocked if these channels aren’t monetized (including the BGG channel hosting this video).

Popular reviewers who have earned a large base of subscribers and steady views are surely being compensated for their efforts. How much time, money, and energy someone is willing to invest to try to get to that point is up to them. Reviewers are no more entitled to revenue than Netflix or Disney; they earn it by providing entertainment and perceived value.
2 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Stagno
United States
Pittsburgh
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
I am the keeper of my groups games
badge
It’sa me!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It is definitely muddy territory, and one where in order to respect the passion and livelihood of those we respect in the industry we have to care about.

I watch fewer videos and listen to more podcasts - and I will predicate this comment with I don't have strong understanding of the model this is based on, but from my impressions it seems that most podcasts I listen to:

1) Have review copies provided for the games they are reviewing/discussing on the show, so they are only really paying for games they were interested in outside of reviews.

2) Most podcasts I listen to (Dukes of Dice, RDTN, for example) have sponsors that pay to help cover the costs of their invested time in producing the content, but the details of the sponsorship seem to primarily include running "commercials" for them on the air, or helping to run promotions for them as opposed to specifically reviewing their games. Thusly it helps soften the muddiness that this kind of activity can bring, and they are always careful to mention when they are discussing/reviewing games that are published by their sponsors.

While I am unsure how "profitable" this ends up being vs. breaking even or just defraying the costs of what they are doing. I have always gotten the sense that most people who do this sort of work are doing it out of passion as there unfortunately don't seem to be a lot of opportunities to make it a full time gig without delving into other territories (swag, cons, etc).

That being said, definitely interested in the ongoing discourse of ways to make this better for everyone involved so that publishers can promote their products and the end consumers can get information they trust in. For me, I primarily look to these content creators because they have similar gaming interests to my own, or by listening them I can peg their "niche" of gaming interest. In doing so, as you mentioned, I am attempting to keep an ear to the ground for news/new games to check out, and also potentially avoid games that might be hyped more than they are actually good.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
ace hawkster
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
My two pennies worth
Paid review equals biased towards game due to financial gain
Unpaid review , with free supplied copy of game equals biased review due to semi financial gain
Unpaid review where reviewer has bought game themselves ,equals semi unbiased but with slight bias towards wanting to like due to financial expenditure , heavy bias if kickstarter as normally a slightly heavier financial expenditure. (Not always the case I know)
I look more at what the game involves (rules, components etc) and less so what any reviewer personally think s as personal opinions differ so much.
Either way all reviews should state at outset what angle they are reviewing from.
As to unpaid reviews not getting paid surely not everyone in this world is just about the money ? Some maybe do it for the love of the hobby and to better inform others of the same mindset ?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ian S
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Avatar
FWIW I'm pretty comfortable with reviewers being sent a review copy for free, reviewing it, and keeping hold of it afterwards (but not selling it on before general release - that would be crass and piss the publisher off royally). After that, sell it, keep it, return it or give it away - all are ok IMO.

A reviewer needs something to review, and in most spheres, and where the amount involved is modest (let's say less than $150), this is par for the course with credible reviewers.

Throwing in anything over and above that takes it quickly away from 'supplying a review copy' to financial inducement.

There are reviewers in other *spheres who get rather more freebies, e.g. being flown 1st class, staying for free in swanky accomodation, offered the finest of the fine in their sphere of influence, then happily writing about the hosts (in glowing terms of course). Clear and honest disclosure goes a long way to informing readers, but for me treatment like the above destroys the credibility of the person involved. I strongly doubt boardgames fall into that degree of excess.

Regards
Ian

* FWIW this is not at all uncommon for wine writers / reviewers.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Troy Stevenson
Australia
Fortitude Valley
Queensland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't have a problem with paid reviews or paid reviewers. I think that paid reviewers that show a propensity for dishonesty or simply being dazzled by the dollar with get found out in a reasonable amount of time and it is counter productive to anyone wanted to do this service in the long term.

In particular I will always give more weight to someone such as yourself or Rahdo who actually show us the game in action. This gets to the guts of what I want to see with an extended view of the mechanics and components in such a way that I can get a feel if I want to be playing a particular game and if I will enjoy it.

Probably the best consideration, among many excellent opinions so far, in this post is the one concerning large vs small publishers and the potential to have otherwise worthy or exceptional games/designers be largely invisible and lost to the community of gamers.

A paid review should however always be announced as such - whether at the end or the beginning I find acceptable either way.

Great topic Rodney and love your channel.

Cheers
Loc
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Raymond Haaken
Netherlands
Maastricht
flag msg tools
Check my YouTube channel "Boardgame Heaven"!
badge
Feel free to geekmail me about reviews, or if you need a microbadge designed.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Just found this after posting a blog post on the same subject here: https://boardgamegeek.com/blogpost/90036/interesting-view-pr...

Bookmarking this thread. Great video Rodney! Thanks!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Soul Mox
msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Dear Rodney,
Interesting topic. A few things I want to put into the discussion.

- Its about the quality of the review. Quality is subjective for each viewer. A good review for you can be a bad review for me.
- What is the problem if a review is influenced by a publisher, if the quality of the review is good? Even if it is not the personal opinion of the reviewer, the contents of the review can still be good and help.
- Bad reviewers will lose audience. If a reviewer delivers bad reviews, the audience will stop valuing the reviews. Its the same with other products. If you buy a car or a lotion because someone recommends it to you and it turns out to be bad, you won't listen to the recommender anymore.
- Is being paid important for a reviewer? There can be a considerable amount of investment to make reviews. So does my oldtimer car and I don't ask people for money who are looking at my car. Neither do I get paid to drive that brand of car. Everybody does things that cost money but do not generate money.
- There are other ways of getting paid. Think about subscription fees, advertisement or donations. In those cases the consumer of the information pays, not a party with interest in selling the game.

My personal opinion is that I don't care if a review is paid or not. If a reviewer manages to get paid, e.g. as a job, that is fine. For me, the contents and argumentation of a review is what counts.

With kind regards
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nathaniel Baker
United States
Circle Pines
MN
flag msg tools
badge
Hnaarr oorrawarr!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It seems like people keep making a connection between Paid reviews and the quality of the review.

Rodney, thank you for your presentation here. I think it shows quite a bit of honesty and transparancy, and shows a pro-reviewer aspect.

People also seem to go immediately to "guilty until not really ever given a chance to be proven innocent." I'd hope a progressive world could offer a better opinion of individuals who are doing work literally for other people.

An example could be McDonalds. I've received crap food from McDonalds. But they get paid. So they dont immediately want to just please the customer. If that was the case, we wouldn't have such negative responses to customer service representatives or lower opinions of them. In fact, they'd probably get paid more.

Anyway. My two cents.

Edit: also, if everyone cant go through multiple facets of research before spending their money, they should not be blaming a paid review. If you think all reviewers are semi paid, then dont use them. This is a simple case of people using their own due diligence.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
[1]  Prev «  1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »  [6] | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.