Can You REALLY Trust What They Are Telling You?

Monarch Pass, Colorado (click to enlarge)
Fujifilm X-T2, 16-55mm f/2.8 lens @ 27mm; 1/640th sec. @ f/11; ISO 200

Who am I talking about?  Read on.

The recent introductions of mirrorless cameras from Nikon, Canon and Fujifilm as well as ones over the past year from Sony had me thinking about the reviews I have been reading, hearing and viewing.  I'm troubled to say that my thoughts weren't ones that bode well for the Internet blogosphere and You Tube community.

Being a consumer of a large number of blogs, You Tube videos and articles about photographic topics, especially gear reviews, I try to be extra careful about whom I choose to listen to get thoughtful, unbiased and complete information.  Like you, I want the best information available so as to be able to make an informed and best decision when choosing how to spend my limited funds for new photographic gear.  Trying to understand where I can get unbiased and thoughtful information is why I'm troubled.

Sometimes it is taxing to try to identify those presenters who are brand ambassadors as some don’t identify themselves as such.  Some are even multi-brand ambassadors.  The most ethical of them self-identify each time they give their opinion or endorsement, but many don't.  Each should every time they opine, whether for or against a related or competitor's product.  Its not ethical to not identify your affiliations either when endorsing a product in return for some privilege or for some personal benefit from the product's manufacturer or when speaking out against a competitor's product.  These brand ambassadors' jobs are to say good things about whomever they represent and whatever products they produce.  Some of these ambassadors get discounts, some get free gear, some get advanced gear to test, some get prestige from recognition as a brand ambassador and some are even flown over to Japan for conferences with the manufacturer's engineers to give feedback in the development of future products.  In other words, these men and women received personal benefit from camera manufacturers with the expectation that they give, at least, a "fair" review, whatever that is.  But does that really happen?

There is a new (at least one that I just discovered over the past couple of years) trend that is especially disturbing.  The trend lately among camera companies is to choose a relatively good size group of photographers, traditional retail establishment representatives, internet based photographic gear reviewers and You Tube presenters and fly them somewhere, all expenses paid, with opportunities to fly in and photograph from manufacturer paid helicopters, sailing ships and photograph company paid models, company paid athletes (under strictly controlled conditions) and provide other perks all while using the latest introductions of cameras and lenses.  Of course they are all a captive audience for the camera company present their finely tuned and tested spiel about their new gear.  Sony and Canon seem to be leading this new effort.  Just in the past year, they have flown photographers to Hawaii, the coast of California (Monterey), Sedona, Arizona and other places, all expenses paid.  This goes on in Europe as well.  If my memory serves me well, I think Olympus flew a large group of photographers and reviewers to Ireland?  Not sure, but I remember seeing photos of horses running in water, etc. made with the newest Olympus cameras at the time.

Here is my problem.  How can I trust any of these individuals who have participated in these company paid junkets to be honest?  Personally, I don't think I can.  Recently, I heard one Internet presenter say that if a review reflects poorly on the gear, he or she will not get another invitation to future events and may lose the "privilege" of being a brand ambassador.  Talk about potentially skewing reviews!

Another problem I wonder about is subtle bias, despite claims of being fair.  I'm certainly not an expert in bias, but there are a couple of concepts called subconscious bias and implicit bias, where contrary to one's overt and conscious actions, bias creeps in without you even knowing.  I wonder if, despite these reviewers claiming that they are giving unbiased reviews, that a subconscious or implicit bias is present as they know that they have been very well rewarded and given privilege and the ultimate expectation of them is a good review?  Is it possible for them not to be biased?  Personally, I don't think they can or, at the very least, they certainly cannot "appear" to be unbiased after accepting thousands of dollars in "gifts" from these manufacturers.

What would we say if the mainstream press took these types of "perks," rewards, discounts, free stuff, trips, etc. and then reported on a story concerning the company that gave them the gifts?  I believe accepting these types of benefits from those who you plan to write about is strictly and ethically forbidden.  As it should be.  After all, without credibility and reputations their positions as members of the press would evaporate due to no longer being able to be sure of unbiased reporting.  The public would have little or no confidence in them as unbiased reporters.

In my view, these activities are such an ethical lapse on the part of these reviewers.  If you don't believe me, take a look at the vast majority of the reviews.  I bet if one did an extensive analysis the reviews of the gear produced by the companies that pay for these lavish benefits are generally much better than reviews of gear from companies who just have simple introductions where all the press is invited.  Yes, we read and see reviews with a few niggling negative things may be said, but for the most part, the reviews coming from these attendees are very positive.  Why would you think otherwise?  This trend is such a disservice to the photographic community, yet no one seems to think anything is wrong with this.  Why is this behavior getting a free pass?  No one seems to question it?

I don’t know about you, but I will never be able to fully believe these reviews are unbiased no matter how much they protest to the contrary.  They were given thousands of dollars of gifts of value and no matter what they say, they are not going to say but so many negative comments about that company’s new camera or lenses.  A camera or lens might just be as terrific as they say, but by accepting these free junkets, they have forever sacrificed their credibility with me.  After all, don’t you think they want to be flown to some really nice place for the next introduction?  If they do report anything substantially negative or really slam a product, surely they will be left off the list.

We complain about politicians selling out to lobbyists, but that in my opinion, is exactly what I am seeing with these multi-thousand dollar junkets to exotic places by the camera companies.  Selling one's credibility for a week’s worth of airline tickets, food, gifts, expensive resort hotel room, helicopter rides,  catamaran trips, models, etc. while using new gear seems to be a stiff price to pay for their futures.

Let me be clear.  I have not watched nor listened to all reviewers or all participants in these junkets.  I'm certainly not accusing any particular person of being deceptive, biased or not putting forth their best effort.  I'm just saying this whole idea of gathering together lots of reviewers, flying them somewhere all expenses paid doesn't pass my smell test.  I don't think this is good for consumers.  I think it erodes confidence.  I am a believer that these sort of activities need to stop and stop now.

Join me over at Instagram @dennisamook or my website, www.dennismook.com. 

Thanks for looking. Enjoy! 

Dennis A. Mook 

All content on this blog is © 2013-2018 Dennis A. Mook. All Rights Reserved. Feel free to point to this blog from your website with full attribution. Permission may be granted for commercial use. Please contact Mr. Mook to discuss permission to reproduce the blog posts and/or images.