[HN Gopher] Wirecutter strike and boycott Thanksgiving through C...
___________________________________________________________________
Wirecutter strike and boycott Thanksgiving through Cyber Monday
Author : williamsmj
Score : 145 points
Date : 2021-11-23 17:28 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (twitter.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com)
| coolso wrote:
| Wirecutter is essentially just a glorified, prettified Amazon
| affiliate link aggregator anyway. I have tried so many of their
| recommendations - always making sure not to click the affiliate
| links directly - and been burned or at the very least
| disappointed more than enough times, that at this point I just
| use their site as a starting guide, and then make sure not to
| actually buy their recommended pick if at all possible.
|
| Can we just keep the boycott going in perpetuity?
| bryan0 wrote:
| I've found their recommendations to be pretty good in general.
| What products were you disappointed by? If both they and CR are
| in agreement it's a pretty good bet.
| karaterobot wrote:
| I've gotten good recommendations from Wirecutter, but also
| very bad ones. I bought their recommended coffee machine, and
| it's $200, and no better than the $30 Mr. Coffee it replaced
| (except, I guess, in the referral fee they get).
|
| They also recommend an air purifier by Levoit, which
| performed demonstrably worse than a box fan with a HEPA
| filter bungee corded on to it[1]. In fairness, Wirecutter
| recommended a cheaper model, but is that model going to
| perform better than the more expensive one in the same line?
| In any case, it's still not cheaper than a box fan and a HEPA
| filter, which ought to be the baseline you'd test against if
| you were providing value to your readers.
|
| [1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/portable-air-purifier-
| tests...
| Cd00d wrote:
| I have their recommended coffee machine (OXO Barista
| Brain), and have loved it for over 3 years. I recommend it
| to everyone I know that likes drip coffee as much as I do.
|
| If you were so happy with a $30 Mr. Coffee, what even
| compelled you to spend $200??
| karaterobot wrote:
| I was referring to the OXO 9-cup coffee maker[1]. I don't
| expect it to be 7 times better than the Mr. Coffee, and
| would be satisfied if it was just noticeably better in
| any way. But it's really pretty much the same thing, only
| more expensive. To be clear, both units are _absolutely
| fine_ at making coffee.
|
| What compelled me to spend $200 on the OXO was the
| glowing Wirecutter review.
|
| [1] https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/best-drip-
| coffee-...
| mikestew wrote:
| _If you were so happy with a $30 Mr. Coffee..._
|
| Parent never said that, and they're obviously not happy
| with the Mr. Coffee if they're willing to spend $200 on a
| coffee maker...which, BTW, better do a better job than a
| $30 coffee maker.
| clairity wrote:
| based on wirecutter's _own test results_ a few years ago,
| the blue air 211+ air purifier had the best performance by
| a good margin, but they wouldn 't recommend it, for at
| least 2 years after i bought it, though they later did so,
| briefly. this was likely to maximize their revenue rather
| than provide the best recommendation. hard to trust them
| after that.
| gommm wrote:
| Having tested the DIY option versus some other air
| purifiers (xiaomi not levoit though), I do think that there
| are other considerations to take into account. A box fan
| with a HEPA filter bungee is loud and is very annoying to
| have at home. An air filter that is much less loud for the
| same result, can be controlled via home assistant (I have
| an ESP32 connected to a VOC sensor and a decent particle
| sensor that I use to control when to turn on and off the
| air purifier) can be worth it.
| asdff wrote:
| How much did you spend all in for your air purifier and
| sensor setup? Looking to do something similar but I don't
| know where to start.
| errantspark wrote:
| > In any case, it's still not cheaper than a box fan and a
| HEPA filter, which ought to be the baseline you'd test
| against if you were providing value to your readers.
|
| Don't dismiss this as a cantankerous rant. This is an
| extremely good point. The advantages are not only there in
| terms of cost but in terms of environmental impact and
| waste as well. It's telling that this sort of DIY solution
| isn't highlighted as the goto, especially in a publication
| catering to a crowd that claims to care about not fucking
| up the planet and wrings it's hands about the harms of
| capitalism. Instead of an air purifier bungee a HEPA filter
| to a box fan and donate the difference to some group
| capitalism shits on, repeat this approach for all things.
| Problem solved. Welcome to the solarpunk revolution.
|
| Disclaimer: I did in fact buy a Levoit air purifier off
| Amazon during the wildfires last year so you know, ain't
| nobody perfect.
| harlanlewis wrote:
| It definitely depends on the category. I've found it most
| helpful for items that I don't know much about, the
| capability and pricing tiers do matter, but it's not going to
| be a purchase that needs to be absolutely perfect and I'm
| unlikely to have a strong opinion about later.
|
| Headphones? Stay away - too subjective. A humidifier for the
| nursery? Perfect.
| clifdweller wrote:
| This is where I have a problem with their reviews will
| start to dive into it but never really educate the reader
| enough to make an informed decision over trusting them. i.e
| in their recommended sleeping pads they don't even consider
| the lower end ones for testing and they balk at the higher
| end ones because of material choices(which they don't
| explain have trade offs ie cold or hot camping they remove
| mylar pads and nylon)Then they are left with picking from a
| bunch of clones of each other all at same price point with
| similar features and left with learning nothing other than
| they chose clone of a clone all because it goes on sale
| more often than the others
| HeavenFox wrote:
| Not OP but I bought their humidifier recommendation and it
| wasn't great. Barely made a dent in the humidity level of my
| small studio apartment.
|
| Turns out I was not alone:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25993512
| coolso wrote:
| The air purifier they recommended makes a loud annoying noise
| any time the house temp falls below a certain point. The
| router they recommended started randomly and frequently
| dropping connections after a year. The WiFi extender they
| recommended dropped connections from day one and also had
| noticeable coil whine from across the room. The surge
| protector they recommended reeked of mid/late 2000s-era cheap
| plastic and made my living room smell of it for about two
| weeks. And the expensive house fan they recommended made an
| off-balance rumbling vibration type noise which made it
| difficult to fall asleep to.
|
| Upon further research into each issue, I found many other
| people noticing the same things. In addition, many of the
| products with these issues I exchanged, only to have the
| replacement exhibit the same exact problem.
|
| Their presentation is their only real strength for the most
| part.
| VWWHFSfQ wrote:
| I recommend you stop going to their website. You seem to be
| having a very tough time.
| analyte123 wrote:
| I think Wirecutter drives a lot of sales, so a manufacturer
| could just cut corners and nerf their product's quality after
| they're recommended by Wirecutter in order to cash in. It seems
| like Wirecutter only re-evaluates their top recs after a couple
| years have gone by.
| bobthechef wrote:
| That they _could_ doesn 't mean they _will_. That 's why
| articles are dated. If the article reviews the nth generation
| of product p, then that's what the review is about. If you're
| reading the review 2-3 years afterward, chances are the
| product has gone through another iteration (in which case, it
| no longer applies as equally) or the same product is still in
| production and the review likely still applies. Besides, why
| would you only rely solely on Wirecutter? CNET, RTINGS,
| Reddit, etc. can all be consulted to corroborate each other.
|
| Besides, this cheating strategy is only locally sustainable.
| Once word gets out, they'll lose on their next release. Lies
| have short legs.
| soared wrote:
| If you're reading their content why wouldn't you click their
| affiliate links?
|
| You're costing them server hours and purposefully not giving
| them revenue despite it costing you nothing.
| coolso wrote:
| Are you saying I should be giving them revenue for not being
| terribly open about the fact that they only review products
| which can earn them a commission, and that furthermore, they
| deserve revenue from me for recommending products I spent
| about $500 or more in total for, only for them all to have
| significant flaws?
| CubsFan1060 wrote:
| You are consuming the product. They have an asking price
| for the product (which includes affiliate links and ads).
|
| If you don't like the asking price, that is 100% fine.
| Don't consume the product.
|
| You seem to be wanting to decide what is a fair price for
| product that they produced and set a price for.
| [deleted]
| williamsmj wrote:
| "the fact that they only review products which can earn
| them a commission"
|
| So you're saying https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/about/
| is a lie?
| VWWHFSfQ wrote:
| Yikes. The overwhelming sense of entitlement is very strong
| here.
| throwawaygh wrote:
| In both directions. I've never seen clicking on affiliate
| links as _price_ to be paid for a service. That 's also
| sure as hell not what the ToS say.
|
| Using affiliate links to pay for content creation/hosting
| is reasonable. Bypassing affiliate links is also
| reasonable. If you want to be owed something, put it in
| the ToS.
| BeetleB wrote:
| > Are you saying I should be giving them revenue for not
| being terribly open about the fact that they only review
| products which can earn them a commission
|
| It's right on the top of their front page:
|
| "Wirecutter is reader-supported. When you buy through links
| on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Learn
| more."
| coolso wrote:
| You missed the key word "only" in my comment. Yes, they
| certainly make it clear they earn affiliate commission,
| which is fine. But what they do not make clear is the
| fact that they will totally ignore products that do not
| allow them to earn a commission, or at best, they will
| put them very far down on the list for some strange
| reason that doesn't really align with their explanation
| or lack thereof. This is very misleading.
| Cd00d wrote:
| That's simply not true. I've bought products from
| Wirecutter recommendations that simply link a clean
| merchant url - no affiliate link.
| BeetleB wrote:
| Do you have hard evidence for the "only" portion? Based
| on their response to NextDesk, they do review items for
| which they don't get a commission:
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/our-response-to-
| nextdesk/
| newfonewhodis wrote:
| I don't know what you are referring to but plenty of times
| they link directly to a retailers' website where they don't
| earn commissions.
|
| It's also a reasonable way for them to make money that
| isn't:
|
| 1. Invasive tracking 2. Nasty ads 3. Direct subscriptions
|
| Take your entitlement elsewhere.
| coolso wrote:
| > Take your entitlement elsewhere.
|
| What are your thoughts regarding ad blocking?
| Specifically, do you also find people who use adblockers
| (I assume you don't use one of course) entitled?
| newfonewhodis wrote:
| Absolutely (I am one of them though I'm a member of or
| otherwise monetarily support publications I frequent).
|
| The thing I hate is people who try to come up
| transparently disingenuous reasons for why they are
| entitled to not support organizations they extract value
| out of ("ehh I don't like your CSS so I'm going to not
| give you any money").
| mindslight wrote:
| Affiliate links are a cancer along with the rest of the
| advertising-surveillance industry, and it's best to avoid
| contributing however you can. I do all my product research
| with a different nym (separate browser VM and IP address)
| from what I actually login and checkout with.
|
| In general the web was at its best decades ago, when people
| published because they knew things and were internally
| compelled to share. Despite the drop in quality and
| overwhelming prevalence of shameless blogspam (from which
| Wirecutter is one or two steps up), I prefer to continue
| acting as if that information sharing is still the overriding
| motivation.
| bobthechef wrote:
| "In general the web was at its best decades ago, when
| people published because they knew things and were
| internally compelled to share."
|
| What does this mean, "internally compelled"?
|
| If someone is providing systematic reviews of products, it
| takes time and resources to do so. Why would they do this
| for free?
| errantspark wrote:
| I think there's truth to the nostalgia-goggles view here.
|
| I think the early internet:
|
| - was a more distinctly bounded subset of individuals -
| now it's closer to a random sampling of humans
|
| - had less "background monetary radiation" so there was
| far less incentive to make low value content
|
| - content spread mostly by human -> human interaction so
| the bar for something being shared and consequently your
| likelyhood of seeing it was set higher
|
| It feels like the signal to noise ratio was significantly
| better as a combination of those things. This sort of
| product-shilling was less profitable. Also in general the
| profitability vector being "people click the buy link" vs
| "people's continued trust in my expertise" influences the
| sort of content that's created.
| mindslight wrote:
| I mean when someone's motivation comes from what they
| themselves are interested in and their wanting to pass
| along their knowledge to help others, as opposed to say
| the external incentive of being financially compensated.
| I know this seems completely foreign in this age of
| played out incentives, but such publishing used to be
| quite common before independent sites were drowned out by
| webspam. You'd do a search, dig through a few pages of
| results, and hit upon an information-dense (likely plain
| text) site of someone thoroughly geeking out about your
| topic.
| donmcronald wrote:
| RIP JohnnyGuru dot com :-(
| debaserab2 wrote:
| I think you're waxing nostalgically about a time that
| wasn't nearly as good as you think it was. There's orders
| of magnitudes of more useful information on the internet
| today than there was decades ago. Yes, it's more often on
| platforms and not usually personal websites anymore, but
| there are still plenty of creators doing it out of
| passion, even if sometimes - but definitely not always -
| they also have financial incentive as well.
| mindslight wrote:
| Well I'm definitely remembering many occasions of finding
| sites that had in-depth technical analysis. And being
| unable to find such discussion today. There likely is a
| higher quality of information today (just due to sheer
| participation), but the stuff that's easy to find by
| searching is generally quite shallow. If you're lucky
| you'll get two or three forum threads that mostly address
| your question.
| callmeal wrote:
| >If you're reading their content why wouldn't you click their
| affiliate links?
|
| Because they blackmail companies into affiliate revenue with
| the threat of "unrecommending" their products. See:
| https://www.xdesk.com/wirecutter-standing-desk-review-pay-
| to...
| Bud wrote:
| That accusation is actually not supported by the facts, as
| detailed elsewhere in this thread.
| bryan0 wrote:
| If a union isn't threatening to strike, does that mean they're
| not negotiating hard enough?
| filmgirlcw wrote:
| The New York Times won't even agree to meet with them to
| discuss negotiations. This is literally a last resort. These
| negotiations have been ongoing for two years.
| hiddencost wrote:
| Not all unions are strong enough to actually strike.
|
| If management thinks the union is too weak to strike, they can
| stonewall. And if the union can't muster a strike, management
| tends to win. If the union CAN muster a strike, then (1) people
| in the union develop a stronger belief in their union and (2)
| management updates their estimate of what they can get away
| with.
| Lendal wrote:
| No. It's supposed to be a working relationship. There are many
| opportunities to negotiate in good faith for things you want in
| any relationship. Always threatening a strike or a divorce or a
| full-scale/nuclear war or a political filibuster is actually a
| sign of an abusive, unhealthy relationship. It's not a bad
| question though. It's just a sign of the times.
| sharkjacobs wrote:
| A strike isn't just an abstract tactic deployed at the
| negotiation table, a strike is a big ask of all the members of
| the striking union.
|
| If a union isn't threatening to strike it's because whatever
| they expect to gain in leverage and negotiating power isn't
| enough to offset the cost of the actual strike.
| dsr_ wrote:
| No. A strike is a weapon of last resort -- you have to have the
| ability to use it, but you don't want to use it. Much better is
| when both sides are negotiating rationally.
|
| When a union perceives that the company is not negotiating
| rationally, that's when they take a vote to authorize a strike.
| Then, hopefully, the strike doesn't happen... but it's
| available.
| melony wrote:
| Is firing the entire union protected under labour laws in at
| will employment states?
| jpollock wrote:
| The right to strike is federally protected:
|
| https://www.nlrb.gov/strikes
|
| Seems that if the employer can hire replacements quickly
| enough, the strikers don't get their jobs back.
|
| "Economic strikers defined. If the object of a strike is to
| obtain from the employer some economic concession such as
| higher wages, shorter hours, or better working conditions,
| the striking employees are called economic strikers. They
| retain their status as employees and cannot be discharged,
| but they can be replaced by their employer. If the employer
| has hired bona fide permanent replacements who are filling
| the jobs of the economic strikers when the strikers apply
| unconditionally to go back to work, the strikers are not
| entitled to reinstatement at that time. However, if the
| strikers do not obtain regular and substantially equivalent
| employment, they are entitled to be recalled to jobs for
| which they are qualified when openings in such jobs occur
| if they, or their bargaining representative, have made an
| unconditional request for their reinstatement."
| dsr_ wrote:
| That's an odd phrasing of the question, since normally we
| talk about rights of the employees being protected.
|
| If you want to ask, "is it generally legal to fire all
| members of a union in retaliation", the answer is "it's
| complicated". Read https://www.nlrb.gov/strikes
| hogFeast wrote:
| This is typically the case in Europe, where (unsurprisingly)
| unions are more common. In the US and the UK, you see more
| militant unions, more wildcat strikes, more picketing, etc.
| which is why union membership went through the floor (I am in
| the UK, we also have unions taking positions on climate
| change, on Israel/Palestine, they own the party in opposition
| and last year the most well-funded union leader attempted to
| get his girlfriend a seat in the House of Lords...they are
| very weird). Unions develop in their own political, legal,
| and cultural context so, for some, strikes are very much a
| first resort.
| _jal wrote:
| > strikes are very much a first resort
|
| I'm going to guess you don't know any union members.
|
| Strikes are very hard on the strikers. You're suddenly
| taking no income but still putting in a shift on the picket
| line. Not only is there the real risk of the whole thing
| being net-negative, but you could lose your job entirely.
|
| And a lot of time, you only strike because you've been
| squeezed financially for so long, you may not have much of
| a buffer for all that.
|
| You make it sound like unions strike for sport. I suspect a
| conversation with an actual striking union member might
| provide a different perspective.
| hogFeast wrote:
| That guess is incorrect.
|
| And yes, as I explained but will repeat, strikes happen
| within a political/legal/cultural/economic context. In
| some contexts, that has increased the frequency of
| strikes. By your account, the proportion of strikes just
| relates to the financial position of the strikers...I
| don't know how it is possible to be aware of the history
| of trade unionism and come to that conclusion.
|
| For example, individuals do not choose to strike. They
| vote for strike action in a ballot or there is a decision
| taken by an executive of the union. Exactly how this
| occurs has had a huge role in determining the frequency
| of strikes (if you look at the labour history of the UK,
| the lack of democratic process in important unions was a
| major reason why they went militant, why strikes
| increased, and eventually why unions fell into decline).
|
| The specifics of your account of striking is mostly wrong
| too (for example, it is not always true that strikers are
| unpaid). Most people today do not understand how unions
| operate...this is related to the fact that they live in
| countries where the labour movement committed suicide,
| and they are left with militant unions that misrepresent
| how unions can actually work effectively (again, Europe
| is a perfect example of this, the militant behaviour of
| unions today is a function of their irrelevance in
| society, and that is 100% a function of the use of
| industrial action by militant unions).
| [deleted]
| bin_bash wrote:
| Looks like they're asking for $300,000 for their 65 workers.
| That's an average of $4600/person. Does that seem pretty low to
| anyone else?
|
| https://twitter.com/wirecutterunion/status/14631750942184161...
| filmgirlcw wrote:
| Yes. Especially when they aren't asking for the same pay as
| other New York Times editorial employees -- not even close to
| it. The pay delta between median editorial guild member of the
| Times and editorial member of Wirecutter union is over $40,000.
| So they are asking for a little more than 10% of the delta
| between two of their unionized editorial writing groups, in
| terms of median pay.
| Bud wrote:
| That's the amount of the wage _increase_ , not their total
| wages.
| jmuguy wrote:
| Wonder if this is related to Wirecutter going not just behind the
| NYT paywall but also requiring an extra subscription beyond the
| base level. I basically stopped visiting after that.
| ramesh31 wrote:
| https://youtu.be/ZW_1hP0SHSQ
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| Hot take: this seems like a very low-traffic period for them as
| anyone searching BFCM deals will have done the reading before the
| days? / content written before the days
| dharmab wrote:
| Wirecutter runs a live update feed on major sale days that
| aggregates surprise/short term deals.
| intro-b wrote:
| I think there's still a niche for a Wirecutter-like site. But I
| don't know what it should look like, and how it should function
| without invasive affiliate advertising. I like reading high
| quality reviews of practical goods as well as more specialized
| things. Right now, I just Google search "name of product" +
| "reddit" and browse through threads to get a general consensus of
| a product.
| hauget wrote:
| Q: Would you trust, or find useful, thumbs up reviews from
| people you follow online? Say you could see a collection of
| stuff people endorse via Twitter/IG, would that be of value to
| you?
| intro-b wrote:
| Kind of. The only issue is that I only use Twitter/IG for
| personal friends and not "influencer" level people.
|
| I think some of kind of organized curation would be nice. For
| instance, I follow https://fivebooks.com/ a lot, which asks
| subject matter experts on their recommendation. Something
| like that for nice consumer goods would be cool.
| asdff wrote:
| Consumer reports is like this but is subscriber funded vs
| affiliate or avert model
| hubraumhugo wrote:
| Paywall, strike, declining trustworthiness... I see more and more
| negative comments about Wirecutter. Could that be an opportunity
| for a rising competitor?
| donmcronald wrote:
| If your source info is untrustworthy affiliated reviewers, how
| does that aggregate into something I should trust?
| aurizon wrote:
| What are their current wages, and what are they offered, but have
| declined? I am unable to support or castigate unless I know what
| side is in error. We have seen the huge loss of first class mail
| starved the US Postal Service of $$, and now the decline in
| printed page journalism with the ease of access by all manner of
| fake news/blogs has starved the news papers of $$ - yet on the
| other hand there is a hedge fund buying news papers - do they
| know something I do not know?
| hogFeast wrote:
| If you own a paper, and revenue starts dropping 10% YoY for
| multiple years then you are going to need to put in place
| changes to the business, finances, corporate structure that
| most people who owned newspapers do not want to do.
|
| In some cases, this has been forced due to high levels of debt.
| But even in those cases, some change in operation is usually
| required because something has changed quite significantly.
|
| So you try to sell your paper? Most corporate buyers don't want
| to buy a problem. Most PE funds don't want to buy a problem.
| Bond holders don't want to take control. The most likely buyer
| is a hedge fund that specialised in purchasing distressed
| assets. So it is the opposite of what you think: the hedge fund
| knows exactly what you know, that is why they are buying. The
| information in the decision to buy for a hedge fund is not the
| trajectory of the business but the price. You can buy a
| business in an industry that is failing, and still make money.
| Ofc, what journalists (outraged by someone coming in and
| telling them they have to earn their wage) forget is that this
| isn't easy work. Hedge funds that specialise in distressed
| assets are buying a problem...that is why someone is selling it
| to them.
|
| It is is hard to generalise but from what I have seen:
| newspapers are still generating cash, there is a lot of scope
| to cut back on staff (to put it bluntly, newspapers were a
| monopoly business so they ran tons of staff doing things no-one
| read, they were a sinecure/tenure type job), digital strategy
| at most papers is very bad because managers worried about
| hurting offline, fully digital has a totally different staff
| model (a website is a totally different experience to a paper,
| all the views are concentrated in that top 10% of stories...no-
| one is going to hunt through/scroll down for your gardening
| guy), and there is scope for restructuring with debt holders.
| The business is declining but nowhere near as fast as other
| industries affected by online. Declining businesses like that
| are usually mispriced by the market who give them a control
| discount (and tbh, everyone just wants growth...look at
| Dillard's, they bought back effectively all their stock and the
| share price went up 600% in a month, people want to buy
| potential profit tomorrow rather than actual profit today), so
| taking the business private is usually very profitable.
| aurizon wrote:
| Yes, I see, managing a declining business can be done
| profitably, and they might have other assets the fund will
| sell.
| hogFeast wrote:
| I think some newspaper groups in the US had TV stations. I
| know some newspaper groups that own printing works have
| tried to sell those too. But, generally, no. The reason to
| buy newspapers is using the cash flow to turn around the
| business (again, it is very unlikely that you will survive
| doing this as a public company, so there is a reason to
| sell to a privately-run distressed asset specialist).
| vineyardmike wrote:
| They want $300k increase in wages - split across the 65 person
| team.
| ziml77 wrote:
| Are they making enough off Wirecutter to do that? I have no
| idea how much Wirecutter brought in this year versus previous
| years.
| errantspark wrote:
| For real? Is there a citation you've got for this? That seems
| crazy low.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| > During two years of bargaining, The New York Times
| company has slow-walked contract negotiations with unfair
| labor practices and insignificant wage offers that severely
| underpay our staff. We, members of the Wirecutter Union,
| are fed up. The wage increases we're seeking amount to only
| about $300,000, spread over our 65 person unit. Wirecutter
| has been wildly successful, especially over the time we've
| been bargaining this contract, and continues to bring in
| record revenue for the Times, which is sitting on over $1
| billion in cash. Additionally, Times management has offered
| paltry guaranteed wage increases of only 1%, despite
| soaring inflation and cash flows.
|
| https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-striking-wirecutter-
| union...
|
| https://twitter.com/wirecutterunion/status/1463175094218416
| 1...
| callmeal wrote:
| >What are their current wages, and what are they offered, but
| have declined?
|
| They want an average raise of $384/mo (about $4.8/hr).
| callmeal wrote:
| Wirecutter is a pay-to-play operation. I stopped heeding their
| recommendations after I discovered that they were aggressively
| persuing kickbacks and refusing to review products that do not
| pay. See https://www.xdesk.com/wirecutter-standing-desk-review-
| pay-to... for example.
|
| Also note that wirecutter in their response do not deny this but
| try to weasel out by claiming that the word 'kickback' was
| misleading.
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/our-response-to-nextdesk/
| One valid criticism NextDesk raised was our use of the word
| "kickback" in our business communications, which is a misleading
| description of the affiliate business model because it implies an
| illicit transaction. In our company's early days, we misused the
| term to describe a straightforward affiliate relationship, but we
| have since changed how we talk about the affiliate business,
| which is one we continue to stand behind.
| solarkraft wrote:
| Oh shit. I used to consider them to be one of the most
| reputable sources.
| f0e4c2f7 wrote:
| Oh no! I did as well.
|
| Who is the current honest broker of product reviews?
| mbesto wrote:
| How about The Strategist?
| [deleted]
| asdff wrote:
| Complaint threads on reddit probably. I don't have to watch
| video game reviews anymore at least, I just wait for the
| community on reddit to explode positively or negatively
| towards the game developer then I make my purchase or not.
| If you only went off the puff pieces in game reviews you'd
| be buying every title to come out. This works for a lot of
| stuff thats popular on reddit at least. Not sure where else
| I can find good communities online of people complaining
| and calling out shortcomings in products.
| ev1 wrote:
| Anything that contains affiliate, referral, or commission
| links I do not trust.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| What monetization models do you trust more?
| crooked-v wrote:
| Seems like it's time to go back to Consumer Reports.
| [deleted]
| filmgirlcw wrote:
| It's worth noting that this whole thing is from 2013/2014.
| Since then, Wirecutter has been sold to the New York Times and
| has completely different management. I don't personally think
| Brian Lam did what Nextdesk accused him of (disclosure: I've
| met Lam socially), but I also understand why it seems improper
| to have that kind of outreach.
|
| Based on my personal knowledge of many people who have worked
| at Wirecutter past and present, I don't believe they are a pay
| to play operation at all.
|
| Regardless, that has no bearing on whether or not their
| employees are owed a fair labor contract or not.
| whywhathow1990 wrote:
| You are late to the party. There was a thread a while ago
| debunking some of the misinformation in that case
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22141719
| UI_at_80x24 wrote:
| Is there any site that you do use now for recommendations? In
| the game of capitalism it seems everybody becomes a sell-out.
| [deleted]
| pjz wrote:
| As far as I'm concerned, America's Test Kitchen is the gold
| standard, with Consumer Reports just a little behind them.
| hoppyhoppy2 wrote:
| Consumer Reports has a long history of subscriber-funded
| independent reviews. They refuse all advertising,
| free/discounted items, etc. to prevent conflicts of interest.
| They review everything from cars and lawnmowers to mattresses
| and electronics, but depending on what niche of electronics
| you're looking at they may or may not have the kind of
| reviews you're looking for.
|
| https://www.consumerreports.org
| leetcrew wrote:
| consumer reports is a great resource when you just want an
| example of X that isn't a complete lemon. that's not a
| criticism, most purchases are like that for most people.
|
| but if you care about getting a _really good_ X, they 're
| not a great source. most of their buying guides have a lot
| less detail than Wirecutter's, and of course pale in
| comparison to dedicated review sites for popular niches.
|
| it's unfortunate that you essentially have to trade
| trustworthiness for detail.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| Consumer Reports has less prose, but much more objective
| data - in sortable tables. The data is from their labs,
| where they have domain experts using the scientific
| method to evaluate products.
| acomjean wrote:
| Available in many libraries.
|
| They rate products in a bunch of categories using a table
| and a circle which would be various levels of full color
| depending on how a product rated. which meant sometimes you
| wouldn't just go to the highest rated if one part of the
| product scored lower in a category. Its an interesting data
| visualization method. Plus the table usually has specs too.
|
| https://www.consumerreports.org/consumer-reports/we-put-
| ours...
| ethbr0 wrote:
| As long as the categories can be boiled down into
| reasonable, discrete levels, I'm a huge fan of radar
| charts for quick comparisons. They communicate
| multivariate differences pretty well, compared to
| alternatives. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_chart
|
| Unfortunately, they also require summarization, so
| they're only as good as the individual quality
| projections into discrete levels. Powerful when used
| correctly. Useless when incorrectly, or your audience
| isn't visually-oriented.
| thesausageking wrote:
| That's a pretty sensationalist article. Wirecutter doesn't hide
| the fact that they make money off of affiliate fees. Almost all
| content sites do.
|
| Are there better review websites than the Wirecutter? I've
| found them to be solid and helpful.
| karaterobot wrote:
| I like RTings, but they only review a limited selection of
| products. Consumer Reports is not what it used to be, and I
| always wonder if they're about to go out of business. I'm not
| aware of anything better, though I'd love to hear other
| people's recommendations.
|
| I have wondered if there is even a way to sustain an
| organization large enough to review a wide variety of
| products, and have a business model that does not raise
| questions about your motives or integrity. I'd guess that
| such a business would need a lot of people and time to
| comprehensively review products well, and that costs money.
| In the Wirecutter model, where they claim to keep their
| reviews up to date as new products come out, it's kind of a
| recurring cost, too. But if affiliate links are ethically
| dubious, and advertisements are even worse, and if not enough
| people will pay for a subscription to their site, then what
| is the alternative?
| ethbr0 wrote:
| > _I have wondered if there is even a way to sustain an
| organization large enough to review a wide variety of
| products, and have a business model that does not raise
| questions about your motives or integrity._
|
| Costs: {average number of new products released per unit of
| time} * {cost per product}
|
| Revenue: {volume of purchases per unit of time} *
| {affiliate marketing per product purchased}
|
| Advertising is probably difficult, due to the "Buy
| something other than what we recommend!" issue with
| advertising on review sites. Although I guess there are
| options for cross-selling.
|
| I can't believe there are many products that makes sense
| for, without the Consumer Reports "Pay for the report"
| model. And even with it, the economics seem dubious, and I
| feel like you'd always be barely getting by.
| [deleted]
| kfreds wrote:
| > I stopped heeding their recommendations after I discovered
| that they were aggressively persuing kickbacks and refusing to
| review products that do not pay.
|
| Let me offer a counterexample - VPN services. They didn't get a
| cent from Mullvad, which they declared the winner. Number two
| was IVPN, which also doesn't have an affiliate program.
|
| The review: https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/best-
| vpn-service/
| howinteresting wrote:
| While my experience with Wirecutter has been decidedly mixed,
| Mullvad really does seem to be the best VPN around.
| kfreds wrote:
| Thank you!
| boardwaalk wrote:
| That they didn't do this for a single product category
| doesn't mean very much, though.
| kfreds wrote:
| It does mean something. I can only testify to how they
| acted in our case of course, but what I can contribute is
| this:
|
| In a product category which is famous for its high-paying
| affiliate programs, they chose two players who are smaller
| and less well-known. Neither of them paid for their
| reviews. Most of their competitors mentioned in the article
| do have affiliate programs.
| is_true wrote:
| Why do you think they didn't get money from them?
| kfreds wrote:
| Mullvad: I know it for a fact, because I'm one of the
| founders.
|
| IVPN: I don't know it, but I've met Nick Pestell (the
| founder) several times, and he's told me they don't pay for
| reviews. I trust him.
| is_true wrote:
| I have an abandoned tech blog and I usually get asked by
| marketing firms to include links in old articles as part
| of SEO services they have.
| mox1 wrote:
| Ahh, this is why one must be careful when responding to
| seemingly random people on hacker news, there's a pretty
| good chance the CEO, head researcher , worlds fore-most
| expert on the topic, etc. is actually here reading the
| article.
|
| :)
| elliekelly wrote:
| I hope you enjoy the random cards of cash I send every
| month! I quite enjoy your product!
| donmcronald wrote:
| The whole affiliate marketing space is a dirty business. Saying
| affiliate relationship is just softer language for kickback
| IMO. The incentives are the same. I think all reviews with
| affiliate links should have to be labeled as paid promotion.
|
| This [1] sleepopolis saga is an amazing read if you've never
| seen it.
|
| 1. https://www.fastcompany.com/3065928/sleepopolis-casper-
| blogg...
| Cd00d wrote:
| I don't understand the problem with affiliate links, esp in
| this case. Wirecutter's recommendations, budget pick, and
| also great items are often all through Amazon, which as the
| largest online retailer isn't suprising.
|
| It isn't like they're recommending some brand over another
| because Amazon pays them for the click-through traffic. I
| don't see the kickback connection here.
|
| That said, I largely like Wirecutter recs - but also do
| external research. When those things align I've almost always
| been very happy with my purchase.
| noneeeed wrote:
| We need a new mattress, after about half an hour of searching
| for reviews I realised that there was no way I was going to
| find any genuinely honest reviews anywhere. Search results
| are packed with full-time mattress review sites that are all
| clearly getting affiliate payments of some form or other,
| many of them seem to have the same content.
|
| There might be some honest ones out there, but they are
| drowned out by all the ones that are clearly just affiliat
| link farms.
| hoppyhoppy2 wrote:
| Consumer Reports reviews mattresses, and they're
| independent and (imo) very trustworthy. A subscription
| costs money but you may be able to access it through your
| local library's online services.
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| Maybe we should have like... a place you can go feel them
| in person. Like a building where there would be a few of
| each model and you can test them BEFORE you buy one?
|
| /s. Mattress stores and mattress shopping is the fucking
| worst. Ultra scammy and there is a clear reason that the
| industry was turned upside down once someone figured out
| you can fit a mattress in a box and ship it.
|
| The last time I went mattress shopping, I was told by
| serious and expert sleep professionals [sic] that I should
| get a mattress with embedded diamond particles because
| it'll help keep me cool, and silver thread at the seams
| that will be more hygienic.
|
| For what it's worth, I took a chance on a mattress and love
| it. I have never slept somewhere I like better. It's an
| Avacado, but buy whatever you can that has a real return
| policy and try it out.
| noneeeed wrote:
| Yep! I don't know what it is about mattresses
| specifically, but every part of the industry from
| highstreet shops to the online products all make me feel
| like I'm being ripped off in a way that no other product
| does.
|
| Bed salesmen are worse than car salesmen.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| There was a 2018 bit on _Planet Money_ about mattress
| stores (and specifically Mattress Firm):
| https://www.npr.org/transcripts/676543180
|
| tl;dr - Turns out the markup at a mattress store is about
| 100%, which helps the economics of store rent vs profit.
| Also, Mattress Firm went on a debt-leveraged buying spree
| of their competitors (why there are so many physical
| stores). Oh, and also Steinhoff (think South African
| IKEA) bought them in 2016, for what seemed an inflated
| price. And it turned out Steinhoff was (or was soon to
| be) under investigation for accounting fraud: https://en.
| wikipedia.org/wiki/Steinhoff_International#Contro...
| noneeeed wrote:
| That explains a lot. I must have missed that episode,
| thanks for the pointer.
| Fission wrote:
| I wanted to link to an older comment
| (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24714286) I made on this
| topic, because I keep on seeing this article. It's turned out
| to be one of my most upvoted comments on HN, to my genuine
| surprise.
|
| Reproduction:
|
| _I keep on seeing this link pop up. Since no one is replying,
| I 'd like to point out that I think the Wirecutter is actually
| in the right here. Another HN member did some investigation and
| found that Xdesk is stretching things:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22144078_
|
| _In general, having been able to talk with some of the people
| there, I 'm convinced that WC was focused first and foremost on
| truth-seeking and quality at this point in their life (pre-
| acquisition) -- however, the consensus seems to have been that
| after the NYT acquired them, they started becoming more
| incentivized to grow revenue, and started to jump the shark._
| [deleted]
| wolverine876 wrote:
| I'm surprised Consumer Reports isn't enormously popular here.
| It's not personal, engaging blog-style writing - it seems written
| to help the broadest possible audience, but it's the most
| technical research by far:
|
| They have actual domain experts, labs (well-resourced),
| scientific method, and loads of objective data - e.g., for
| bicycle helmets, they have human head/body models, put all the
| helmets on them (I'd guess 50 at least, IIRC), dropped them on
| their heads (I don't remember how the impacts were constructed),
| and measured various outcomes. Through their research they
| discovered new risks, such as the stretch in the chin strap.
|
| And it's in sortable, filterable, dynamic tables. What is not to
| like?!
| humanistbot wrote:
| > What is not to like?!
|
| People don't like paying for things, especially when there is a
| free, easy, and legal alternative. I am a CR subscriber, and
| that $39/year fee was a hard thing for me to pay at first. But
| then I realized that is less than an hour of work at my salary,
| and I had already spent more than an hour trying to figure out
| which review sites were trustworthy.
|
| I do find that they don't review everything in a category and
| can take a long time to review new products, which is
| frustrating but makes sense.
| joshe wrote:
| Was a huge fan 20 years ago, but it's low quality now. They
| just don't do much work now and the testing is superficial and
| lazy.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-11-23 23:02 UTC)