Wirecutter CEO Sells Top Reviews for Kickbacks (2014) (opens in new tab)

At first I thought this was a disappointing scandal and then I realized it wasn't.

What confused me was the word kickback by the Wirecutter business team. If they'd said affiliate fee, which is what they really meant, then it would have fit perfectly with my model of what they do. That model is review products as best as they can and make money through affiliate fees.

I'd never thought through the edge cases of that affiliate model before since almost everything I look up on the WireCutter has an Amazon link. If the product they recommend is on Amazon, then getting the affiliate payment is straightforward. But if the product they end up recommending isn't on Amazon, then, yeah, I guess they have to approach the company about setting up an affiliate payment. The problem there though is that The Wirecutter has no leverage if they actually do practice editorial independence. If you were NextDesk, why would you say yes?

What bothers me is that NextDesk is using a PR pattern that I find predatory. It's preying on the fact that I wouldn't have time to think critically. So NextDesk has jumped on this word "kickback" which obscures that the actual accusation is not airtight. But because kickback sounds so bad, I'm inclined to believe NextDesk. In other words, I find that post manipulative and I don't like it.

The meat of the scandal though has two sides with a much less clear cut answer: A) On one hand, the NextDesk got downgraded. Possibly as punishment. B) On the other hand, as explained by The WireCutter, it was downgraded because of a new option that was half as much.

I tend to believe B because I find that The Wirecutter is consistently price sensitive. Overly so in my mind.

Note that being open that you're beholden to product sellers and not beholden to users is more honest, but doesn't actually incentivize user-oriented reviews.

I think it says more about how shady the Wirecutter CEO is. One can only hope that this behaviour was cleaned up after the NYT acquisition.

It's been a few years since I've used Consumer Reports, but I found their reviews were too few for the given category (e.g. rating perhaps eight items [TVs, detergent, whatever] out of a generally available selection of two dozen) or stale (a just-published article was for devices one or two generations old). I'd often look for a recommended appliance and find that only one retailer sold that model, two years ago. Or I'd look at rankings and products I owned and considered excellent (and not niche) weren't included. I felt that their methods needed to be updated.

There were still some places they did a good job, e.g. their car reviews provide good information for the average consumer, and I will turn to them next time I'm in the market. I certainly applaud that their unbiased viewpoint.

I second this. I'll also add that the items I've purchased based on their reviews have consistently lived up to expectations.

I absolutely agree. Consumer Reports is indispensable.

My only wish is that they'd focus more on reliability testing. I can evaluate for myself whether that new sedan handles nicely (or whatever). But it's wonderful to have somebody warn me the wheels are going to fall off after 70k miles...

As a reader of Wirecutter I am personally comfortable with the referral/affiliate model that they use to make money. It does mean that they only review products where they can collect the referral fee, so their choice will come from a constrained pool. But since that usually means Amazon, and most products are on Amazon, it's usually not a problem.

It's for this reason that I find myself watching amateur video reviews of phones and other expensive gadgets. You know the type; bad lighting, shaky narration with lots of pauses and uhhs, and not-great camera work.

The fancier the production values are (splash animation, music, pro lighting), the more likely it is that I'll be hit with a "like and subscribe" ask, and a sponsor message. If by some chance the video doesn't have these, there will be an affiliate link on the bottom.

At best, review sites are funded by affiliate referral fees. The other business models for reviews are even worse.

It sounds like the Wirecutter (under previous ownership) may have gone over the line, but NextDesk also comes across kind of holier-than-thou if they think they can survive without paying to acquire customers.

Please don't post unsubstantive comments here.