Amazon's top reviewers get free products in exchange for write-ups

[ctg]

Does this smell like corruption to you because it certainly does it to me?

Amazon's customer reviews aren't all put together by thoughtful buyers: as it turns out, Amazon has a program that sends free products to some of its top-ranked reviewers in exchange for a write-up. The program is called Amazon Vine, and though it's been running since 2007, a new NPR report is bringing it some renewed attention. "I've had everything from very cheap earbuds, to $500 multifunction laser printers," Michael Erb, Amazon's current top ranked reviewer, tells NPR. "I've gotten a spin bike, which is probably valued at closer to $1,000."

A list of items determined by Amazon is offered to reviewers twice a month, and reviewers can choose two items to receive from each list, reports NPR. They receive the products completely free, so long as they agree to write a review within 30 days and never sell or give away the product. "If you were just to add it all up,"

Amazon's top reviewers get free products in exchange for write-ups | The Verge

 

[Ursa major]

I've no idea if this is corruption, but it doesn't sound that different from when one sends out (free) books for review. And you can't expect the reviewers to pay out of their own pocket for, say, a $1000 spin bike (which I believe is an exercise bike).

If they were told they couldn't keep the item unless they gave, say, a five star review, that would be corruption.

 

[ctg]

I understand reviewing products as a business and therefore accepting things as PR promotions, but giving away products because you just write reviews on Amazon sounds to me as corruption. And to be honest, a lot of top review sites write honest reviews even if they get products for free, but in this case we're talking about Amazon, who has been meddling with the reviews before. And not all people who write on their sites get anything out from. Just some that they rank as top will get products because they think it's better to have a review than be without one. Which I agree, but in my unbiased world, if you're doing it as a business than you do it in your own site and not in the Amazon.

Does that make sense?

Maybe not, but thing is that Amazon isn't the company or person behind the products. And in the past they have been saying that reviews should be unbiased and certainly not people, who has received benefits from putting up a review in their site. In the same time they are a business that relies on selling stuff through their site. So why is it right for them to give away the products to the TOP reviewers, when these products aren't even their produce?

 

[Ursa major]

So you believe that a review done by a business that does reviews is likely to be less biased than one done by a private citizen? Why?

One could argue that if someone's livelihood depended on these reviews (and thus depended on getting free samples), they'd be in greater danger of being obliged to write more favourable reviews than someone who simple got these products in addition to what they earned from their normal job (as appears to be the case with Amazon Vine).

Okay, one could also argue that a site that gave ridiculously biased favourable reviews would lose the confidence of its users; but what if it only added a single star to its ratings when "necessary"? This might go unnoticed (at least for most casual visitors to the site).

 

[Null_Zone]

This is really just the standard reviewing process on a slightly larger scale and open to the general public. Private Eye does a good bit on the links between reviewers and authors, same publishing house, old university chums, review exchanges, inlaws.

 

[Ursa major]

I would say that it's probably a bit more above board than the logrolling Private Eye reveals, if only because the company and the reviewer are not** in direct contact and may not have any mutual interests.








** - Assuming the reviewer doesn't contact the company and ask for a "consideration".

 

[Foxbat]

I don't see this as corruption - merely a way to encourage people to write reviews (and publicising it will probably encourage even more people to write reviews).

I agree with Ursu's point that if they had to write 5 star reviews to receive the goods then it would be corruption.

Personally, I regularly receive e-mails from Amazon asking for me to review products I've bought but I never do because I have a secret weapon. It's called 'can't be arsed'. If there are tens of thousands more like me then you begin to see why Amazon hang out the big carrot.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

I don't think this is corruption. It would be if there was any pressure either way, for example of the reviewer ever had the impression that, if he gave a bad review, the goodies would stop arriving on his doormat.

 

[DaCosta]

Tesco do the same for their Baby stuff. They send out a load of products and ask for reviews. As long as the reviewer clearly states they had the item as a freebie or a tester, than it's up to the reader of that review to decide how biased the reviewer may or may not be.

I do think getting something for free skews the reviewers ability to write a fair review (i.e. if they write a bad review for something, they may think they won't get any freebies any more).

It's a bit fishy, feels a tad squiffy on my BS radar but it's common practice.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Does this smell like corruption to you because it certainly does it to me?

No - that's how reviews work - certainly for books, films, and music.