Jump to content
Andrew Reid

Canon sponsored content on DPReview

Recommended Posts

EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs

You could aways voice your concerns on the comments section. 

Oops, no comments allowed on that one. I am sure it is a mistake. :)

YT comments are allowed though so apparently Canon has more trust in the public opinion than a forum site. Makes sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Andrew Reid

Though I do not always agree with your points of view, that's why I read your blog and trust many people here: a kind of "autonomy" (in my eyes) and friendly help, independent of camera or gear brands. "Sponsored content" is a calamity for the internet as a magazine or blog taking money from firms for publishing their articles, loose completely their editorial independence. It's not about money, it's all about independence and credibility - now lost. But no problem, there are enough credible alternatives for DPReview and the other paid henchmen of the camera review industry...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said, Andrew. I am sticking with you and agree very much with your views on Dpreview. I have always appreciated your opinion as the most honest and real of anyone else providing similar content to you. You have been my go to and deciding factor on many camera purchases. Keep up the great work and I will certainly be continuing to read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Andrew Reid

Andrew, it's NOT about "advertising-free". It's about autonomy and independence. If you would use here affiliate links, I would be sure you would use them for every reviewed device, independent from manufacturer name. But when working with "sponsored posts" directly from manufacturers means, authors are involved directly with manufacturers money. That does not necessarly mean, manufacturers can buy author's general opinion, but it leaves a quite bad taste in my mouth...Never trust paid morons, expressing manufacturers marketing bullshit...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Andrew for speaking up.
It is very sad in deed.

I was doing my daily walk-around, EOSHD – slashcam – dpreview… and as I saw this, my first thoughts were also: 
OK, sponsored with orange, but what does this content doing here, among real articles?  
And I got angry, as I read:
“Filmmaker ScottDW trades his pro video gear for Canon EOS 80D…. and the results surprised him”

In the camera PR and marketing, the words “pro” and “gamechanger” are probably the most devaluated ones. For me, they have a rather negative meaning, as these words are often used, when they have nothing better to say. So when a pro trades his pro gear for an 80D, and gets surprised….
I think, either
- he isn’t a pro, or
- it wasn’t an 80D, or
- he was not really surprised at all :-)

Then I thought, I would write a comment about it, but there is no place for comments there.
So I comment it here :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally stopped reading or visiting DPreview abou 4 years because all needed info I found on youtube channels that I respect or other forums, maybe if want to compare raw files then you could say go there but only for that option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see a problem with sponsored/paid content (even here at eoshd), as long as it is clearly labelled as such and not being propped up by the host. The real problem is reviewers giving dishonest opinions to gain or retain benefits from the companies, so as long as their reviews remain honest, what's wrong with them getting side income for a service that you're getting for free?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very few people on this site would do video work for free, in fact many would be outraged by the notion... so why should owners of web sites work for free? 

I think you should throw up a google banner ad and use affiliate links if it offsets some of your costs... especially if it gives you more of a reason to create more content for the site.

JMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see some people - bigfoot, mercer, viet bach, don't understand what's at stake

This isn't me being a communist and bemoaning another site making money from advertising.

Viet Bach, you say "as long as their reviews remain honest"... Well honesty is as much about what you DON'T SAY as what you do.

Read my article, and what it has to say about self-censoring and PR jaunts.

Looking at this purely from a business perspective now, it's bad for business too as readers get sick of it and leave. The watery opinions don't do anyone any good. The sponsored content is only the tip of the iceberg. From a business perspective, in my opinion it is better to to have very high quality premium paid content like books alongside the free articles and standard affiliate links than to compromise the creditability of your entire core business and your reputation with a ton of tacky advertising.

Like if you agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Viet Bach Bui said:

I don't see a problem with sponsored/paid content (even here at eoshd), as long as it is clearly labelled as such and not being propped up by the host. The real problem is reviewers giving dishonest opinions to gain or retain benefits from the companies, so as long as their reviews remain honest, what's wrong with them getting side income for a service that you're getting for free?

Because integrity is so easily undermined by greed, even if the compromise is subtle. Yes, there's nothing wrong with somebody getting a side income for honestly reviewing a company's products but that's because those who do so for any length of time are given the boot. You simply don't see them anynore. Those that remain are being dishonest or simply overlooking flaws.

All cameras and lenses have flaws. You can't review every Sony, Panasonic, Nikon, Canon or Fuji camera and lens system without hitting some real bummers.

Though I own two Sony cameras, there is a hell of a lot of false worship from Sony reviewers and Artisans. I prefer to look at Mr 500 views on YouTube who has not rushed out a review with affiliate links in the race to get top search, but has given honest reviews in the past and isn't afraid to be trampled underfoot by scores of fanboys.

He will have bought, used and tested the camera for a good three months and hasn't got it 'on a loan from B&H'.

How many times do we see in the comments section a few weeks later (when the issues arise) and the uploaded says:

"Oh I don't have it anymore, it was only a loan - had no idea it would burn your house down. Perhaps Sony will fix that in a firmware update"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why I said google banner ads... I don't think you should turn it into cinema5D or no film school, but a google banner ad is the least invasive advertising you could have on your site. With each refresh of the page, a different product would pop up... you would have no direct contact with the advertisers and would not endorse any of them...

But...

I see your point and it's an admirable position to take!

Not that this is any of my business... but does the paid content... books, guides and picture profiles, offset the daily cost of the site?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Davey said:

Because integrity is so easily undermined by greed, even if the compromise is subtle.

You are 100% right that even if the compromise is subtle, integrity is undermined.

I can't say for sure what is motivating them - greed or just a business decision to survive?

But it's tacky and actually not even so subtle in many ways... Plastering sponsored content into your blog roll feed is not subtle.

12 minutes ago, mercer said:

This is why I said google banner ads... I don't think you should turn it into cinema5D or no film school

Too right. I will NEVER turn this site into either of those just to take it to a mainstream audience.

Nofilmschool is all clickbate.

The headlines and the way it is presented, it's knocked up so quickly there and it's always somebody else's content they are selling their ads around.

Cinema5D is a corporate platform and not representative of the passion enthusiasts have for making personal work and learning cameras.

I have taken to watching Dave Dugdale on YouTube and The Camera Store TV for fun, the rest of it is just boring, DPReview included, sadly.

It's a shame there are not more people putting good content out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's troubling for sure but DPR also needs a source of revenue, no one works for free. They have full time people, in depth reviews take time and hosting a website with thousand of visitors cost money.
The question is about the business model and I'll move the subject to us, the readers. We always want things for free but bitch against advertising. Are we not the problem ? How many people here would pay $5 or $10 per month to get access to a sponsor/ads free DPR ? If we are not ready to pay for their independence, we must endure the plague of advertorials and sponsorship. As simple as that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I go here, Noam Kroll's site and Prolost. Occasionally, I'll go to no film school to see the headlines of the day, but that's it... 30 seconds in and 30 seconds out.

I would imagine it isn't cheap running this site, most people would rather visit a site that does not have ads, but I think most of the people who don't want them aren't on the same integrity page as you and their desire to keep your site ad free is because ads are annoying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×