[Hawkfan]

The entire internet now almost nothing but a marketing platform. Marketing products, or marketing political control and disinformation. Fuugle search results are based on selling you something. Again, a product or political viewpoint and collecting and selling all your interests. Dis-information "fact" sources i.e. Wikipedia are nothing but the same. Anything deemed as improper think is labeled as "conspiracy theory". They are the decider. Not you. Amazon provides your junk food, junk products, junk news, junk pharma etc. The definition of the company store as in the old Tennessee Ernie Ford song 16 Tons. Do we continue to own our soul to the company store? If you are seeking search data that is actually far less marketing driven, use Duck Duck Go. Welcome to 1984. The internet is a whore. It's all marketing. Even this site has ads. The internet is absolutely littered with phony "review" sites that are nothing but landing pages that earn the owner a parking fee every time it is visited. Then another fee if you click through to the inevitable amazon link. Don't flame me out here please. Enjoyed my Thanksgiving and hope y'all did too.

[Serkevan]

The entire internet now almost nothing but a marketing platform. Marketing products, or marketing political control and disinformation. Fuugle search results are based on selling you something. Again, a product or political viewpoint and collecting and selling all your interests. Dis-information "fact" sources i.e. Wikipedia are nothing but the same. Anything deemed as improper think is labeled as "conspiracy theory". They are the decider. Not you. Amazon provides your junk food, junk products, junk news, junk pharma etc. The definition of the company store as in the old Tennessee Ernie Ford song 16 Tons. Do we continue to own our soul to the company store? If you are seeking search data that is actually far less marketing driven, use Duck Duck Go. Welcome to 1984. The internet is a whore. It's all marketing. Even this site has ads. The internet is absolutely littered with phony "review" sites that are nothing but landing pages that earn the owner a parking fee every time it is visited. Then another fee if you click through to the inevitable amazon link. Don't flame me out here please. Enjoyed my Thanksgiving and hope y'all did too.

When the Internet is mostly a private enterprise, then there must be a profit somewhere. Data is simultaneously very lucrative for companies and basically painless for most customers.


I don't have such a bleak view, however. Just as one example, Wikipedia tends to be very good at keeping their facts straight, the problem is people don't generally want to spend the time to double check the primary sources and the very nature of the page means that random people can try to wreak havoc on it.

[Breakfastographer]

Many independent sites and apps have been bought out by Google, Facebook, and in this case Amazon. Adobe CC now has 23 apps and I can't imagine they were all born at Adobe.

No, but that would get us waaaay off-topic.

What's interesting is that DPReview has, since the Amazon acquisition, continued to snap up other reviewers like Keller, Nichols/Drake, Gray and Tomkins... I think there's at least one I'm forgetting.

On the plus side, Jaron Schneider seems to be doing a good job at Petapixel, and TheCamerastore TV has been continued with a new team.

[texandrews]

Don't flame me out here please.

Quite a request after that intemperate screed! If you wish to avoid getting flamed, maybe consider toning it down some? Some of your points raise valid concerns, but ....

[Hawkfan]

Quite a request after that intemperate screed! If you wish to avoid getting flamed, maybe consider toning it down some? Some of your points raise valid concerns, but ....

I'll take partially validated as a partial success. Thanks!

[csa]

Even this site has ads.

You expect Adam to pay for this site by himself? If you would pony up some support money, then the ads disappear. I for one am most grateful for this site & it's content; but friend, nothing worthwhile is absolutely free for us to use & abuse.

[Hawkfan]

You expect Adam to pay for this site by himself? If you would pony up some support money, then the ads disappear. I for one am most grateful for this site & it's content; but friend, nothing worthwhile is absolutely free for us to use & abuse.

Nope, never implied that nor disparaged this site for ads. Nowhere did I post that I expect Adam to do anything for free. Reread. No personal attacks here so why is yours? Just factual statements. Internet is all revenue based now. I'm old enough to remember when it wasn't and your every click wasn't used to generate more revenue. That is wonderful that you are in a position to be able to contribute to the site financially. Thank you. There are many folks that are not in that position. Hope you are enjoying your Thanksgiving weekend.

---

Last edited by Hawkfan; 11-27-2020 at 10:44 AM.

[texandrews]

I'll take partially validated as a partial success. Thanks!

That would be an incorrect interpretation. Let me be blunt: your post stretched thin our notions of civility here, and I say that as a moderator. I took no official action, but you are right up against the line. Please make a note of that. Loads of ways to get your message across in a more polite way.

[Class A]

Reasons as to why some brands may receive preferential treatment:

• Margins: Some brands/products result in higher profits when sold. Recommending gear that may be better for the customer but worse for the store is something very, very few stores did in the past. Usually, there are guidelines which products/brands to push.
• Advertising: Some companies have budgets for sponsoring articles, etc. It would be unwise to put them off by hard hitting reviews.
• Secondary Sales: Replacing a DSLR with a MILC will inevitably result in some legacy glass being replaced by new native MILC glass. Recommendations to stick to existing technology are hence less likely to be encountered.
• Popularity: Generating a lot of turnover will result in better mass purchasing conditions. This incentivises pushing popular brands and saving critical scrutiny for niche players.
• Courtship: Big brands organise fancy events and fly in "reviewers" to nice locations, pamper them, and provide them early access to new models. Typically, the "reviewers" don't want to lose such privileges. I understand it is furthermore possible that some reviewing gear is offered on the basis of an "indefinite loan".

I don't think that DPRview is Amazon's puppet. I don't think that the DPReview "reviewers" consciously aim to optimise some or all of the above.

It rather appears that DPReview's staff is naturally besotted with mirrorless technology and is genuinely blind to the fact that other users have different priorities. What they are doing works for Amazon which is why the website keeps going.

Should they ever start hurting Amazon -- e.g., by telling people that they don't need the latest and greatest, that their existing gear is fast and good enough -- I don't see why Amazon would continue to entertain an operation whose staff costs alone (apparently there are currently 17 staff members) must be significant, if it does not raises Amazon's bottom line. That in turn, may actually influence DPReview staff more than they care to admit to themselves. The idea that Amazon just runs a website with that many members of staff out of a philanthropic motivation, seems too naive to warrant merit.

[biz-engineer]

It is difficult for a camera shop to make any clear cut reviews.

Let say, one of the most popular brand of camera has a major design flaw, as a reviewer what do you do?
Do you highly the flaw as a deal breaker and obliterate your sales, or do you understate the flaw and talk about the whole lot of other great things so that people who were going to buy that camera model will still go ahead and buy it?
So, most reviews are diluted a lot, so that no to scare away any potential buyer on his buying decision journey.

There are also reviews done by non-sellers of cameras, who say that the best review are from professional camera users, until you realize that the professional is a brand ambassador, or sponsored directly by the brand.

In any case, the reviewer can't know our own photographic priorities, the review may be mostly irrelevant to how we use the camera.

In 2018, the reviews for mirror-less have been glowing, despite the fact that some mirror-less models had issues. Mirrorless Issues that have been acknowledged later when they realized that DSLR were still a significant proportion of sales. The goal is reviews is to agitate the market and to sell more stuff.

[lesmore49]

Amazon owns a lot of things. I haven't read all the posts in this thread, so the fact that Amazon also owns the Washington Post is probably known by a lot of posters. Whether Amazon's ownership of many companies is good, bad or indifferent ....I dunno.

[bobmaxja]

Reasons as to why some brands may receive preferential treatment:

• Margins: Some brands/products result in higher profits when sold. Recommending gear that may be better for the customer but worse for the store is something very, very few stores did in the past. Usually, there are guidelines which products/brands to push.
• Advertising: Some companies have budgets for sponsoring articles, etc. It would be unwise to put them off by hard hitting reviews.
• Secondary Sales: Replacing a DSLR with a MILC will inevitably result in some legacy glass being replaced by new native MILC glass. Recommendations to stick to existing technology are hence less likely to be encountered.
• Popularity: Generating a lot of turnover will result in better mass purchasing conditions. This incentivises pushing popular brands and saving critical scrutiny for niche players.
• Courtship: Big brands organise fancy events and fly in "reviewers" to nice locations, pamper them, and provide them early access to new models. Typically, the "reviewers" don't want to lose such privileges. I understand it is furthermore possible that some reviewing gear is offered on the basis of an "indefinite loan".

.

No different than any brick & mortar store for any products: food, seasonal, etc.

1. End of aisle are sold to vendor or are use for higher margin product
2. Display in store , vendor have to pay for the space and time
3. Coop advertising in store or flyer(Front and back page are a lot more expensibve)
4. Popûlarity of product eill have a better placement
5. Annual vendor meeting , same

Most of the floor sales staff have no say on any of these but are drill to sell these product as they are a lot easier to sell

[luftfluss]

Amazon owns a lot of things. I haven't read all the posts in this thread, so the fact that Amazon also owns the Washington Post is probably known by a lot of posters. Whether Amazon's ownership of many companies is good, bad or indifferent ....I dunno.

Jeff Bezos owns about 10% of Amazon (he's the CEO) but the Washington Post belongs to a holding company owned by Bezos. Amazon and WaPo are independent of each other.

[biz-engineer]

Camera reviewer is a full time paid job. Thus, no money = no review, or bad review (to force camera makers to pay for a good review).

[Rondec]

It is true that most pages on the Internet make money through advertising sales (it's either that or subscriptions). That said, I think Amazon's approach to DP Review is probably pretty hands off -- that is to say, as long as they get plenty of referrals for gear from DP Review, they don't really care which set of gear they push.

I do think DP Review has a basic bias towards high end video, fast frame rates, and EVFs and is going to tend to push gear that is consistent with these sorts of "ideals." I think all of us have certain things that appeal to us -- I happen to value sealing, high quality OVFs, and in body stabilization over the things they appreciate. Anyway, I don't think there is a conscious push to denigrate Pentax gear -- it is more that Pentax makes camera bodies that don't click with them.

(I'm still expecting a silver award for the K3 III).