The tech review world has been full of murky deals between companies and influencers for years, but it appears Google finally crossed a line with the Pixel 9. The company’s invite-only Team Pixel program — which seeds Pixel products to influencers before public availability — stipulated that participating influencers were not allowed to feature Pixel products alongside competitors, and those who showed a preference for competing phones risked being kicked out of the program. For those hoping to break into the world of tech reviews, the new terms meant having to choose between keeping access or keeping their integrity.
↫ Victoria Song at The Verge
Even though this ended up being organised and run by a third party, and Google addressed it immediately, it doesn’t surprise me at all that stuff like this happens. Anyone who has spent any time on tech YouTube, popular tech news sites, and content farms knows full well just how… Odd a lot of reviews and videos often feel. This is because a lot of review programs subtly – or not so subtly – imply that if you’re not positive enough, you’re going to be kicked out and won’t get the next batch of cool products to review, thereby harming your channel or website.
Apple is a great example of a company that uses the threat of not getting review samples, event invites, and similar press benefits to gain positive media attention. I myself was kicked out of Apple’s review program and press pool way back during the Intel transition, because I mentioned the new Intel MacBook Pro got uncomfortably hot, and Apple really didn’t like that. They tried to pressure me to change the wording, but I didn’t budge, and consequently, that was the end of me getting any review items or press invites. I only ever accepted one Apple press invite, by the way, to their headquarters in The Netherlands, which was in Bunnik, of all places.
Not much of value was lost without Apple press invites. Nobody wants to go to Bunnik.
With every review of a loaned item on OSNews, you can be 100% sure there are no shenanigans, because I simply do not let anyone influence me. OSNews doesn’t live or die by getting reviews of the latest and greatest tech, so I have no incentive to deal with pushy, manipulative companies or PR people. I refused to budge to Apple 17 years ago, during my first year at OSNews, when I was in my early 20s – and I’ve never budged since, either. Now look at everyone getting press access from Apple, and think to yourself – would any of them tell Apple to get bent?
That being said, I’d love to review the new Google Pixel 9 Pro Fold, if only to make fun of that horrid name. Hit me up, Google.
Thom Holwerda,
Interesting. I knew this type of media manipulation was pervasive with apple, but I didn’t know it happened to you personally. I did not know google did this too. I guess it shouldn’t be a surprise though: give early access to those who consistently give glowing reviews and withhold from those who don’t.
Every election serious candidates tried to corrupt us when i was working in public relations. It is incredible the amount of disrespect for morality is our societies in general. Loyalty before truth doesn’t belong within a mature democracy.
Sysau,
Yeah, I fully agree with you. Personally I find that neither party of our US duopoly really represents me. Although between standard bureaucracy and full on authoritarianism, obviously the later is far more dangerous to democracy. “Project 2025” spells out the plan to turn US government much more authoritarian by replacing swaths of non-political government positions with others who are loyal to a trump dictator. The same is happening in several GOP controlled localities, not to mention the supreme court. It shocks me how many voters would be ok with authoritarian rule if their party wins 🙁
Not only an US problem: Same in Germany and every other country I have stayed (which are quite a few).
Either you vote pro-economy and capitalism. But then you vote for religious, authoritarian nutters with medieval horizons. Or you vote progressive and then you get those idiots cheering the mob turned Rhodesia into Zimbabwe and in the desire to repeat it all over the world.
And don’t even get me started on immigration laws and taxes and pensions.
Andreas Reichel,
We desperately need to break the political duopoly that pushes the extremes. It’s quite alarming that we keep having elections where the majority loose because votes aren’t counted equally. The electoral college needs to go to allow every vote to be counted equally. Districts are gerrymandered to hell. Incumbents get to remain in power despite loosing the popular vote by significant margins.
Mathematically, the solutions are fairly obvious. A popular rank vote would help a lot. But unfortunate reality is that both parties have a stake in the current duopoly. So nobody in power is really keen to fix it and those who want to tend not to make it very far.
thats maybe why ifixit hasnt torn one to pieces yet.
Pooh’ on google…..
I think it’s easy to dismiss this kind of the thing, but the reality for many social media (and the hits an item generates) is your profession, ie what puts food on the table.
We all know that the new Apple devices generates a Lot of searches, views and likes. Not giving favourable reviews removes your pre-release access and therefore revenue.
Social media platforms have created a perverse economy where you don’t even have to be open about your source of funding. While I commend Thom for turning that down in his 20s, the reality is that his position was one of privilege. He didn’t Need the money as he knew he had work as a translator to “fall back on”. Now osnews his his full time gig, the scenario is very different and might be difficult when offered cash in hand… The slope is always a slippery one. Never a cliff.
Integrity pays off — but its the very long game! Separates the man from the boys though.
It was just as bad before the rise of influencers. PC magazines never rated things correctly. Cnet never did. Terrible laptop, that should only be used if it were absolutely free and one of the last computers left functioning on earth review score: 8.3 Great laptop incredible build quality components, ease of upgrade, available at the same price review score: 8.5.
A reviewer’s job is increasingly difficult these days. You see it more and more with reviewers of more durable goods like coffee products. There are new products daily, and they need to be reviewed. If you review something higher than what someone already has, they either get upset about it and rage respond, or they buy the new ever so slightly better thing. Its really hard to say, this thing is better but not much better. Keep the thing you have, but also watch this review because this thing is better.
You see it with pans, coffee devices, mattresses, other durable goods. Phones right now are lasting longer and longer, that will happen to them eventually.
Guys, seriously: is this not a too one sided perspective? What can we realistically expect here from any corporation? Why would they keep feeding and supporting anyone openly criticizing their products and services? And what would YOU do if it was YOUR company? Can you guarantee you were not also biased towards the positive reviews?
Criticism is great and should happen INTERNALLY during the product design process — and I am sure this happens.
But why on earth should I show any form of good will to critical reviewers when the product is released? Would be nice to have of course but its unrealistic.
Andreas Reichel,
Makes sense, but six minutes later…
Which is it? Integrity is great in principal, but selling out will probably get you a much nicer home, car, etc. Corporations value the illusion of integrity more than the real thing – ie we value your integrity as long as you praise us.
“Integrity pays off” <– for the Product Testers, when they get the reputation of being objective and integer. In Germany for example, there is "Stiftung Wahrentest" and also the "DEKRA" which have gained such a string reputation of independence. Took them only a few decades.
The rest was related to the companies and their point of view.
I thought it would be obvious that both parties have very different interest in this game.
> Integrity is great in principal, but selling out will probably get you a much nicer home, car, etc.
Depending on your role though. You actually can make a lot of money based on integrity and reputation, especially in a world full of lies, smoke and mirrors. And you can lose whole markets forever in a blink of an eye, once your image is tarnished. Just look at the “big 4” or Indian software companies.
Andreas Reichel,
Optimistically, sure, but it’s not so clear cut on the street where we prosper or flail by the “Survival of the fittest”. Sometimes we have fitness functions that reward bad actors over good ones. A reviewer striped of early access will naturally loose relevancy in the news cycle, hurting not only themselves but the publication they work for too. I don’t have a problem with you making the case for good actors, but I do think you made the argument much harder for yourself by making this case so strongly.: “But why on earth should I show any form of good will to critical reviewers when the product is released? Would be nice to have of course but its unrealistic.”.