As the discussion continued internally, we have leaned toward a policy of sending reviews to manufacturers ahead of publication. We’re in a position where we talk to a lot of manufacturers and other members of the press. The more we explore this subject, the more we’ve heard two things we already knew: Online media typically doesn’t send reviews by the their subjects ahead of time, and that published reviews more and more frequently contain errors in material facts.

A reviewer’s job is to provide opinion but also fact; the reviewer must tell you what a product does, what it doesn’t do, and then provide his opinion of both. At the same time, other hard facts must be delivered, facts such as: whether the product (if software) runs on Windows, Mac, or both; the manufacturer’s stated system requirements; any other prerequisites; availability dates (if relevant), and; price(s) of the product. Opinions are opinions, but facts must be checked and verified.

If, for example, a review states that a product retails for $199 when it is actually $99, then the reviewer is doing the reader and the manufacturer a disservice. That extra hundred dollars can, and often does, determine whether a reader decides to investigate the product. If the reader chooses not to, thinking the price is too high, that reader won’t even have the opportunity to see the correct price.

We’ve seen too many factual errors in online reviews lately, including–and especially–reviews published by Big Name creative industry media. Consequently, Designorati has made it a policy to send all reviews to their subjects. When to do it is open. If the subject has requested to see the review in advance, or if the reviewer feels it’s warranted, reviews will be sent ahead of publication. Otherwise, they’re sent to the subject immediately upon publication, which enables rapid correction of factual errors should they occur (none so far, knock on wood).

If I trust the writer of the article, it shouldn’t matter what kind of swag they have received. Right?…Plus, you stand a good chance of getting cool stuff as well as like you’d stated, corrections to any misunderstandings.

With this, I must disagree. Journalists–particularly those who write reviews–should never receive swag. No matter how honorable the journalist may truly be, the perception of influence by the readership is what really matters.

For example let’s say I wrote a glowing review of Acme’s Rocket Cycle. Then, it came out that, while writing the review, Acme had sent me a Roadrunner Catching Kit to keep–not for review, just as a gift, for my personal use. While I know I would continue to be impartial in the review, that I know my integrity is not for sale, how would you know that? Even if my prior writing gave you reason to trust me, not knowing me personally or professionally, you would (and should) have a lingering doubt as to whether my Rocket Cycle review truly was influenced by the gift.

It’s happened plenty of times in the past–not with me, of course–but in other media. The radio business, for example, was rife with payola and swag influence in the 1980s.

Journalists should never accept gifts from advertisers, prospective advertisers, review subjects, or prospective review subjects. That’s the only way to maintain both actual impartiality as well as the perception of impartiality.

An example I would give is a review of a Corel Product. Corel has limited information on their site in terms of specific product features and product comparisons. I couldn’t tell you the difference in buying Corel X3 Standard or Professional, from Corel other than price. But a reviewer could tell me so. And based on the reviewers comment such as “Professional has these features but I wouldn’t use them much” then I would evaluate that with my own needs. On the other hand, Corel and any other company site will always list every benefit and feature as “you need this.” even when they couldn’t possibly know.