As a regular reviewer of tech products and in this case, specifically DJI product, following the Media Watch revelations of the other evening (below), I felt it necessary to give comment. And I have thought long and hard about this overnight.
Up front, in something like 10 years, I have never either received a cent from DJI nor been asked to sign an NDA or other agreement. From some companies, occasionally you get asked to sign an NDA if the product has not been released as yet and you are being given pre-release confidential information, but in my experience at least, it’s rare and never from DJI.
It’s true that some companies do not request products be returned. For example, with microphones, earphones or headphones, health considerations are taken into account and in some cases I understand that is the law, especially since COVID. For other things, sometimes follow up reviews are needed and these can take weeks or even months so it is not worth a vendor’s time to recall a product as there is more value leaving it with a reviewer.
The second thing to mention is that unlike my 4WD counterpart on MediaWatch (who I have do not know nor never met), I do not deal with DJI directly but through its Sydney based PR company.
Having said that, you might wonder how I – and others who do a similar thing ie reviewing tech products – manage to survive?
Back Story
First a little bit of history. When I started Australian Videocamera back in 2007, it was a real paper magazine of 48 pages. It could be purchased via annual subscription, or of course over the counter at a newsagency.
The actual sales of the physical magazine would not have covered the cost of production by any stretch of the imagination. As well as printing costs, there was money tied up in delivery and postage, plus of course paying the freelancers who contributed to the content. The cost of producing a single edition, paying contributors, getting it to subscribers and into newsagenciesd back then was around $17,000.
This was therefore offset by advertising, and hardware companies such as Blackmagic Design, Canon, Sony, Panasonic, JVC, Videocraft, VideoPro, Videoguys, RØDE, Sennheiser, Miller and others bought full page ads on a regular basis. On the software side, Blackmagic, Sony, ProDAD, SonicFire, Final Draft, Kyno and more also contributed.
After a few years though, as printing costs went up and people were getting more and more information via websites and therefore not buying the actual magazine, I decided to discontinue the paper version and instead create a website with an Adobe PDF version available for those that preferred it.
One of the secrets to that was the ability to embed a FLASH movie into a PDF – that is, have the video stored elsewhere not as part of the document, thus saving file sizes.
At this time, the amount of advertising had dropped, but as the costs of production has also been minimised, it was still quite sustainable and remained so for a number of years.
Two things then happened that started to make life very difficult. The first was that Adobe dropped support for the Flash movie format so I couldn’t do that anymore. And the second of course was COVID.
Post COVID
As a counter to this, I upped the website level to the version you see today, and I dropped the existing PDF magazine in favour of a version that mimicked the website for those that preferred that way of consuming the content. However, like many publications, and not just “tech based” ones, advertising just about dropped to zero.
This year I have stopped producing the PDF (if you want to see it come back, please let me know) and concentrated on the website, creating tutorials and other videos. I have retained some regular advertising from companies such as Blackmagic Design and Sennheiser – and a huge thank you to them – plus on other occasions when a specific campaign might marry with stories I am doing other companies also contribute. Examples are Global Drone Solutions and Verbatim.
I mention all this so you understand that in no way do I get gratuitous payments for placement of product or for fabricating positive reviews. I sort of understand those that do go down that line – we all have to eat – but agree (and it’s the law apparently) that full disclosure should be given up front when they do.
Advertising
I wish the previous companies would start advertising again and confess I do not understand why they don’t as no real reason is ever given short of “budgets”. It is particularly frustrating as in effect, every time I do a review of a camera, a tutorial on some software or whatever, the company that owns it is getting a free kick so to speak. Depending on the content, it can reach tens of thousands of people if not more. I am aware of many people who have bought a product specifically because they read my review or did my tutorial.
You see, advertising doesn’t just promote a product or service; it allows people like me to do what we do to let consumers know of a product, how good (or bad) it may be, its avalue for money, how to use it and so on, in a totally impartial way.
So called “influencers” are paid in either cash or kind to “push” a product and therefore you, as a potential buyer, cannot really be sure if all is what it seems. When it comes to a $1000 drone, a $2000 camera or even a $200 piece of software, I consider that an unacceptable risk personally.
But as they say, it is what it is, and we soldier on as we love what we do.
2 Comments
Good article David. I still have many paper issues of Australian Videocamera which I often read again. Although I live in the UK, I find your content valuable and impartial. Having worked in advertising (as a cameraman) where product reviews can often be so far off the mark due to sweeteners, I always know I can trust your reviews and advice.
Thanks so much Chris. I really appreciate that! (We are visiting the UK in April – back to my roots near Manchester). Only second time back in 60 years!