This was interesting to think about as I was recently watching all these videos about new action cameras coming out and two of them happened to be a GoPro 13 and a DJI action 5. Now usually you can expect companies will either pay or give out their products for free for review in hopes to get more exposure. For the most part, it works as consumers who are flooded with say positive reviews will likely purchase that product if they are on the fence. In this case it was kind of interesting as there was one reviewer where people were wondering why he didn’t review the DJI action 5 as he did with the GoPro 13.
He shares publicly that allegedly people who review DJI’s products must agree to various conditions such as having to have videos pre-approved while being locked down to some kind of exclusively where people can only use their products if they wish to be in this exclusive club of individuals that get products to try out. So, the person expressed when he does review it he will buy the product with his own money.
The interesting thing is how online this influenced people’s perception of the company DJI, but then there were arguments that the person could have been in a favorable position with GoPro. As a consumer, if you like using a company’s product does knowing how a company say pays people to give high praises for their products actually discourage you from buying their items? Or would you see it as simply a business trying to get more market share just like if it was a commercial ad?
I don’t know if it would affect me as much if I already was kind of tied into the company’s ecosystem of products. But I know if I was on the fence, it would definitely discourage me personally as it would be a sign on how they aren’t confident that the product will speak for itself I feel. This is probably more true today with things like social media versus in the past.