Playing the Game (Editorial) @ Techgage
I really do love these kinds of editorials, especially when they cover both sides of the story.
All this journalistic integrity is wonderful, but I think many people missed the boat on something - weren't reviews already being "shaped" long beforehand by delayed product shipments, paper launches, "recommended" testing procedures, blacklists, and everything else that's been prevalent in this industry (and getting more so) for years? Nobody cries when their competitor site gets shut out of a release altogether because it didn't toe the "company line" of PR. Very few, if any, choose to miss an NDA because the product didn't show up on the doorstep until the day before. Somehow that doesn't affect the quality of our reviews?
Clear your schedule because you will want to read the whole thing.
The backstory for this editorial is related to the recent AMD Trinity launch and subsequent change in what could be released "ahead of the NDA". Of course some sites took issue with the change and my first reaction was that the site in question was pissed they had to move up their testing schedule and decided to take it out on AMD. The truth (at least for them) was maybe some of the previous along with their fear that the review would be half baked and they wouldn't make their pageview quota for the month.
As a reviewer I know there are two things that kill pageviews
- When every site in existence launches a review on the same day (NDA Launches) - Readers will go to their favorite site and not bother visiting anyone else.
- Doing a review in two parts - (eg Preview followed by a full Review) - Readers have an attention span of a frog and elephant memory when it comes to reviews and if they see the same product on the same site they don't go back.
Anyhow, after reading Brett's editorial I am once again of the opinion that crying about your skinned knee doesn't work anymore because nobody cares.
Related Web URL: http://techgage.com/article/playing_the_game/
