I sometimes overshare about ToolGuyd matters, and there’s purpose to it; transparency has been a core tenet from the start.
A very long time ago, the tool review landscape was very different. The FTC didn’t have “influencer” disclosure guidelines. There were no role models other than magazines and newspapers with both physical and figurative walls separating ad sales from editorial matters.
How can I write tool news stories, reviews, or deal posts with the same hand that endorses checks for affiliate and ad payments?
Transparency provided guardrails. It made sense.
When I read something – a review or whatever – I want to know whether the author was directly incentivized.
With one of my first reviews of a provided test sample, I asked if I could include an acknowledgment in the post. I was told that it’s common knowledge that magazines receive product review samples at no cost, and that disclosures weren’t necessary, but I could.
So, I added a clear “thank you for the test sample” note at the end. I still do this, but I also add mention early in a post, with a “Brand X sent me…” or similar.
If I’m reading an article or following a website, what do I want to know? Is there anything I should know?
One of ToolGuyd’s sponsoring brands had preferences regarding how their brand name was displayed. I was able to honor this in titles and maybe the first mention, and then I switched to “easiest to read” formatting. They also preferred that I not show any retailer favoritism. That’s fair.
If my emails are ever hacked, and everything is published for the world to see, the worst you’d see are discussions about whether Brand A is represented as Brand A or BRAND A.
Transparency also helps with difficult matters.
My long-standing practice has been to produce tool news posts with no fees or product expectations, and review consideration with no fees. Fast forward to 2024, and it’s no longer possible.
If a reader asks a question about a particular tool, and I can’t get answers to question or test samples because I’m not on a brand’s influencer payroll, what am I supposed to say?
How do I say I don’t know much about a new tool because a brand has cut all PR resources and now only “seeds” samples to paid influencers?
Not to mince words, here’s a typical influencer attitude – “the hell with them; if they want exposure or access to my audience, they’re gonna have to pay up.”
It can be very difficult to avoid this type of attitude.
I will bust chops over PR resources via private emails and phone calls, but I will also point fingers in posts, e.g. “Brand A wouldn’t answer questions.” There’s purpose to this too.
A few weeks ago, a reader repeated the idiom “you can attract more flies with honey.” However, we come back to the part where transparency provides guardrails. Should I kowtow to gain or regain access to samples? Advertising? A sponsorship arrangement?
Transparency helps protect me against the temptation and risk of obsequious or sycophantic behavior.
It’s also about escaping unfair blame over inadequate or incomplete reporting. My role is to ask questions, and to develop insights and understanding. A brand’s role is to facilitate this process via PR or media support. If I try to do my part, and they won’t do theirs, shouldn’t I make it clear it’s not my fault I don’t have sought-out answers or insights?
Maybe if I play nicely, they’ll reconsider, and see me/ToolGuyd in a more favorable light? But where’s the limit? Is there a point where being too nice compromises my ideals or conflicts with readers’ interests?
“We asked questions, they wouldn’t give us a straight answer” is so much simpler.
If a brand won’t answer questions privately, I’ll ask the same publicly and then move on.
Dwelling stirs up the potential for conflict. Should I hold back my opinions or concerns? Should I ignore that a brand’s ineptitude, punitive stance, or influencer hype-chasing tendencies left avoidable holes in a post? Should I add something positive?
“Transparency and move on.”
I know some readers think this to be retribution of some kind, but it’s not. If a brand won’t answer questions, we’ll open things up to public discussion. A lot of overlapping layers can sometimes cloud things.
Having rules, policies, practices – whatever you want to call it – simplifies things.
A few years I donated tools to my kids’ preschool. The owner’s husband did all of the maintenance and repairs, and I was parting with something I thought they could use.
They wanted to thank me with a gift card to a local restaurant. I’m sorry, I cannot accept it. We went back and forth a few times, and if I recall correctly I finally encouraged them to make a donation to the food bank in my honor.
I cannot sell tool samples, nor can I trade them for goods, services, or anything of value. It’s a hard rule.
What if… no, sorry, it has to be donated with nothing expected or accepted in return, which is usually similar to how they’re provided to me.
Transparency works in a similar way. There some hard boundaries, but the practice cannot be abandoned on a subjective whim.
I once turned down an ad arrangement – think 2 month average salary type of dollar amount – because I couldn’t in good conscience promote the company.
It would have taken me 2 minutes to program the ad server, and maybe no one would have ever known how I felt about the company. Would you have taken the money, or walked away and left it on the table?
Being able to pat myself on the back, even years later, eases the difficulty of such decisions.
I strived for transparency from the start, and believe it’s served me well in the nearly 16 years since then. Maybe my wallet would be fuller if I was more flexible on some things, but the ability to share and disclose helps make up for that.
Transparency is unconventional and sometimes uncomfortable, but there’s purpose behind it, and certainly a need – or at least I long-ago convinced myself.