Sponsored Lego reviews: Do you mind?

[Lego Mike]

A high-profile Lego YouTube reviewer recently posted a sponsored (non-Lego) review, and it doesn't really bother me one way or another. But this reviewer had long made it a point to not accept sponsorship and was very vocal about it, as if only non-sponsored reviews were legitimate.

I think the YouTube money has been drying up for a while now, and I don't mind when people make sponsored videos -- I can spot the sincere reviews from the cash grabs, and I get the reality of relying on receiving Lego stuff for free to offset expenses.

So I'm wondering what other people think. What's your response when a Lego review is sponsored? Does a reviewer look more sincere if they don't take sponsored content -- and what if they afterward reverse their opinion?

[SpacePolice89]

Why would someone else than the Lego company sponsor a review? Or did the youtuber review something else than Lego?

[Lego Mike]

2 hours ago, SpacePolice89 said:

Why would someone else than the Lego company sponsor a review? Or did the youtuber review something else than Lego?

Yes, he is best-known for Lego reviews but also occasionally does non-Lego, brick-based stuff. This sponsored post was something from CaDA.

[Mylenium]

8 hours ago, Lego Mike said:

What's your response when a Lego review is sponsored?

At the end of the day it's one of those "You don't dump where you eat." things. Most sponsored reviews are simply too positively biased, period. You just need to look at the respective sites to have that verified. I'm not accusing anyone of doing this consciously, it's just simply psychology getting in the way no matter how much they claim to be "neutral". When you're getting stuff for free via the Ambassador Network literally almost every week you just live in that world and take on a certain view of things. Same with others. Arguably there is no harm in getting free stuff, but you need to be self-aware enough that it will influence your decisions. That said, I've long tuned out of that creator I think you are referring to because he's generally quite too soft on that stuff IMO and let's LEGO and the others get away too easily with terrible products, so it probably won't skewer the scales much one way or the other.

Mylenium

[JesseNight]

I've always been biased against sponsored reviews of any kind. I'm not saying they're all bad, but I don't trust them as much as a small reviewer who buys products and shows what they've done with it with the good and the bad because it's their hobby rather than to make money.

[Stereo]

I don't mind sponsored reviews in general cause sometimes it's the only way to get an interesting product in front of the audience for it.  But for Lego I'm just not going to watch them, I already know Lego's general position in the market.

[MAB]

I don't mind sponsored reviews, so long as they are honest reviews. If a reviewer gives positive reviews for a poor product just so they get more products from that company in future, it reflects badly on them. People will call them out for doing so in comments too. 

[Agent Kallus]

No I don't mind. Despite preconceptions I have seen some quite scathing from Lan members and regardless of that I use reviews to get more info on a set but rarely are they the deciding factor (at least with Lego, other things are a different beast).

[Thomas_w]

On 11/4/2024 at 1:26 AM, Lego Mike said:

A high-profile Lego YouTube reviewer recently posted a sponsored (non-Lego) review, and it doesn't really bother me one way or another. But this reviewer had long made it a point to not accept sponsorship and was very vocal about it, as if only non-sponsored reviews were legitimate.

I think the YouTube money has been drying up for a while now, and I don't mind when people make sponsored videos -- I can spot the sincere reviews from the cash grabs, and I get the reality of relying on receiving Lego stuff for free to offset expenses.

So I'm wondering what other people think. What's your response when a Lego review is sponsored? Does a reviewer look more sincere if they don't take sponsored content -- and what if they afterward reverse their opinion?

I think for the high-profile reviewer in question, he has been so vocal about being independent / unsponsored in the past, that now upon taking sponsorship has to almost performatively justify why he is now doing this. That video (not the review, but the "talk about sponsorship") was erratic and, frankly, bizarre, which I think stems from the cognitive dissonance of building your brand on integrity, and no sponsorships, but then taking some money / products for reviews anyway. It's something that I think Youtubers care about much more than their audience. The video reviews are good in that you can see a product close up, different angles, close up of the figures. I appreciate the well-produced videos that "high profile" reviewer and others put out. But do I care about their opinion? Not really. Another long-winded rant about stickers or "price-to-part ratio", not really. 

[Lego Mike]

1 hour ago, Thomas_w said:

[That] now upon taking sponsorship has to almost performatively justify why he is now doing this.

To be fair, I think the reviewer in question only took products and no money. That's what he said, and I believe him. It may seem like a minor point, but it's salient to me, and I'm fine with a reviewer getting a product only.

That said, I do agree with you about that follow-up video. It seemed like a lot of "Wait, you don't understand, let me spin things so I can eat my cake and have it too." If from the get-go he had said instead something like "Listen, I think my bona fides are sound, and I'm trying to make ends meet here, so please hear me out when I say I need sponsored content," I still wouldn't have cared. I would have understood. Instead, I think he spends a bit too much time feeling like he's on the defensive, and he has had a long, long history of talking down to viewers. He isolates himself in a very tight atmosphere where only those who agree and enable him are allowed to post comments, and that hasn't engendered a lot of respect or slack, which ironically is what he seems to be doing it all for.

But then, there are much bigger fish to fry in the world, so this may boil down to simply unsubscribing and forgetting the whole thing. There are many more options to choose from these days.

[MAB]

23 minutes ago, Lego Mike said:

To be fair, I think the reviewer in question only took products and no money. That's what he said, and I believe him. It may seem like a minor point, but it's salient to me, and I'm fine with a reviewer getting a product only.

That said, I do agree with you about that follow-up video. It seemed like a lot of "Wait, you don't understand, let me spin things so I can eat my cake and have it too." If from the get-go he had said instead something like "Listen, I think my bona fides are sound, and I'm trying to make ends meet here, so please hear me out when I say I need sponsored content," I still wouldn't have cared. I would have understood. Instead, I think he spends a bit too much time feeling like he's on the defensive, and he has had a long, long history of talking down to viewers. He isolates himself in a very tight atmosphere where only those who agree and enable him are allowed to post comments, and that hasn't engendered a lot of respect or slack, which ironically is what he seems to be doing it all for.

But then, there are much bigger fish to fry in the world, so this may boil down to simply unsubscribing and forgetting the whole thing. There are many more options to choose from these days.

I don't think it can be both (i) taking only a product and not money and (ii) needing sponsored content to make ends meet. Personally, I don't care if someone gets a free product if they review it honestly and there is no deal for further products if they give a positive review. I think a viewer can normally tell if a reviewer is enhancing the positives and ignoring the negatives. And if they do that, then the reviewer loses all credibility. If they get paid to review it, chances are their review is going to be biased as it becomes more of an advert than a review. I think youtube has turned though in that now there are plenty of negative posters, calling out others either in comments or in their own videos about wrongdoing including if that is doing reviews for money.

[Thomas_w]

Youtube as a "career" in general seems to end in drama, burnout and resentment for pretty much every hobby I follow on there (I am interested in organic chemistry and there is currently a fall out amongst all the chem-tubers). The big names in each hobby are a small set of people and largely exist online and in a little echo chamber and eventually it all blows up. I can imagine the grind of having to constantly produce content, chase ad revenue and so-on eventually saps all joy out of the hobby that you originally created videos for. There do seem to be a few Lego-tubers out there where this hasn't happened to them, I can suggest RR Slugger, who doesn't do reviews as such, but posts interesting Lego content seemingly free of drama. 

As for "high-profile reviewer" my impression is that his passion for the hobby (or at least) Youtube has been ebbing away and it has made much of his content dour and irritable. Enough that I more-or-less stopped watching any reviews of things I might be interested in. With him, I get the impression he is independently wealthy enough to not need the income from his channel, which begs the question, why do it?

[Yperio_Bricks]

2 hours ago, Thomas_w said:

The video reviews are good in that you can see a product close up, different angles, close up of the figures. [...] But do I care about their opinion? Not really.

I agree    

43 minutes ago, MAB said:

[...]  it becomes more of an advert than a review.

A sponsored review is always an advert. LAN only exists for marketing and advertising reasons. But recently i have seen more Lego youtubers reviewing sets from other companies as well. I guess Lego's competitors are catching up and send out more free sets for reviews. Also to rather small channels.

11 minutes ago, Thomas_w said:

I can imagine the grind of having to constantly produce content, chase ad revenue and so-on eventually saps all joy out of the hobby that you originally created videos for.

I also agree with this! Things change when a hobby becomes a job.

[Mylenium]

2 hours ago, Thomas_w said:

Youtube as a "career" in general seems to end in drama, burnout and resentment

Allow me to trim your words and make them even more generalized. Especially in the last two years things on YT seem to have turned sour for many creators. The arbitrary rule changes, the continued abuses, copyright battles and their highly dysfunctional reporting system make it a struggle to have your content on the system let alone work on expanding your channel and getting it promoted by the algorithm. I know several creators who have been on there for years and do excellent content, yet the system simply works against them. That's why everyone is begging people to sign up to Patreon or other alternative platforms with regular, predictable monetization because YT is simply kaput and doesn't work for them.

Mylenium

[Alexandrina]

1 hour ago, Mylenium said:

I know several creators who have been on there for years and do excellent content, yet the system simply works against them.

It doesn't help that at some point in the last few years they amped up the requirements for any sort of partnership. When I was an active creator c. 2011-2014, the minimum requirements to be eligible for monetisation were very small. So long as the videos themselves weren't copyrighted, you were pretty much good to go straight away - and sure, the money was tiny (I was small-fry; I think I earned about £3.75 of ad revenue my entire time on YouTube) but it helped, and you were able to capitalise if you had a video suddenly hit big. Nowadays, you have to have certain minimums of views and interaction over a month, so it's hard to get to that point unless you're making consistent content. Which is really hard to do if you aren't making money from it. I've barely put anything on YouTube since 2015 because now I'm a working adult I don't have so much spare time.

I don't know if it reflects my bubble, but I have no idea who this 'high profile reviewer' everyone mentions is. I'm not sure I could name a non-brickfilm Lego channel if I tried (and most of the brickfilm ones I know are dead/inactive!)

[ShaydDeGrai]

The term "sponsored" can hide a multitude of sins, anything from early access to a set, to cash in exchange for reading scripted ad copy written by someone else.

Personally, I couldn't care less if a company provided a free copy of something for review versus the reviewer spending their own money to go out and buy something.  This strikes me as on par with press screenings of a movie (I'd worked a few of those decades ago), a studio rents a theatre, invites a bunch of reviewers in to see a movie, possibly handing out some promotional materials at the same time and it costs the reviewers nothing but their time.  Moreover, the quality of the review doesn't impact who gets invited to the next screening.  If TLG sent me a kit to review for free, I'd give it an honest review (within my own sets of priorities and biases) without worrying about whether saying something critical would blackball me from future "free" kits,  and I'd publicly thank Lego for making the review copy available to me.  I think nearly all the reviewers I follow are in that same boat.

Is there a quid pro quo going on there? Well, yes and no, if I only have so much time to do reviews then by sending me a particular (free) kit, the company is sort of steering the narrative, say, getting me to "ooh" and "aah" over a free copy of the Botanical Gardens rather than gripe about how much the X Men Mansion cost me (personally) and pointing out that exterior lacks detail and looks a little "meh".  Of course any review is advertising, and for the amount of effort that goes into making a review that people actually want to pay attention to, a lot of reviewers don't bother posting reviews for kits they don't (generally) like, so if a company can get reviewers to put sets in front of eyeballs, it's usually a good thing for the company's bottom line.  I do think a reviewer should disclose if they got the item being reviewed for free or paid for it themselves, but getting a free copy isn't inherently disqualifying in my mind.

Getting paid by a third party to create content that attracts views (either via explicit product placement or via injected ads) is also fair game so long as the cash isn't coming from the company whose product is being reviewed.  Content creators invest their time and effort into making videos and blogs (making money for their host platforms) and deserve a piece of that action.  In the early days of the web, I belonged to a Science Fiction forum that used to award cash prizes every week for the top ten most read posts; I used to make a couple hundred bucks a month just sharing my opinions on various topics.  The people running the website never gave me editorial direction (they didn't even complain when I mocked some of their advertisers) my posts were generating traffic which was generating revenue for them, and they were just sharing the wealth because they knew that without users volunteering content, they'd have nothing.  

Getting compensated by a company for saying positive things about that company's products, however, is an entirely different kettle of fish.  At that point you're only pretending to be a reviewer, you're a marketer.  Marketers pretending to be reviewers are usually so disingenuous that they aren't fooling anybody; they don't even have to tell you that they're being paid.  The moment they start glossing over obvious issues or give glowing reviews for a set no one else is bothering to even mention, it becomes obvious to anyone with a genuine passion for the hobby that they aren't on the level.  It's just a matter of time before you realize that they aren't worth your time.

[The Reader]

5 hours ago, Alexandrina said:

but I have no idea who this 'high profile reviewer' everyone mentions is.

 

 

Edited November 6, 2024 by The Reader

[Lego Mike]

14 hours ago, ShaydDeGrai said:

[If] I only have so much time to do reviews then by sending me a particular (free) kit, the company is sort of steering the narrative, say, getting me to "ooh" and "aah" over a free copy of the Botanical Gardens rather than gripe about how much the X Men Mansion cost me (personally) and pointing out that exterior lacks detail and looks a little "meh".

This is a good point. I've seen a lot of long-time reviewers develop a growing sense of entitlement, like "This isn't what I wanted," and I think it comes from an overreliance on getting everything for free. I mean, if a reviewer paid for everything themselves, they'd be more inclined to focus on what they want, which in turn might make them more aware of what feels worthwhile and what doesn't, whereas if they haven't invested anything in it, they aren't inclined toward balance. Sorry to say, but I guess they start sounding like spoiled children who don't know the value of money. Hrm.

So a reviewer who relies too much on "sponsored" content can either a) insincerely say everything is wonderful because they're looking forward to the next free thing, or b) develop contempt and focus too much on the negative out of some misguided feeling of being owed free stuff. Fortunately, there are at least a few grounded, fair-minded reviewers (on YouTube or on their own websites) who avoid those pitfalls.

Side note: And there are those other YouTube reviewers who occasionally post haul videos about what they've been given and then never, ever post reviews on any of it. I'm still trying to square that one.

Edited November 7, 2024 by Lego Mike

[MAB]

For me, so long as they buy some of their own LEGO and have some realistic view of value, then  they can still discuss value for money even if they are reviewing a sponsored set. They can still compare part counts, sizes, build times, build fun, etc, across similar priced sets in different themes, or similar products if reviewing non -LEGO products.

[Mylenium]

1 hour ago, MAB said:

For me, so long as they buy some of their own LEGO and have some realistic view of value, then  they can still discuss value for money even if they are reviewing a sponsored set.

Though that always is one of the biggest points of contention and a personal pet peeve, TBH. You know, it's easy to go out and buy another 200 Euro set on your own dime when you have gotten five others for free and saved the money...

Mylenium

2 hours ago, Lego Mike said:

I've seen a lot of long-time reviewers develop a growing sense of entitlement, like "This isn't what I wanted," and I think it comes from an overreliance on getting everything for free. I mean, if a reviewer paid for everything themselves, they'd be more inclined to focus on what they want, which in turn might make them more aware of what feels worthwhile and what doesn't, whereas if they haven't invested anything in it, they aren't inclined toward balance. Sorry to say, but I guess they start sounding like spoiled children who don't know the value of money. Hrm.

Not sure if it's entitlement, but simply some form of non-considerate ignorance (as in being ignorant of circumstances, not dumb). I have this picture in my head where you just click on some form on the LEGO LAN web site or get a mail where you just need to confirm that you want the latest release and then it's easy to just always click and say yes. After a while you just may not think about it anymore...

Mylenium

[Alexandrina]

1 hour ago, Mylenium said:

Though that always is one of the biggest points of contention and a personal pet peeve, TBH. You know, it's easy to go out and buy another 200 Euro set on your own dime when you have gotten five others for free and saved the money...

This hits the mark, even at lower price points. I remember having to save for months every time I wanted to buy a new set, so when I got it, it didn't just have to be a good set in its own right - it had to not leave me feeling like I should have bought a different set for the same price instead. When you don't have to worry - when it's not a case of having one set or having the other, no way of getting both - you don't have that same investment in the quality

Imo it's the same sort of feeling as when you're watching a TV show week to week and there's a slow episode. You've waited for that slow episode and now you have to wait again for the climax, whereas viewers binging years after the fact will just digest the slow episode and go right on with the next one.

[MAB]

9 hours ago, Mylenium said:

Though that always is one of the biggest points of contention and a personal pet peeve, TBH. You know, it's easy to go out and buy another 200 Euro set on your own dime when you have gotten five others for free and saved the money...

Even sweeter as by reviewing it, you get another 100 euros or whatever from youtube for that video if you have enough clicks. 

There is little wonder content creators are protective of their accounts and asking for subscribers and continually feed the youtube algorithm whether they have something new or useful to say, or just recycle ideas from  the past. On the other hand, I find it strange and actually a little creepy that followers become so defensive of their favourite content creators, and also so aggressive towards rival content creators, like they owe a debt to their idols and have to help "support the channel". 

Edited November 7, 2024 by MAB

[JesseNight]

On 11/6/2024 at 11:08 AM, Thomas_w said:

But do I care about their opinion? Not really. Another long-winded rant about stickers or "price-to-part ratio", not really. 

I agree that we've probably all heard the talk about stickers more than enough times already, and statistics can be easily found for those who care.
I do care about opinions about the product itself when it's about specifics, and well explained and shown what the good and the bad really are. That's for me a main reason to watch reviews.

On 11/6/2024 at 1:38 PM, Thomas_w said:

Youtube as a "career" in general seems to end in drama, burnout and resentment for pretty much every hobby I follow on there (I am interested in organic chemistry and there is currently a fall out amongst all the chem-tubers). The big names in each hobby are a small set of people and largely exist online and in a little echo chamber and eventually it all blows up.

Very true. I think too many people dream of living from making content they love, only to find out later it's either just a dream, or a short lived career. Just like television in the old days, only a few people really make it in the scene, and only a very few manage to make it a lifetime career. And one has to be willing to expand their territory because they can't stick to the same thing forever. Even those with an interest will eventually get bored of it if it offers nothing new.

On 11/6/2024 at 1:04 PM, MAB said:

If they get paid to review it, chances are their review is going to be biased as it becomes more of an advert than a review.

That's sadly something that businesses are well aware of and exploit big time. Plenty of Youtubers are eager to make money or get free products, and to a business that's very cheap advertisement that reaches a lot of people if they're big enough on the platform. Fans look up to their favorite YTers, they wanna have stuff they show off or even stuff they see them using on stream.

On 11/6/2024 at 1:55 PM, Yperio_Bricks said:

I also agree with this! Things change when a hobby becomes a job.

For this exact reason I've always kept hobbies and work strictly separated. I admire people who manage to make their hobby their job AND still enjoy it, but I know for me it would kill the hobby. Even making money with a hobby already has that effect for me, that's why I don't do hobby activities for others aside from family and close friends.

On 11/6/2024 at 3:59 PM, Mylenium said:

That's why everyone is begging people to sign up to Patreon or other alternative platforms with regular, predictable monetization because YT is simply kaput and doesn't work for them.

Oh yeah... And how many of us are bored of the repetitive "Like and subscribe and turn on notifications!" call on almost every video these days? I know I am. I subscribe and like if I want to, and I will NEVER turn on notifications because it would drive me insane.

10 minutes ago, MAB said:

On the other hand, I find it strange and actually a little creepy that followers become so defensive of their favourite content creators, and also so aggressive towards rival content creators, like they owe a debt to their idols and have to help "support the channel". 

Oh don't get me started on that... Reminds me of the time a friend of mine started streaming something new and for a short while gained a lot of following. Suddenly "hanging out with friends" became reality TV with dozens of people licking their boots, or wanting nothing more than being killed by their idol on camera (in a competitive game). That's not fun, and to me it took away what friendly competition always had been between us before that time.

[JohnTPT17]

14 minutes ago, JesseNight said:

I do care about opinions about the product itself when it's about specifics, and well explained and shown what the good and the bad really are. That's for me a main reason to watch reviews.

That's about where I'm at with it as well. I want to see pictures/videos of what the product looks like in great detail, as well as hear about the building process/any major issues that aren't apparent from just general photos. Size comparisons, or maybe showing what it looks like with other similar sets, is also quite helpful for me.

This has been especially important for something like the Bricklink Designer Program sets, which have to be bought on preorder, and are often very expensive. CMFs can also be this way, since they can sometimes be difficult to find after an initial wave, and the reviews can include the identification guides for these sets. Heck, what first brought me to Eurobricks years ago (long before I made an account) was Whitefang's CMF reviews, where I could see all of the parts, know how rare/common a figure would be, and see how it might look with other characters/other scenarios - all things that can't be done just from looking at a picture in a catalog.  

Most other sets are out for at least a year, if not several, and are relatively easy to get, so I'm not as concerned about early sponsored reviews about them. I'm usually satisfied with some of the written/pictural reviews of sets from a few of my to-go sites for AFOL news, aided by in-hands reviews from other AFOLS (including what y'all post here). I'll usually only look for video reviews if it's something that is going to be limited, or will be very expensive (or both) - and even then, I'll usually go out of my way to try to find a review that's more positive, and one that's more negative so I'm sure I'm getting a range of opinions and not just being swayed by "popular opinion" on a particular set. 

[Mylenium]

18 hours ago, MAB said:

Even sweeter as by reviewing it, you get another 100 euros or whatever from youtube for that video if you have enough clicks.

Most people likely never make that much. I'd have to look it up, but if I remember correctly you get 3 Cent for a 1000 views plus the share of the ad revenue. Arguably a lot of smaller creators never make back what they invested or barely break even.

18 hours ago, MAB said:

On the other hand, I find it strange and actually a little creepy that followers become so defensive of their favourite content creators, and also so aggressive towards rival content creators, like they owe a debt to their idols and have to help "support the channel". 

Shilling for someone or something isn't exactly a new concept, is it? Thank god I'm old enough to no longer care, but I've seen those circle wanks enough in software and creative communities and can without shame admit to have been a troll and fanboy myself far too many times, but ultimately it's just a stupid waste of time to defend stupid corporate decisions or "geniuses" that are terrible human beings or company drones. In any case, it's a natural thing and it just takes time until you wise up. Sometimes people have  to learn this the hard way when the mask comes off on their favorite influencer, but it's a repeating pattern and will happen again.

Mylenium