Brian Murphy - Posted - 09/12/2021:  15:36:13

Let's face it, most product reviews on the Internet are biased and often come from folks who have some kind of endorsement deal or the manufacturer is an advertiser. And Hangout reviews are never that objective. Have you ever seen someone plunk down a couple grand and then post anything other than straight 9's and 10's?



So here is my idea, pile on with revisions or thoughts:



We all (ok, I realize not all will do this) chip in $$ to buy a new issue banjo. Then there is a small group of folks we nominate to do a review. The review then is anonymous, and the maker won't know who on the panel did it. Let's say we have two reviewers for each instrument. They can record sound samples (we could do videos too if they wear those pro wrestling masks) and give us an honest review (for gun buffs, I'm thinking a review like Hickok 45). Maybe there is someone out there we all trust who will tell it like it is without concern.



Then, we sell the banjo through the Hangout and use the proceeds to help fund future purchases.



Would it work?  If not, what makes the idea work?  (This is a first draft)

Edited by - Brian Murphy on 09/12/2021 15:37:01

geckoberry - Posted - 09/12/2021:  16:54:18

It's a good idea in theory, but who would the banjo go to if we all pitched in?
Excited to see where this forum goes...

blazo - Posted - 09/12/2021:  17:07:42

I don't see where any proceeds would come from. You want to buy a new banjo, review it, then sell a used banjo. Sounds like you would lose money that way (unless you got the banjo free or at a huge discount). What happens if the reviews turn out negative... then you could be stuck with a poorly reviewed banjo with severely limited opportunities to recoup your cost.



Other than that, I think the idea of a an unbiased review is great. Perhaps do blind testing so the reviewer doesn't know the make, model or brand of the instrument they are reviewing.

Edited by - blazo on 09/12/2021 17:10:08

G Edward Porgie - Posted - 09/12/2021:  17:29:55

So much of banjo tone and feel is subjective, I doubt this could ever work. Maybe the quality of the materials and workmanship could be reviewed impartially, but other aspects of the banjo would be open to almost any criticism.

Also, as has been pointed out already, this would be a money losing enterprise.

Bill Rogers - Posted - 09/12/2021:  18:44:13

You cannot have an “objective” review of a banjo because mechanically or electronically qualifying the instruments’s tone in necessarily subjective.All the structural thngs you could review won’t give the information a potential buyer would want. A Consumer Reports for banjos is, imo, financially infeasible. Best to chuck the idea.

MacCruiskeen - Posted - 09/12/2021:  19:01:22

There’s not really ‘objective’ reviewing of anything. You can learn what the biases/blind spots/experience value is of a reviewer, and work with that.

If someone is reviewing a thing they bought for themselves, there’s a selection effect. They bought to fill a need/desire they had, and the review is in that context. If it filled that need, it gets a good review. Maybe they give you some info you can use, maybe not.

Some industries give or lend reviewers sample products to test, but I suspect that’s not going to work for small-production banjo makers.

Bill Rogers - Posted - 09/12/2021:  23:45:41

The best and fairest way to sum up a favorable bano review is “it worked well for me.” Not objective, but (presumably) accurate. Adding some “becauses” is helpful. Reverse the comments for a negative review.

janolov - Posted - 09/13/2021:  01:34:50

Why not give members opportunity to comment the reviews? Some kind of review the review.

YellowSkyBlueSun - Posted - 09/13/2021:  06:16:12

I think this is a good idea. But what you're basically describing is a review publication organized as a cooperative.



It's the same basic business model as all instrument blogs/zines/channels: Buy products, review them, resell products. There will always be a loss, and you need to make up for it somehow. It could be a non-profit, if you could get enough people together willing to fund it. Most publications use advertising revenue to make up the gap.



If you don't want the implicit bias of relying on manufacturer advertisements, you'll need to charge a subscription fee similar to Consumer Reports, or have an alternative revenue stream such as lessons or merchandise, or have it be non-profit funded by nice old men with too much money. 

You mention Hickok45, which I think is relevant because he is a valued reviewer not because of any freedom from bias but because he has a reputation for objective and knowledgeable reviews. Hickock45 has financial ties to many of the manufacturers featured on his channel, but he's still trusted. Why is that? At the end of the day the crux of your question is: "How do we ensure the reader trusts the reviewer". Removing all financial incentive to be biased is one way to do this, but it isn't the only way. It's about reputation.



Being anonymous I don't think is a good thing, because they the consumer can't know if the reviewer has ties to the manufacturer. A better option is to be transparent about where funding comes from and the background of the reviewer. This is how most places do it.

Edited by - YellowSkyBlueSun on 09/13/2021 06:22:24