Jim Green Boots

[rogueclimber]

A company gives a product away, in exchange for a review. A company pays somebody to review and promote their products. It's advertising. Is that so wrong?

As long as the compensation for review is acknowledged I have no problem with it. But when the review is posited as a simple review by a user, and the facts are actually hidden? Yes it is wrong.

 

[TLW '90]

It is confirmed. It's not a real moccasin. It's a moc-toe construction. A true moccasin is 1 solid piece of leather, wrapping up over the foot. Jim Green stitches several pieces of leather together, then wraps the toe up, and has a big hole in the middle.

There are 2 different ways to make a moccasin that can be counted as a " True moc construction " but that would be a full moc and more of a semi-moc which isn't just a moc-toe.
It's 100% a true moc at the toe and only really differs at the heel.
Yes when it comes to boots it's not just a moccasin but a mocassin boot which is a mocassin with boot stuff attached to it.

 

[Fifty150]

when the review is posited as a simple review by a user,

We're surrounded every day by advertising.

A "review" should not be influenced by the product seller.

If someone on this forum gave their opinions on a product, based on their own experience, that's an honest review.

If a manufacturer gives the product to somebody, so that the person could make a video, than it's compensated advertising. Influenced. No longer honest. Those guys can say whatever they want about how they have integrity, and that they are giving you an honest "review". But they're compensated. They're paid.


What if we found out that a person on this forum, has been accepting products or other forms of payment; and in exchange he writes good things about the product?


Of course, to be fair, it's just business. Same way athletes and other celebrities make commercials. Or I would still be mad at Ricardo Montalban for selling me "corinthian leather" in a piece of junk Chrysler. And let me tell you: no sneaker made me a better ball player.​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardo_Montalbán​

Somewhere along the way, I decided not to believe internet content creators. But we're all entitled to do what we want.



​

 

[rogueclimber]

We're surrounded every day by advertising.

A "review" should not be influenced by the product seller.

If someone on this forum gave their opinions on a product, based on their own experience, that's an honest review.

If a manufacturer gives the product to somebody, so that the person could make a video, than it's compensated advertising. Influenced. No longer honest. Those guys can say whatever they want about how they have integrity, and that they are giving you an honest "review". But they're compensated. They're paid.


What if we found out that a person on this forum, has been accepting products or other forms of payment; and in exchange he writes good things about the product?


Of course, to be fair, it's just business. Same way athletes and other celebrities make commercials. Or I would still be mad at Ricardo Montalban for selling me "corinthian leather" in a piece of junk Chrysler. And let me tell you: no sneaker made me a better ball player.​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardo_Montalbán​

Somewhere along the way, I decided not to believe internet content creators. But we're all entitled to do what we want.



​

I think we were saying the same thing...