As Adam Curry says: “There are no Secrets, Only information you don’t yet have”

and I think you’d also see things like

I was given an xyz phone to review (and keep subsequent to the review) - I wrote a mixed review of it because it lacked features a, b, and c - Blogger Y, however gave it a glowing review and never mentioned the fact that as reviewers, we were given the phone to keep - you gotta wonder!

You’d see things like

Blogger Y has reviewed 15 products and without fail has praised them all, yet she praised some stuff that everyone in the world says was a heap of junk. No doubt the analysis would be wrapped in a blog post titled “Blogger Y - Corporate Whore - The Facts”

If they didn’t follow a transparency code then the conspiracy theorists would I’m sure come out to play.

Also, if companies are going to come online and start to be more open and transparent about their processes I’m sure they’d get flack for not submitting product reviews to certain bloggers who are known to be very honest.

Having said that, it is a very tricky question you have raised - I think it depends very much on what you are being asked to review - obviously a bottle of wine can’t be returned after a review, for example, but a laptop could and should.

I think the most important thing is to be transparent so your readership can judge your motives while reading the review.

I think Hugh’s idea is great and very innovative (I haven’t heard of anyone else in his industry doing this) and I commend him on doing it.

there is rather a large niche online for people giving harsh and tough reviews of products too. People might be a bit freer to speak their mind online.

Maybe so, but speaking their mind may mean they might not be given very many gadgets to review either - as Bernie almost said!

the whole thing gets even more complicated when, in order to get the access, you not only have to be upbeat and positive, you have to sell out on copy approval (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1468351,00.html ).

to be honest, i don’t think it’s a big issue for bloggers. most of the ones who whore products do so so ineptly that the simple fact that they’re whoring the product is itself more than enough of a turn-off for me in the first place. there are some blogs i know who’ve initially given positive upbeat reviews of the latest gizmo, only to realise that the public tide is actually against it, so they have to do a volte face and air-brush out their previous praise-singing. more than damaging the product’s brand, they’re damaging their own brand.

Blogging about gadgets might review the same industry expectation. If you want phones for life, ensure your blog has a valid postal address for the courier.

So what Michele is saying is that bribery for a review is alright but bribery for a positive review is not.

Bribery. Hmmmm. Bribery is giving someone an incentive to do something they would not normally do in order to benefit you. You’d bribe someone to change the natural flow of a system which would result in you gaining something. Are you bribing bloggers for telling the truth?

I wouldn’t have classed it as bribery if you were given a product and asked for your opinions on it and allowed keep the product. Though I was thinking more of something with a small value. If the stipulation was “you can comment positively or negatively or you don’t have to comment at all” was added would it change things? Would there be less of an obligation to be positive about the product or would the fact that someone loves you enough for your opinion soften you?

How about if Company X who was asking for opinions had another obligation that if you are going to give an opinion then you have to disclose that you were given the product by Company X and that you will be handing it back or that it is worth Y Euros. That’s pretty transparent, is it enough?

In regards to the value of the product, would there be a cut-off where if a product is worth say €20 returning it wouldn’t be necessary, but if it was above that would have to be handed back? Or do you think everything bar consumables would have to be handed back, no matter the value?

You mention that study about most reviews for stuff getting 4 out of 5, but there is rather a large niche online for people giving harsh and tough reviews of products too. People might be a bit freer to speak their mind online.

What do you think of Hugh Macleod’s idea of giving away free bottles of wine to bloggers? The old attitude would have been to give this wine to the wine buffs but instead giving it to a bunch of folk who just converse a lot and are just like a regular consumer might be far more beneficial.

Joe Soap would appreciate “That fella down the road said the wine was shit, but that jumped up shit in the broadsheet said it had a good bouquet with hints of sychophant. Yer man down the road speaks the same language as me so I’ll believe him.”