Wirecutter strike and boycott Thanksgiving through Cyber Monday
twitter.com
twitter.com
Also note that wirecutter in their response do not deny this but try to weasel out by claiming that the word 'kickback' was misleading.
https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/our-response-to-nextdesk/
One valid criticism NextDesk raised was our use of the word “kickback” in our business communications, which is a misleading description of the affiliate business model because it implies an illicit transaction. In our company’s early days, we misused the term to describe a straightforward affiliate relationship, but we have since changed how we talk about the affiliate business, which is one we continue to stand behind.Who is the current honest broker of product reviews?
An example for relatively trustworthy reviews would be (German) Stiftung Warentest (“Product Review Foundation”)’s https://test.de, you can subscribe to all articles for a monthly fee or buy them individually.
No clickbait, no pop-ups, just no-bullshit, user respecting, fairly objective tests.
but if you care about getting a really good X, they're not a great source. most of their buying guides have a lot less detail than Wirecutter's, and of course pale in comparison to dedicated review sites for popular niches.
it's unfortunate that you essentially have to trade trustworthiness for detail.
They rate products in a bunch of categories using a table and a circle which would be various levels of full color depending on how a product rated. which meant sometimes you wouldn't just go to the highest rated if one part of the product scored lower in a category. Its an interesting data visualization method. Plus the table usually has specs too.
https://www.consumerreports.org/consumer-reports/we-put-ours...
Unfortunately, they also require summarization, so they're only as good as the individual quality projections into discrete levels. Powerful when used correctly. Useless when incorrectly, or your audience isn't visually-oriented.
Are there better review websites than the Wirecutter? I've found them to be solid and helpful.
I have wondered if there is even a way to sustain an organization large enough to review a wide variety of products, and have a business model that does not raise questions about your motives or integrity. I'd guess that such a business would need a lot of people and time to comprehensively review products well, and that costs money. In the Wirecutter model, where they claim to keep their reviews up to date as new products come out, it's kind of a recurring cost, too. But if affiliate links are ethically dubious, and advertisements are even worse, and if not enough people will pay for a subscription to their site, then what is the alternative?
Costs: {average number of new products released per unit of time} * {cost per product}
Revenue: {volume of purchases per unit of time} * {affiliate marketing per product purchased}
Advertising is probably difficult, due to the "Buy something other than what we recommend!" issue with advertising on review sites. Although I guess there are options for cross-selling.
I can't believe there are many products that makes sense for, without the Consumer Reports "Pay for the report" model. And even with it, the economics seem dubious, and I feel like you'd always be barely getting by.
It takes a huge leap of faith to claim that their product went from main recommendation to upgrade recommendation (not really a downrank) because they don't have an affiliate program.
To me, the xdesk guy is reading extremely hard into two independent events to try to claim cause-and-effect where it doesn't really exist.
Their pricepoint is high and the standing desk space has commoditized a lot. There are plenty of good affordable options these days. It sounds like they just make a niche high-end product; I was surprised to hear it was Wirecutter's initial recommendation for most people in the first place — I don't know too many people that read Wirecutter guides and are also looking to spend $1,500 on a standing desk.
Let me offer a counterexample - VPN services. They didn’t get a cent from Mullvad, which they declared the winner. Number two was IVPN, which also doesn’t have an affiliate program.
The review: https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/best-vpn-service/
IVPN: I don't know it, but I've met Nick Pestell (the founder) several times, and he's told me they don't pay for reviews. I trust him.
:)
I agree though, it is a real joy to lurk a HN thread on J. Random topic and be treated to high-signal conversations. :)
I cant stop laughing :)
Forgive me if I have asked this before. Have you ever considered a Pay as you Go model with minimum top up fees? $50 for 50GB with no expiry you can use it for life?
Or is that model that generally dont work because it seems all PAYG VPN services go bust.
Yes, but I can't recall the reasons we discarded the idea. Something like this perhaps:
In general I like the idea of VPN as a utility - anonymous internet on tap. Utility-like services in functioning markets compete on price to the benefit of the consumer. On the other hand, things that look like one-dimensional utilities to the consumer isn't always. A service category where there's plenty of innovation potential left shouldn't pretend to be a utility. Especially players who aim to improve state-of-the-art. A pay-as-you-go model encourages consumers to compare quantities of something that is quite disconnected from the quality of what they get.
Paying per month makes more sense to me for another reason as well - It's similar to what we do with our suppliers.
Thanks, that make sense. The reason I asked is because I only need a VPN once every few months for 10-20 min. Currently I am basically setting up my own VPN Server every time I need one. It is just quite a bit of hassle.
In a product category which is famous for its high-paying affiliate programs, they chose two players who are smaller and less well-known. Neither of them paid for their reviews. Most of their competitors mentioned in the article do have affiliate programs.
They can get third party affiliate revenue from Amazon, Walmart, Home Depot, etc in a program covering lots of products. Is there a B&M store analogy for SaaS?
[The rest of this comment is in response to parent comments more than your's directly.]
IMO The xdesk guy seems to be stretching reality way, way, way too far to claim that Wirecutter guides are influenced by whether or not affiliate revenue is offered on the purchase links just because Wirecutter repeatedly tried to get an affiliate program in place. Of course, they need a business model of some sort, and affiliate programs are what most, or at least many, review guide sites seem to choose.
Also, Wirecutter has never specialized in recommending the highest end options. A lot of their guides recommend a best choice for most people at some tradeoff of quality and cost. It's no surprise at all that the standing desk guide was iterated in that direction. And, even after no affiliate program, they didn't dis-recommend the xdesk desk, they just made it an upgrade pick recommendation.
Personally, I am skeptical that a typical Wirecutter reader is actually interested in spending $1500 on a great standing when they can get a pretty nice one for $500. The update makes reasonable sense to me.
This [1] sleepopolis saga is an amazing read if you’ve never seen it.
1. https://www.fastcompany.com/3065928/sleepopolis-casper-blogg...
There might be some honest ones out there, but they are drowned out by all the ones that are clearly just affiliat link farms.
/s. Mattress stores and mattress shopping is the fucking worst. Ultra scammy and there is a clear reason that the industry was turned upside down once someone figured out you can fit a mattress in a box and ship it.
The last time I went mattress shopping, I was told by serious and expert sleep professionals [sic] that I should get a mattress with embedded diamond particles because it’ll help keep me cool, and silver thread at the seams that will be more hygienic.
For what it’s worth, I took a chance on a mattress and love it. I have never slept somewhere I like better. It’s an Avacado, but buy whatever you can that has a real return policy and try it out.
Bed salesmen are worse than car salesmen.
tl;dr - Turns out the markup at a mattress store is about 100%, which helps the economics of store rent vs profit. Also, Mattress Firm went on a debt-leveraged buying spree of their competitors (why there are so many physical stores). Oh, and also Steinhoff (think South African IKEA) bought them in 2016, for what seemed an inflated price. And it turned out Steinhoff was (or was soon to be) under investigation for accounting fraud: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steinhoff_International#Contro...
I don't subscribe to them on a regular basis (I don't buy things often), but I have subscribed to them a few times to make a better informed decision on an upcoming purchase.
I think the most interesting part of your comment: Is how do we [objectively] classify the two?
Perhaps the tendency to recommend products not recommended in spammier affiliate link farm guides is one metric that would be interesting to look at.
In comparison to WC, CR is not free; but, to play devil's advocate, [why] does a guide being non-free presuppose that their reviews are of higher integrity?
[In general, I don't think that it does. We just had a post about this the other day actually.]
In CR's case, they've been around for decades and are independent / non-profit, so that's something. But also, I don't think longevity and the legal business entity being a non-profit are necessary preconditions to writing review guides with integrity.
If we were trying to find the "CR of startups today", what would we look for?
It isn't like they're recommending some brand over another because Amazon pays them for the click-through traffic. I don't see the kickback connection here.
That said, I largely like Wirecutter recs - but also do external research. When those things align I've almost always been very happy with my purchase.
Reproduction:
I keep on seeing this link pop up. Since no one is replying, I'd like to point out that I think the Wirecutter is actually in the right here. Another HN member did some investigation and found that Xdesk is stretching things: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22144078
In general, having been able to talk with some of the people there, I'm convinced that WC was focused first and foremost on truth-seeking and quality at this point in their life (pre-acquisition) — however, the consensus seems to have been that after the NYT acquired them, they started becoming more incentivized to grow revenue, and started to jump the shark.
Based on my personal knowledge of many people who have worked at Wirecutter past and present, I don't believe they are a pay to play operation at all.
Regardless, that has no bearing on whether or not their employees are owed a fair labor contract or not.
> Also note that wirecutter in their response do not deny this but try to weasel out by claiming that the word 'kickback' was misleading.
They've been getting a kickback from affiliated links for years.
They have actual domain experts, labs (well-resourced), scientific method, and loads of objective data - e.g., for bicycle helmets, they have human head/body models, put all the helmets on them (I'd guess 50 at least, IIRC), dropped them on their heads (I don't remember how the impacts were constructed), and measured various outcomes. Through their research they discovered new risks, such as the stretch in the chin strap.
And it's in sortable, filterable, dynamic tables. What is not to like?!
People don't like paying for things, especially when there is a free, easy, and legal alternative. I am a CR subscriber, and that $39/year fee was a hard thing for me to pay at first. But then I realized that is less than an hour of work at my salary, and I had already spent more than an hour trying to figure out which review sites were trustworthy.
I do find that they don't review everything in a category and can take a long time to review new products, which is frustrating but makes sense.
https://www.consumerreports.org/
They also are leaders in consumer advocacy, such as for privacy, financial abuse, broadband service, and much more, and organize user testing of things like broadband, water quality, and credit reports
https://twitter.com/wirecutterunion/status/14631750942184161...
It would be more digestible to know what % the increase is (especially with respect to inflation).
I think some of kind of organized curation would be nice. For instance, I follow https://fivebooks.com/ a lot, which asks subject matter experts on their recommendation. Something like that for nice consumer goods would be cool.
"Friends" and average nobodies already turn scummy as soon as RandomCorp throws in some kind of stupid referral incentive. Celebrities and has-beens can't be trusted when addressing consumer goods. Leveraging social media to bridge the gap between them is what brought us influencers.
I wonder if anyone has tried giving their top picks away for free, but charging for the review and methodology? I feel like I'd be suckered in. When I'm shopping I hop around and look at a bunch of reviews. I'll then try and find YouTube reviews to see the product in context. Especially, if it's a site that comes up over and over I'd pay to see pros/cons and comparisons. No idea if that would scale to a business, though.
https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-striking-wirecutter-union...
https://twitter.com/wirecutterunion/status/14631750942184161...
In some cases, this has been forced due to high levels of debt. But even in those cases, some change in operation is usually required because something has changed quite significantly.
So you try to sell your paper? Most corporate buyers don't want to buy a problem. Most PE funds don't want to buy a problem. Bond holders don't want to take control. The most likely buyer is a hedge fund that specialised in purchasing distressed assets. So it is the opposite of what you think: the hedge fund knows exactly what you know, that is why they are buying. The information in the decision to buy for a hedge fund is not the trajectory of the business but the price. You can buy a business in an industry that is failing, and still make money. Ofc, what journalists (outraged by someone coming in and telling them they have to earn their wage) forget is that this isn't easy work. Hedge funds that specialise in distressed assets are buying a problem...that is why someone is selling it to them.
It is is hard to generalise but from what I have seen: newspapers are still generating cash, there is a lot of scope to cut back on staff (to put it bluntly, newspapers were a monopoly business so they ran tons of staff doing things no-one read, they were a sinecure/tenure type job), digital strategy at most papers is very bad because managers worried about hurting offline, fully digital has a totally different staff model (a website is a totally different experience to a paper, all the views are concentrated in that top 10% of stories...no-one is going to hunt through/scroll down for your gardening guy), and there is scope for restructuring with debt holders. The business is declining but nowhere near as fast as other industries affected by online. Declining businesses like that are usually mispriced by the market who give them a control discount (and tbh, everyone just wants growth...look at Dillard's, they bought back effectively all their stock and the share price went up 600% in a month, people want to buy potential profit tomorrow rather than actual profit today), so taking the business private is usually very profitable.
They want an average raise of $384/mo (about $4.8/hr).
Can we just keep the boycott going in perpetuity?
Headphones? Stay away - too subjective. A humidifier for the nursery? Perfect.
Turns out I was not alone: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25993512
Upon further research into each issue, I found many other people noticing the same things. In addition, many of the products with these issues I exchanged, only to have the replacement exhibit the same exact problem.
Their presentation is their only real strength for the most part.
They also recommend an air purifier by Levoit, which performed demonstrably worse than a box fan with a HEPA filter bungee corded on to it[1]. In fairness, Wirecutter recommended a cheaper model, but is that model going to perform better than the more expensive one in the same line? In any case, it's still not cheaper than a box fan and a HEPA filter, which ought to be the baseline you'd test against if you were providing value to your readers.
[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/portable-air-purifier-tests...
If you were so happy with a $30 Mr. Coffee, what even compelled you to spend $200??
Parent never said that, and they're obviously not happy with the Mr. Coffee if they're willing to spend $200 on a coffee maker...which, BTW, better do a better job than a $30 coffee maker.
What compelled me to spend $200 on the OXO was the glowing Wirecutter review.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/best-drip-coffee-...
Don't dismiss this as a cantankerous rant. This is an extremely good point. The advantages are not only there in terms of cost but in terms of environmental impact and waste as well. It's telling that this sort of DIY solution isn't highlighted as the goto, especially in a publication catering to a crowd that claims to care about not fucking up the planet and wrings it's hands about the harms of capitalism. Instead of an air purifier bungee a HEPA filter to a box fan and donate the difference to some group capitalism shits on, repeat this approach for all things. Problem solved. Welcome to the solarpunk revolution.
Disclaimer: I did in fact buy a Levoit air purifier off Amazon during the wildfires last year so you know, ain't nobody perfect.
For the sensor, I used an ESP32 with a small eink screen (from lilygo) with a sensirion SPS30 sensor for detecting particles (see this very good teardown https://www.mistywest.com/posts/teardown-sensirion-particle-...), a sensirion SGP30 sensor for detecting VOCs and a BME280 to measure temperature, humidity and air pressure. I think total cost is roughly 60 usd. ESPHome makes it relatively easy, see this guide for a similar setup https://neon.ninja/2021/11/breathe-better-with-this-indoor-a...
Hope that helps, it's a fun project to figure things out (it was my first project with ESP32).
You’re costing them server hours and purposefully not giving them revenue despite it costing you nothing.
If you don't like the asking price, that is 100% fine. Don't consume the product.
You seem to be wanting to decide what is a fair price for product that they produced and set a price for.
Using affiliate links to pay for content creation/hosting is reasonable. Bypassing affiliate links is also reasonable. If you want to be owed something, put it in the ToS.
It's also a reasonable way for them to make money that isn't:
1. Invasive tracking 2. Nasty ads 3. Direct subscriptions
Take your entitlement elsewhere.
What are your thoughts regarding ad blocking? Specifically, do you also find people who use adblockers (I assume you don't use one of course) entitled?
The thing I hate is people who try to come up transparently disingenuous reasons for why they are entitled to not support organizations they extract value out of ("ehh I don't like your CSS so I'm going to not give you any money").
So you're saying https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/about/ is a lie?
It's right on the top of their front page:
"Wirecutter is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Learn more."
https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/our-response-to-nextdesk/
In general the web was at its best decades ago, when people published because they knew things and were internally compelled to share. Despite the drop in quality and overwhelming prevalence of shameless blogspam (from which Wirecutter is one or two steps up), I prefer to continue acting as if that information sharing is still the overriding motivation.
What does this mean, "internally compelled"?
If someone is providing systematic reviews of products, it takes time and resources to do so. Why would they do this for free?
I think the early internet:
- was a more distinctly bounded subset of individuals - now it's closer to a random sampling of humans
- had less "background monetary radiation" so there was far less incentive to make low value content
- content spread mostly by human -> human interaction so the bar for something being shared and consequently your likelyhood of seeing it was set higher
It feels like the signal to noise ratio was significantly better as a combination of those things. This sort of product-shilling was less profitable. Also in general the profitability vector being "people click the buy link" vs "people's continued trust in my expertise" influences the sort of content that's created.
Because they blackmail companies into affiliate revenue with the threat of "unrecommending" their products. See: https://www.xdesk.com/wirecutter-standing-desk-review-pay-to...
Besides, this cheating strategy is only locally sustainable. Once word gets out, they'll lose on their next release. Lies have short legs.
If a union isn't threatening to strike it's because whatever they expect to gain in leverage and negotiating power isn't enough to offset the cost of the actual strike.
When a union perceives that the company is not negotiating rationally, that's when they take a vote to authorize a strike. Then, hopefully, the strike doesn't happen... but it's available.
Seems that if the employer can hire replacements quickly enough, the strikers don't get their jobs back.
"Economic strikers defined. If the object of a strike is to obtain from the employer some economic concession such as higher wages, shorter hours, or better working conditions, the striking employees are called economic strikers. They retain their status as employees and cannot be discharged, but they can be replaced by their employer. If the employer has hired bona fide permanent replacements who are filling the jobs of the economic strikers when the strikers apply unconditionally to go back to work, the strikers are not entitled to reinstatement at that time. However, if the strikers do not obtain regular and substantially equivalent employment, they are entitled to be recalled to jobs for which they are qualified when openings in such jobs occur if they, or their bargaining representative, have made an unconditional request for their reinstatement."
If you want to ask, "is it generally legal to fire all members of a union in retaliation", the answer is "it's complicated". Read https://www.nlrb.gov/strikes
I'm going to guess you don't know any union members.
Strikes are very hard on the strikers. You're suddenly taking no income but still putting in a shift on the picket line. Not only is there the real risk of the whole thing being net-negative, but you could lose your job entirely.
And a lot of time, you only strike because you've been squeezed financially for so long, you may not have much of a buffer for all that.
You make it sound like unions strike for sport. I suspect a conversation with an actual striking union member might provide a different perspective.
And yes, as I explained but will repeat, strikes happen within a political/legal/cultural/economic context. In some contexts, that has increased the frequency of strikes. By your account, the proportion of strikes just relates to the financial position of the strikers...I don't know how it is possible to be aware of the history of trade unionism and come to that conclusion.
For example, individuals do not choose to strike. They vote for strike action in a ballot or there is a decision taken by an executive of the union. Exactly how this occurs has had a huge role in determining the frequency of strikes (if you look at the labour history of the UK, the lack of democratic process in important unions was a major reason why they went militant, why strikes increased, and eventually why unions fell into decline).
The specifics of your account of striking is mostly wrong too (for example, it is not always true that strikers are unpaid). Most people today do not understand how unions operate...this is related to the fact that they live in countries where the labour movement committed suicide, and they are left with militant unions that misrepresent how unions can actually work effectively (again, Europe is a perfect example of this, the militant behaviour of unions today is a function of their irrelevance in society, and that is 100% a function of the use of industrial action by militant unions).
If management thinks the union is too weak to strike, they can stonewall. And if the union can't muster a strike, management tends to win. If the union CAN muster a strike, then (1) people in the union develop a stronger belief in their union and (2) management updates their estimate of what they can get away with.