I had said I wasn’t going to say any more on this subject here, but a comment by Dan Warne on my previous post leave me no choice but to pen this post.
In his reply to my post, Dan comments (my replies in blue ink):
Err, you accuse me of being tilted in my (obviously rhetorical) question at the end of my post, and you find it necessary to dot dictionary definitions for 'invidious' and 'spiteful' through your post?
In order to help you better understand what I see as the backgrounder.
Anyway, to answer your question: if you'd read my post thoroughly you'd have seen that there's a whole section dedicated to the fact that of course we get freebies. However, in the case of material things, they're usually reasonably low value, such as components that have been sent directly from Taiwan, where the manufacturer doesn't consider the cost of a return international courier justified against the wholesale cost of an item.
In the case of material things? Does software count? Do you do the same with software? What kinds of things are immaterial? Or ethereal?
Who determines what the maximum customary price point for giveaways is? Should giveaways be tchotchkes or of real value? Is there a rulebook somewhere bloggers should swear by?
Sometimes companies leave products with us on long term review -- with a clear-cut loan agreement that they will pick up the product at a later date.
Do you explicitly state that fact to your readers? With every review? Do you also state the fact that the cost mentioned in the review is a SWAG? As in Stupid Wild-A$$ed Guess, a version of the manufacturer’s suggested retail price which has no bearing in the Real World!
And yes, we give products away to readers (though this rarely has anything to do with the journos -- these sorts of offers are usually sorted out by the advertising or marketing departments.)
You guys answer to a higher moral authority?
The whole point of my post is not that having access to technology is bad: it's obviously not. In fact, it's essential to being able to do the job of a technology reviewer.
What -does- muddy the waters, though, is Microsoft's offer to let bloggers -keep- the units. It's totally unnecessary: a three or six month loan would have totally done the job of allowing a thorough review of Vista to be done, without the ethical ambiguity of allowing a blogger to keep it.
Microsoft has, of course, now remedied the situation somewhat by asking bloggers to either return the units or give them away to readers, but at the time my original story was written, Microsoft hadn't yet made that offer.
It is only an ethical ambiguity if it influences the result of the bloggers’ review. Has it?
- · The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law. [156 U.S. 432, 454]
COFFIN v. U.S., 156 U.S. 432 (1895)In United States jurisprudence, the presumption of innocence is sacrosanct. That presumption of innocence also permeates all forms of society in the civilized world. Supposedly!
Copyright © 2006, John Obeto II for SmallBizVista.com®
Commenting is closed for this thread.
Technorati tags: John Obeto, SmallBizVista.com, The Interlocutor, Vista, Windows Vista, Windows, Microsoft, HTPC, Logikworx, AbsoluteVista.com