What are your thoughts about cigar media and sponsorship?

[IPH]

Specifically, how do you view podcasts and blogs that are sponsored by manufacturers? Does doing this damage their credibility when you see them reviewing cigars by those manufacturers?

Regarding manufacturer sponsorship, I look at a blogs like Halfwheel with Drew Estate and Stogie Geeks and Debonaire and feel like I have to take any statements about those products as a bit tainted.

What about if a monetary transaction occurs to initiate a review / interview?

 

[aherzing]

I think it's tough to have any kind of sponsorship for something that is supposed to be objective. Even if a shop sponsors a blog I would think any cigar reviewed by the blog that the shop carries would be tainted.

I think this is twice as bad in regards to manufacturers. Because now you are creating pinpointing a brand bias where as at least with a shop bias there would hopefully be a variety of brands reviewed.

I don't blame the shops or manufactures for sponsoring for the shake of advertising, but if they are expecting and receiving favorable reviews strictly based on their monetary contribution, then that is no good.

I understand that blogging/podcasting is a time and financial commitment and that in some cases a sponsorship is required in order to exist.

If I were to operate a blog,
I would ask my sponsors to sign a sort of "waiver" that would state that their financial contribution will in no way impact the objectivity of the blog/cast. And then that waiver would be posted to my site for all to see.

On a completely different note: paying for someone to do a review is absolutely ridiculous. To me that sounds like "hey give me money, I'll tell everyone your cigar is good" Again I understand that there is a time/financial commitment involved but if you are taking on the task of objectively reviewing than you understand that you can accept compensation as it will influence the review. Even if it doesn't actually taint the review it will alter your viewer/readerships perception of your blog.

Another thing to be considered: say podcast X has 3 continuous sponsors (shops and manufactures all highly regarded in the community), none of the sponsor expect of receive biased reviews. However, podcast X approaches Brand Y and says "we'll review one of your cigars for 500.00 " well if podcast Xs practices of being paid for reviews becomes public knowledge, that is going to taint ALL of the sponsors involves in podcast Xs operation.

 

[rdomfoto]

I think transparency is key. If Drew Estates or Arturo Fuente started doing podcasts, I'd more than likely sign up. In fact, I would expect/hope that they'd have further insights into their topics than someone doing a podcast for fun.

If they sponsor a podcast, I would expect/hope that the podcaster(s) would (near the top of the show) would thank the sponsor and do their little ad message. I have no problems with that. It's like listening to the Adam And Dr Drew show - they are always suddenly dropping in notes from their sponsors.

I DO have a problem when a podcast is sponsored but never mentions it. Even if they are not influenced by the sponsorship, I would have a hard time accepting their credibility if I knew they had hidden their sponsorship.

My podcast isn't sponsored at all so I don't have anything to reveal. But I have received sponsorship from a few manufacturers in my photography business and I do let people know about that when it's appropriate (there is a line between disclosure and bragging :eyebrow: )

As for receiving compensation of any form to do a review... I find that to be ethically, I dunno, "murky"? It happens all the time and, again, I think transparency is important. If I receive a piece of equipment, asked to do a review, then told I can keep it afterward, I'll tell my listeners/readers that and will still do an honest review.

I also send the review to the manufacturer because sometimes there are some minor adjustments they could make to the product and I'm happy to provide my opinion.

To sum that all up - transparency on behalf of the reviewer and how (s)he handles it determines - in my mind, at least, the level of credibility.

 

[rdomfoto]

I think it's tough to have any kind of sponsorship for something that is supposed to be objective. Even if a shop sponsors a blog I would think any cigar reviewed by the blog that the shop carries would be tainted.

I think this is twice as bad in regards to manufacturers. Because now you are creating pinpointing a brand bias where as at least with a shop bias there would hopefully be a variety of brands reviewed.

I don't blame the shops or manufactures for sponsoring for the shake of advertising, but if they are expecting and receiving favorable reviews strictly based on their monetary contribution, then that is no good.

I understand that blogging/podcasting is a time and financial commitment and that in some cases a sponsorship is required in order to exist.

If I were to operate a blog,
I would ask my sponsors to sign a sort of "waiver" that would state that their financial contribution will in no way impact the objectivity of the blog/cast. And then that waiver would be posted to my site for all to see.

On a completely different note: paying for someone to do a review is absolutely ridiculous. To me that sounds like "hey give me money, I'll tell everyone your cigar is good" Again I understand that there is a time/financial commitment involved but if you are taking on the task of objectively reviewing than you understand that you can accept compensation as it will influence the review. Even if it doesn't actually taint the review it will alter your viewer/readerships perception of your blog.

Another thing to be considered: say podcast X has 3 continuous sponsors (shops and manufactures all highly regarded in the community), none of the sponsor expect of receive biased reviews. However, podcast X approaches Brand Y and says "we'll review one of your cigars for 500.00 " well if podcast Xs practices of being paid for reviews becomes public knowledge, that is going to taint ALL of the sponsors involves in podcast Xs operation.

I could not agree more about having a waiver on my website. I wouldn't ask the manufacturer to sign it, though, simply because they probably won't. I think the listeners will be able to tell if the podcaster suddenly becomes a fanboy and starts glossing over obvious shortcomings that they are allowing themselves to be influenced.

 

[D Quintero]

i stay clear of podcast . too much personality and jawing about whatever appealls to the locale jib/vibe they're podcasting from . personally , preferring blogs as they are accessable to get right to the heart of the matter by simply scrolling whilst catching only abit of character through writing style , photo layout technique ... thats just me

as far as de or debonaire providing sharing some interest with the particular entity , its a given . id be more about blogs that have zero ties to any cigar manufacturer, but am not really looking for any of the like distinctions firsthand .

Thanks !

 

[smokemifugotem]

I think it is what it is...CA lost all credibility years ago with correlation between cigar ads and top 10 cigars for the year. Kind of up to the consumer to weed out the crap vs solid journalism. Funny is when they try to deny it. Just own it...

 

[rdomfoto]

I think it is what it is...CA lost all credibility years ago with correlation between cigar ads and top 10 cigars for the year. Kind of up to the consumer to weed out the crap vs solid journalism. Funny is when they try to deny it. Just own it...

And their sister publication, Wine Spectator, has been haunted by the same accusations for years - that advertising revenue has been influencing reviews. Unfortunately, true or not, once that accusation has been leveled, it's hard to fight off.

 

[sofc]

I don't pay much attention to blogs or reviews of cigars. Not necessarily because I think reviews are bought but I often disagree with reviewers/bloggers. I have tried cigars that were rated in the mid nineties by some and thought "if it was free I wouldn't smoke this." Everyone's tastes are somewhat different.

But it could be because I'm an elitist snob and only smoke a limited selection of sticks. Who knows?

 

[smokemifugotem]

Totally agree ara. Only really trust about 15-20 people I know that when they say a cigar is good...chances are i will like it too. But even in that small circle...there are some cigars and lines of smokes I just don't agree on. I think people give bloggers or media outlets too much love at times. I don't read any of them...hell I have a CA a subscription and cannot tell you the last article I read in it. Social media has changed everything. I get enough info through FB and Instagram to cover the need to know info on releases and such. But that is just me. Some people love to follow the blog..

 

[sofc]

Totally agree ara. Only really trust about 15-20 people I know that when they say a cigar is good...chances are i will like it too. But even in that small circle...there are some cigars and lines of smokes I just don't agree on. I think people give bloggers or media outlets too much love at times. I don't read any of them...hell I have a CA a subscription and cannot tell you the last article I read in it. Social media has changed everything. I get enough info through FB and Instagram to cover the need to know info on releases and such. But that is just me. Some people love to follow the blog..

I agree with Ara also.





So you just bought CA for the pictures?

 

[d-boy]

I don't pay much attention to blogs or reviews of cigars. Not necessarily because I think reviews are bought but I often disagree with reviewers/bloggers. I have tried cigars that were rated in the mid nineties by some and thought "if it was free I wouldn't smoke this." Everyone's tastes are somewhat different.

But it could be because I'm an elitist snob and only smoke a limited selection of sticks. Who knows?

Lol. I agree with you

 

[Hoshneer]

I like podcasts but I tend to listen to my friends more. They know me much better and I know thier taste as well.

 

[H3rrington]

I like podcasts but I tend to listen to my friends more. They know me much better and I know thier taste as well.

This! I will generally trust a brothers word over a review.

 

[rdomfoto]

I don't pay much attention to blogs or reviews of cigars. Not necessarily because I think reviews are bought but I often disagree with reviewers/bloggers. I have tried cigars that were rated in the mid nineties by some and thought "if it was free I wouldn't smoke this." Everyone's tastes are somewhat different.

But it could be because I'm an elitist snob and only smoke a limited selection of sticks. Who knows?

It's pretty similar to movie reviewers. Back in the Siskel and Ebert days, I found myself not agreeing with Gene Siskel very much and only marginally with Roger Ebert. I liked their banter so I watched the show but I didn't watch movies based on their reviews. I did agree with Bruce Williamson (former critic with Playboy) a fair amount so I let him influence my watching.

 

[smokemifugotem]

Thought I would read it more...but I don't

 

[javajunkie]

Thought I would read it more...but I don't

CA or playboy?

 

[StogieNinja]

I don't have a problem with sponsorship. Could it lead to biased reviews? Sure. You'll find the same thing in any industry where it's allowed.

Honestly, I pay very little attention to the score pretty much anywhere (except as a gauge of how it was reviewed across several places for example), and pay a lot more attention to the reviewer's write up. Generally that tells me what I want to know, and if their palate lines up with mine. If it does, I pay more attention. If it doesn't, I don't.

However, this topic is precisely why I joined Blind Man's Puff, and is one of the things I like about how we do our reviews. There's no bias, because we don't know what we're smoking! It's a true blind panel review, so you get honest opinions.

 

[Carpenter69]

I totally agree with the OP. I'm not trying to bash anyone, but DE could roll dry cat turds and Halfwheel would give it a 91. If they don't give a positive review then no free cigars, shirts, hats, money. It's a business. I tend to trust the guys on these boards that have been around a while. They have nothing to gain or lose. Just my 2 cents.

 

[59Bassman]

I've been listening to podcasts for years in my various hobbies. Almost all of the "good" ones eventually get sponsored by someone. But in most cases, the sponsorship happens after the 'cast has been established, and the person(s) running the podcast have already positively reviewed that company's products. I have seen it in blogs as well.

I will say that I'm more likely to trust and "amateur" who's sponsored by a company and is doing the podcast on their own time more than a "pro" who's already in the biz (either as a rep or a B&M shop owner) when it comes to transparency. For the B&M owner I think there's just too much pressure to move product for it not to influence their recommendations and reviews.