<!-- Google tag (gtag.js) --> <script async src="https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtag/js?id=G-Q2MC6HHGTH"></script> <script> window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);} gtag('js', new Date()); gtag('config', 'G-Q2MC6HHGTH'); </script><script id="Cookiebot" src="https://consent.cookiebot.com/uc.js" data-cbid="9a575506-32c3-4ed2-8123-3527a9a1f3a7" type="text/javascript" async></script> ![[Pasted image 20251127033307.png]] Image generated by Google Gemini to interpret current article. # Introduction This is a discussion I have been meaning to get to for a while. As a community, there seems to be a growing divide between those who purchase devices and those who receive sample units for review. Hopefully, this blog will help to shine a light on the biases that present themselves in both cases. Let's jump in and talk about these seemingly disparate approaches. For a YouTube creator, the "Review Unit" is seen by some as the status symbol that defines "you have arrived." It signifies growth, legitimacy, and a direct line to the brands we cover. Often, these devices arrive with a golden ticket: "No strings attached. No editorial control. Be as honest as you want." On the surface, this sounds like the perfect environment for objectivity. We haven't spent a dime, and the brand hasn't demanded a positive evaluation or review. We are free agents. Or are we? Even without a signed contract, the psychology of receiving a complimentary device creates a complex web of internal biases. We aren't just struggling with the truth, we are battling our own sense of ethics. In this blog, we will discuss how the "Free vs. Bought" dynamic shifts when you are the one behind the camera. # The Complimentary Device: The "Shadow Contract" When a brand sends a device with "no expectations," they are smart. They know that explicit demands create resistance, but generosity can create an expected obligation. Here are a few of the potential biases that could emerge. ## Potential Affinity Bias: The Reciprocity Trap Even if the PR rep says, "Be honest," they were also the person who was polite in emails, shipped the unit overnight, and checked in to see if it arrived safely. The [Reciprocity Norm](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norm_of_reciprocity)kicks in hard here. We unconsciously want to be "nice" to the person who was nice to us. In a script, this subtly could soften our language. A "terrible flaw" becomes a "minor quirk" or "something they can fix in firmware." We aren't being paid to be positive; we are socially conditioned to be polite. Often we see this as a social contract. although informal. A lot also depends on if you have only one company you are working with. While there is no requirement for a positive review this time, there is a looming fear for next time. If I eviscerate this product, will I get the next model early? This Future-Discounting Bias can lead creators to pull punches, not because of a current contract, but to preserve a future pipeline of content. Personally, I think that is why it is important not to "expect" that you will continue to receive devices, or at least develop a relationship that is built on mutual trust and respect. In my recent blog ([[My Supernote Wish List]]), I had a laundry list of issues and it was well received by Ratta. They even commented on my YouTube video on the subject. You can find that here:  I would like to be very clear that civility is paramount. The idea that just because you have a collegial relationship with a vendor or business, you must be complimentary on the products is an antiquated way of thinking of these interactions. The truth is that many companies now value critical analysis. It is not only a win for the company, but a way to reach other audiences. For example, my termination of working with ViWoods had nothing to do with the company, but rather the status of the platform. If you would like more information on my decision, you can see it here:  This is not to discount that bias exists, but that it is possible to counter it with principles and ethics. The goal is to be honest with yourself about expectations and assumptions. ## Potential Ownership Bias: The Devaluation of "Stuff" When you buy a device, it is an event. When you receive review units, they are inventory. Without the "pain of paying," the Devaluation Effect sets in. A $600 tablet sent for free feels psychologically lighter than a $50 accessory bought with your own cash. This can make reviewers impatient. We might skip the deep-dive troubleshooting that a paying customer would perform, dismissing a device as "buggy" simply because we didn't have the financial incentive to make it work. It is important to recognize that there is a way to thread the needle here. While there is possibly bias, it is not necessarily going to be a complete negative. Full disclosure is the key. Letting your audience know what is going on will allow you to maintain credibility. It is also important to note that purchasing a device or unit also comes with its own set of biases. # The Potential Purchase Bias: Having "Skin in the Game" When a reviewer uses their own channel budget or personal funds to buy a device, the narrative changes. The review becomes a personal journey, and the audience knows it. It is also important to note that many "reviewers" do not start off that way. My own personal journey started with the Supernote A5X well before I started a YouTube channel or even began looking at other devices. It is important to keep that in mind. ## Potential Affinity Bias: Aggressive Validation When we pay for a decice, we immediately align with the audience. We feel the sting of the price tag. However, this triggers [Choice-Supportive Bias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice-supportive_bias). Because we spent our own limited budget, we want to prove to ourselves (and our comments section) that we made a smart purchase. We might unknowingly defend the product more passionately than it deserves to validate our financial decision. Additionally, a reviewer who paid for a device is less likely to put it in a drawer after one week. The [Sunk Cost Fallacy](https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/the-sunk-cost-fallacy) works in the audience's favor here. It forces the creator to use the device long-term, often uncovering features or workflows that "surface level" reviews miss. # Potential Negative Bias: Hyper-Critical Buyer’s Remorse When a brand sends a unit, we judge it against the market. When we buy a unit, we judge it against our bank account. [Loss Aversion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion) makes us twice as sensitive to flaws in purchased products. A dead pixel on a free unit may be categorized as a "quality control note." A dead pixel on a unit we paid for can be a "personal insult." This can lead to reviews that are overly negative or "nitpicky," fueled by buyer's remorse rather than objective analysis. # Other Factors at Play It is important to note that there are several other factors at play when it comes to bias. As a society, we like to think that bias is static and straightforward, when the reality is that nuance is everywhere. Here are a few other things to consider: - The Audience Factor: The Trust Gap. The most dangerous bias isn't even in the reviewer's head, it’s in the audience's. - The Skepticism Filter: No matter how many times we say "opinions are my own," the audience applies a Skepticism Bias to sponsored or gifted content. They assume the "Pro" biases (Reciprocity) are in full effect. - The Overcompensation: Aware of this audience skepticism, honest reviewers often overcompensate. We might grade a free product harsher than necessary just to prove our independence. This is the [Reactance Theory]() in action, rebelling against the perceived pressure to be nice by being artificially mean. It is imperative to try to find the right balance between how we feel about a company or a product and what we may or may not have paid for that product. The lens we view it through is important and should be shared with our audience. # Conclusions & Final Thoughts So, what do we do when faced with this? Here are a few thoughts: - There is no such thing as a perfectly neutral review because there is no such thing as a human without social instincts. - With Free Units: We must actively resist the urge to be "polite" to the brand. - With Bought Units: We must actively resist the urge to justify our purchase or nitpick out of financial pain. For the YouTube creator, the goal isn't to eliminate these feelings, it's to acknowledge them. By calling out these biases in our scripts ("I didn't pay for this, so I might be under-reacting to the price..."), we don't just review the product, we build trust. I plan to start adding language like this to my videos, to better represent the acknowledgement and reality of the privilege I enjoy. Until next time, thank you for visiting my site and please feel free to read other [[Blog]] articles. You can also check out my various videos, podcasts, and social media links below. Just remember, keep moving forward. **| [YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdofOksT0V35qf1-zqsIXUQ/) | [Patreon](https://patreon.com/OrganizingforChange?utm_medium=unknown&utm_source=join_link&utm_campaign=creatorshare_creator&utm_content=copyLink) | [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/edward.w.finn/) | [Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/changeagent1820/) | [Threads](https://www.threads.net/@changeagent1820) | [Bluesky](https://bsky.app/profile/change1820.bsky.social) | [X](https://x.com/EdFinnIII) | | [Spotify](https://open.spotify.com/show/6Tvle14n3fjG8mn0DGfO1G?si=k4B3ocohTI2EuNoFWos1GA) | [iHeart Radio](https://www.iheart.com/podcast/269-change-chat-274015995/) | [Apple Podcasts](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/change-chat/id1812220268) |**