The story of how they downgraded NextDesk because the company wasn’t willing to pay them affiliate commissions seems to illustrate to me that there’s no reason to believe Wirecutter’s claims about having reviewers that are independent from kickbacks.
Yes, and it seems pretty unconvincing to me. It basically affirms that messages were sent and makes no claim that NextDesk misrepresented the messages.
The email is explicit about not having strict separation between the departments (the person asking for kickbacks is running numbers whether individual review pages are worthwhile):
We’re having problems figuring out how to cover the costs for this standing desk guide going forward after crunching the numbers. Our site thrives on a model that is basically that if we do high quality content and feature high quality gear, and readers buy it, we support the work through kickbacks.
The story of how they downgraded NextDesk because the company wasn’t willing to pay them affiliate commissions seems to illustrate to me that there’s no reason to believe Wirecutter’s claims about having reviewers that are independent from kickbacks.
Here’s their response:
https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/our-response-to-nextdesk/
Yes, and it seems pretty unconvincing to me. It basically affirms that messages were sent and makes no claim that NextDesk misrepresented the messages.
The email is explicit about not having strict separation between the departments (the person asking for kickbacks is running numbers whether individual review pages are worthwhile):
It’s mildly convincing to me, but still makes me wary of them. Shared not as an endorsement but for completeness sake.