Do people want accurate reporting or just drama?
I see a lot of people getting upset over watch reviews, usually reviews that didn't involve a piece of bad news they felt should have been there - for example:
you didnt mention rumours in the forums net of movement issues
you didnt mention they just re-label selitta movements
you didnt mention shocking resale value
you didnt mention that a few years ago they 'lied' about a movement
you didnt mention false scarcity
you didnt go hard enough that this is too expensive
you didnt critique their messaging and sales pitch
and so it goes, ultimately the reviewer is a 'shill', a stooge, a liar, ........
Looking further into the comments it becomes clear that almost all these comments have two features:
people really want to hear the negative and
they only want to hear the negative about watches they'll never actually buy - that arent intended for them.
Ive found that Hublot buyers know full well what they are getting and dont give a shit. Rolex folks know about and are resigned to playing games. A lot of people dont really care about "value" or specs and just want a watch they like and can afford.
Only the people that arent the audience for the watch seem to care.
Which brings me to my question - is most the criticism of watch reviews really just about not getting enough drama?
A collector, I think of watches as art where the story and aesthetics are everything and function isn't that important. Into Seiko, Breitling, JLC, German independents , got a Chopard and I think I ne...
More from pete.mcconvill.watches
I think a lot of it comes down to people signalling their "tribe" as well. Bashing Hublot makes you watch community cool, because all the popular influencers bash Hublot.
Same goes for bashing or praising a lot of other brands like Rolex, TAG, etc...
On the other hand, sometimes it's about defending your tribe. Make a negative comment about Seiko or Casio, and watch the fanboys pile in to "correct" your opinion.
On the flip side, only mentioning the positives without questioning the construction, quality, value, mark up, price hikes, availability, etc. sends the message that we agree to close our eyes on shady marketing and comforts the industry in its decision to raise prices several times above inflation "because they can".
Some amount of criticism is healthy to remain objective and keep brands in check. Most paid reviewers will not go there because their relationships with brands loaning them watches and flying them to events is more important than their ethics.
I think a lot of it comes down to people signalling their "tribe" as well. Bashing Hublot makes you watch community cool, because all the popular influencers bash Hublot.
Same goes for bashing or praising a lot of other brands like Rolex, TAG, etc...
On the other hand, sometimes it's about defending your tribe. Make a negative comment about Seiko or Casio, and watch the fanboys pile in to "correct" your opinion.
I’ve been seriously threatened by Seiko fans. It’s a damn shame, since I own 3.
Accurate reporting always. People can find their own bad news or create their own channel where they can rave like a lunatic about lack of water resistance and Chinese manufacture. Don't ever change what you do. Honor those who support you and those who don't know who they are and should seek help.
On the flip side, only mentioning the positives without questioning the construction, quality, value, mark up, price hikes, availability, etc. sends the message that we agree to close our eyes on shady marketing and comforts the industry in its decision to raise prices several times above inflation "because they can".
Some amount of criticism is healthy to remain objective and keep brands in check. Most paid reviewers will not go there because their relationships with brands loaning them watches and flying them to events is more important than their ethics.
I kind of agree - but with a caveat - there is no objective POV, everything is subjective, even if the characteristic is apparently objective (say accuracy), the value you place on it and therefore the decision to mention it or not is entirely subjective. For example - some of the things you've mentioned like "value" and "markup" I dont care about but things you've left off like novelty, originality, authenticity, sustainability are crucial to me.
Value is massively important to a Christopher Ward buyer, less so to a Bremont buyer. Accuracy is crucial to a Grand Seiko buyer, barely at all to a Seiko buyer.
So if everything is subjective I believe negatives must be mentioned IF they are relevant to the target market, ie the relevant subject. So deviations from what the target would normally expect are important to note. If a brand has made a name with hand finishing and its sneaking in more machine work, call it out.
I wonder if the most vocal group on YT, happen to be those sorts of individuals who are predisposed to the negative, and just have the prerogative of spreading misery (cuz we all know it loves company), and so drama is their lifeblood?
We also know that drama seems to sell, kinda been doing well at the box office since…it all started. So maybe some people that don’t want the negativity just become vocal so they can pick up their pitchforks and torches as well and just fan the flames, just for a good show. I dunno.
So you might be hearing a disparity in opinions, but I’m no expert.
Have to find reasons not to reach for the wallet, otherwise i'd go broke 😁
People just love drama, as if real life doesn't have enough.
I wonder if the most vocal group on YT, happen to be those sorts of individuals who are predisposed to the negative, and just have the prerogative of spreading misery (cuz we all know it loves company), and so drama is their lifeblood?
We also know that drama seems to sell, kinda been doing well at the box office since…it all started. So maybe some people that don’t want the negativity just become vocal so they can pick up their pitchforks and torches as well and just fan the flames, just for a good show. I dunno.
So you might be hearing a disparity in opinions, but I’m no expert.
People do talk about the negative much more than the positive, that's for sure.
I want the Consumer Reports of watch reviews. Instead, I get the Good Housekeeping seal of approval without the limited warranty, where every watch starts out a B+ save for the real junk that’s easy to make fun of.
People do talk about the negative much more than the positive, that's for sure.
Right? Happiness, just content to be, otherwise the discomfort and displeasure needs to make so much noise. Hell, I know, I was gonna say I used to be, but I’m still a miserable sod, just older now, and I am more willing to complain about things than comment on stuff that makes me smile. Shit way of living, but that’s what friends and therapy are for i suppose.
I’ve been seriously threatened by Seiko fans. It’s a damn shame, since I own 3.
I have a screenshot of that scenario from here on WC. Hehehe. I think he got kicked out because his mean messages arent on my inbox anymore. Good riddance.
It really depends on the reviewer. Some are definitely in it for the drama, and their audience seems to reflect that. While others, not as much. Most of my audience is pretty good.
Now I do think there is an issue with many reviewers not catching enough negatives, but it's not so much from them being a shill, as they aren't taking enough time to notice them.
From my experience, you don't really notice the bad until you wear it for a little bit in the real world. So if you just turn the camera on as soon as you get something, you're just going to notice all the shiny good stuff.
I've said it before, but one of my biggest pet peeves as a viewer is when the bracelet isn't even sized. It's like, why the hell are you even giving your opinion on this when you haven't even worn it.
That said, there are also plenty of viewers who can't comprehend the idea of someone having a different opinion than them. What's worse is most of these same people don't even watch the entire video before jumping to conclusions. I've lost count of the number of times someone is like "You didn't mention this..." and I just reply back with a timestamp where I do.
We live in a time where watch brands PAY to have an annual event, where they PAY for specific “reporters” to travel first class to these events, which are closed to the public, and then they hand them talking points for their “reviews.”
Then, in unison, all outlets release similar stories with similar if not identical images from the press pack.
Most watch news comes from fashion reporters and not the actual community. It’s tough for us, because we get sold this stuff but it’s literally given away, for free, to influencers and celebrities in hopes of coverage.
We have to remember that as much as we love this stuff, we’re habitually old to, influenced and shilled.
What I get tired of hearing are people who distrust ALL online and YouTube reviews on watches because they assume they're all biased to only give positive reviews and only trust the opinions of people they know or regular non-review watch owners in watch forums.
Sorry but regular owners are necessarily any more reliable in their opinions and often give more positive impressions in a watch they already own because they already have it.
I never go with any single persons opinion and always get an aggregate opinion and impressions.
Call me cynical but the moment you've decided to buy a watch that isnt a smart watch you've left intelligent thought behind and all we are doing now is rationalising essentially emotional responses.
Nostalgia and romance can be an informed choice. Rationality is not the same as intelligence. At any rate, here we are.
Most opinions about watch reviews are just personal opinions. Some have underlying motivations, but for the most part they are just personal opinions.
That, or people just want to belittle others to make themselves feel bigger.
That is a humam behavior unfortunately.
People like you discribed are everywhere commenting on everything about any subject.
Just don't get annoyed for that, they will always exist.
So first question.. how long. Honestly, it depends. Which I know sounds like a cop-out, but it really does. For instance, on some stuff I've bought it's been almost a year before I put out a video, and I've worn it countless times.
Whereas if it's from a brand and it's a prototype that needs to get to another reviewer, I'll only have a few weeks with it. Then if it's from Zelos... there is very little time at all.
Ideally the longer the better, and when I have time I wear it until I feel like I have a good sense of it. But bare minimum I make sure I wear it at least 3 full days before sitting down to write up my thoughts to make sure they are coherent and not just a rambling stream of consciousness.
So as for keeping the stream coming... that depends on the reviewer. For some, they reach out to any microbrand with a pulse asking for stuff. For me, I'm big enough and established enough I very rarely do that. I usually only do one video a week, and I have more brands reaching out to me than I can handle. Which also leads a little into your next question. If I piss off one brand (which I have) there are plenty more. Plus honestly, I want to do fewer micros and do more mainstream watches. The videos perform better.
Now as for credibility... that's a complicated question. I have no doubt there is some shady stuff going on out there. But the main thing to remember is no 2 reviewers are the same. Just because one person is doing something doesn't mean they all are.
One thing that should be pointed out is that there is bias in everything, even reviews where someone buys something. Because sometimes people want to convince themselves they didn't waste their money.. or they are even more pissed off that something is wrong because they spent good money on it. Or let's say they borrow something from a friend, are they going to fully trash it when they know their friend loves it?
My point is that regardless of the source, it's really going to come down to the individual reviewer as to if they are credible. And that credibility honestly takes time to build. Skepticism is a good thing. Honestly, you shouldn't take everything some random person tells you online without questioning it. One thing I always tell people is to always watch multiple reviews. Even if you fully trust a particular reviewer, it's always good to get another opinion. Especially since we don't always catch the same things.
Now that's kind of a generalized look at credibility... if you want me to go into more specifics I can.. or dm me directly. I just don't want to hijack the thread or block the conversation with a huge wall of text. Which I may have already done.
Thank you for this comprehensive response. Much appreciated.
Maybe people looking for validation of not lusting after something they can't have,makes the pill of them not being able to obtain more easy to swallow,ahh that's what's wrong with it rip-off glad I can't afford it anyway 🙄🤣
What one person labels simply as "drama" could absolutely be someone else's reason for deciding not to make a purchase.
Interesting point. But for me I tend to take watch reviews from watch reviewers I respect more seriously than others. On YouTube channels like you’re terrific and and ID guy feel authentically independent, they don’t care if they upset or polarise an audience and those are the types of reviews I like. I always take a paid or sponsored review with a pinch of salt.
I don’t think that’s it at all, I think people naturally dislike being deceived and a lot of these reviews are quite plainly incentivised but not declared as such.
Asking someone who dislikes shills if they just want negativity is a bit like asking a climate change activist why they’re afraid of a bit of water. You’re purposely missing the point
I try to watch reviews with the basis that they are almost always sales pitches. I’m not saying any of the watch channels are actively trying to sell these watches but everyone has a different point of view and they mostly review watches that they want to review. I watch them for entertainment and seeing watches I know nothing about. I know what I like and I will try a watch on before buying one new so I know if I will like it. I buy used on stuff I can’t try on so if I don’t like them I can sell them on and not lose too much I will also admit to watching videos and reviews on watch’s I’ve just bought 🫣 I don’t care about in house movements or the big Rolex news this week or the drama between you tubers and worse of all second hand watch dealers
So no I don’t look for negative in reviews I make up my own mind on every watch I buy and that’s all that matters to me
Ps not a Rolex hater either just my personal bias is towards omega tends to push me that way so I know if i was reviewing watches I would still like what I like
I think a lot of it comes down to people signalling their "tribe" as well. Bashing Hublot makes you watch community cool, because all the popular influencers bash Hublot.
Same goes for bashing or praising a lot of other brands like Rolex, TAG, etc...
On the other hand, sometimes it's about defending your tribe. Make a negative comment about Seiko or Casio, and watch the fanboys pile in to "correct" your opinion.
Isn't that going a bit the opposite way from what the OP is saying though? I mean I personally don't confront or debate with people and I really respect all opinions but you really seem to have a problem with Seiko my friend. I have never seen a post from you where you are not complaining about them. Isn't this called obsession with pointing out just the negative points of a brand? Every time, all the time! And of course you have every right to talk about it and post about it under every post and topic, even if it doesn't concern Seiko. But on the other hand isn't it also ok for people who disagree with you to respond and engage into a discussion? Isn't that the main reason of being part of this community? To embrace and accept all opinions and exchange with each other in a friendly way? Watches are fun! Expensive, more expensive, affordable and cheap! They can all be appreciated and enjoyable and everyone choses with what and how to have fun. In the end that's the key to everything in life! No?
Isn't that going a bit the opposite way from what the OP is saying though? I mean I personally don't confront or debate with people and I really respect all opinions but you really seem to have a problem with Seiko my friend. I have never seen a post from you where you are not complaining about them. Isn't this called obsession with pointing out just the negative points of a brand? Every time, all the time! And of course you have every right to talk about it and post about it under every post and topic, even if it doesn't concern Seiko. But on the other hand isn't it also ok for people who disagree with you to respond and engage into a discussion? Isn't that the main reason of being part of this community? To embrace and accept all opinions and exchange with each other in a friendly way? Watches are fun! Expensive, more expensive, affordable and cheap! They can all be appreciated and enjoyable and everyone choses with what and how to have fun. In the end that's the key to everything in life! No?
I really don't dislike Seiko watches, though I also don't particularly like them. I use Seiko as an example of a brand that has a rabid following.
Seiko is a perfect examples of a brand that people have strong feelings about, and will make comments on videos that cover them. Some will demand that the reviewer point out the bad Seiko QC, and others will demand that the reviewer highlight the "history" or "horological significance" of the brand. Which is exactly what the OP was talking about.
I simply highlighted that beyond "drama", in-group signalling is also a factor.
Maybe you only click on Seiko tagged posts, because I'd say 90+% of my posts have nothing to do with Seiko at all.
I agree that everybody is free to have their own preferences, and opinions. As someone who doesn't particularly like a lot of the popular models/brands, I've always been onboard with that.
I really don't dislike Seiko watches, though I also don't particularly like them. I use Seiko as an example of a brand that has a rabid following.
Seiko is a perfect examples of a brand that people have strong feelings about, and will make comments on videos that cover them. Some will demand that the reviewer point out the bad Seiko QC, and others will demand that the reviewer highlight the "history" or "horological significance" of the brand. Which is exactly what the OP was talking about.
I simply highlighted that beyond "drama", in-group signalling is also a factor.
Maybe you only click on Seiko tagged posts, because I'd say 90+% of my posts have nothing to do with Seiko at all.
I agree that everybody is free to have their own preferences, and opinions. As someone who doesn't particularly like a lot of the popular models/brands, I've always been onboard with that.
I follow you almost since I joined WC and I also follow Seiko and Casio as topics so yes maybe it is due to that I see your posts about these specific brands. It is very important for all of us to understand that we come from different backgrounds, we have different experiences and see watches from very different stand points.
I can talk about Seiko's QC issues and price increase and discuss everything about Casio and how weird G-Shocks look etc etc. but where is the fun in that? I can do it for many other brands but that's not the point I am here. My life is full of problems and daily struggles. Of course I want to listen to people's opinion and exchange about the negatives and positives of brands and of the various models many crunchers share on the platform. I just don't see the point complaining constantly about the negatives.
I have my opinion about things! I can justify it but it will still be my own subjective stand. It doesn't mean I know better or I will try to influence people and try to pass my own ideas as the norm. At the end of the day my life and of my family's doesn't depend on how Seiko, Casio, Timex, Rolex or Omega perform in horology. Am I stupid for buying San Martins and Seikos? Even if I am who can judge me? And based on which totally subjective evidence? The reason I have strong feelings about Seiko and Casio is childhood, fun and beautiful moments linked to these two brands. Many people associate their collecting path with past memories and personal stories. Maybe this is why people collecting watches from these brands are a bit more attached to them. Is that in-group signalling? Even if it is, why should this be considered negative? Humans tend to belong somewhere, support groups, follow sports teams no matter how bad these teams perform. If you don't harm anyone why this should be a reason to be pointed out? You don't like it? It is also fine. Turn the other way and ignore what you don't like. That's my humble opinion of course!
I follow you almost since I joined WC and I also follow Seiko and Casio as topics so yes maybe it is due to that I see your posts about these specific brands. It is very important for all of us to understand that we come from different backgrounds, we have different experiences and see watches from very different stand points.
I can talk about Seiko's QC issues and price increase and discuss everything about Casio and how weird G-Shocks look etc etc. but where is the fun in that? I can do it for many other brands but that's not the point I am here. My life is full of problems and daily struggles. Of course I want to listen to people's opinion and exchange about the negatives and positives of brands and of the various models many crunchers share on the platform. I just don't see the point complaining constantly about the negatives.
I have my opinion about things! I can justify it but it will still be my own subjective stand. It doesn't mean I know better or I will try to influence people and try to pass my own ideas as the norm. At the end of the day my life and of my family's doesn't depend on how Seiko, Casio, Timex, Rolex or Omega perform in horology. Am I stupid for buying San Martins and Seikos? Even if I am who can judge me? And based on which totally subjective evidence? The reason I have strong feelings about Seiko and Casio is childhood, fun and beautiful moments linked to these two brands. Many people associate their collecting path with past memories and personal stories. Maybe this is why people collecting watches from these brands are a bit more attached to them. Is that in-group signalling? Even if it is, why should this be considered negative? Humans tend to belong somewhere, support groups, follow sports teams no matter how bad these teams perform. If you don't harm anyone why this should be a reason to be pointed out? You don't like it? It is also fine. Turn the other way and ignore what you don't like. That's my humble opinion of course!
I never said in-group signalling was automatically negative, though it can be. Humans are social creatures, we all have our in-groups.
I simply point it out, so people can maybe examine their own motivations for their behaviours. Understanding why you feel and act the way you do helps people be mindful of how they are acting, and helps people understand why others might act the way they do.
As you said, we all come from different backgrounds, and all have different experiences and preferences.
You have to are take all reviews with a punch of salt & assume there’s an agenda. They tell you the specs,price,show you a macro of the dial (which you will never actually see when you own it) the strap/bracelet, after that just ignore the opinions because they are just that opinions. I like a few reviewers because they seem to be just chatting & don’t take the whole thing too seriously, I wouldn’t ever make a major purchase based on a review so can’t see the point of getting upset about a biased review.