Product Reviews From Retailers

[Pure Hockey 4]

It's interesting to hear the talk here now and then about retailers and negative reviews. As a pretty large retailer, it's no secret that we want people to buy stuff. But we are also hockey players here and if we don't like something about a product, we should tell you, right? That's how I feel, anyway. To that end, I think we try to be as clear as we can if there's something negative. On our website, we post ALL customer reviews (negative or positive) unless they are vulgar - we keep the vulgar ones to ourselves, although someday I'd love to publish them somewhere because they are funny. Anyway, I know we've posted in these very forums before about things we don't like about products. Just yesterday we posted a video about the Easton RS gloves, which we liked quite a bit, but there was a nitpick that we also talked about in the video. To me, the best way to service a customer is to be honest. Will a vendor be upset with us because we post something negative? Yes, probably in some cases. But you know what? They will still put their product in our stores. What is most important to me is sharing our opinions and guiding our customers.

Do you guys mistrust retailer reviews because you think retailers are just trying to SELL SELL SELL? I've seen people indicate that here before. Or do you find retailer reviews helpful? I think if anything, we review a lot of stuff that we do like simply because we think it's good product and people need to know about it. But we're certainly not afraid to point out weaknesses if need be.

Would love to hear your thoughts on this.....

[Law Goalie 147]

Generally, I've found that retailers are very strong reviewers: primarily because they have access to a comprehensive selection of products for comparison, and a good back-catalogue of memories, but also because they are keen not to be seen merely to be pushing. I'd argue that the self-justifying purchase contaminates most end-user reviews far more and far more often than any retailer sits back and thinks, 'Hmm, our margin on these gloves from Company X is slightly higher than Company Y -- we'll review them so X is the best glove this year!' I'm sure that does happen, but far less often than most whiners would like to believe.

Roger Ebert once said, paraphrasing Samuel Johnson, that a critic's job was to analyse and scrutinise objectively; a reviewer's job was to tell people why they might like something. In other words, the critic has a mandate to be as critical as possible, even to the point of decrying something as shoddy, incomplete, ill-conceived, etc. A reviewer should almost never do this: their job is to put themselves in the position of the people who will like it, and tell those sorts of people why they could enjoy it. A reviewer with thick hands isn't likely going to have a personal preference for a slim, tapered glove, but if he's a good reviewer, he'll tell the slim-handers they'll like it rather than just saying, "The fit on this sucks." It is fair to say that the critic holds things to an objective standard, and a reviewer to a subjective standard, but the best reviewers imagine the subjective standards by which the things they are reviewing are best reviewed. Johnson would sooner shoot himself in the face than read Swift, and Ebert would rather go back in time and kill everyone involved with Weekend at Bernie's 2, but both rather sensibly admit that, when they're wearing a reviewer's hat rather than a critic's, their approach will change dramatically.

Definitely publish the obscene reviews: those are always outrageously funny. All you'd need to do is redact the reviewer's name and the product information; the source of amusement isn't what is said about a particular product, but the idiotic, profane way in which it's being said; we don't need the referent to laugh our asses off. (And there, in a nutshell, is something most literary critics can't understand -- mostly because they're direly unfunny, miserable pricks.)

[donkers 31]

Tell us what you like about that particular item and where you think there might be problems for certain people. You don't have to straight up tell us you hate it because everything is preferential but just something you think some people might not like about it.

[Chadd 916]

I've always thought that explaining what you don't like about something is as important as what you do like. Quite often the things you don't like are exactly the same things that someone else is looking for in a product.

[Davetronz 109]

I've always thought that explaining what you don't like about something is as important as what you do like. Quite often the things you don't like are exactly the same things that someone else is looking for in a product.

This. As long as a review is objective and brings up the good points and at least tries to identify drawbacks, when applicable, then it is useful to me.

I prefer reviews from those who have actually used the product on ice. Some retailers will simply shoot a YouTube video or do a write up based on features and look of a product but completely avoid how it plays on the ice. Not all products are the same in a game situation as they are on the sales floor.

[AIREAYE 248]

Personally, I don't think it's necessary whether or not retailers even post reviews at all. If it makes financial sense to be transparent on a site, then perhaps it is good for business. If someone wanted to know how well a product stacked up, a simple google search is all that's needed. I don't think allowing reviews to be posted is a cost-free feature to a business either because 1) some retailers outsource review templates from other companies (Monkey with PowerReviews Express) and 2) time is needed to screen reviews regardless of transparency (for obscenity and the like).

If (and it definitely wouldn't surprise me if retailers do this) some businesses run a costs vs benefits analysis on reviews on-site, then perhaps they ultimately decide that it is indeed worth it, as seen by the abundance of product reviews from the big retailers.

[danno25nh 3]

There are retailers who review everything as an excellent product. Those reviews carry little weight in my mind.

There are other retailers who tend to discuss the positives but who will also add personal preference including negatives, about a given product. That reviewer has much higher credibility. It's important to point out design flaws and personal dislikes separately.

For instance: Product X appears to have poorly constructed straps would be a good and objective criticism. "I don't like the strapping system as it feels awkward." would be an excellent personal opinion of the reviewer.

Both carry weight but one is opinion that may differ by person.

[IPv6Freely 2100]

I have to admit I'm a bit confused by this thread. Is the OP asking about opinions of reviews by the retailer? Or asking about opinions on products by customers of that retailer?

In the former case, I honestly tend to ignore reviews by retailers, because I assume them to be biased in order to sell product.

In the latter, I prefer that negative reviews be posted (unless vulgar, as OP said).

[jimmy 194]

In the former case, I honestly tend to ignore reviews by retailers, because I assume them to be biased in order to sell product.

In the latter, I prefer that negative reviews be posted (unless vulgar, as OP said).

A lot of retailers are biased. I know one store near me who steers customers only to one brand, even if customer comes in looking for a different band. So, I would assume if they gave a review, it would be heavily biased as well. They make more selling that brand. One of the reasons I tried to be incognito on MSH when I orig joined was so I could give negative reviews of products, without fear of the manufacturer retaliating against me. Some retailers will treat all products with same discretion, others won't. You always have to take what you read on the internet with a grain of salt. A lot of negatives are by competitors and not real reviews. What can you belive? I drive a Chevy Volt. It's an awesome car, but if you go by all the misinformation on the web, you'd think the thing was a piece of crap.

[jdksaves 56]

I am open to any reviews positive or negative, as I think of it as away to improve for future products. With that being said you can't make everyone happy, but their can be an attempt. Along with that, there are proper ways to go about it and the vulgar reviews most of the time are not helpful. The retailers reviews are always a good judge of what actual consumers thoughts are as well so it means a decent amount. Just my thoughts on the subject.

[Hooah4 12]

I like to read reviews on sites but always tread with caution. I believe all reviews should be submitted via a web link similar to expedia, etc..so that they can be approved and judged for appropriate content.

[Stewie 721]

Retailer reviews to me tend to always look at praise points. I personally prefer retailers have a large panel size if they are going to get into specific things they like or dislike. I ususally have to wade through peer reviews, knowing not everyone is the same. Lots of people are critical of the EQ50, but then i know some people love it. I usually dont buy anything hockey related unless i at least try it on myself, but sometimes pointing out different things about a product helps me narrow down beforehand what im looking for. All reviews should be posted.

[hunterphfr 12]

I do appreciate and view/read retailer reviews and customer comment sections. I do however view/read them with a truth filter, it isn't so much a distrust of the review because I think you want to sell/sell/sell. That's your job and that's why I am looking at your review or at your website. I want to buy. Let's say I want a helmet, you want to sell me a helmet. The profit margin of one model over another may be a little higher. But ultimately you want to sell me a helmet, any helmet. So I don't think you'd write a falsely positive review of all your helmets just to sell me one of them.

My wife has her MBA with an emphasis in marketing. She works in marketing and spent some time in the publishing/magazine industry. Why I mistrust retailer or magazine reviews is because of the relationship between the manufacturer/supplier and the retailer or magazine. If helmet manufacturer X spends $$$$ advertising in a hockey magazine, is that hockey magazine going to issue a review that says manufacturer Xs new helmet is "heavy, ventilated poorly, decreases visibility and sacrifices protection"? No because they don't want to risk their relationship with the manufacturer/supplier. In the magazine industry positive reviews were often exchanged for advertising contracts in slow months, to reach bonus goals or fill needed space.

While the relationship between a manufacturer/supplier and retailer doesn't involve the exchange of $$$$ for advertising space it is still critically important to the retailer. The manufacturers/suppliers hold the retailers very existence in their hands. Especially in the hockey world where consolidation/aquisition has decreased the number of manufacturers/suppliers to a very small number. I'm not saying that all retailers would allow such relationships to purposely skew all of their reviews into being falsely positive. But relationships are critical in the business world and I don't think a retailer would sacrifice a personal relationship with a rep. or an access relationship with a supply source just to make sure I was accurately informed about their newest product. It is a little different for an employee in a retail setting to say the problems with this product are.... and a retailer to post it on the Internet for everyone to see. I do think it is prudent to believe that there could be cause to view such reviews with a certain degree of skepticism or at the very least a truth filter.

[AIREAYE 248]

The big retailers that DO have reviews on site likely has more than enough buying power to let some poor reviews slide. Like jdksaves mentioned, often time poor reviews are part of the feedback process.