Up front: Our writers and editors are never made aware of which companies may have established affiliate relationships with our business team prior to making their picks. If readers choose to buy the products we recommend as a result of our research, analysis, interviews, and testing, our work is often (but not always) supported through an affiliate commission from the _retailer_ when they make a purchase. If readers return their purchases because they’re dissatisfied or the recommendation is bad, we make nothing. There’s no incentive for us to pick inferior products or respond to pressure from manufacturers—in fact, it’s quite the opposite. We think that’s a pretty fair system that keeps us committed to serving our readers first.
The most important thing to us is the trust we have from readers. If we were to recommend something because we are biased or lazy, readers like you wouldn’t support our work. We also invite you to fact-check our pieces, which carefully outline the time, logic, and energy spent researching, interviewing experts, and testing the gear. Often, this takes dozens—sometimes even hundreds—of hours. Each guide plainly lays out all the evidence for why we made our picks so you can judge for yourself."
I think the distinction that this is affiliate marketing for the retailers -- not the product manufacturers themselves -- is an important one to make. Also, I think their path of separating business from editorial is entirely sensible for a NYTimes company.
That being said, reviews (and review sites) always fall under "buyer beware" in my mind (I once read a 1 star review of a DVD player stating that it gave it 1 star because it wasn't a VHS player...seriously).
I don't think getting affiliate revenues is necessarily a problem, however, there is an inherent conflict of interest considering that different retailers pay different affiliate rates and some manufacturers sell direct and pay higher affiliate commissions.
Also, getting a commission on sales encourages the reviewers to select more expensive options.
I usually like Wirecutter reviews. But I do find that they sometimes seem to favor more expensive options when cheaper alternatives are nearly the same or better. (Even their budget pick tends to be high and sometimes I think the budget pick should be the overall pick).
You will see a lot of products frequently at the top of review lists (not just Wirecutter) that are not sold on Amazon. These are usually sold at a premium direct from the manufacturer and a higher commission can be paid. (15-25%)
The thermapen thermometer is one of these. They will always link directly to thermoworks website, who is the sole distributor in the US. I'm sure they pay a higher commission than Amazon's 8% for comparable but cheaper alternatives like the javelin.
From the about on their site (https://thewirecutter.com/about/): "Do your affiliate commissions make you biased?
Up front: Our writers and editors are never made aware of which companies may have established affiliate relationships with our business team prior to making their picks. If readers choose to buy the products we recommend as a result of our research, analysis, interviews, and testing, our work is often (but not always) supported through an affiliate commission from the _retailer_ when they make a purchase. If readers return their purchases because they’re dissatisfied or the recommendation is bad, we make nothing. There’s no incentive for us to pick inferior products or respond to pressure from manufacturers—in fact, it’s quite the opposite. We think that’s a pretty fair system that keeps us committed to serving our readers first.
The most important thing to us is the trust we have from readers. If we were to recommend something because we are biased or lazy, readers like you wouldn’t support our work. We also invite you to fact-check our pieces, which carefully outline the time, logic, and energy spent researching, interviewing experts, and testing the gear. Often, this takes dozens—sometimes even hundreds—of hours. Each guide plainly lays out all the evidence for why we made our picks so you can judge for yourself."
I think the distinction that this is affiliate marketing for the retailers -- not the product manufacturers themselves -- is an important one to make. Also, I think their path of separating business from editorial is entirely sensible for a NYTimes company.
That being said, reviews (and review sites) always fall under "buyer beware" in my mind (I once read a 1 star review of a DVD player stating that it gave it 1 star because it wasn't a VHS player...seriously).