Stance on Co-Branded Products
Definition
Co-branded products are products which are made as a collaboration between a Media Outlet or Content Creator and a manufacturer whose products the outlet reviews, even if those products are not a direct match with the specific co-branded product. We believe it is unethical for a Media Outlet, Press organization, or Content Creator to co-brand products with a manufacturer while continuing to review that manufacturer’s separate products, as our belief is that the tie is much deeper than traditional advertising.
We’ve received a lot of requests over the years to co-manufacture products with PC hardware companies. In some instances, these have been as simple as co-branded shirts that’d have both our logo and the manufacturer’s logo, while other times involved PC hardware components like cases. We publicly and candidly asked our audience what they thought about this when it first happened, in 2020, and we ultimately decided we wanted absolutely no conflict this deep. We shot down the idea publicly in 2021. We have passed-up millions in opportunities to co-brand with manufacturers over the years. This page will detail why — and why we think it is not appropriate to mingle manufacturers and media in co-branded products of any kind.
Establishing and maintaining trust with both manufacturers and the audience is paramount. In ongoing efforts to maintain as much of a separation of manufacturer and our media outlet as we can, we have committed to rejecting any and all co-branded products with manufacturers whose parts we review. It does not matter if the co-branded product itself is a product we review. There are two revenue sources that present conflicts in this industry: advertising and co-branding initiatives with manufacturers. Both present conflicts of interest; however, we believe they operate on different levels of entanglement, both in terms of financial implications and brand alignment. It's vital to differentiate between these two to understand the nuances of their potential conflicts and how they might impact the perceived (and actual) impartiality of a media outlet, and likewise, to help our audience understand where we draw our lines for mixing with brands. We’ll explore below why we believe co-branded products with manufacturers whose products a media outlet reviews present a more profound conflict than advertising alone:
1 - Tangible vs. Intangible Assets:
Co-branded Products introduce tangible assets (like inventory) where both the media outlet and the manufacturer have vested interests. If a product with the media's branding underperforms or isn't well-received, it could directly impact the reputation and finances of the media outlet, creating potential for bias. Co-branded products have physicality: They linger in warehouses, on shelves, and with consumers, constantly reminding all parties (including consumers) of the collaboration and potentially swaying objectivity.
Advertising is more transient and intangible. It doesn’t introduce physical goods that need to be sold, and thus, doesn't create the same kind of lasting entanglement. Once they run their course, they're gone, leaving no lasting physical testament to the relationship other than the old content where they may remain.
2 - Scope of Commitment:
Co-branded Products entail a deeper collaboration and commitment. The media outlet's brand is directly tied to a product, and this affiliation can't be severed. It’s not just a temporary campaign; it's a product that carries the outlet's branding forever. Co-branding is a prolonged, deeper relationship. It involves mutual discussions, joint efforts, and product development. The brands are not just visible, but are interwoven. Once those products are made, they will exist in the warehouses of the two parties even through periods of controversy where one may realize it no longer agrees with the other.
Advertising involves short-term campaigns. Advertising is one-way and doesn't involve mutual development. It’s more about brand visibility for the advertiser, while the publication provides a platform. Even if it's ongoing, properly written contracts or agreements can be canceled quickly, easily, and without any tangible assets in any stage of a production pipeline. There are no long-term liabilities in an ad sale, like products sitting in a warehouse. The association can be relatively easily dissociated.
3 - Revenue Implications:
Co-branded Products typically have long-term financial implications, especially if there's unsold inventory. The success of the product directly impacts the bottom-line of the media outlet and may likewise affect its content production choices. For instance, an outlet sitting on a warehouse full of inventory may choose to muddy the waters with more product placement (of its own co-branded product) within otherwise innocuous videos, ultimately affecting both the manufacturer and the media outlet. This mutual financial stake can subconsciously influence the way the publication perceives or presents the manufacturer's other products — or those of its competitors.
Advertising is structured, especially in our case (and we’ve defined our standards and structure), to limit conflicts. The fixed availability of ad spots ensures that whether an ad is placed for one party or another, the revenue remains roughly consistent. As there is an unending line of advertisers, and likewise we can swap ad slots with our own internal ads (e.g. for Patreon or our first-party store), we can easily and immediately eliminate a campaign and replace it with another in the event we change our stance on a brand (or the brand exhibits actions or quality we condemn). Revenue from advertising is more direct and uncomplicated.
4 - Objectivity in Reviewing:
Co-branded Products the very nature of having a media outlet's logo on a product it reviews can be perceived as endorsement, making objective reviews challenging even if they are of unrelated, but technically competing products. A co-branded product blurs the lines between the outlet and the manufacturer. It’s not just about promoting a brand via an ad, but about implicitly endorsing it, which might lead audiences to question the impartiality of reviews related to that manufacturer.
Advertising though it has potential conflicts, structured, strict, and public advertising policies (like ours) can mitigate much of this. Explicitly clarifying manufacturer claims and avoiding hype pieces maintain a higher degree of impartiality. Audiences tend to discern the difference between a review and an ad. An audience understands that advertising is often necessary for a publication's survival, and as long as ads are transparent and not misleading, trust remains in-tact.
5 - Slippery Slope:
Co-branded Products can lead to more entangled relationships. Today it might be a harmless shirt, tool, or mousepad, but tomorrow it could be selling validation, data, badges of approval or certification, or endorsements, all of which would severely compromise editorial integrity. Likewise, co-branded products can deepen the personal relationships between companies and their employees in ways which can affect impartial judgment of products from the manufacturer.
Advertising while not without its pitfalls, doesn't carry the same direct progression to deeper conflicts. Advertising traditionally has a ‘firewalled’ approach to editorial: The writing team is often (and in our case, is) heavily isolated from interacting with advertising representatives. This prevents the formation of personal relationships that can affect judgment.
6 - Public Perception:
Co-branded Products have a higher chance of eroding trust. When viewers see a media outlet's brand on a product from a manufacturer whose other products the outlet reviews, questions about impartiality are inevitable.
Advertising, while viewers are aware of potential biases, has clear distinctions between when advertising content begins and editorial content ends.
7 - Control, Independence, & Lasting Effect
Co-branded Products have the potential to diminish the publication’s control. Discussions about product features, design, and marketing of the co-branded product might indirectly influence the publication's editorial stance or choices, especially as it gains insider knowledge to how the manufacturer makes its marketing decisions.
Advertising does not infringe upon the publication’s control as long as the structures are rigorous. Advertisers can't dictate the content, and there's a clear line between commercial and editorial teams. While an ad is a momentary engagement, co-branding creates a lasting relationship. Future reviews or assessments of that manufacturer’s products might always be seen under the shadow of that previous collaboration, intentionally or not.
Closing Thoughts
In essence, while both co-branding and advertising have inherent conflicts, the tangible, long-term, and deep entanglements associated with co-branded products make them a more significant concern for media outlets that prioritize impartiality and trustworthiness.