Which part - the refund if they aren't going to write a favorable review, or the fact that one is paying them to do it in the first place? - Robin Barooah

Both, I think. But the second wouldn't even be an issue without the first. - landonf@bikemonkey.org

really? I'd have thought that paying for a review of your own product automatically distorts the process. Generally, people try to align their interests with those who are paying them. - Robin Barooah from IM

I agree. But I also think paying to not have a negative review is ethically unsound, too. At least without disclosure to the reader ("We don't post negative reviews for products that paid for coverage"). - landonf@bikemonkey.org

- I guess my point is that paid coverage is just advertising, period. Whatever else they call it is already a deception and so is not part of the moral equation - i.e. they're not actually reviews. What's the difference between paying an advertising agency to identify good features about your product and write about them, and paying these people to write favorable 'reviews'? - Robin Barooah from IM

Asynchronous information exchange. Advertising is marked as advertising, reviews are not. If the reader doesn't know that the article is pay-to-play, then they're lacking the information necessary to make an informed evaluation. If we bought an ad, it would be clearly positioned as such. - landonf@bikemonkey.org

agreed (as is so often the case we're arguing from the same side) - I think these people are not doing reviews. They are doing advertising but deceiving people into thinking that they are reviews. - Robin Barooah from IM