The Energon Pub

Gauntlet101010 wrote:I was once paid to put a link on my site. I don't see why they'd be paid in anything other than money. It's probably not even a lot of money. Reviewing isn't a day job.

I said earlier: what BBTS gets are hits and word-of-mouth. It doesn't have to have anything to do with the sale of one particular toy. With 3rd parties in particular, they're so expensive I doubt a store like BBTS makes THAT much on them. Not in relation to other popular brands, anyway.

Curious how much they paid you for posting the link? I know file hosting and torrent sites pay pennies for each click, but with all the free stuff available on those sites, the whole world is clicking.

I can’t picture somebody wasting their time doing 20 minute master edit videos just for a crummy discount. The figures themselves are not expensive. (a lump of molded plastic and cheap Chinese labor) It's the design process and creating the molds that costs a lot. Once that’s finished, they can churn out figures like gummy bears. It's is coming out of China lol. The same guys that make cell phones that cost $300 but come free with a provider contract plan. An Iphone probably costs under 10 bucks to make. How much could an action figure really cost?

fenrir72 wrote:

shajaki wrote:yes, thank you.

its just that i have a hard time picturing 90% of their toys coming from BBTS for free, just for the sake of reviewing. that would just be bad business on their part.

Or paid in discounts? The number of hits to the site or youtube (click baiting is now more or less a norm) is the way of business this day and age.

Just your common sense when shifitng through the garbage and the actual stuff.

i had mentioned discounts as being a possibility, but that may have been in the thread where this argument started.

but as gauntlet says, it could be as simple as getting a pay cheque.

Rated X wrote:I can’t picture somebody wasting their time doing 20 minute master edit videos just for a crummy discount.

That's right. They do it because it's a hobby, and because they (I would think) like doing it. The discount, payment, or whatever is probably just a nice extra for something they'd probably do anyway.

shajaki wrote:

fenrir72 wrote:

shajaki wrote:yes, thank you.

its just that i have a hard time picturing 90% of their toys coming from BBTS for free, just for the sake of reviewing. that would just be bad business on their part.

Or paid in discounts? The number of hits to the site or youtube (click baiting is now more or less a norm) is the way of business this day and age.

Just your common sense when shifitng through the garbage and the actual stuff.

i had mentioned discounts as being a possibility, but that may have been in the thread where this argument started.

but as gauntlet says, it could be as simple as getting a pay cheque.

It's not out of the realm of possibility, but editing video is a lengthy process. And some of those guys put a lot of work into their youtube pages. The ones sponsored by BBTS review a lot more than Transformers. They might put up half a dozen reviews weekly. Were not exactly talking about a weekend hobby here. Sure they all probably have regular jobs, but they put some serious work into it. Not the kind of work I would do to get a just a lousy discount to save a few bucks. Time is money.

At wholesale cost, I don't believe the retailers have an issue giving away a lot of free stuff. Im a big advocate for BBTS customer service. No matter how petty the complaint, they always either exchange or give store credit. They always take the hit. If they were paying even close to what they charge for the average 3rd party figure, I'm fairly confident they would be a lot more stingy with both clients and reviewers. That's why I think sponsored reviewers get the figures for free most of the time. How critical can you really be of a crappy figure if your wallet didn't get burnt ? You know the old saying...

This is why no matter how crappy a figure is, a "sponsored" reviewer will never bad mouth it on video...

*looks into crystal ball*

tsu will mention peaugh's recent feral rex wing addon video, saying he gave it a negative review.

x will reply with peaugh saying he doesnt even know how much it costs, implying he didnt pay for it.

NOW DANCE PUPPETS!

shajaki wrote:*looks into crystal ball*

tsu will mention peaugh's recent feral rex wing addon video, saying he gave it a negative review.

x will reply with peaugh saying he doesnt even know how much it costs, implying he didnt pay for it.

NOW DANCE PUPPETS!

This was my response to the T-Man's post:

While the review suggested he was not a fan of the wings, he didn't bash them. Missing were words like "crappy" or "worthless" or "don't waste your money". It just isn't in him, is it ? It's like someone's got a gun to his head and telling him "you better be nice".


And its funny you mentioned that Peaugh didn't even know how much it cost. I totally missed that. Good catch. Read 'em and weep T !

And heres the review for all to see on this this thread:

Rated X wrote:While the review suggested he was not a fan of the wings, he didn't bash them. Missing were words like "crappy" or "worthless" or "don't waste your money". It just isn't in him, is it ? It's like someone's got a gun to his head and telling him "you better be nice".

I think that's where you differ from me (and several others on this board). I don't need (or want) a complete bashing of a product to make a decision. You say he didn't bash them, but he sure didn't endorse them either. He provided the information that I believe was necessary to review a product, including showing how to assemble them. I don't think he provided an unfair bias just because he didn't use harsh terms, foul language, or even damage the product on video.

I know I'm not going to change your opinion by pointing this out, and I'm glad you have your own takeaways from these videos. However, I firmly believe that there is a valid use for having video reviewers spotlighting these products.

What's interesting is the Peaugh seems to be a little more critical when reviewing test shots, despite presumably not having instructions for them, which was something somebody used to defend him earlier, if you watch his Apex and Geminus review he shows the test shots along side them and comments that there were tabbing issues with the test shots, something he neglected to mention in the Springer review, and in his Mania King review again he has the test shot present and mentions the misassembled knee joint and subsequent breakage, however in the Kronos review fails to mention the weak nature of Kronos' foot assembly.

I don't understand why he would highlight problems in test shots and not in final products. Issues on finished figures are much more important and noteworthy that issues on test shots.

necr0blivion wrote: I think that's where you differ from me (and several others on this board). I don't need (or want) a complete bashing of a product to make a decision.

Agreed..

leakin' lubricant wrote:What's interesting is the Peaugh seems to be a little more critical when reviewing test shots, despite presumably not having instructions for them, which was something somebody used to defend him earlier, if you watch his Apex and Geminus review he shows the test shots along side them and comments that there were tabbing issues with the test shots, something he neglected to mention in the Springer review, and in his Mania King review again he has the test shot present and mentions the misassembled knee joint and subsequent breakage, however in the Kronos review fails to mention the weak nature of Kronos' foot assembly.

I don't understand why he would highlight problems in test shots and not in final products. Issues on finished figures are much more important and noteworthy that issues on test shots.

I don't think it's anything larger than what he feels is more of an issue with one than with another. I can only gather he didn't have a problem with those things, even if other people did.

I think that's where you differ from me (and several others on this board). I don't need (or want) a complete bashing of a product to make a decision.

Also agree. You don't need to swear, curse, or do anything like that to say "this isn;t worth your time." It's very clearly a negative review.

necr0blivion wrote: I think that's where you differ from me (and several others on this board). I don't need (or want) a complete bashing of a product to make a decision.

Gauntlet101010 wrote: Also agree. You don't need to swear, curse, or do anything like that to say "this isn;t worth your time." It's very clearly a negative review.

Third on this.

Peaugh seems to respect himself and others to want to act like a professional adult. The reasons why he has such a huge following is because he's polite, kind and mature.

Think acting out in fits of rage, cursing, using crude language, obsessiveness and always being angry in video reviews is signs of immaturity and mental illness. Some also suspect the guy doing the video reviews might be drug induced and delusional.

When doing these video reviews it is against the rules to act a certain way and reviewers can get their videos removed and banned from the site if they curse, use crude language and try to incite flaming. Also no sponsor will sponsor a guy who acts this way.

shartimus acts like an ass hat, curses a bit, and he pushes BBTS like no one else.

and... drugs and delusional? ever heard of "acting"?

shajaki wrote:shartimus acts like an ass hat, curses a bit, and he pushes BBTS like no one else.

and... drugs and delusional? ever heard of "acting"?

If he acts like this, Then I have no plans to see any of his videos reviews.

Tsutsukakushi wrote:

shajaki wrote:shartimus acts like an ass hat, curses a bit, and he pushes BBTS like no one else.

and... drugs and delusional? ever heard of "acting"?

If he acts like this, Then I have no plans to see any of his videos reviews.

I went through about 5 minutes of the video posted before I just had to turn it off. It should've been enough when I saw the guy's name is "Shartimus", but I was trying not to let a preconception prevent me from watching something worthwhile. Well, the video wasn't worth it for me.

I didnt know the words "crappy" and "worthless" were considered swearing. Maybe we should just give Emily Post a damn camera and a couple free figures and make her the new face of TF Source.

Theres no rule about using foul language on YouTube. You guys are thinking of violence and nudity rules.

I do understand that a retailer wouldnt find it professional for their mouthpiece to curse on a sponsored review. But when it comes down to avoiding the use of non curse words in an effort to sugarcoat the goodness of the toy itself, you create bias.

On a side note, is using any negative language (swearing or not) really any more unprofessional that doing a review with a pillow pet as a ventriloquist dummy ?

Gauntlet101010 wrote:

leakin' lubricant wrote:What's interesting is the Peaugh seems to be a little more critical when reviewing test shots, despite presumably not having instructions for them, which was something somebody used to defend him earlier, if you watch his Apex and Geminus review he shows the test shots along side them and comments that there were tabbing issues with the test shots, something he neglected to mention in the Springer review, and in his Mania King review again he has the test shot present and mentions the misassembled knee joint and subsequent breakage, however in the Kronos review fails to mention the weak nature of Kronos' foot assembly.

I don't understand why he would highlight problems in test shots and not in final products. Issues on finished figures are much more important and noteworthy that issues on test shots.

I don't think it's anything larger than what he feels is more of an issue with one than with another. I can only gather he didn't have a problem with those things, even if other people did.

Thats fine but he did have the tabbing issue with Springer and failed to mention it yet mentions a similar issue with the Apex/Geminus test shot. Just highlighting an inconsistency with the review.

I think that's where you differ from me (and several others on this board). I don't need (or want) a complete bashing of a product to make a decision.

Also agree. You don't need to swear, curse, or do anything like that to say "this isn;t worth your time." It's very clearly a negative review.[/quote]

I do agree with this, as I said earlier I do prefer an amount of professionality when it come to reviews, profanity is not necessary.

leakin' lubricant wrote:

Gauntlet101010 wrote:

leakin' lubricant wrote:What's interesting is the Peaugh seems to be a little more critical when reviewing test shots, despite presumably not having instructions for them, which was something somebody used to defend him earlier, if you watch his Apex and Geminus review he shows the test shots along side them and comments that there were tabbing issues with the test shots, something he neglected to mention in the Springer review, and in his Mania King review again he has the test shot present and mentions the misassembled knee joint and subsequent breakage, however in the Kronos review fails to mention the weak nature of Kronos' foot assembly.

I don't understand why he would highlight problems in test shots and not in final products. Issues on finished figures are much more important and noteworthy that issues on test shots.

I don't think it's anything larger than what he feels is more of an issue with one than with another. I can only gather he didn't have a problem with those things, even if other people did.

Thats fine but he did have the tabbing issue with Springer and failed to mention it yet mentions a similar issue with the Apex/Geminus test shot. Just highlighting an inconsistency with the review.

I think that's where you differ from me (and several others on this board). I don't need (or want) a complete bashing of a product to make a decision.

Also agree. You don't need to swear, curse, or do anything like that to say "this isn;t worth your time." It's very clearly a negative review.

I do agree with this, as I said earlier I do prefer an amount of professionality when it come to reviews, profanity is not necessary.[/quote]
When did the words "crappy" or "worthless" become profanity ? I never suggested using the typical four letter words one would consider curse words. Seems like the point I was trying to make has been twisted around to extremes. Theyre not public servants. I want to hear what they really think. I dont want the retailers to neuter them.

Gauntlet101010 wrote: On the subject of reviews he's an unenthusiastic one from Peaugh with a sample product - Crazy Devy's Predaking Wings. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6e1ZYKPcGsU So even if he's pretty enthusiastic to the annoyance of many here, I guess it's tough to get excited about this sorta thing.

Think this video is the smoking gun. That proves Peaugh a sponsored guy. Does thrash and give negative reviews on toys in his video reviews.

Tsutsukakushi wrote:

Gauntlet101010 wrote: On the subject of reviews he's an unenthusiastic one from Peaugh with a sample product - Crazy Devy's Predaking Wings. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6e1ZYKPcGsU So even if he's pretty enthusiastic to the annoyance of many here, I guess it's tough to get excited about this sorta thing.

Think this video is the smoking gun. That proves Peaugh a sponsored guy. Does thrash and give negative reviews on toys in his video reviews.

I disagree. His choice of words to describe a crappy product mirror those of someone talking to an audience of 5 year old children. TF Source neutered him. I prefer a reviewers with balls who arent afraid to piss off the retailers.

Rated X wrote:

Tsutsukakushi wrote:

Gauntlet101010 wrote: On the subject of reviews he's an unenthusiastic one from Peaugh with a sample product - Crazy Devy's Predaking Wings. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6e1ZYKPcGsU So even if he's pretty enthusiastic to the annoyance of many here, I guess it's tough to get excited about this sorta thing.

Think this video is the smoking gun. That proves Peaugh a sponsored guy. Does thrash and give negative reviews on toys in his video reviews.

I disagree. His choice of words to describe a crappy product mirror those of someone talking to an audience of 5 year old children. TF Source neutered him. I prefer a reviewers with balls who arent afraid to piss off the retailers.

I no longer care nor have the time to reply to you.

Your being ignored, Please show me the same courtesy and ignore me here. If not, Then enjoy wasting minutes of your time on these one sided replies of yours to me.

Rated X wrote:

leakin' lubricant wrote:

Gauntlet101010 wrote:

leakin' lubricant wrote:What's interesting is the Peaugh seems to be a little more critical when reviewing test shots, despite presumably not having instructions for them, which was something somebody used to defend him earlier, if you watch his Apex and Geminus review he shows the test shots along side them and comments that there were tabbing issues with the test shots, something he neglected to mention in the Springer review, and in his Mania King review again he has the test shot present and mentions the misassembled knee joint and subsequent breakage, however in the Kronos review fails to mention the weak nature of Kronos' foot assembly.

I don't understand why he would highlight problems in test shots and not in final products. Issues on finished figures are much more important and noteworthy that issues on test shots.

I don't think it's anything larger than what he feels is more of an issue with one than with another. I can only gather he didn't have a problem with those things, even if other people did.

Thats fine but he did have the tabbing issue with Springer and failed to mention it yet mentions a similar issue with the Apex/Geminus test shot. Just highlighting an inconsistency with the review.

I think that's where you differ from me (and several others on this board). I don't need (or want) a complete bashing of a product to make a decision.

Also agree. You don't need to swear, curse, or do anything like that to say "this isn;t worth your time." It's very clearly a negative review.

I do agree with this, as I said earlier I do prefer an amount of professionality when it come to reviews, profanity is not necessary.

When did the words "crappy" or "worthless" become profanity ? I never suggested using the typical four letter words one would consider curse words. Seems like the point I was trying to make has been twisted around to extremes. Theyre not public servants. I want to hear what they really think. I dont want the retailers to neuter them.[/quote]

Nor do I X, I want to hear an honest opinion, I for one do not think that Peaugh is 100% honest in his reviews, whether that is because he is sponsored or because he is just soft on faults is open to debate. Interestingly I watched a pre sponsorship review of his on Universe Galvatron which I think most will agree is a pretty disapointing figure and he gave it a positve review, the truth is we will probably never know the motives behing his rather poor reviews. I no longer trust his reviews and wont buy a figure based on his endorsment. Crappy and worthless are quite acceptable however F bombs and such (as you say) are pretty unessasary.

As an aside do we know if sponsors have a contract with reviewers? For example are the allowed to say things like "do not buy this figure" if they belive it is inferior? I dont think sponsors would appreciate "paying" a reviewer if it meant they were going to negatively effect their sales, again we can speculate, what would be useful is if a sponsored reviewer could contribute to this thread and clear up some of the conclusions we have drawn here. do any of the big reviewers post here?

@LL - Well, he didn't seem to think those wings were worth it. I don't see why he'd need to say it exactly the way you'd want him to to be valid.

As for giving a positive review to Universe Galvy, well, there you go. He has some unpopular opinions. But they are his opinions and it's unlikely that he suddenly changed his perspective after getting sponsored. He's entitled to them as much as anyone. I don't think him not feeling a flaw is all that bad makes him dishonest. It just makes his opinion different from yours. It's fine not to agree and it's fine not to want to trust his reviews, but I don't think he's being dishonest.

Companies are generally interested in those links to drive up their search ranking. It's not always about the product. Don't have such a narrow outlook on the scope of the campaign. Exactly how much do you think Crazy Devy's wings actually make them? It's not always about the product int he review.

Gauntlet101010 wrote:@LL - Well, he didn't seem to think those wings were worth it. I don't see why he'd need to say it exactly the way you'd want him to to be valid.

As for giving a positive review to Universe Galvy, well, there you go. He has some unpopular opinions. But they are his opinions and it's unlikely that he suddenly changed his perspective after getting sponsored. He's entitled to them as much as anyone. I don't think him not feeling a flaw is all that bad makes him dishonest. It just makes his opinion different from yours. It's fine not to agree and it's fine not to want to trust his reviews, but I don't think he's being dishonest.

Companies are generally interested in those links to drive up their search ranking. It's not always about the product. Don't have such a narrow outlook on the scope of the campaign. Exactly how much do you think Crazy Devy's wings actually make them? It's not always about the product int he review.

I accept all of that, based on the reviews I've seen I'm of the opinion he is just not a very good reviewer or to put it another way his standards are set lower than my own, I'm not going to get into the whole "payment" argument because it's all based on speculation and unless any reveiwers can shed any light on the arrangment between sponsors and reviewers it's pretty pointless.

Tsutsukakushi wrote:

Rated X wrote:

Tsutsukakushi wrote:

Gauntlet101010 wrote: On the subject of reviews he's an unenthusiastic one from Peaugh with a sample product - Crazy Devy's Predaking Wings. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6e1ZYKPcGsU So even if he's pretty enthusiastic to the annoyance of many here, I guess it's tough to get excited about this sorta thing.

Think this video is the smoking gun. That proves Peaugh a sponsored guy. Does thrash and give negative reviews on toys in his video reviews.

I disagree. His choice of words to describe a crappy product mirror those of someone talking to an audience of 5 year old children. TF Source neutered him. I prefer a reviewers with balls who arent afraid to piss off the retailers.

I no longer care nor have the time to reply to you.

Your being ignored, Please show me the same courtesy and ignore me here. If not, Then enjoy wasting minutes of your time on these one sided replies of yours to me.

Thats lame. You jumped into this discussion to defend your golden boy peaugh. So stop whining that I quoted you and defend him. Im telling you his comments were not very "negative" in my point of view. At best they were "politically correct" and borderline corporate suck up. Maybe in your world, the words he used are considered strong negatives. But in my world his words were very blah and showed no passion on what he really wants to say but cant due to sponsorship.

Rated X wrote:

Tsutsukakushi wrote:Just watched the video.

Think this can be considered a KO with added chrome and not a 3rd party product.

Peaugh seemed to not like these wings and gave a rather negative review on them. Pointing out the breakage in chrome on some areas. Saying the Chrome does not match the rest of the toy. Then stating the price is too high for what you get.

While the review suggested he was not a fan of the wings, he didn't bash them. Missing were words like "crappy" or "worthless" or "don't waste your money". It just isn't in him, is it ? It's like someone's got a gun to his head and telling him "you better be nice".

On a side note, I remember when you said you wanted to see MMC get KOed. I asked why when the originals are still available at retail prices? But you never did respond. So I would think you might like the idea of Feral Rex parts being KOed ?

I might pick these up down the line. It all depends if Crazy Devy decides to replace the other flat gold pieces of feral Rex. It also depends on if I decide to buy the reprolabels sets.

Rated X wrote:

megatronus wrote:

Rated X wrote:While the review suggested he was not a fan of the wings, he didn't bash them. Missing were words like "crappy" or "worthless" or "don't waste your money". It just isn't in him, is it ? It's like someone's got a gun to his head and telling him "you better be nice".

Dude, that was not a "nice" review. It was pretty dour. Just because he didn't use the same words you would use, doesn't mean it was a ringing endorsement. Peaugh's review of this had plenty of insults, they were just more subtle than... well... you.

I guess. But I get that "didnt like the sweater grandma knitted me" type of vibe from his bland insults. When one dislikes something that much, they usually unleash more definitative insults. That is unless grandma is in front of you and you have to wear the sweater.

Rated X wrote:

Delta Magnus wrote:Or, you know, he doesn't want to become yet another "angry reviewer" like the types that have taken over the game scene.

I don't watch video game reviews, but I do believe being yourself should play a key role in "reviewing" anything. If I were to feed Peaugh some fried nutria rat, what words would he use to review the cuisine on camera ? Would he be "nice" and speak all politically correct ? Or would he say this is disgusting before he puked right on the plate ?



I wouldn't be afraid to puke on a toy on video, even if I knew it would be the last one Id be getting for free. It's called being real.

Rated X wrote:

Delta Magnus wrote:Because a slightly subpar set of chromed wings is TOTALLY as disgusting as deep fried rat.

Seriously, why the hell would you puke on a toy unless it had been dunked in sewage? I mean, I bought an SH Figuarts Sailor Mars that turned out to be a bootleg, and the quality was awful, but I sure as hell didn't feel the need to puke on it.

And you say being yourself should be a part of any review, which is true. Peaugh seems to be a pretty chill, laid-back guy. He IS being himself, because he's mature enough not to get angry and up in arms over a toy. You keep moving the goalposts with this issue. You say he always gives ringing positive reviews. Not true. Then you say "Ah, but he never gives a negative review of a 3rd party figure!" which isn't true. Then you say "Ah, but he never gives outright completely negative reviews!" and oh look, that isn't true either. So now you're grasping at straws and going for "Ah, b-but he doesn't get angry with the toys and call them pieces of crap and throw them across the room!" to which I can reply "No, he doesn't, because he isn't a petulant child who gets butthurt over a toy.

Not everyone has your extreme ideas about how you should react to something you don't like.

And honestly? If you think you could do better or you know what makes a good reviewer? Become one yourself. Do toy reviews on YouTube yourself. Until then, either put up or shut up.

When I said “puke on a toy” I meant to verbally puke on it. In other words describe your disgust vividly instead of being politically correct and “nice” about it. I didn’t think you would take the term literally.

Cost of fried Nutria rat: $18.99

Cost of having a sense of humor: Priceless

Now that we got that out the way, I’ll say this...Maybe Peaugh is just plain nice. Or maybe he is purposely being politically correct on purpose. Either way, none of us no for sure. Only Peaugh himself knows.

But here’s what we do know for sure: Every reviewer with a sponsor conveniently takes the politically correct approach to describing products they don’t like. Not one reviewer with a sponsor goes against the grain and uses extreme insults or swearing in a review. Find me one. I bet you can’t.

But if you start watching amateur unsponsored reviews, out comes the insults, cursing, etc. So is it really that all sponsored reviewers just happen to be nice guys or are there some expectations when accepting a sponsorship and the perks that come with it?

Go figure…