Why You Don't Really Want An Objective Watch Review
"It could be the result of an accident involving rat babies in a nuclear reactor." A.A. Gill, on a plate of grilled kidneys at L'Ami Louis
Richard Butler is Managing Editor at DPReview, which is one of the most widely read and influential camera and photo gear review sites on the Web. The site goes pretty far back – to 1998, when the transition in newsrooms from film to digital photography was really starting to pick up steam; Butler, who is a self-described pedant, with a BSc with Honors in chemistry from the University of Manchester, has been with the site since 2007, when he joined the site as a technical editor. His specialty is in-depth technical analysis, but he has always striven to integrate his own personal experiences in his camera reviews as well, and recently he took on the idea – or as you might say, the misconception – that his reading public is best served by a review which is not, in fact, striving to be completely objective. In “Reviews can’t be objective, and you wouldn’t want them to be,” he writes about a recent review in which he covered the new Sony A7 V, and in which he discussed both the camera’s objective properties, and his subjective experiences, which included (among other things) the fact that he found Sony’s famously somewhat convoluted menu system difficult to navigate. He writes, in part:
“So what’s the correct way to report these issues? I’ve seen some Sony users insist that they shouldn’t be mentioned at all, because they may be personal, rather than universal. But it would be dishonest to omit a factor that might put me off buying a camera, if there’s a chance someone might go and spend their money, based on what I wrote (or didn’t write).
“Instead I did what this job requires: I reported my concerns but was careful to present them proportionately and in context. I made clear which concerns and criticisms I felt would apply to everyone and which wouldn’t. And I endeavored to stress that part of the reason the menus have become so overwhelmed, and potentially overwhelming, is that the camera does so many things and offers such a high degree of customization.”
The entire article is worth reading if you’re a consumer of reviews of any kind – wine, restaurants, cars, watches. A common complaint about watch reviews is that they are not objective and that the review is affected by commercial considerations, such as whether or not the watch in question is produced by a brand that is a commercial partner of the writer (or the writer’s employer) or whether the review was written in the aftermath of a lavish press junket to an exotic location, or whether the watch reviewed is made by a brand which is an advertiser. These are just three examples but the list of potential conflicts of interest which may get in the way of a so-called objective review is endless and can include all sorts of market manipulation (this is the next hot independent watch brand, this is the vintage watch brand which is going to skyrocket in prices).
It would be naive to think that none of these things actually happen. If there is a way to game a system, people are going to find it and figure out how to exploit it for personal gain (as a fellow teacher of mine once said, when discussing cheating on exams, “Never underestimate the ingenuity of the criminal mind.”) This occurs in any genre of reviewing and it’s a big part of the reason people distrust critics and influencers, as the demands from restaurant influencers for free chow are legendary and naturally, people who cover wine are likewise tempted to ask for wine, people who cover watches are tempted to ask for, if not watches, then allocation; I have no idea if car reviewers ask for free cars. Maybe they does and maybe they doesn’t, if any subscribers cover cars and have asked for a Ferrari, let me know in the comments and extra bonus points if you got one.