Sensitivity to Editorial Ethics in Managing Product Reviews

This is an open letter to every PR operation about how unintentional ethical affronts can start off any product review with a grudge.

It starts with a simple ethical premise:

No journalist should ever be asked or compelled to invest in a company that he or she covers.

(We acknowledge and salute the special case of publications that establish policies of purchasing all products they review at retail; obviously, their decision to make such investments is entirely voluntary).

HOW JOURNALISTS ARE INAPPROPRIATELY COMPELLED TO UNDERWRITE VENDORS

When we speak of journalists investing, we're not just talking about buying stocks or other traditional investment instruments; we're talking about underwriting the vendor's costs in the review process.

The first, most obvious and most frequently seen offense in this realm involves any expectation that a journalist should pay to ship a review product in either direction. 

• (Whenever a PR person tries to tell us that we need to ship back something we reviewed and they're unwilling to provide a return shipping ticket, voucher or account number, we just tell them that their product is all boxed up and ready to be picked up at their convenience, but if it remains too much longer, we'll be compelled to bill storage charges).

We've also seen what amounts to a requirement to insure a product, which is especially inappropriate because it happens when a reviewer has only temporary possession of a product (legal ownership of the product remains with the vendor). It's reasonable to assume that the vendor's blanket insurance coverage protects its inventories, on-site or off, so the request is almost always extraneous, yet it is a request that again amounts to the journalist being compelled to underwrite an operating cost of the vendor. That's inappropriate.

We understand the extent of the challenge of large numbers of reasonably high-value review products taking unintended one-way trips, so many vendors have adopted the habit of editorial loan agreements or even invoices assessing the full list price of a product that is not returned. While the idea (see our suggestions below) isn't totally wacky, there is another embedded ethical affront in the idea that the reviewer would owe profit margin in addition to the value of the product.

ABUSE ENGENDERS RESPONSES

One huge brand told us that some 60% of the consumer products they sent out for review never came back. That's a huge real-dollar cost to them. Some journalists were abusing the review system, asking for goods under the pretense of a review and never intending to return them. A lot of those items ended up in personal use, or as gifts, or sold on eBay; those outcomes at the invitation of the vendor are acceptable, but as unilateral actions by the journalist are not only ethically reprehensible, they amount to theft.

That's the kind of experience that leads to the lawyers, who try to create loan agreements or letters of understanding or letters of agreement to protect the vendor's interests. While we may someday see one that we're willing to sign unaltered, don't hold your breath.

In a few cases, it's not unreasonable to expect no return, especially when that's spelled out before the product gets sent to the reviewer. One distinguished reviewer we know is in his 70s; regardless of his intentions, his energies don't always allow him to repackage and ship the items he reviews.

WHAT VENDORS NEED TO SAY

What is it that a vendor really is trying to make clear to the reviewer?

• This isn't yours, it's ours, and we'd like it back when you're done with it. And please be reasonably careful so it won't take too much effort for us to clean it up and repackage it for the next reviewer.

And what if the reviewer falls in love with the product and wants to own it? Or what if the teenage offspring runs over the product with the car and the reviewer parent decides to pay for it? What's a fair price to pay? One manufacturer we know has a standard editorial discount policy of dealer cost less 10%, which we think is a good model for others to follow. And we know of other manufacturers with similar policies who, in order to avoid repeating instances of abuse of even that practice, allow it for only a limited number of purchases per item or per year. All of that's pretty reasonable.

Most editorial loan documents (especially those the lawyers have seen) mandate the return of the product in its original packaging with all accessories, all in mint condition. Some curmudgeons among reviewers see that as an invitation to review it without ever taking it out of its box. There's usually language to suggest that the reviewer will be billed at the full retail price if the reviewer fails to comply.

Some vendors even demand that the reviewer provide credit card information so the card can be charged if the product comes back late or incomplete.

Here's what the vendors should be saying:

• We expect you to take reasonable care of this product while it's in your possession. We expect to get it back about when you said we would; if you should need a little more time, don't hesitate to ask us for it. And once you're done with the review, if you decide you'd rather keep than return the product, talk to us about our generous editorial discount policy for buying the product you have for review.

MAKING AGREEMENTS AGREEABLE

We recently got an invoice for a product we had asked to review six months earlier; it would have been more reasonable if we had ever actually received the product.

We can recommend two forms through which, jointly or separately, a PR operation can protect its assets while also respecting its relationships with journalists.

One is a policy statement, incorporating the simple concepts already highlighted here (it's ours, not yours; we expect you to take reasonable care of it; when you're done, we'd like it back in reasonably good condition; if you want to keep it, we'll let you buy it at a really good price). You can ask for an acknowledgment (by signature on the sheet, if you like) that the journalist has read it. You don't need more than that.

The other is a special type of invoice – called a "bounce-back" invoice – billing for the product at that special editorial discount (even indicating the amount of the discount, if you like) – but also explaining that returning the product once the review period ends nullifies the billing, that the review period can be extended on request, and that return shipping costs will be borne by the company. Note that you will want to issue any such invoice from outside the normal company financial software to prevent the unfortunate relationship consequences of inappropriate or mindless collection efforts.