Should a reviewer keep a $20K Oscilloscope?

It's difficult because there's value involved. Especially with the current 'cost of living crisis' invites questions, and also makes it difficult. How can someone ensure that a person offering to RoadTest such equipment is genuine? How can you guarantee that there's the appropriate value from the review to justify it?

There are obviously reasons why there are laws around this.

With items that are valued at $20k I believe you're entering realms of shows such as 'Top Gear' with supercars, it's unlikely that Jeremy Clarkson will keep fancy supercars (not that they couldn't afford them themselves) but there are certain realms where items should be considered to be on loan for a RoadTest rather than given away. I've seen YouTube reviewers do this (though I wonder if they try to circumvent being a 'sponsored' video by saying they didn't receive anything of value, but I would argue that the opportunity is still of value).

My view doesn't reflect the decisions and views of the entire Community team, but they're certainly views that I express to the team for their consideration and I've brought up that the terms and conditions should be considered to change for items to be loaned when they're above a certain value.

cstanton said:

there are certain realms where items should be considered to be on loan for a RoadTest rather than given away. I've seen YouTube reviewers do this (though I wonder if they try to circumvent being a 'sponsored' video by saying they didn't receive anything of value

EEVblog gets both kind of items for review, in this range. He sometimes gets "keeper instruments" sent to him, for review. And sometimes on loan that the manufacturer picks back up. I have not spotted any difference in the reviews. What I have spotted, is that the keepers keep on being used in later projects/videos. Sometimes years later. While the returners obviously stop being used once they are returned.

I wouldn't expect any difference, my point was that setting the youtube flag for sponsored content prevents adverts being shown and hence prevents earning revenue for the youtube creator.

yes, true.

I think that's a relevant point. If Dave Jones was sitting in a cubicle farm would he be approached for a review to be emailed in return, not likely.

Companies send test equipment to the EEVBlog corporates towers primarily for dave to give screen time to his audience. Dave is a bright charismatic talented electronics nerd adored by 100k's who spent years building an audience.

The review is going to seen by a wide audience because of the elment14 community not because of the notoriety of reviewer.

I'm not suggesting reviewers don't provide value, just not sure 20K worth. I also respect others see it different.

scottiebabe said:

I think that's a relevant point. If Dave Jones was sitting in a cubicle farm would he be approached for a review to be emailed in return, not likely.

Companies send test equipment to the EEVBlog corporates towers primarily for dave to give screen time to his audience. Dave is a bright charismatic talented electronics nerd adored by 100k's who spent years building an audience.

That is most likely true for many things he receives. Based on his view count and reach breadth, marketing departments may go crazy (the first time ).

Have you sent in goodies to the mailbag ? Should we send an elment14 Christmas card lol

Have you sent in goodies to the mailbag ? Should we send an elment14 Christmas card lol

I never have. It's one of my favourites though (and now *every one's favourite segment ----  MAILBAG*).