Should a reviewer keep a $20K Oscilloscope?

Yes, I cryptically referred to it as "the total benefits". I think it is mostly a win-win situation, but worry that some will find it discouraging or of mixed benefit.

The Road Trip Road Test

I could see a special road test where an expensive instrument actually goes on a road trip, stopping at various member locations to undergo their tests and experiences with it. I expect there would need to be a "prize" left behind with each road tester to provide incentive to take on the test and blog, but it would allow every selected  road tester to participate at their own level and still have an opportunity to road test and gain experience with an expensive instrument. Perhaps the best blog could get to keep the used instrument in the end. I could see this extending the duration of having an instrument in the limelight and having the benefit of multiple road test perspectives at a lower cost. Proposals could target specific tests and the group of testers could be selected based on filling out a composite proposal that covers all features.

I think your automotive analogy is a little flawed - you'd expect a journalist being leant vehicles for test would be getting paid by their employer. It's a job, like any other.

The RoadTest relies on unpaid, and in this case highly skilled, labour. You could easily spend 100 hours testing it thoroughly, at which point $200/hour is about right for what's basically engineering consulting that results in advertising for the manufacturer.

On the other hand, perhaps offering other types of RoadTest would allow for more content. You test a $250k VNA, and then send it back, and you get a prize of a much cheaper unit, or a voucher, etc.. I also think it'd be great to have facility to borrow supporting equipment. A loan of differential probes, power rail probes, etc. would significantly enhance the RoadTest of this oscilloscope, for example.

I have never participated in a Roadtest but I am a follower of the program and in general the effort that I see behind each road test is incredible. People who spend many hours of their free time studying a product, testing it, doing a project and writing blogs, taking photos, making videos and keeping an eye out for customs and possible transport problems. They put their personal equipment and their resources, many times assuming risks, I have seen tests of motors that gave real panic.
I am also scared by the cost of the devices to be tested. Right now, I am participating in an experimentation challenge with a board valued at almost $900, I am halfway through the project and the blogs have already received 20,000 visits, it seems strange to me that there are so many people interested in FPGAs but surely people from the marketing department knows what they are doing.
I had a hard time deciding to submit an application due to the high cost of the board and my limited experience with FPGAs. Being objective, I believe that my limited experience is an added value for the sponsor, how can a person without experience achieve very good results in such a short learning time. As Dough comments is a win-win situation. Regarding the later life of the board, it is something that no longer worries me, it will be a long relationship with it and my children are also taking advantage of this learning opportunity. In any case, if we end up not using it, it will end up in the engineering university where my children study.

I'd be OK with both options. If the vendor lets you keep it, I'd keep it (or if it's no longer of use, give away, trade, sell).

If there would be road tests where the vendor wants the item back, I'd consider that too, if the return process is a no-brainer, maybe to the local branch.

What I would not apply for, is a road test where I have to deal with legal / export complexities when shipping it back.

I don't have a problem with the ethics or the practicalities of keeping the review devices.

Producing a decent review is a time consuming task and in the case of some of the higher value items requires significant skill and experience.

If there is no reward, other than kudos, to the reviewer then the pool of applicants will be very much smaller.

In the case of instruments, the manufacturer wants to sell them. Reviews from those who would never actually buy one tend not to be very convincing. So the 'deal' is a review in exchange for the product - its all open and transparent. Lower value "prizes" would just be payments in a different form and would attract people with less interest in the actual product.

It's interesting how different people are attracted to different Road test items - I never apply to test anything that I don't really want to use -  and I think this applies to most e14 members.

As others have observed, in other fields professional reviewers dominate the field, and this has serious downsides because their viewpoint and experience is so different from that of ordinary users.

MK

I agree the transportation logistics would be a huge factor in determining my willingness to participate. 

Whether someone should keep an expensive piece of equipment is really down to the manufacturer. I suspect that once they weigh up the option of having the item returned and supplying a different prize, it just doesn't seem worth it. Whilst a lot of expensive research and development goes into a piece of test equipment, I suspect the net unit production cost is far lower.

I've been lucky enough to road test a very nice piece of test equipment, and I definitely appreciated the opportunity I'd been given. I put a lot of effort into the road test - although I still feel I didn't quite attain Gough Lui / Shabaz level of reviewing! I feel those (and some others) are definitely worth the cost tof th equipment.

The only thing that used to wind me up is when someone applied for a road test, probably promised the earth, and has then written something probably shorter than I would have put in the application. That gets me very defensive on E14's behalf! I'd like to see a "do what you promised or hand it back" clause in there.

Anyway, I'd say that if you feel you can do a good review then go for it. Don't promise more than you can deliver and let E14/R&S decide whether you should be rewarded.

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.