Frontpage reviews - origin of sets

cheshirecatcheshirecat Member Posts: 5,332
edited July 2013 in Brickset.com
I've noticed that sometimes in the reviews it is explicitly stated that LEGO have sent a set for review. Other times no such statement is made.

Is there a hard and fast rule that where LEGO have provided sets for free this is mentioned and hence where its not mentioned the reviewer has purchased the set themselves/on behalf of brickset?

I would like to think that this is the case, transparency/honesty/etc, but was just wondering?

Comments

  • CapnRex101CapnRex101 United KingdomAdministrator Posts: 2,272
    I believe that it is only mentioned when LEGO have provided the sets, and whenever they have it is always mentioned. For instance, none of the sets I have reviewed have been sent to me (or Huw as a representative of Brickset) by LEGO. @Huw is the best person to give a definitive answer though naturally.

    Speaking of which, if you are reading this LEGO, my address is... :o)
  • MatthewMatthew Cheshire, UKAdministrator Posts: 3,734
    edited July 2013
    That's correct, yes. If LEGO's CEE team have provided sets for review purposes it is always explicitly mentioned, although out of courtesy rather than being required to do so. In all other cases the reviewer has purchased the set theirself.
  • HuwHuw Brickset Towers, Hampshire, UKAdministrator Posts: 6,441
    ^ correct.
  • cheshirecatcheshirecat Member Posts: 5,332
    Thanks for the confirmation guys, glad that what I thought was happening is what is happening - if that makes sense!

    As an aside - in the US it seems that social media/bloggers etc do need to explicitly state if they've been given a product for free that they are reviewing. Obviously brickset isn't in the US, but surprised if there isn't something similar in the UK.
  • drdavewatforddrdavewatford Hertfordshire, UKAdministrator Posts: 6,258

    As an aside - in the US it seems that social media/bloggers etc do need to explicitly state if they've been given a product for free that they are reviewing.

    On whose authority ? While it might be considered to be 'good practice', it's hard to believe that any formal legislation exists to compel anyone to do this.

  • MrBerreMrBerre Member Posts: 246

    As an aside - in the US it seems that social media/bloggers etc do need to explicitly state if they've been given a product for free that they are reviewing.

    On whose authority ? While it might be considered to be 'good practice', it's hard to believe that any formal legislation exists to compel anyone to do this.
    http://business.ftc.gov/documents/bus71-ftcs-revised-endorsement-guideswhat-people-are-asking ?
  • HuwHuw Brickset Towers, Hampshire, UKAdministrator Posts: 6,441
    edited August 2013
    That is interesting reading. I don't know if there's something similar published by UK trading standards or similar body.

    I always mention the source of sets in set reviews (if they've been provided by LEGO and not purchased myself) but not always for book reviews. I'll make a point of doing so from now on.
  • drdavewatforddrdavewatford Hertfordshire, UKAdministrator Posts: 6,258
    edited August 2013
    Interesting indeed. Reading the guidance it's not entirely clear whether it actually carries any legal weight; one of the Q&A's even states "There is no fine for not complying with an FTC guide.". Even so, legalities aside I think it's right that we should declare on reviews if the item has been provided for free.
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 17,799
    edited August 2013
    It is useful to know if the sets have been provided or not, but the biggest draw for me is whether the review is honest. You can normally tell this by reading a few reviews of sets you own.

    I know many people like whitefang's reviews on the CMF line on eurobricks. I look at the photos but rarely read any of the words these days. Just about every minifig and part is described as amazing or excellent. Even the skydiver was described as "very average", for probably one of the most hated minfiigs in the range so far. I'd really prefer the words to be honest. If it is a poor selection of parts or design, it should say that, without fear of lego not providing a set for review next time.

    I like the fact that if something sucks, the reviews on brickset will usually say that and tell me why the reviewer thinks this is the case. And it is that which makes me read them.
  • HuwHuw Brickset Towers, Hampshire, UKAdministrator Posts: 6,441
    Kim and Jan are quite clear that they do not expect to read gushing reviews of the sets they send us, they prefer warts-and-all honest reviews and that's what we try and give.

    They do always seem very positive over at EB, don't they...
  • CapnRex101CapnRex101 United KingdomAdministrator Posts: 2,272
    ^ I have noticed the very same thing about Eurobricks reviews. One in particular is of note perhaps... http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=82293
  • YellowcastleYellowcastle Member Posts: 4,401
    I agree and I promise to be fair and reasonable should I be provided the Ewok Village to review, cough...cough.

    :o)
    LegoboyCapnRex101
  • drdavewatforddrdavewatford Hertfordshire, UKAdministrator Posts: 6,258

    I agree and I promise to be fair and reasonable should I be provided the Ewok Village to review, cough...cough.

    :o)

    Join the queue, Holmes.

    :-)
  • SchwallexSchwallex Member Posts: 121
    Yeah, I promise to be twice as fair as Yellowcastle should I be provided two Ewok Villages.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Recent discussions Categories Privacy Policy