The Complex World of Watch Reviews: A Dive into YouTube Channel Interactions

Understanding the Dynamics of Watch Reviews

It took me some time to share this. I believe it's a complex aspect of the watch industry, and I wanted to delve into it and hear your thoughts.

The Negative Aspects of Watch Channels

I won't name the channel; rather, I'm interested in your views on their approach and your thoughts on it.

In mid-January, I received an email from a particular YouTube reviewer. The gist of the email was straightforward:

Good morning,

I would like to review your watches on my ** YouTube channel

See link below to my channel:

Please could you send me some watches for review?

Regards,

I replied, mentioning that we had a press watch available. I also observed their non-UK location and asked about their country. This is when things started to get strange. I expected a discussion about import taxes and shipping costs, but their next email surprised me. They provided their full postal address and phone number, and then, quite matter-of-factly, they added:

“Brands usually gift me the piece as payment for my review. Alternatively, if loaned, they pay a 300 Euro (£253 GBP) review fee. Which would you prefer?”

To be honest, I had never interacted with this person before, and I wasn't even aware of their channel. I responded by stating that we don't pay for reviews. This is a moral position for me. If I pay for a video, I feel I would be purchasing a service and would, therefore, own the content.

However, my understanding of YouTube's operation is that channels earn money based on the number of views and the duration people watch the videos. This dynamic leads me to question the sincerity of content.

“I don't work for free, Liam. Good luck with your brand.”

This statement puzzled me. They reached out and simply assumed they would receive a watch or payment for creating this "REVIEW." The entire situation feels like paid advertising, not a genuine review. Is it fair to expect others to work for free while demanding compensation for oneself?

The Confusion of Paid Reviews

It is usual for brands to either gift a piece or pay a review fee to larger watch channels. Thus, when a large channel emails a brand, it isn't necessary to state that in the first email. Generally, the brand either emails the channel, or the channel reaches out to arrange a review.

Usually, the brand offers the piece as payment. Alternatively, they loan a piece and inquire about the review fee. Smaller channels are different. They tend to be willing to review loaned pieces free of charge.

It's unusual for a large channel to email a brand and, in the first contact email, ask for a gifted piece or payment. Typically, the first email serves to request a piece for review. I've reviewed numerous pieces from microbrands over the years, and this is the usual way it’s done. For smaller channels, it’s understood that they review loaned pieces free of charge. However, larger channels typically require payment.

Questionable Claims and Engagement

Several aspects of this interaction seem questionable. Firstly, the individual claims to receive a watch for every review on their channel. Yet, their "State of the Collection" video features only FOUR watches.

Moreover, in the past week, they uploaded ELEVEN videos, but only two of those surpassed 1,000 views. This suggests a lack of care and quality attention given to the production of these videos. Where is the passion for the craft in what they describe as a LARGE YouTube channel?

Shifting Focus: The Positive Side

Now, enough of the bad—let's discuss the good, or rather, the great. I am happy to endorse this channel, as they are honest guys, and I wish them every success.

A Constructive Interaction

My interaction with a different channel was totally different. I was at a REDBAR meeting in Bristol, chatting with one of the organizers. Jorge joined us. I noticed him glancing at my watch (a black Scuba, usually on my wrist). He asked about its specs, and we had a short conversation. Eventually, he asked if I could loan him a watch for review. Knowing I had a press watch ready, I said, "No problem." Both Jorge and the other organizer thanked me, and we continued our conversation.

The following day, I received a message asking, “Do you mind if we resize the bracelet?” My response was, “As long as it returns complete and not bashed up, treat it as you would any watch you own.”

I noticed over the next few weeks several Instagram posts featuring the watch. Eventually, the YouTube video was published, showcasing not just awareness but a genuine appreciation for my piece.

The Essence of Collaboration

In closing, I prefer to deal with those who are enthusiastic about watches and are honest in their intentions, rather than those who seem solely interested in payment. Engaging with passionate individuals creates a more enriching experience for both the brand and the reviewer.

Let’s Discuss!

I invite you to share your thoughts on the good and bad dynamics within the watch YouTube community. Your insights are valuable as we navigate this complex landscape together.

Watch Yourself