Promoting product makes for interesting relationships.
The hobby world is no different, where an endless stream of new card releases means there's always something that needs a push to get collectors amped and ready to spend.
What recently hit me, as the parade of sports card posts floated across TweetDeck, was how many different hobby sites and blogs are doing product previews and reviews ahead of release dates.
Generally speaking, it's always been commonplace for the media to get a glimpse or taste test of things before the public does. A preview gets people interested in attending an event or buying something.
In the hobby world, Beckett fits that mold. Despite the longtime, yet sometimes misguided, misconceptions of Beckett's relationship to card manufacturers, it makes sense for what is now the last legitimate hobby publication to see, touch and analyze new card sets before their release.
Things get fuzzy when you talk about everyone else who lays claim to a part of the hobby media simply because they write or produce something that references sports cards.
The thought prompted me to find out what standards are used by the card companies to determine where complimentary product goes.
It took just a couple of hours before Upper Deck's Chris Carlin wrote back.
"You're right, it is pretty remarkable how the emergence of new online communities and bloggers have lead [sic] to more and more requests for sample products," Carlin wrote. "We are pretty selective about who we work with and usually they are higher-traffic sites that provide us advertising in exchange for product, usually in the form of banner ads on their site."
Swaps are about as old an advertising/marketing maneuver as exists. It's not a stretch to say most blogs or hobby sites are making very little money, if any at all. Having Upper Deck throw you a bone is needed to create or maintain some hobby cred by offering timely content.
By the way, Topps and Panini didn't get back to me.
The pothole in all this is professional credibility and whether those getting access to free product in advance play nice to keep receiving stuff, or if they will give honest opinions which benefit collectors in bigger picture.
Will a blogger really blast what they think is crappy cardboard if it could mean they get dumped from the freebie train? Sure, the card companies know criticism is part of the game, but it doesn't mean the blog and site owners aren't immune from pulling punches.
Even Beckett offers analysis that borders between overly polite and passive-aggressive. Most times, dislike is couched with phrasing such as "this product may not be for everyone."
The December Beckett Sports Card Monthly review of 2010 Topps Chrome baseball rightfully pointed out the severe warping that plagued the set, but dampened any perceived disappointment by quickly praising the design - which, as always mirrors the flagship Topps baseball set - as "strong."
Carlin didn't touch on the possibility reviewers might compromise opinions if they think it'll keep them in good graces - or if they need to. Questions like this dog the hobby, just as the idea that perception outweighs reality.
Collectors are in dire need of strong, dependable sources of information - good or bad - about the hobby. Sure, there's no shortage of criticism floating around the Web, but how it's fashioned and directed has to be considered.
At the same time, manufacturers should maintain strict standards for how they distribute preview product and why they do it - and publish it all to reassure collectors there's no strings attached or undue pressure to make reviewers be kind.
If everyone can't get in the freebie game, let's make sure those who are doing it for the right reasons. Oh, and if you do get the comp product, don't be so obvious about flipping the box hits.
The hobby world is no different, where an endless stream of new card releases means there's always something that needs a push to get collectors amped and ready to spend.
What recently hit me, as the parade of sports card posts floated across TweetDeck, was how many different hobby sites and blogs are doing product previews and reviews ahead of release dates.
Generally speaking, it's always been commonplace for the media to get a glimpse or taste test of things before the public does. A preview gets people interested in attending an event or buying something.
In the hobby world, Beckett fits that mold. Despite the longtime, yet sometimes misguided, misconceptions of Beckett's relationship to card manufacturers, it makes sense for what is now the last legitimate hobby publication to see, touch and analyze new card sets before their release.
Things get fuzzy when you talk about everyone else who lays claim to a part of the hobby media simply because they write or produce something that references sports cards.
The thought prompted me to find out what standards are used by the card companies to determine where complimentary product goes.
It took just a couple of hours before Upper Deck's Chris Carlin wrote back.
"You're right, it is pretty remarkable how the emergence of new online communities and bloggers have lead [sic] to more and more requests for sample products," Carlin wrote. "We are pretty selective about who we work with and usually they are higher-traffic sites that provide us advertising in exchange for product, usually in the form of banner ads on their site."
Swaps are about as old an advertising/marketing maneuver as exists. It's not a stretch to say most blogs or hobby sites are making very little money, if any at all. Having Upper Deck throw you a bone is needed to create or maintain some hobby cred by offering timely content.
By the way, Topps and Panini didn't get back to me.
The pothole in all this is professional credibility and whether those getting access to free product in advance play nice to keep receiving stuff, or if they will give honest opinions which benefit collectors in bigger picture.
Will a blogger really blast what they think is crappy cardboard if it could mean they get dumped from the freebie train? Sure, the card companies know criticism is part of the game, but it doesn't mean the blog and site owners aren't immune from pulling punches.
Even Beckett offers analysis that borders between overly polite and passive-aggressive. Most times, dislike is couched with phrasing such as "this product may not be for everyone."
The December Beckett Sports Card Monthly review of 2010 Topps Chrome baseball rightfully pointed out the severe warping that plagued the set, but dampened any perceived disappointment by quickly praising the design - which, as always mirrors the flagship Topps baseball set - as "strong."
Carlin didn't touch on the possibility reviewers might compromise opinions if they think it'll keep them in good graces - or if they need to. Questions like this dog the hobby, just as the idea that perception outweighs reality.
Collectors are in dire need of strong, dependable sources of information - good or bad - about the hobby. Sure, there's no shortage of criticism floating around the Web, but how it's fashioned and directed has to be considered.
At the same time, manufacturers should maintain strict standards for how they distribute preview product and why they do it - and publish it all to reassure collectors there's no strings attached or undue pressure to make reviewers be kind.
If everyone can't get in the freebie game, let's make sure those who are doing it for the right reasons. Oh, and if you do get the comp product, don't be so obvious about flipping the box hits.
Good job. I am disabled and rely heavily on Beckett's box break video's to decide on what to buy with my very limited funds. I do not always agree with them (This years SPX Hockey)but being able to view the products ahead of time helps.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment. I'm sure many collectors feel the same way you do. They have limited dollars to spend, so they need to be careful on how they spend. That's why it is important that reviews are being done properly.
ReplyDeleteI'll be glad to explain how I ended up getting preview product from Topps, Upper Deck and Panini.
ReplyDeleteWork.
I've been a video game reviewer for about 4 years at that point, so I knew the basics. I had my site for a year (under a different name), and had already reached out to all of the companies (using what resources I had), to ask simply to get on their press email lists so that I could write previews and such.
A year passed, and I opened the new site, and made sure to keep in touch with the companies. Once the new site was up, I started emailing monthly reports, showing the number of hits I had that month, the number of actual page views as well as any articles I had written, with links to them.
I did that for about six months or so, and got a box or two from Panini (without asking), and then had someone contact me from Upper Deck about running a banner in exchange for product. Once that was set up, I felt more confident about contacting Topps, Press Pass, Tristar and SAGE to see how a request would go. Topps and Tristar agreed, and I've been doing reviews since.
Essentially, as long as I'm timely, they keep sending. I'm not shy about speaking my mind (Topps Magic, Topps Tribute are two examples), but I'm also not shy about enjoying the breaks. And I always thank the companies.
During 2010, I gave away almost everything. As 2010 ended, I found out that this really wasn't working, both due to the time being invested and because people weren't willing to send SASEs to me, or would do it with PWEs for a stack of cards, which led me to go, "Do they really want the cards for their collection, or is it only because they're free?" So now, I run periodic contests to give away cards.