Don’t be cheap: why some brands should rethink review samples
In the galaxy of modern marketing, where brands dogfight permanently for media attention, there’s one seemingly small yet critical issue that keeps many from truly shining: the reluctance to let journalists keep review samples.
It’s a strange paradox. Companies generating millions of dollars hesitate to leave behind a device that likely costs them a fraction of its retail price. Why? The reasons often seem murky at best, paranoid at worst. And the cost of this stinginess isn’t just a few hundred euros—it’s a lost opportunity to build trust, foster better content, and ultimately elevate the brand in the eyes of consumers.
Let’s launch into why this matters—and why brands need to rethink their approach to review samples.
Trust and transparency in the German market
As specialists in the German market, we orbit within the German Press Council’s strict guidelines for journalistic integrity. These include:
No preferential treatment: Journalists must remain independent, and accepting bribes is forbidden.
Separation of advertising and editorial content: Editorial decisions must not be swayed by private or commercial interests.
On the surface, allowing journalists to keep samples may seem like it violates these principles. What if they sell the product? Isn’t that a form of bribery? The reality, however, is more nuanced.
Once a review sample is handed over, what happens to it—whether it’s kept, donated, or even sold—depends on the journalist’s ethics and transparency. Credible professionals understand their responsibility to remain objective. Besides, resale is hardly a major concern in reputable outlets, who often have their own internal rules about it; it’s more of a fringe issue involving influencers or less-established platforms.
The focus should instead be on the immense value that a permanent sample can provide to both the journalist and the brand.
Beyond the one-off review
Reviewing a product is rarely a one-and-done affair. Many devices—especially in tech and consumer electronics—promise durability, performance over time, or other features that require long-term evaluation. Without permanent access to a sample, journalists can’t verify these claims.
This is why, in Germany, the tests from an outlet such as Stiftung Warentest, are extremely popular, as they are absolutely independent of any external factors, particularly the sacro-saint product peak relevance for a brand or a market: their tests are done when they are done, and they couldn’t care less about how close to the release date of the product they are because this particular outlet doesn’t have the slightest care for the brand’s interests in its reviews.
Imagine testing a smartphone’s battery life or an appliance’s durability. How can journalists make informed conclusions about longevity if the product is returned after a few weeks? The ability to revisit products for long-term reviews isn’t just beneficial to the journalist—it’s invaluable to readers.
For brands, this means more opportunities for coverage, more comparisons with competitors, and ultimately more consumer trust. By grounding their strategy in permanence, brands can ensure their products remain part of the conversation long after launch day. In this sense, leaving a review sample with a journalist isn’t just a handout—it’s a rocket booster for ongoing coverage.
The environmental angle
Then there’s the matter of sustainability, a cause that almost every brand claims to champion. Reclaiming samples often involves shipping them back, refurbishing them, or disposing of them—all of which come with environmental costs. In some cases, the logistics of returning samples may negate any potential sustainability benefits, especially when products are shipped across continents for review.
It’s a contradiction: a brand (particularly those without local European structure) touts its green credentials but insists on shipping a review unit halfway around the world (either from the USA or South-East Asia), only to reclaim it and potentially discard it later. Allowing journalists to keep samples aligns better with sustainability efforts, reducing unnecessary waste and transportation emissions.
Brands might counter this by arguing that reclaiming products avoids the need to produce additional units, or that they are better equip to dispose of the used samples. While this is true in some cases, it doesn’t always hold water—particularly when their logistics chains span the globe. Sometimes the carbon footprint of retrieving a sample makes it seem like the brand’s green mission is lost in space.
Strengthening relationships
Beyond practical concerns, there’s a deeper issue of trust and goodwill. Being overly cautious with review samples because they have to return it (which implies “in working condition” because otherwise, why would you return it?) will systematically lead to reviews not pushing the product to its limit and therefore not as thorough as they should.
That is a problem for both the journalist, who can face backlash from its readers after recommending a product that was later revealed to have major flows they couldn’t identify in a short turnaround test, and the brand, that will destroy its credibility with the journalists if that happens.
On the other hand, brands that make the process seamless and transparent often enjoy better relationships with the media. In competitive industries, these small decisions can make the difference between being covered and being ignored. Think of it as building a communications wormhole: the smoother the journey, the more likely the message will reach its destination.
The elephant in the room: bribery and transparency
If the concern is that keeping samples might be seen as bribery, the solution is simple: transparency. Brands can explicitly state that review samples are provided for testing and long-term reference purposes, with no expectation of favorable coverage.
Similarly, journalists can disclose whether a sample was a loan or a permanent donation, just as they already disclose affiliate links. They can also add a disclaimer or a short footnote indicating that despite the donation of the sample, the brand didn’t review their test prior to its publication.
This approach doesn’t just eliminate ambiguity; it reinforces trust on both sides. Readers, too, benefit from knowing exactly how reviews are conducted. After all, a system based on honesty and transparency always shines brighter for everyone.
The cost-value equation
Let’s not forget the economics of it all. Most review samples—unless we’re talking about cars or spacecraft (I am ready to found my own space transportation blog if you give me my own private rocket, feel free to slide in my DMs if you can make it happen)—are inexpensive for manufacturers.
A single unit, produced at cost, represents a tiny investment compared to the value of the content it generates.
We are not the most ferocious advocates of the somewhat outdated KPI called media value, as it brings down the value of the coverage we generate to a monetary figure, without taking into account the actual impact the coverage will have, be it for the brand or for the relationship with a specific outlet.
However, many Consumer Electronics clients would benefit to put the value of their sample against the value of let’s say advertorials in the outlets they are targeting. Commissioning branded content often costs far more than the value of a single review sample, yet it doesn’t carry the same weight or credibility as independent journalism. If the key to unlock coverage in an outlet is leaving review units with journalists, if you are not into high-end luxus products, then it will in a very large majority of cases be one of the most cost-effective ways to ensure ongoing coverage and support building a brand’s reputation.
The final word
In the end, it’s simple: brands, don’t be cheap about samples. You’re not gifting the Moon here—you’re investing in trust, credibility, and better content.
A permanent sample doesn’t just benefit the journalist; it benefits the brand, the readers, and even the planet. It allows for deeper reviews, long-term insights, and stronger relationships. And in a world where trust is hard to come by, this small decision can make all the difference.