After reading the most recent topic on Michael Johnston's Online Photographer, it made me wonder again a question I had when I saw Michael Reichmann mention, in his recent review, that he and a few select others were invited to Germany to see the new M9. Maybe I missed it, but I don't think it said who pays for such a trip? Shouldn't the fact that either the reviewer paid for it entirely, or the manufacturer paid for it entirely, or there was some mixing of payments, be disclosed with the review? In any case, I think this information is important in order for us to judge the reviews we read, but it is usually not provided to the reader. Maybe this should change? Can you tell us who paid for this trip to Germany, Michael? What do others think? (And I should note, I am a 25-year-plus Leica user, I own too many film Ms and lenses and an M8, and will buy an M9 when funds allow...so this isn't about the M9, but is about the mechanics of product reviewing in general.)

I believe Michael has always made it clear that he doesn't accept 'freebies' from companies. If that's not enough, from David Farkas' blog:

"Then, I was offered the chance to actually shoot an S2.

How could I refuse such a unique opportunity? I cashed in the frequent flyer miles, cleared my schedule, and prepared for some serious fun. "

It might be a valid concern with some (hypothetical) reviewer, but I trust Michael's integrity.

Mike.

I am glad to hear that is the case here, then. But I'd still like to know in general how this works, and if all the reviewers invited to Germany are as ethical as Michael is. Plus, I think he (MR) should still add this information to his reviews so any reader, such as myself, can see it. I don't read this site everyday, or completely, so didn't see the line you gave for his S2 review (and it seems that was actually posted elsewhere?). I am sure there are many like me. So I'd recommend an "My reviews are made at my own expense, and I don't accept free equipment. travel, or other perqs from manufacturers" or something like that at the end of every review...but thanks again for the quote. And I'd still love for Michael to tell us about what he sees with other reviewers...?

European Union has quite strict Competition law. Even after receiving some education on this – I just can say that it might have been of relevance here. Any of such invitation (IF it was an all-inclusive invitation at all) was probably monitored and agreed by the legal department of Leica. They would be dimwitted to ignore this.

So I’d expect that amusement and entertainment where quite limited,
except seeing and being informed about the new products.
The transatlantic flights itself, unlike common believe, can neither be seen as desirable nor as an incentive (as far as I can tell).

Peter

--

Did you see that Sean Reid is suing Johnston over this?

Because this is a topic fraught with pitfalls, and because I can not speak for anyone but myself, I'll answer it this way.

Companies want to get their message out. Once a product ships and anyone can buy a sample and write whatever they wish, all bets are off. But when a product is just announced, when samples are scarce, and when a company wants to put its best foot forward, they invite people who they think will provide them with knowledgeable and hopefully favourable coverage. They base this judgment on that person's reputation, reach, and also how they have reported on the company in the past. No one but a fool would invite a writer who had a past negative bias to a private launch event for a new product.

Obviously I was one of the writers invited to Germany for an S2 and M9 show-and-tell for several reasons. I have been an M Leica shooter both professionally and personally for more than 40 years. Secondly, I extensively use and write about medium format digital, and this forum is well known as probably the most active place on the net for pros and other MF users to chat and hang out.

On the other hand Leica knows that I am close to Phase One, that their US VP marketing is a close friend and shooting companion, and that I own a P65+ and an extensive Phase One camera system. Leica also know that I was mightily pissed of with them when after I told them of early problems with the M8, and was assured that these would be addressed immediately, they never got back to me, and I subsequently was somewhat blindsided about the camera's problems and have taken a major reputation hit as a consequence.

But, we're all big boys, and I've been doing this long enough that they know that professionals in this industry don't harbour grudges. If we did, nothing would get done.

So Leica invited me to Germany, knowing that I had extensive experience with both M Leicas and medium format digital. Could they count on favourable reviews? Possibly. But only if the products delivered. I'd be writing my professional death sentence if I gave them a suck job and then the products didn't deliver in the end.

Now to the question of who pays for what. It is common practice in this industry, and indeed in almost all industries, for companies doing the inviting to a product launch event in another country to pay basic travel expenses. Otherwise most journalists couldn't come. It's true that this can be seen by some as "buying a favourable review", but this is hardly the case. A $600 plane ticket (yes, steerage class) won't buy too many people's souls, just as a nice meal or drinks won't. Indeed many dinners cost a hell of a lot more than that when companies do entertaining, and yet I've never seen anyone turn down the filet mignon as being too close to bribery for comfort.

Now, if someone offered me an M9 or an S2 – well......

Just kidding, of course. I NEVER EVER, have accepted any product (other than software) as a freebe. It would be the end of my carear if I did, and I don't know of any responsible journalist who would. (I also simply don't need the money, as anyone who knows me will attest). With software it makes no sense to return a review sample, and with printers companies usually don't want them back after long term reviews because of the shipping costs. In that case I give them a local photographic school as a donation.

So there you have it. Some folks will still think that reviewers (maybe me) are so badly off and lacking in judgement as to accept graft from companies whose products they review. Some will think that a hotel room at a press reception constitutes bribery and should be shunned.

Most mature people will understand that no ones professional reputation can be bought for an economy plane ticket or a hotel room, or a meal, or a drink, and certainly not mine.

Michael

NO..do you have a link or brief description of who, what, why??

Steve

Most mature people will understand that no ones professional reputation can be bought for an economy plane ticket or a hotel room, or a meal, or a drink, and certainly not mine.
**********
Excellent response, I guess the broader question is, should a "disclosure" accompany a review. The area that I am most familiar with, Medical literature, now often requires that authors of publications disclose commercial relationships, which many/most do have.

Steve

Probably a good idea. I've never bothered to in the past, because it's never been brought up as an issue, but have no problem in doing so in future.

Michael

Thanks for the tip. Indeed, Mike Johnston's site says Reid will be suing him. Further, Reid's threat has caused TOP to remove all of the discussion from the TOP site. How sad this is. It sounds so small. Mr. Johnston's reaction to Mr. Reid has been to censor comments on one of the best photography sites on the web, a loss to us all.

I read Mike and Micheal's sites almost daily, and they both have caused me to spend money on cameras, lenses, accessory equipment, books, and teaching materials. They have both caused me to avoid purchases too. I respect and appreciate their opinions, and I also appreciate the different voices they both bring to their sites. Voices they themselves do not always agree with.

Both Mike and Michael have sung the praises of Sean Reid's subscription reviews. I have been tempted to subscribe. I do subscribe to Thom Hogan's comprehensive guides for some of my Nikon equipment. Mike Johnston has frequently referred to Sean Reid's views as valuable, reliable and comprehensive; and Mr. Reid has even placed his own comments on Mr. Johnston's site. All of that was good reason for someone to look up Mr. Reid and possibly purchase a subscription.

In the broader world of published reviews of any kind of thing or service that someone might purchase, or not, there is one gold standard out there: Consumer Reports, the publication of Consumer's Union. That impartial, non-profit organization makes it a point to never test anything given to them. They always buy the product anonymously out of their own funds. There is never any question of any kind of influence or pressure from the manufacturer or sellers of tested products.

There are other sources out there that we all read and value too. Car and Driver magazine, for instance, which tests cars that are lent to it. Do they have a reputation for honesty? Well, pretty much, though some would raise the objection that the vehicles, and advertizements, might influence the articles. I still read them, and take everything into account. But, there is never any such possible doubt or consideration with Consumers Reports.

The Leicas were borrowed, which was noted by anyone who read the articles. It was interesting infomation. The cameras were not production models, not possible at the time of the reviews.

So, Mr. Reid has accomplished one thing with me, besides the resultant censorship of a site I like, and a threat towards a person I have come to like. While his reviews may well be the best thing out there, there is not a snowball's chance in Hades that I will ever spend a penny on him if he follows through on a threat to sue Mr. Johnston.

I could not agree more with your statement. I have spent many an hour on both Luminous Landscape (LL) and TheOnlinePhotogragher, including reading those articles publish by Sean Reid on LL. I have spent a fair amount of money both on LL for Video Journals and Tutorials and on various camera gear due to the insightful articles published on both sites. Being what I consider to be, an average family man with the costs associated with raising a family, etc, it is difficult to afford all I would like and must select my options carefully. I trust Michael Reichmann's opinion and never question his bias - to me, he tells it like he sees it, even if at times, unfavorable. I have been planning my budget to join Mr Reid's site, based on the recommedations of LL and TOP - but with the threat of lawsuit by Mr Reid over other peoples comments, with no apparent dig aimed squarely at him by Mike at TOP, I can only conclude that he has completely mis-read MIke's comment directed at Leica. Unfortunately, I will NOT support a bruised ego with my very hard earned money. I hope Mr Reid can cool down and revisit this with a more objectve point of view, and reconsider the lawsuit. Mike Johnson has always supported Sean's site and Mike IS a nice guy, providing an outstanding website for all the rest of us passionate photograghers on a limited budget. Michael Reichmann has demonstarted the mature approach I have come to respect, I only hope Sean Reid can do the same. I know myself and quite a few others in my area will be watching his response very diligently.

+1 (actually, for me even the threat of suing is enough, regardless of whether he follows through or not)

+1 more, and ditto on the comment.

It is in the update of his Blog Note post.

Speaking for myself, I did cover my own airfare (as noted in my blog, I used miles) and my own hotel (but I did get the favorable Leica rate at the hotel). Most of the meals and many of the drinks were covered by Leica, in the spirit of being good hosts. None of our meals were extravegant, but the food and conversations were delightful. The German beer is also highly recommended.

David

PS - Michael, did you ever pass verdict on the best Wiener Schnitzel in Wetzlar?

I'm still mulling it over, (burp).

Michael

Michael,

For Wiener schnitzel you should go to Austria, anyway ;-)

Best regards
Erik

I look forward to the Wiener schnitzel Review when it is posted. I trust there will be a forthcoming video from you and Jeff as well on this subject.

Eric

It is common practice indeed... and quite a slippery slope. The real question is where does one draw the proverbial line in the sand? In other words, if a plane ticket is not enough to "buy too many people's souls", what is?... a massage?... or a round of golf?

A disclaimer here... I am not posting the following excerpt to argue with MR, or prove him wrong. I DO believe MR would not "sell his soul" even for an S2. I do, however, find the excerpt quite interesting and thought-provoking on a broader level:

By Devlin Barrett, Associated Press Writer On Wednesday September 2, 2009, 12:18 pm EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Pfizer Inc., the world's largest drug maker, will pay a record $2.3 billion civil and criminal penalty over unlawful prescription drug promotions... it included the largest criminal fine in U.S. history -- $1.2 billion... To promote the drugs, authorities said Pfizer invited doctors to consultant meetings at resort locations, paying their expenses and providing perks. "They were entertained with golf, massages, and other activities,..."

I don't play golf, the only person who regularly gives me a message is my wife, and as for "other activities", well......

Michael

Wow, I must not be understanding what was said. +1 for this former Reid Reviews subscriber until I do...

-Brad

I guess I don't understand Reid's decision to sue TOP. Seems like sort of a dick thing to do, but I guess we live in a litigious society.

Well this is proving to be an interesting conversation. Thanks for your replies, Michael, and explanations of your own view of what is provided by Leica in this case, and how it did or did not effect the outcome of the reviews. I can believe that in your case the proffered flight, etc. didn't change your own review. But I am not so sure that could be an across the board outcome for all the invited reviewers. In any case, I think everyone doing these reviews should offer some kind of explanation or disclaimer as to their working methods in accepting what the companies offer them, and what they accept or not. And it sounds like you might do that here in the future. Good for you.

As to Sean Reid's lawsuit, well I used to subscribe to his reviews, but I let it slide. I wish I was still a subscriber today--so I could QUIT!

It is, indeed! So let me get this straight...

Reid plans to sue Johnston for a comment posted by French?! Really???

Makes me wonder what sort of barn door that opens up for similar lawsuits ("he made a comment I don't like, so I'm suing!").

Wouldn't it make more sense for Reid to just sue French?

I believe Northern Light is just pissed off about Leica.

Honestly, I shake my head when I read this. In my opinion a completely non-relevant issue. Empty talk. Yeah sure disclosure is very important these times, companys going over the tops with their profits, etc etc. So we HAVE TO here too? If it where about NASA bribery, ok, but about the introduction of a Leica camera? C'mon... is it really THAT important? (For photographers sure, but in relation to more important things?) Nothing against disclosure in general, but in this specific case I sense hystery, or the generic call for control, because thats just the latest trend. Not every area benefits from it, actually.

And I want to add a further aspect not related to this "issue". Definitely politicans and the like deserve control, judging by what they do. But even disclosure at really important points will only go so far. Because at the end, the MOTIVATION of people will stay the same regardless of counteraction. You cannot change motivation of someone, and if you plug a hole, the water will find a new way. The issue will shift. So it is ok that issues will be pointed out, but that the underlying problems be solved with it, is an illusion.

Christian Miersch

Sean isn't suing Mike, yet. He has just said he would, and he's hot under the collar right now, so I'm hoping he'll cool off and the two will kiss and make up.

A suit against Mike in the US wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell. I spent a lot of time as a journalist and a columnist, and I know some libel law. A suit would, however, cost both of them some lawyer money, though. I suspect it would also severely damage Sean's website. Mike is a popular guy (disclosure: I write for him sometimes) and I suspect a lot of photography people would not like seeing him sued.

I subscribe to Sean's website, and have found it valuable. I am one of the people who thought both Michael and Sean (and others) took a bad rap over the whole M8 thing. In fact, I think Michael has been a little too penitent. He did get blindsided by Leica, and I hold Leica more responsible than Michael. As for Sean, I didn't see that he did anything wrong at all. And - all of this is ancient history. However, because of the lawsuit threat, I won't be visiting Sean's site again until it's cleared up.

I regret that Mike even felt it necessary to apologize for the posting, but it's his website, and I guess he felt it was the adult thing to do.

They really need to talk and just end it. I was happy to see that the two Mikes did just that.

JC

After reading all this I remembered that MJ has a tip jar on his site (on the right side, a bit further down). This legal threat seems quite frivolous but even the mention of a suit impacts on all involved. Strepitus Fori - the impact of the Courts - must not be underestimated.

I would not want MJ to give up his broadly supported endeavors, so a joint show of support I think is the least we can do.

Mark

"But, we're all big boys, and I've been doing this long enough that they know that professionals in this industry don't harbour grudges. If we did, nothing would get done" M.R.

Too bad Sean Reid doesn't adopt a similar policy. I once subscribed to his site, and enjoyed it. However, after reading on TOP that Sean was suing Mike Johnson, any thoughts of renewing this subscription just went the way of the wind.

Re disclosure, I am a physician. It would be considered UNTHINKABLE for any physician/researcher NOT to disclose any relationship with a company whose drug or device was being investigated.

I'm really quite disappointed in the whole TOP deal.

As someone once said, "When a rock is thrown into a pack of dogs, the one that yelps is the one that got hit".

This is a very common practise in Europe as well as anyone knowing medical doctors with a certain level of influence will be able to testify.

Whether this influences these doctors in prescribing one drug rather than another (or a generic one for that matter) is an open question, but the system has been in place for such a long time that those companies paying must see benefits, otherwise they simply would not be doing it. Drugs go through a very long approval process and the result of these clinical tests - after approval of course - is presented during these conferences (it is very different from a camera presentation, the doctors don't try the drugs on themselves... ). The doctors find it convenient to justify their participation in these events by saying that they want to check for themselves if the tests were conducted correctly, network with peers, exchange information that could benefit patients... and play golf in a dream location (they typically only discuss this part with other participants). What do they need to do to be invited to the next round and win back the golf crown lost last year? Again, I don't know.

On top of that, there is - at least in Europe - a widely shared impression that doctors are underpaid relative to the good they do to the society - when being compared to bankers for instance - and that such side benefits are in fact well deserved.

As far as the Leica product go, I don't believe that reviews will have any influence on purchasing decisions unless they unveil major problems. Most buyers of high end stuff, and Leica in particular, just know that you get what you pay for. So there is simply no reason why Leica would want or need to bride a reviewer, the only think they need is visibility to make sure that all the potential buyers are well aware that their products exist.

Cheers,
Bernard

This whole hullabaloo sent me straight to Mike's tip jar as a little pat on the back... Before I heard about the potential suit.

If the Reid suit is real, I'll be one of the first donors in the TOP Legal Defense fund. As a potential (well, used to be...) subscriber to Reid's site, all I can say is BAD MOVE for Sean!!! I mean seriously, grow up!!!

Hoo! Hoo! Bernard! The mind boggles at the thought of the required wedding ceremonies for prospective Leica reviewers!


I do hope all this settles down. These Leica product launches and reviews have been wonderful fun to watch and read and the commotion on the internet forums has been huge fun as well. Let's hope Mr. Reid relents.

And now, I see Michael has posted the factory tour ahead of schedule. Thanks, Michael!

Dave

Oops... bribe the bride...

Cheers,
Bernard

What I cannot fathom is the sense of entitlement visitors to a free website seem to espouse with such righteous indignation. Astonishing.

I equally cannot imagine Sean suing Michael or TOP over nasty forum posts by some other knob and dearly hope this is a rumour gone wild. If he is contemplating it, he is contemplating professional suicide within the webphoto community, for we will rise against him in support of Michael, who has given a great deal and asked very little in return over the years, and he will spend a lot of money chasing after dust. I say this as a lawyer of some qualification: no one ever gets satisfaction in a court of law for a personal slight. Get over it. Sean is a clever and talented man who needn't care what some nobody posted on a web forum.

- N.

Mike did promote to comment to "featured comment" status. That puts it on the main page with the actual post. It could be interpreted as a kind of a tacit endorsement of the comment. Perhaps Mr. Johnston should consider adding a stock disclaimer to the featured comments.

It's not a slippery slope at all...either you trust in the integrity of the people you "listen to" or you don't. Do you trust Michael to say what he really thinks? If so, any sort of "disclosure" is meaningless...it won't "buy" him more integrity in the event you are questioning his honesty and it won't expose him as a fraud.

Fact is, most people who have never been in Michael's position simply couldn't understand Michael's circumstances...if you honestly thin k he needs to tell you who bought a plane ticket to Germany to see the new cameras is already hopelessly clueless.

The fact one pundit is threatening to sue another pundit is an example of the fundamental trust...

BTW, if Michael CHARGED you you that review on the Leicas, I might (might) have some sort of sympathy in your demand for disclosure but personally, I think you are entitled ONLY to a full refund on the purchase price of that review!!!

What, it didn't cost you anything? Ok, then explain to me EXACTLY why you have the right to ask/demand ANYTHING from Michael?

Mike has a history of featuring comments on both sides of any issue, the fact that he features a comment doesn't mean it's an endorsement. And even if it did, there's some merit to what French said and almost zero chance that Reid will be able to successfully sue over this.

If Reid is really concerned about damage to his reputation, this has to be one of the dumbest moves ever. Maybe he underestimates just how much more popular and well-liked Mike is than he.

This is a very common practise in Europe as well as anyone knowing medical doctors with a certain level of influence will be able to testify.
*********
There is all kinds of "nasty" stuff that goes on with Pharm. Companies. One that has gotten recent attention is for the Drug Company to "ghost" write a "research" paper about one of their products and then pay a medical researcher to be the "author" of the publication.

I rely on "Mikes" opinion and reviews and have no doubts about his integrity. I guess that I am so used to reading disclosure statements that it seems to be part of a "review". Does such a statement stop a person who signs his name to bad or a paid for result? Probably not. But full disclosure only reinforces the integrity of the report, IMO especially for people who are new readers.

Steve

Well... how about you explain to me EXACTLY where I asked/demanded ANYTHING from Michael or questioned his honesty? Perhaps you have a different poster in mind?


I must admit you totally lost me with this one.

I have not read any of the stuff under discussion and neither do I intend to do so. I don't subscribe, in monetary terms, to any sites because that would be the very thing to make me doubtful about information received from the source. In fact, I have long abandoned other 'chat shows' because, ultimately, they turn out to bore the hell out of me. These past couple of years I spend my time with two sets of online people: LuLa and a small, private site of around six or seven - depends on activity - professional shooters, all of us offshoots of another so-called pro site that turned out anything but.

So what's my point?

Simply, that Schewe is right: people who don't need the graft tend not to take it (even though the offers do come - perhaps because of their position of independence, which might be construed as being a threat). Michael's independence gives him gravitas, as, of course, does his past and present photographic life. Further, and as part of the same thing, really, there is a lot of technical information available here - I have been given it, gratis, on several occassions, for which thanks, and as most of whatever I know about digital has come from here and the other site I visit, it feels like a sort of comfort zone, as it were. Also keeps one's feet on the ground. Unfortunately.

I don't think our host need fear for his reputation.

Rob C

I personally do not fear that Michael would be "bribed" by flight ticket. Especially how honest he been in the M8 review I wouldnt fear that he would change his bias.

Every reviewer has a bias, but that I always liked about Michaels review is that he is honest. He got thru to me as a reader his views. I think he write good as reviewer and has more journalist way of writing than a gearhead type. I always got the impression that Michael isnt afraid off writing the bad and good about things as he has nothing personal to lose on that.

When the M8 was first released I bought one. I had read Michael's review and on the strength of my trust of his opinion, and 30 years of using M cameras I broke my own rule of never buy version one of anything. When the IR issues surfaced, I posted a really angry post here thinking that I had been sandbagged by Michael who had seen the issue and not written about it due to assurances from Leica that it would be addressed. Several weeks later when I leaned all the facts, I apologized, publicly, to Michael for my unkind remarks. His response then, and in the intervening years has, I believe been mature, honest and open. I continue to read, enjoy and trust what Michael has to say. It looks to me as if Leica has gotten their “ducks in a row” and the M9 a camera worthy of consideration. Anyone who thinks Michael could be bought for a plane ticket and some German sausage has not been paying attention.

Well, for starters because Michael puts publicly and purposefully puts himself in the position of authority, and with that responsibility comes certain consequences. One of those is that people are going to ask him questions. If Michael, or any other person in his position, is seriously upset about being asked about ethical considerations, then it's an easy fix, isn't it.

However, Micheal's responses were reasoned and mature (unlike yours, Schewe), so I very much doubt if he's all that upset.

Yz know, Schewe, some people around here like to think your just overly direct in your posts. I think you're just an ass. A baby with a temper tantrum problem. Grow up for crying out loud.

How many times do I have to repeat – it was schnitzel, not sausage.

No one can buy me for a sausage. But, a good Wiener Schnitzel, now that's another story.

Michael

Chuck you're not acting better than what you are describing I mean why are you doing this? Do you want this thread to literally explode? Who would benefit from that? Nobody.

Not only Michael, but everybody has responsibility, especially in such threads.

Nothing bad against you, just saying.


Cheers

Christian

Now everybody calm down! It's schnitzel, not sausage! And if one more person calls it sausage, Michael may have to retaliate by opening a new forum on the Sausage vs Schnitzel wars. 

I don't want to single out any countries or regions ... but the 'ethics' of journalism are parochial and vary widely across the globe.

There are places where a press release or a press package usually (always) contains a package of cold, hard cash.

Because bullies need to be called out, and Schewe is a bully.

And so do idiots! (not that you are an idiot, Chuck)

Jeff is the perfect man for the job ... he knows WTF he is talking about, doesn't give a rat's a$$ what anyone thinks and is friends with management.

Anyone who feels 'bullied' by a posting on an internet forum has never been bullied.

Bullies use fear ... can anyone actually claim Jeff scares them? Please.

Bullies use intimidation, and every time Schewe reads a post he disagrees with he lashes out at the poster in such a way that they may be reluctant to post in the future. That is a bully. "Friends with management" or not, the fact that many of you defend him is ridiculous. Not that your ridiculous, Jeremy

Ah, yes... those dark, remote corners of our planet, with ugly totalitarian regimes, corrupt press and judiciary.... sure, who would expect anything better from them. You certainly could not have in mind the US Department of Defense, which, under Donald Rumsfeld, had a program (and budget) to pay journalists across the globe for favorable articles about US policies?