Whats your thoughts

[Centercut]

Have you considered whether it might be worthwhile to go back to drop-shipping, and just not selling to YouTube reviewers Mike?

I've never sold one to a YouTube reviewer. I think I got confused over the topic. Most of my sales are to horse ranchers east of San Diego in areas like Alpine and Descanso... I like knowing that the gun I sold shoots as its supposed to, no guessing or hoping...

 

[JimD]

I guarantee you that the Avenger reviewed on AEAC was carefully selected for his review. I like mine but it is pellet fussy (his was not), had a bad trigger (his did not) and is less accurate than he shows for his. I think the higher variability in less expensive guns makes reviews of "the good ones" a bit deceptive. But unless the reviewer tells you they just ordered it up with their own money, it is a pretty sure thing they got a carefully selected/prepped gun. I don't think that makes the reviews useless but I don't expect to get exactly what they got either. I don't own any high end guns but I suspect they have less variability so that this factor would be less for them.

 

[Long_Gun_Dallas]

Of course they get cherry picked hardware. Good example would be the neutron star on Steve's channel. Mine woukdnt shoot anything for anything. Typical hatsan. Some shoot well, some don't, about half of them break or have issues. Same goes for a lot of the Turkish guns. There is always a barrel lottery with those. Some shoot well, some don't. Most of the barrels look like they shouldn't shoot well.

 

[dgeesaman]

Well if I’m at the factory and I’m choosing an early unit to send to a key influencer I would certainly test it a little more and make sure the stock isn’t the plainest piece of wood.

Now up the stakes a bunch and suddenly the key reviewer gets a hand selected example from maybe a dozen on hand in the factory because, well, it’d be bad business not to.

If this sounds too cynical, it shouldn’t be.

I don’t want to imply the influencer/reviewers get to test things we don’t get to buy.

What I do believe is the examples they are given to test are double checked and better than average. Nothing we can’t have also but we need to be very lucky.

 

[Rawroots]

I guarantee you that the Avenger reviewed on AEAC was carefully selected for his review. I like mine but it is pellet fussy (his was not), had a bad trigger (his did not) and is less accurate than he shows for his. I think the higher variability in less expensive guns makes reviews of "the good ones" a bit deceptive. But unless the reviewer tells you they just ordered it up with their own money, it is a pretty sure thing they got a carefully selected/prepped gun. I don't think that makes the reviews useless but I don't expect to get exactly what they got either. I don't own any high end guns but I suspect they have less variability so that this factor would be less for them.

Good reply and thoughts

 

[Chukar60]

Is there something wrong with a manufacturer putting their best for forward?
Never forget most, almost all reviews are promotional in nature and not completely objective. Same holds true for people who review PB’s and archery equipment, etc.
When you are watching a review on YT it is a promotional production and not meant to be objective. They may make it appear objective but the aren’t.
I see no issue with it at all. I have never seen one review on a major brand, expensive or cheap where they stated this is a totally non biased review of AirGun XYZ.
It is the internet and all is taken with a large dose of salt.