4 ms·

I think you misread this sentence: > In it, the company claims that The Wirecutter initially picked NextDesk as an editorial recommendation but later downgrade

I think you misread this sentence: > In it, the company claims that The Wirecutter initially picked NextDesk as an editorial recommendation but later downgraded the recommendation after NextDesk declined to set up an affiliate-revenue agreement. These are NextDesk's "claims". Wirecutter does not acknowledge them. According to Wirecutter this is what happened: > Without the editorial team’s knowledge, NextDesk and our business team exchanged communications about setting up an affiliate agreement, and ultimately NextDesk declined to do so. That fact was never communicated to our editorial team until NextDesk itself made it known to them by email in November 2015, long after the new pick had been made. Update: I'm not saying that I'm buying it; just clarifying their response.

Retric 6y ago
> That fact was never communicated to our editorial team until That’s a overly specific denial, their saying the editorial team wasn’t informed. However, it doesn’t actually mean the events where unrelated, as long as the editorial team assumes no agreement was reached at which point nothing needs to be communicated. If they had actually chosen a new pick before the deal was canceled they would have said that. Instead they refer to internal emails rather than the actual timing of the events. Which where #1 Pick, #2 request for a kickback, #3 no agreement reached, #4 new pick. They don’t even deny the actual content of the emails posted.
buran77 6y ago
Officially Wirecutter functions based on affiliate links and kickbacks and the reviewing staff isn't informed of this to maintain a separation. But this is a very weak defense. It's still a massive coincidence and obvious candidate for a conflict of interest when a product gets downgraded just as the kickback deal falls through. Looking at the email exchanges I can't honestly think this is a coincidence. I've been shaken down before (unrelated to this topic) and that's exactly how it looked. My own experience going through Wirecutter's reviews kind of supports the idea that it's "pay to win".

Retric 6y ago

> That fact was never communicated to our editorial team until That’s a overly specific denial, their saying the editorial team wasn’t informed. However, it doesn’t actually mean the events where unrelated, as long as the editorial team assumes no agreement was reached at which point nothing needs to be communicated. If they had actually chosen a new pick before the deal was canceled they would have said that. Instead they refer to internal emails rather than the actual timing of the events. Which where #1 Pick, #2 request for a kickback, #3 no agreement reached, #4 new pick. They don’t even deny the actual content of the emails posted.

buran77 6y ago

Officially Wirecutter functions based on affiliate links and kickbacks and the reviewing staff isn't informed of this to maintain a separation. But this is a very weak defense. It's still a massive coincidence and obvious candidate for a conflict of interest when a product gets downgraded just as the kickback deal falls through. Looking at the email exchanges I can't honestly think this is a coincidence. I've been shaken down before (unrelated to this topic) and that's exactly how it looked. My own experience going through Wirecutter's reviews kind of supports the idea that it's "pay to win".