When you buy something, do you have the habit of watching review articles, videos or user reviews? The e-commerce era allows us to access more types and brands of goods, but also makes many people suffer from the "choice difficulty", how to choose the right product is indeed a headache.
Moreover, some fake and inferior products are also sold to thousands of households through e-commerce platforms, and sometimes our needs are not even to buy "easy to use" products, but as long as they are "non-toxic". Therefore, under the impetus of related needs, many evaluation media have come into being, and they have publicized that they will evaluate and test common daily necessities for everyone in a fair attitude to help everyone avoid pitfalls.
From a consumer's point of view, for these evaluation agencies, public accounts or UP owners still have a lot of good feelings, because they can indeed help us avoid a lot of inferior products, of which Xiao Lei is most familiar with the "Dad Review" of B station, of course, some readers and friends may know him on other video platforms such as Douyin. As the "shoulder handle" of the daily necessities evaluation industry, the full-platform fans of Dad's evaluation are less than 10 million, and they are also known for not receiving sponsorship and no fees.
(Image source: Zhihu)
However, few evaluation media can really stand up to scrutiny, dad evaluation is naturally no exception, as early as a few years ago, some industry insiders and evaluation agencies accused dad evaluation data and information is untrue, there is a misleading situation of consumers. Among them, the accusation of the little red flower evaluation is the most serious, the media re-tested a number of products that Dad has evaluated, and compared with the national standard, the results found a number of false data and descriptions.
For a evaluation agency known for its fairness, rigor and actual measurement, such accusations obviously need to be treated with caution, and as the controversy intensified, the final dad evaluation sued the "Little Red Flower Evaluation" in court and claimed 4 million. In addition, platforms such as Douyin have also begun to remove multiple videos of "Little Red Flower Evaluation", and netizens are also divided into two factions, one supports the Small Red Flower Evaluation "cracking down on counterfeiting", and the other supports the Father's Evaluation, believing that competitors want to bring down the industry boss and take the position themselves.
I think that many readers should be curious, in the end is the little red flower evaluation wants to take the position, smear the father evaluation, or the father evaluation does have a situation where the data is untrue? Now the answer comes, after more than half a year of trial, the court gave a first-instance judgment on February 5, and then the Little Red Book Evaluation immediately uploaded the full text of the judgment on major social platforms and video platforms.
The judgment involves many cases and contents, so Xiao Lei will not repeat too much here, directly saying the result: the court's first-instance judgment rejected the claim for dad's evaluation, and the judge believed that the false publicity of dad's evaluation stated in the video by Xiaohonghua evaluation, as well as the questioning of some of the detection methods and sampling methods of dad's evaluation, have sufficient basis, so it does not constitute a commercial denigration, but only for some of the "inappropriate remarks" in the small red flower evaluation video, asking it to apologize for the father evaluation.
The issuance of the judgment is obviously a fact that the previous accusations of the Little Red Flower Evaluation are facts, not fabricated out of thin air, and for this judgment, as of the time of Xiao Lei's writing, the father evaluation still has not responded. On the one hand, the weibo fans of 3 million+ industry bigwig dad evaluation, on the other hand is the number of fans only 22,000 small red flower evaluation (data at the time of writing), for the father review, not responding may be the best way to deal with.
Dad reviews really overturned?
After the verdict came down, many netizens who originally supported the evaluation of the small red flower said bluntly: "The father evaluation really overturned", the father evaluation overturned or not, Xiao Lei did not make a conclusion here, but before the small red flower evaluation, there were already relevant industry insiders who believed that the professionalism of the father evaluation was insufficient, and there was a situation of misleading consumers.
For example, in a review of baby hand and mouth wipes released by Dad Review, some insiders pointed out many of the problems, such as in the alcohol content test column, a number of well-known brands have detected that the product contains trace amounts of alcohol, giving people a feeling that these brands of products have problems.
However, industry insiders then pointed out that according to the relevant provisions of the state, the detection limit of ethanol (alcohol) is 10ppm, the corresponding minimum quantitative limit is 33ppm, and the ethanol quantitative value of some of these wipes is only 31 and 30ppm, which is simply lower than the minimum detection quantitative limit of the substance, which is generally classified as sample pollution or other reasons in the analysis, and is generally not included in the ingredient list.
On the other hand, industry insiders also questioned that the test fee and verification fee of Dad's evaluation were not enough to complete all the tests described in his report, and believed that some of the test results and reports may be untrue. In addition, there are also problems of standard cognition errors, such as the national standard of ordinary infant wet wipes microbial limit standard is the total number of bacterial colonies ≤ 200CFU/g, the total number of fungal colonies ≤ 100cCFUg, and dad evaluation is mistaken for the total number of standard bacterial colonies ≤ 20CFU/g, which is actually the national standard for sanitary wipes with sterilization function.
It stands to reason that the quality of products required according to stricter standards is beneficial to consumers, but in the category of baby hand and mouth wipes, most products are known to be natural and non-irritating, and most of the bactericidal ingredients are chemical and cause irritation to the skin, such as our most common 75% concentration of alcohol. Therefore, in the category of baby hand-to-mouth wipes, the standard identification of the total number of bacterial colonies will be lower than that of disinfectant wipes, and the total number of bacterial colonies within the national standard range will basically not affect the health of users.
If you don't even know the implementation standards of the product, you can make a conclusion on the quality of the report, which obviously violates the principle of fairness and rigor, and it is difficult to convince people, and it also exposes the lack of professionalism in the father's evaluation. Of course, it is difficult to ask a review media to be proficient in the standards of various industries, but it can still be solved by hiring temporary consultants and other means, rather than making up its mind about industry products in an imprecise manner.
In addition, Dad Review is also suspected of revising the pending conclusion to a clear conclusion in the article, misleading consumers into believing that benzalkyl chloride is a substance that interferes with endocrine. After investigation, the industry found that benzalkloramine was only included in the watch list, not the relevant organizations have a solid conclusion, which is obviously inconsistent with the statement of the article itself.
(Image source: Internet)
Judging from the results, this baby hand-and-mouth wipes review has problems in many places, although it does not mean that the results of the review are completely untrustworthy, but at least in terms of credibility, it is a sharp drop. Moreover, at the same time, let everyone think about the question, that is, will there be similar misleading and erroneous data in other reviews? For the average reader, it is clear that most people do not have enough expertise to spot possible errors.
If a well-known professional review media is unfair in its evaluation results, can consumers continue to believe their evaluation reports? After reading the above content of Xiao Lei, perhaps readers and friends will feel that the father's evaluation is no longer credible, just another evaluation media corroded by the power of capital, but this is not Xiao Lei's original intention.
It is true that Dad's review is indeed unfair in some videos, there are data errors, untrue data and other issues, but we must also see some of the industry changes brought about by its many reviews, such as making everyone aware of the possible harm of some low-cost products, and some commonplace daily necessities, there may be problems.
For example, the earliest evaluation of the "student textbook bag book cover" in the dad review, after attracting the majority of media reports and tracking, finally prompted the newly promulgated "general requirements for the safety of student supplies", the new requirements for "phthalene", non-compliant book cover products have gradually withdrawn from the market.
Xiao Lei feels that we need to look at Dad's evaluation dialectically, and we can't completely deny some articles because they are untrue, nor can we allow others to question them because some of his articles have brought good changes to the market. However, when Xiao Lei collected relevant information, he still found that many netizens actually could not do the above two points, and the non-black and white diode netizens were not in the minority, which was really regrettable.
Why do the review media repeatedly overturn?
Reviews have always been one of the most expensive and time-consuming and content creation projects, and both the cost of product and testing are much higher than ordinary product reports. Moreover, once the core interests of industry manufacturers are touched, it will also lead to the encirclement and smear of capital, and if there is not enough capital and strength to confront, it often ends with media deletion and apology.
Moreover, even if a review media can maintain independence and impartiality in the initial and initial stages, it will face various problems in the process of expansion, and even if the founder maintains the original intention, it is difficult to ensure that new employees can have the same consciousness. In this case, unless the media still maintains the original small scale and simply accepts audience donations and platform advertising shares, it is difficult to ensure the purity of the content.
At least in China, few large video media can survive without relying on the sponsorship or advertising investment of manufacturers, because the simple video platform sharing is not enough to support the daily operation of the team. In the case of the same number of plays, the advertising share of Station B may only be one-tenth of the Share of YouTube ads, which cannot meet the operating costs of the team.
Is there really no other way to make a profit other than vendor sponsorship? The evaluation media will inevitably be stained with "copper smell"? Not always, there are still some media that are exploring new paths, such as dad reviews dare to claim that there is no "right meal", that is, their main profit comes from their own online mall, through the distribution of products that have achieved excellent test results to make a profit.
However, this approach raises another question: how to ensure that the products on the shelves are not working with the manufacturer? Is there a plan to put the product on the shelves first, or is there a result of the evaluation before seeking distribution of the product? In fact, after the opening of the online mall, many netizens have bluntly said that "finally entered the mode of carrying goods, you can take it off".
It can be said that unless the items sold in the mall are completely incompatible with the main content of the review, it will bring similar doubts, so how to solve it? One way is to sell brand peripherals, essentially another type of fan donation, and another way is to make the selection process completely transparent and test the products sold with stricter standards.
On the other hand, if you want not to roll over, Dad's evaluation also needs to further refine the testing process and detailed rules, not only to prevent the occurrence of common sense errors, but also to prevent misleading consumers in professional knowledge, otherwise sooner or later the previous overturning scene will be repeated.
Of course, Xiao Lei is not in the evaluation of the father, wrong is wrong, dare to recognize their mistakes, and correct for related problems is an excellent evaluation of the media should be the attitude, blindly escape, ignore or refute, will only let more netizens feel disappointed.
A truly authoritative evaluation media is not based on "never making mistakes", after all, as the saying goes: people are not sages and sages can be blameless, but as long as they can take the initiative to find problems and take the initiative to correct them, then as an audience, you will still recognize you.