You're MISSING This Laser Resource! (seriously!) (feat. Katie Devlin) 

Long story short, they don't offer any way to compensate creators for their time spent producing content about their product. While we are massively supported by the LMA, we do not generate enough revenue to spend time on reviews for other companies that do not assist in continuing operations. Even FREE lasers are a massive tax liability and if obtaining equipment for review can't at the very least pay for itself it ends up being a deficit to me and the team when we could be working on other things that ultimately we find more valuable for, and less expensive for - our community. Hope that helps. -A

@@LaserEverything So.....is there a single RU-vidr who actually paid for their own laser? Obviously, I would *NEVER* take a laser product "review" seriously because....as you clearly state above....you will all only do "reviews" if they're profitable....and also why 100% of "reviews" on RU-vid are positive. You will never...ever...see a negative laser review on RU-vid. But I can't help but notice how every youtuber in this space owns MULTIPLE lasers....none of which they seemed to actually paid for themselves.

We aren't reviewing pizza places around town. Lasers are thousands and thousands of dollars. Collecting them like pokemon cards to review by way of purchasing every one of them simply isn't feasible. Our workshops from all of our creators represent a mix of both lasers supplied for review as well as purchased with our own money. We disclose which is which at the beginning of anything presented as a review. That disclosure is the first thing presented to the audience before the body of the review begins. Our reviews are typically favorable because we make active choices to engage with companies we believe offer quality products to point people in the right direction. We use our discretion during the selection process to choose to work with well known and reputable companies to give the viewers the best possible chance of finding a quality product. The economics you're suggesting simply aren't feasible for a business that operates on the basis of providing content about lasers. For further information you can reference our review ethics statement here which makes our relationship with vendors crystal clear: www.lasereverything.net/ethics.html

​@@johnanthony9923Then don't consume that kind of review content. This isn't a review and LE hasn't posted a review of a machine in several months. I watch a lot of other laser creators and very rarely see people post reviews without disclosing in the intro of the video that they received a machine in exchange for review. If you don't want to watch a review video like that, you don't have to. Just skip that video when you hear the disclosure (or skip video reviews all together).

​@@johnanthony9923 There's a lot to unwrap here, but I think you're either thoroughly misinformed about this community and the creators here, misinformed about the cost of accepting a "free" machine, and either taking some assumptions or just being a troll or offended brand loyalist. Maybe some combination, but I hope this info helps. Unwrapping what you said here, yes, there are youtubers/content creators who don't follow the rules, both morally and legally. Legally, you are supposed to disclose anytime something is sent free of charge. You are also supposed to plainly and clearly note anytime something is an affiliate link (where the creator may receive a commission). Also a pretty good idea to disclose if you have a direct affiliation, such as being an employee of a company you are doing coverage of, or if you have a family member who works there, or is an owner, whatever. There's a lot more that falls into this category, but I feel like most people get the point. As humans, we become weary of repeat instances of things, patterns of findings, and we want others to treat us in good faith and to not be tricked, or feel like we're being tricked. Golden rule, again, you get the point. As an online community (internet wide I mean), we've caught and see regularly creators who don't follow these rules. They don't disclose affiliate links, associations to a company, or disclosing they received an item without paying, or other information comes out that makes it feel like maybe we've been taken advantage of as a consumer. They've addressed this in their livestreams a lot. They disclose always when something is sent to them, they note/disclose affiliate links to give viewers the option to support them or can bypass that and seek it out on their own if they are against that. And in addition to being on the up and up about all that, they also have a literal review agreement posted on their website for public viewing, where any vendor/brand who wants to send them something must agree to it before they will accept their product. That agreement paraphrased (i've read it, have you?), says that they do not accept any obligation, and will solely opt to share or not share a video or other media for any reason. In other words, you can send them what you like if they accept it, but they don't have to waste their time with it if they feel the community won't get value from it, or they think it sucks poop. When they do cover something as a review, they will say what they feel, and not read some crap off an advertisement page. If they have negative feedback, it's shared. There is an opportunity cost that we as humans live by, and it revolves around time. They can't spend their time on something that will have negative value, its unsustainable and they won't last very long. If it at least covers the cost of the opportunity or comes close, that's at least something to factor and makes it possible to cover the cost of doing that content. Will they still speak their mind about it, based on their past content of doing so, I believe they would. That brings me to the next point you noted. He never said profitable. If a machine adds 8, 10, or 12 thousand dollars onto your tax liability for the year (because yes, "free" items count as income on the bottom line of your taxes you pay federally, and maybe also state, if your state has income tax, go talk to a tax professional). So, if they are paying thousands to just accept something, then spend time testing, making a structured outline, filming, editing, and then answering questions about something, that's all an investment into something on their behalf. Considering its not their company to try and sell product for, as long as they properly disclose it, I feel that its pretty damn fair they hope to get a commission for a sale, again, if they follow the rules. Otherwise, they just paid thousands to pay an employee to spend countless hours testing, outlining, filming, and editing a video, (not even counting the cost in the thousands to just accept the machine) where they might get 12 bucks in ad revenue from youtube back. In most cases when you see what the going commission rate is, they are probably lucky if it just covers even just the tax liability in the long term. Free isn't free, at least not in the land of the free for those who pay their taxes. Regarding the "100% of reviews on youtube are positive" thing. Going back to tax liability and ethics, they've been pretty clear here. Not everyone follows the rules, so they can only speak for themselves, but yea, if it costs them too much to justify covering a machine, I think its pretty reasonable for them not to. Nobody has an endless supply of money and time, and there is an opportunity cost for everything. They've discussed how frequently they turn down products simply to not accept the tax liability for something they likely won't make a video about, whether its because they don't like the product or because they don't feel their viewers will. There are creators out there who have been caught working with companies after doing undisclosed content, so do I blame you for being weary? Hell nah. These guys followed the rules, and are incredibly open and public about their policies and how they handle things. Their actions say more than enough, they cover what they can afford to without taking on liabilities they can't justify, and they are ethically forward in how they do so. Now, have other creators been caught being walking billboards and refusing to say a single negative thing about a brand who sent them some product? Absolutely. They've already proven they aren't afraid to share negative feedback, but in addition, they aren't going to waste their time if all of the feedback is just negative. That's just a product bashing, and nobody cares to see that. It's a waste of viewers time, it's a waste of their time, and its a waste of money. So focusing on products that at least have value isn't really a bad thing for legit creators to do either. The walking billboards are far and away more bluntly "no constructive criticism, it's perfect", and you'll be able to notice the difference if you are attentive. Also to note, just because they opt not to cover something, doesn't mean it's a bad product. If they can't afford or justify the expected expense and time investment, then why twist an arm and act a fool? So, TLDR, does what you say apply to some channels (even outside the laser space)? Absolutely. But its an incredibly poor take, misread and entirely inaccurate for the people who run this channel, and what seems like your attempted twist in the narrative is a slight against them and to the people in the community who also offer their time to help others. I hope your day gets better.