It's a Gift... Errr // SilentiumPC Fera 5 Dual Fan CPU Cooler review

This was a 14 minute 30 second video, before someone stuck their foot in and caused a "situation"! Now it's a 15 minute review with a whole lot of explaining because of the "situation". Good luck everyone!
As a final aside, the whole point about drawing so much attention to the "situation" is to be honest. With any luck, some of that rubs off on you, and we can unite against this kind of behaviour so this doesn't become common (or becomes less common...).
Amazon Associate Links (I earn via purchases through these links):
SilentiumPC Fera 5 Dual Fan - amzn.to/3AfLw4r
Arctic Freezer 34 eSports DUO - amzn.to/2VzMM3l
Chapters:
00:00 - Overview
01:45 - The Situation
19:02 - (Skip) Continue Overview
24:22 - Installation
25:24 - Thermal Paste Application(s)
27:38 - Performance (TLDR)
28:29 - Conclusion
Music Credits:
"Soaring" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License
creativecommons.org/licenses/b...
"District Four" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License
creativecommons.org/licenses/b...
Tags:
SilentiumPC Review, Fera 5 Dual Fan Review, Fera 5 Review, SilentiumPC Fera 5 Dual Fan Review, SilentiumPC Performance, Fera 5 Dual Fan Performance, Fera 5 Performance, SilentiumPC, Fera 5 Dual Fan, Fera 5, SilentiumPC Fera 5 Dual Fan, Arctic Freezer 34, Arctic Freezer 34 eSports Duo, Best CPU Cooler, Best CPU Cooler 2021, CPU Cooler 2021, Best Budget CPU Cooler, Best Cheap CPU Cooler, Best Cheap CPU Cooler 2021, It's a Gift... Errr // SilentiumPC Fera 5 Dual Fan CPU Cooler review
#SilentiumPC
#Fera5

[@AVTechy]

Man this review turned into a nightmare. Without spoilers for those yet to watch "The Situation" bit, it really sucks that this happened. And I'n sure there's some sort of way to move past it. But from my perspective, the best way to ensure there's no 'funny business' is to part ways. I don't want this kind of behaviours to stain the clean sheet of the channel, nor will I allow it. Let me know, what would you have done in this situation?

[@shaneeslick]

G'day AV, I was on the borderline of not sure why you got the gift, whether it was a 'Sorry' or "Oh Shit, what can we do so there is nothing bad in the review?' but after your reveal at 17:40 I think you did the right thing by exposing the situation, just like Tim, Steve & Teddy Jr. at Hardware Unboxed have done when Companies cross the line to prevent Bad Comments or Direct the Narrative from Reviewers, While Mistakes are Frustrating for Reviewers & Purchasers they are understandable & how the Company reacts to rectify the situation I think is More Important, The recent Dead EVGA RTX3000 GPUs being replaced Under Warranty for playing New World is a Great Example of how to resole a Bad Situation Properly, Like HUB & GN this is why I respect your opinions in your reviews 🥰 Ps I also find this 'Gift Basket' a worry if they send them to purchasers that have a similar problem, if they send a bottle of Alcohol to someone under 'Legal Drinking Age' that could be even worse than what has happened here

[@qT_p13]

I am South American and maybe i don't understand UK vs Polish (or European in general) customs, but I think you over-reacted. It seems a genuine apology really, and even though i understand where you are coming from, this looks in fact like a "festive" gift - it was literally sweets and games to bring fun into your life! They probably feel bad that you didn't receive all the required parts for your review, as opposed to buttering you up so you wouldn't post something negative. Mind you i don't think you are wrong, as it is unethical. But at the same time, maybe some more emails with the company, a discussion about the implications of the gift...basically more communication between parties may have been the better approach. Then depending on how that turned out, rather than an on-screen rant, add in a shorter more "civil" disclaimer about the entire saga. I understand emotions would have been heavy at the time, and KZbin consistency is important for your channel and must be considered as well, but perhaps taking some more time to cool down before posting would have been better. That said it seems a very decent cooler.

[@shaneeslick]

What annoyed me about them sending the 'Gift' making it seem like a bribe was that at 17:40 AV says in an email they asked him not to mention the mistake

[@shredman59]

Looks like a good product. I actually like the way it looks and the quiet performance is great for a great price. As far as the gift, I think it was some employees trying to be genuinely nice for taking so long to get you the correct parts. It wasn't excessive and it was personal, ie...candies and liquor. Personally I didn't find it offensive and didn't come across as a "bribe" to me. Just a sorry for the inconvenience gesture. Of course, you disclosing that they sent it is great and appropriate, but for me it doesn't reflect poorly on Silentium.

[@sgcs]

Hey, Wedel is a polish sweets brand so yeah not associated with SPC. 16% means 16% of alcohol. Honestly I don't really see any issues with the gift pack, it could be because you are among the only English reviewers of SilentiumPC products. I don't know. Honestly I don't really see any issues with the gift pack.

[@sgcs]

IMO you are a bit overreacting. We polish people like to gift stuff to others.

[@AVTechy]

Just out of curiosity, how much have you heard about the term 'conflict of interest'? To receive a gift encourages a positive feeling that isn't generated by the product, which could influence me to reflect more positively about the product based on a gift pack, which would drive more sales of the product if I recommend it and people buy it. It's a form of manipulation that's not relevant to the main topic, which can have influence, so shouldn't be included IMO. I see the point about it being a gift pack that might not be related to the issue I encountered, but that's a strong coincidence it arrives in the same box as the fix to a problem, and after I was asked not to mention the missing clips.

[@sgcs]

@@AVTechy I understand your point. However I still think it's a bit of an overreaction given all it was some sweets, chocolate (including one that's out of date which I find funny, maybe postal service issue?) and polish alcohol (I would get rid of that lol).

[@sgcs]

Also adding onto the performance, a polish tester called blackwhite did some tests with an overclocked Ryzen 7 1700 (It was a heavy overclock, but I can't quite remember it) and it beat a bunch of other coolers (including SPC ones) and the only cooler that was slightly ahead of it was the Noctua NH-D15.

[@AVTechy]

So for you, a manufacturer giving gifts whenever problems are found with their hardware is acceptable? Just want to clarify this. Would it be acceptable if next time it was a code for a $20 game, then a $40 game, then a $60 game. At what point is it not acceptable?

[@Manu-yv1jt]

This is a normal buisnes gift as a apology, nothing more. This is normal in the buisnes world and not a goldbar.

[@AVTechy]

In general business, I can see this being a non issue. Heck I know plenty of colleagues who have been to drinks with business partners. But for a reviewer that should be as impartial as possible, it starts to sway the scales. Reviewers aren't a direct part of the marketing division, they should remain as separated as possible from the people they're critiquing. A big issue I have is they wouldn't do this for a normal customer. So why should I get a gift box for missing clips when you wouldn't? It's just missing clips, why does that deserve a gift box?

[@Manu-yv1jt]

@@AVTechy I see your point (by the way I think it is great from you that you respont to every comment on your videos and you are making great videos) and I agree that a reviewer should be total independent from the company who is making the product.

[@techgeek7173]

IMO you're overreacting a lot. Okay, they did F it up with that mounting system, but come on, they send it to you (it was propably delivery problem, it's still shipping from Poland to UK) with a small gift as an apologize for wasting your time and thanks for telling them that. And you made a whole drama over it. Half of your video is about that. Not to mention that you as a PROFESSIONAL should first talk with them about it instead of doing... this. I like your videos a lot and i never thought you will make something like this. To be honest - if someone not related with your channel will see this video, i'll not be surprised if that person have in mind something like "damn, someone paid him to do that? it's just a gift...". If any company would REALLY bribe you, it will be a custom text on this card or via e-mails/phone calls But still it's only my opinion

[@shaneeslick]

I don't know if you missed it but what annoyed me about them sending the 'Gift' & making it seem like a bribe was that at 17:40 AV says in an email they asked him not to mention the mistake

[@techgeek7173]

@@shaneeslick ofc i get that point, that single part suck a lot and annoyed me too.

[@AVTechy]

Errgh, this was going to be a simple reply, but the situation is too complex so it turned into something bigger. Don't take any of this personally, but my response is in depth, and I think there's a huge disconnect between KZbin reviewers, and the level of ethics and journalistic integrity they and their viewers should hold them to. You seem to agree that the email asking me not to mention the issue sucked a lot, but following that up with a gift pack isn't an issue? I don't think you see the trend in the potential to steer the situation to the benefit of the company. "Please don't mention it", also, "here's some chocolate, alcohol, hope you feel better about the situation"... seems a little fishy to me. But hey, I'm sure there's no link to the two... it's not like it could be a compounding effort to influence the outcome of the video. Even if the gift box wasn't intended as a steer of the content, based on how many people think it's fine to receive gifts, it's highly likely many reviewers think the same, and don't consider the good feeling they get from the gifts and how that can inadvertently change the review. "Bad" becomes "not a big deal", "not a big deal" becomes "not a problem", "not a problem" becomes "not mentioned at all", and "good" becomes "really good" without necessarily being aware of it. Even worse, some might actively improve the review to get more from the company, and others might make the review harsher to counteract the gifts which is bad. I didn't agree with all Totalbiscuit's points of view, but he thought an awful lot about this sort of thing, and all the ramifications of small gifts to press trips and how they influence the reviewer and ultimately the final piece of content. Making a whole drama about it... Well to be fair, I stated right at the start if you don't care about this sort of thing, use the chapter I provided to skip it (skip the whole thing). If you don't care, don't watch it. But I don't accept watching it and complaining about it. I provided the tools to skip it, it's up to the viewer to use their nugget to avoid it of they want to. You can use the word professional against me here, sure. But I'd say someone cutting ties with a company that's facilitating conflicts of interest is a move that positions integrity above free stuff and access. It's a "pro consumer" move, not a "self interest" move. Frankly this stuff seems to be more self damaging since people don't like other people being negative about brands they like. You say you like my videos and thought I'd never make something of this, but have you watched my videos? I complain about all sorts of little things. You think I'd skip over something like this? A conflict of interest problem? Did you see my Metallic Gear video about the Neo Qube being a near straight copy of the O11 Dynamic? I'm a person of principles. And if something smells fishy, looks fishy, and tastes fishy, I'm going to say it's fishy. And if the smell of fish starts affecting my principles, I'm going to start shouting about the smell of fish. Based on this response, I think these days people wouldn't have a problem with a journalist from a newspaper being given gifts by someone they're critically writing about. I don't think people really understand the depth of the meaning 'conflict of interest', and they don't see reviewers as journalists. Most people seem to think getting gifts from people that they are critiquing is fine. Why is it fine? The journalist would have an active interest to be nicer to that person/company. If the journalist is nicer to the company, maybe they'll get more stuff. That's not good, it's warping the truth, and we should put the truth above all else, especially gifts. It's the snowball effect that's more terrifying than the first move. The first move is nothing compared to what the 5th, 10th, 20th, or 100th move could be. That goes for more than just KZbin tech reviewers. Why do people care more about my healthy relationship with a company I'm critiquing than the unwashed truth? Why does anyone care about the gift pack, over an untainted review about a product they're interested in? It doesn't make sense to me. Imagine if the MSI laptop incident was followed with a gift pack. That would be heinous. Something went wrong, the result isn't what the company wanted people to know about, they asked for the video to not be published. In my situation I was asked not to publish the bad bit, and then a gift pack came my way. How is that acceptable for a journalist (reviewers may be amateur journalists, but ethics don't go out the window)? If someone not related to the channel saw this, they'd say "hey, this guy is mentioning the company supplying the product asked him to leave out a bad part, and then gave him a gift pack right after". Then they're have to make up their own mind about the situation. They couldn't see it as payment for good coverage since I'm exposing the situation. But you seem to think it could look like a bribe, albeit a cheap bribe. And that it's just a gift pack, so it's not a big deal. What if next time it's a $20 game code, or a free $100 case, or a humble bundle pack. The first move doesn't seem like a big deal, until the rest follow through and suddenly I'm getting $100 of gifts to not mention a bent pin, broken fan, or maybe even the performance being worse than a competitor product. What if it starting out as a gift pack conditions me to think it's normal, or acceptable, and over time it turns into higher value gifts for bigger issues, and I just go along with it because I've been conditioned that gifts for finding issues is fine. And then I want to be nicer to the company because, hey, they just gave me a $100 case for absolutely nothing, not even a video. The line is as I wrote to SilentiumPC before they sent me a gift pack. The company should only supply the product for review, and assist in so far as enabling the reviewer to make a fair review. Nothing else should be on the table, and that's how to keep it 100% above board, ethical, and avoid conflicts of interest. There shouldn't be a conflict of interest at all, and if there is it's an unethical transaction. And nobody, let alone the customer, should be supporting an act that's even borderline unethical and against their interests. Supporting unethical reviews is itself anti-consumer. So consumers supporting unethical reviews is against their interests. Are consumers conditioned by companies to do this? That's another scary thought. Advertising has done a lot to encourage certain behaviour, maybe there's something going on in this areas too. So yeah, avoiding conflicts of interest at all costs avoids anything becoming really bad, which even if consumers think it's an overreaction is in their best interest, and certainly not mine (if I only cared about fame and fortune). Hope this clarified a lot of issues. There's more to this than just the 10 minutes I spent on it in the video.

[@Av-tz4cf]

It is quite strange to me that they overcompensated for a mess up. Although, it's amazing that they have. Sometimes people overdo things and this is a clear example of them going above and beyond with rectifying a trivial error. I am sure they mean well. I hope they have good customer support, maybe you should look into that if you're concerned that they are only seeking to help their reviewers out and not their average customers. Of course they have something to gain from being on your good side. It is likely that this isn't the best way to do it when they're attempting to work with someone who is supposed to be objective and honest.

[@XxLukexX]

I agree with the honesty and the viewpoint here, whilst it may have been rather kind of them to send such a giftpack for the inconvenience caused I personally think it was indeed a bit over the top really. Moreover though, I think it would be a good idea to inform them not to do this in the future due to the numerous concerns it can have or leading towards other reviewers maybe deeming it as fine and being biased towards said company.

[@alikos4528]

Personally I think it's an overreaction, it migh've been a slip up by someone in the PR or a shady tactic, but it just looks unprofessional by both sides to act like that. The most sensibe thing would be to just call them out like you did and continiue to make unbiased reviews according to the editorial direction also emailing SilentiumPC behind the scenes about the conflict of interest. Reminds me of Hardare Unboxed but they definetly handled both Nvidia and LG very profesionally

[@topisalonen8813]

Silentiumpc also has good cases for great value. I just bought Silentiumpc - ventum vt4v evo tg rgb and even though i haven't yet done a build in it, i can say it's great value. For 62e you get 4 rgb fans + controller, mesh front panel, tg glass side panel and it looks slick.

[@projectc1rca048]

I really appreciate your upfront honesty about the products/companies you critique. There aren't many tech reviewers who are willing to expose companies for doing what silentium did to you instead of just sending the missing parts. I appreciate all the hard work that goes into making these review videos my guy, keep up the great work.

[@AVTechy]

Appreciate that. It's a shame this happened, but hopefully this will help everyone long term.

[@TotoGeenen]

I think companies see reviews as advertising. (Nearly) Any publicity is good publicity (unless it's extremely bad, like with that MSI laptop). Having videos on your products puts you on the map. So I guess you could see it as a thank you. For all the time and effort you put into, what is essentially, free advertisement for them. Other than that. Ehh idk. On the one hand I can see why people think you're overreacting. On the other hand I can't help but admire your willpower to remain neutral. I don't necessarily think this warrants you cutting ties with them. But you could send them a firm message. Thanking them for their kindness, but to please refrain from doing this in the future, to respect your neutrality as a reviewer. (Sorry for bad English btw)

[@darkadlove]

Hi, how the fera 5 duo performance would had been with a i5 11600k CPU?

[@DroneTech_Poland]

Is there a chance for cooling tests using a minimum X generation i7 processor? I have not seen a combination of i7 10700K + Arctic Freezer 34 eSports DUO before.

[@AVTechy]

There is, but I'd have to have the spare cash to buy that processor, and to be honest, we'd still be talking relative performance so it's not something that's worth doing to me. I'd be more tempted to go for something Ryzen with a larger IHS.

[@ksof1]

Intel sends quite a lot of gift baskets before every major media event. They never do so with their CPU's though. But packing a review kit with a bottle of whiskey...

[@AVTechy]

Yeah, I've seen that kind of thing. I don't think there's an issue with that sort of thing, although press events are a little tricky to stay impartial if all expenses are being paid by the company. But yeah, events and holidays sure. With review kits and fixes, no.

[@slowfastdog9693]

Silentium deserved the opportunity of a public response in this video, especially if it's a nice gesture for all customers who have any form of issue that makes their product unusable because the epitome of good customer service isn't just replacing faulty parts, it's attempting to make up for the frustration that fault has caused... In 2021 providing a token of appreciation like a gift snack hamper that cost's less than the RRP of the actual product isn't a greater conflict of interest than visiting a companies offices to review a product and being provided with drinks and snacks from the company cafe. I was about to subscribe to your channel but seeing a small company basically slandered for 17:30 over a nice gesture (misguided or not) has completely turned me off since the way a company responds to faulty products is just as important as the product itself when something goes wrong. I also don't think they have a stack of custom branded chocolates just for reviewers who've had a bad experience.

[@AVTechy]

I'm not holding them back from responding publicly. They have as much access to the internet as I do, there's even a comments section they could post a response in if they wished. The difference is I'm not a customer, I'm a review in this instance. Buttering up reviewers when bad things happen shouldn't be the norm, and trust me, you don't want it either. The value of the gift isn't as relevant as the potential it has to smooth over a rough part of the product in the review. As a Christmas "thanks for working with us", it's a great gift, as part of a "oh crap, we screwed up, let's make it seem less bad", it's not good, especially considering who you're sending that to (the person that clearly outlined the relationship before receiving a gift). It can't be clearly translated as a "token of appreciation" as much as it can be construed as a bribe of sorts (even a small bribe). I mean, considering they asked me to not talk about it, actually said if we do this can you not mention this ever happened, and then sent a gift. Doesn't sound like "we appreciate you", more like "please, we want this to be a glowing review". For this to be slander, it would have to be untrue. It's true, therefore, not slander. I'm also not trying to destroy their reputation wither, I'm trying to clearly explain the situation, and my feelings about it, not slander. I also explicitly mention you can skip that section, added a timestamp, threw something on the screen. If you watched it, it's because you wanted to, rather than I made you to. You're 100% correct, the way a company responds is just as important as the product itself. Asking "please don't say this happened", then sending a gift pack after having the terms of the relationship clearly outlined says a lot to me. Maybe they do or don't have a pile of custom gift boxes for these occasions. But if they don't, then why do they have them freely available to be sent out to reviewers whenever they please, with a generic message. Whatever this is, it's more than just a one time thing. And the option to send them out for a reason like this exists (nobody has been trained for what you should and more importantly shouldn't send a gift box out for).

[@slowfastdog9693]

@@AVTechy The right thing to do (especially for someone ranting about journalistic integrity) would have been giving them the chance to make a public statement in your video attacking them. You're not warning others about dodgy behaviour because that would've only taken a few minutes, your deliberately damaging the reputation of a company because they mildly annoyed you which isn't the type of content I wish to support.

[@AVTechy]

I'm addressing and highlighting the fact that a company that had previously been warned about overstepping their boundaries has overstepped their boundaries concurrently. If I tell them not to do something, and they do it, do I have to further teach them how to do their job properly? It's not my responsibility to teach them this stuff continuously. By highlighting that they have acted this way, it's a much stronger lesson. I've already told them not to overstep the mark behind closed doors, I'm not here to continually do so. Sure, they might have some damage to their reputation because of this. I doubt it's much. But if they do, I'm only showing what's happened behind closed doors. Any damage to their reputation is a result of the public knowing about this and deciding it's bad practice, therefore potentially influencing their decision to buy their products. That's how this all should work. If you're saying don't tell us what happens behind closed doors because it might damage their reputation, I won't do that. And I'm not here to teach a company how to be a trustworthy company to their customers. I gave them a chance, they squandered it, I explained it to my viewers. In the future I'll have to give companies more chances to avoid this backlash. And make any segments explaining issues much shorter and in a separate video to avoid complaints about subjecting viewers to it.

[@slowfastdog9693]

@@AVTechy I've given you respectful constructive feedback after you asked what should've been done differently but instead of taking it onboard you've become overly defensive about your position and somehow think it's ok for reviewers to manipulate companies who aren't doing what they like. Bye

[@slowfastdog9693]

@@AVTechy P.s I never said not to report what happened but you haven't gone about things properly yourself.

[@marcinmaecki4785]

I'm sure that they did it in a good faith. It's very appreciated that you told everybody about that because some companies, especially not to recognizable might not be aware of such actions. Btw. how that "situation" ended? I mean did they send you any apologies?

[@JH-vp8do]

what was the maximum decibel?

[@AVTechy]

Damn, didn't include it in the video... It was 41.5 dBA at 40cm (45 degrees) from the front of the fan. Pretty quiet all things considered.

[@rafablesa]

Hey there's a long time we don't hear about you. Don't have problem in enjoying those sweets and drinks. Just try to follow your way doing your Best making reviews and people still watching and liking your good job. Easy. Hope we see you soon...

[@kruchz0rg308]

Good that u pointed it out and make sure to do it in future, but I would not stop reviewing their products. There always a possibility of a fuckup by the SPC marketing(?) team by way of ignorance

[@StarsMarsRadio]

I feel this was a bit of a crusade for a nice gesture. I understand not wanting your review colored in some way but a bottle and some table game is nothing. :/

[@AVTechy]

To me it's something to make me feel better about the situation. Whether it's a sorry or a bribe it will have an impact on me, which could make me consciously or sub-consciously make a different review that would benefit them, one that I wound't have made otherwise. The question is, should a reviewer receive a gift from a company when they find an issue? Would a customer get the same treatment? Why should a reviewer be treated better than the customer? A review is there to review what the customer will receive after all. Maybe customers would look more positively towards their coolers if they got gift packs when they found problems. I doubt customers get gift packs though, which rings a few bells.

[@StarsMarsRadio]

@@AVTechy If you believe you did the right thing and it makes you more comfortable with the situation. Then you did what you thought is right. Transparency is always good. This is my opinion as an avid tech enthusiast and fan of your channel. They didn't send the gift box out initially with the cooler, only after an error. The gift box was about on par with the sort of thing press/tech reviewers get at conventions. It won't change the price/performance/appearance of the cooler. Maybe it's a cultural difference. I look forward to seeing more of your reviews. Thanks.

[@kwazadi138]

I bought the fera 5 for my amd am3 mobo, sabertooth fx990 r2, as the specs said it was compatible. Well, it didnt fit. It didnt even come with a back plate support for amd mobo like the intel they send.

[@TotoGeenen]

I love those AV shaped.. thingies, on the wall

[@rkan2]

Why isn't this video on some 2nd channel? A lot of it is unrelated to the review now..

[@imarchello]

Shoul've made the gift pack a separate video and just link to it. Now every comment is about the gift, not the cooler itself.

[@AVTechy]

Yeah, definitely something I'm going to do in future with heavy criticism like this. Point it out in the video, and link to something else to go into all the details and share my opinions.

[@imarchello]

@@AVTechy Yeah, because a potential buyer of this cooler will be interested to see user feedback about it in the comments section. But they won't see it, as the comments section is now focused on a different topic entirely. So yeah, if you have 2 loosely connected topics you want to cover, best to split them up, so that one doesn't overshadow the other.

[@andruloni]

probably good to temper this kind of behaviour while they're still fighting for wider recognition and are possibly wore willing to listen. you might not feel comfortable working with them for a while, so I just hope others don't experience that anymore. I have very loose contact with someone working with one of their brands, and they seem enthusiastic and friendly, so if others are working the same way I can see how the gift might've slipped past common sense check.

[@Vengir]

The one problem with the review is that you spent so much time of your video showing "the situation" that it's easy to miss the most crucial bit (which I did until I saw it timestamped in the comments). I would also bring up the email exchange excerpts up on the screen, ideally with fragments highlighted, to make it even harder to miss.

[@AVTechy]

It was highlighted that those sections could be skipped, so any who were paying attention would skip or listen if desired. Some of the correspondence was wedged between parts of information that I probably wouldn't be able to show, so adding those parts with a lot of bits blurred out would ask more questions than answer. I think I provided what was safe to show. Hope that answers some of the issues.

[@Vengir]

@@AVTechy The problem was that I wanted to watch that bit, but it was so dragged on that I got bored and skipped to the review bit, missing the most crucial bit in the process. If not that, then perhaps additional timestamps within "the situation" part would have helped. As an aside, the graphs are my favourite part of hardware reviews. Sometimes it's the only part that I'm interested in.

[@AVTechy]

Granted, it was a little long winded and could have done with a cut down. In the future I think I'll make the raw footage a separate unlisted video and summarise it in the main video with a link for anyone to watch the whole thing. This one has been a set of training wheels to navigate tricky situations like this, so hopefully next time I'll be better prepared to handle it in a more well rounded manner. I'm a graph kind of person too. Still a lot to develop on that area, but getting there slowly

[@migueltorcuator2152]

What’s the big deal? You got free stuff

[@AVTechy]

Like I said in the video, take a look into 'conflict of interest' and maybe even the differences between independent work, sponsored work, and advertisements. Free stuff becomes an ethical problem when it comes to honesty, which is a big deal when it comes to reviews.

[@justcynical6590]

where are you AV?

[@AVTechy]

I'll be back...

[@kiko.Poland]

Już wiem dlaczego tak mało wejść zachowujesz się jak prostak. I powiem ci na przyszłość Arctic do testów wysyła lepsze chłodzenia niż które sprzedaje

[@jagoooodkaIgosiaczek]

Nie ma się co brytolem przejmować. Zamiast się cieszyć, że ma okazję coś dobrego zjeść i dwójniaczka napić, to ten krytykuje. Zresztą kompromitował się zupełnie stwierdzeniem, że wieża jest symetryczna :-)

[@qweasdzxc]

I'm not sure why you're complaining about a gift, as long as it doesn't affect your review of their products then it's quite irrelevant. It's not like they sent you a gold bar, it's just some little package with stuff that probably costs less than $10 in total How was the chocolate? Any good?

[@AVTechy]

Like I said, look into the term conflict of interest. Trust me, you shouldn't be accepting a conflict of interest when your seeking the absolute truth. It's also definitely more than $10, shipping was definitely way more than that alone. Aside from that, the value isn't the issue at all, it's the principle. No idea what they're like, I haven't tried any of it.

[@qweasdzxc]

@@AVTechy How is it a conflict of interest? You're blowing this waaaaaay out of proportion and you dedicated 17minutes of this video to complain about the fact that they sent you a gift, it's really not a big deal at all.. you could have simply not mentioned it. It's not like they sent you money and told u to give a biased review of their product. They simply wanted to do something nice as a way to say sorry for the missing stuff in the 1st package, and since you're a reviewer and not a customer buying from a 3rd party then they put in more effort because it's more personal as it's coming from directly from their marketing guy/gal. Anyway thanks for the review, i watched some other reviews and was wondering if they might have been biased because they were done by Polish reviewers who might have been biased but your review confirmed their results and it seems like it's a really good cooler, on par with the Esports Duo34 but cheaper.

[@AVTechy]

Define conflict of interest. Here I'll do it below: "a situation in which someone cannot make a fair decision because they will be affected by the result" from the Cambridge dictionary. When someone provides a gift to anyone, that typically makes them feel better, which improves the relationship outside of anything else. You might also be given a gift to make you feel better in a bad time or situation to not make that bad time or situation feel so bad... that's not a good thing when we're seeking the absolute truth from a critic. That should have been made abundantly clear to them after they asked me to not mention the issue... When they did that I defined in writing the scope of the relationship (this is all in the 17 minutes, you seem to be fine with then asking me to hide the issue too). Nowhere in that scope did I mention giving gifts for any issues, and then a gift comes my way with no explanation of what it's for. If there was a note saying "hey, sorry the clips didn't come on time, I hope this doesn't slow down your review too much" I might have been more okay with it. I'd have still at least said to them "don't do that" and have mentioned it in the video. But it came with no situation specific notes which doesn't come across well. I don't agree with your complaint about the length of time given to this issue since I provided tools to completely skip it. If you wanted to watch it, watch it. If you didn't, there was fair warning and chapters to skip it. It appears you wanted to watch it for some reason, so you did. You made that decision after I said you could skip it, so you can only blame yourself for sitting through 17 minutes of it. The value of the gift is irrelevant. The only positive feelings I should be getting when doing a fair and unbiased (as hard as that is anyway, well all have biases) should be from the thing I'm critiquing, not gifts on the side to skew my thoughts/feelings/emotions. One thing that surprises me about the backlash is how many people care about me being happy with getting gifts. Why does anyone care about me getting chocolate and alcohol from a company I'm critiquing? Surely people would prefer to know when I say something is good, it's because it's good, not because I've eaten a load of free chocolate and drunk some nice alcohol that came with the review sample while I was writing the script. Surely viewers want a clear signal, rather than one that's been tampered with by little gifts on the side. I think a lot of people don't understand disclosure either. I think you fall into that party too. You said I could have not mentioned it. Really? You don't want to know the full extent of the relationship between the company manufacturing a product and the reviewer criticising that product? That's avoiding a conflict of interest 101. You, the viewer, should know the full extent of what's been provided, that's the minimum you should be getting. I know people are very relaxed about journalistic integrity, but man, that's a very slipper slope you're inviting me to go down. The company is saying "don't mention the problem you found", and the viewer is saying "don't mention a gift a company might give you after finding a problem with their stuff". I've got both sides trying to hide information from the viewer... that's all kinds of messed up - one of those sides is the party the product and review is for. The cooler review isn't for me, it's for the viewer. And the viewer is saying I should hide information from them. If that's what you're advocating for, I won't be able to fully understand your point of view. You're actively trying to deceive yourself by asking a reviewer to hide the relationship between the company and reviewer, and I'm actively trying to be as open, transparent, and unbiased to a point where I'll cut ties with a company that gives gifts for finding issues. We're on opposite ends of the spectrum here.

[@tobezoned504]

Possibly from their eyes it is less of a bribe and maybe a genuine sorry. But in all honesty I am leaning more towards your viewpoint being right. Maybe stating you disagree with this type of action and then giving an unbiased review disregarding the gift package would be the best course of action. Make it public that this is your opinion, and only continue to work with them if they own up to the transgression

[@AVTechy]

Yeah, I can see it both ways. It could be a sorry, or a "bribe" of sorts. Either way has a similar affect, to make me feel better about the issue. So it's something unrelated to make me feel better, which skews the opinion about the problem - big conflict of interest. I think the problem about sticking with them is I can't trust they won't provide "golden samples" from this point on to prevent there being an issue I might find in a general batch. I think knowing there's a reason not to trust them means I'll always be unsure. That could go for any brand, but here I've got something solid saying "what's going on with this?". Something that definitely needs emphasising more is this is more than a disagreement. A 'conflict of interest' shouldn't exist at all regarding a fair review. It walks all over the term "fair". There's an issue with trying to make an unbiased review with a 'conflict of interest' in play. I can't sub-consciously wipe a gift pack out of my memory. It's there for good, and will have an influence as long as I can remember it. Right now it would appear that I might create a more negative review of their stuff considering I have an issue with their practice right now, which would lead to an unfair review. Good job I did the whole review before getting the gift pack I guess, but that doesn't help going forward. This is a real shame, I'd loved to have worked with them for a long time to come. And thanks for sharing your thoughts.

[@lay6704]

Late to the party but would just like to say the people that don't see an issue with this are tripping, the company would never do this for a regular costumer therefore it's intent is to persuade you into disregarding the missing accessories which isn't even that big of a deal any way. Thank you for being transparent and your reaction to this really shows your commitment into being as transparent to the viewer as possible.

[@kbprojekty]

To me it looks more like you are the one trying to milk that thing by turning a nice gesture into a drama to attract viewers. Not it's that surprising coming from a person who thinks a PC peripherial company might be in a chocolate business as well :D

[@AVTechy]

Whenever I've done anything similar to this in the past it always ends badly. So no, I'm not here to "milk" it. Based on your lack of understanding of sarcasm I can see why you'd think that though... Like I said in the video, if you wanted to skip it you could. The only reason you watched it is because you wanted to. Maybe you seem to like the drama as much as I apparently do (sarcasm). Anyway, it's a positive review, and the outcome of it is I've cut ties with the company for the time being to avoid issues like these.

[@poccmr7885]

man you have 11 Thousand and this is not that big but this is clearly less than your ego. Also understand that you are not clueless enough to consider chocolate and candy to be a bribe

[@AVTechy]

I work on principles, the value is not the issue, it's the potential impact of a gift on the mindset of a reviewer. It's not in your interest for me to get gifts, nor mine unless I just want free stuff when I find problems. It's in the companies internet to keep me happy, and apparently they want to keep me happy when I come across a problem with one of their products. So yeah, it's a principle thing - reviewers should receive gift from parties they are critiquing, not an 'ego' thing (surely getting gifts and bragging about it would be more egotistical?). Think carefully about what you're advocating for knowing nothing more than what's on the table. Do you want flaws in products being undisclosed in reviews because the company asked the reviewer not to disclose it and then sent them a gift? I certainly don't, I want the relationship between the reviewer and supplier to be as clean as possible, but that's just me.

[@thetutta4]

I cringed so much when you mentioned bribery and conlict of interest. These legal terms are completly irrelevant in the current situation. Your viewers are not your customers by legal terms nor you have any legal obligation. Silentium PC has sent you a gift to strenghten business relation and thats it. Its your choice if you want to highlight both bad and good things about their product after that and you can still give an honest opinion. I bought my case from them and now planning to buy a cooler. Personally i have never had any issues with them and they always answered to my question about the case.

[@AVTechy]

You don't understand the terms you're complaining about. I can't address your comment further than that since it won't make sense when you figure out what they mean.

[@tilenmlakar7036]

I completely agree with you. If you would buy the parts and get the gifts then it would be ok. Now this is sort of a bribe from any point of view. Slightly unprofessional by them.

[@AVTechy]

I think it could be seen as a sorry, like others have speculated. But sorry or bribe, either way, it has the same effect. Could you elaborate on the "If you would buy the parts and get the gifts then it would be ok." bit? I'm not sure I 100% understand what you mean.

[@tilenmlakar7036]

I meant that you didn't buy the parts, your job is to review the parts unsponsored as independent reviewer - getting a gift for you is different than from my perspective. When i buy the parts i am only a customer and if i get the gifts it would make sense in this situation. But as others have said it was a way of saying they are sorry. It might feel like overreaction but all this might as well be just the tip of the iceberg... Or maybe not =)

[@johnB-et5ux]

Just looking for a cooler review, got a load of "faux drama" aka "content"... pass

[@AVTechy]

Faux drama... I guess you can call it fake if you don't understand it, or don't like hearing about it. Maybe even say I'm doing it for views or personal gain somehow. Throw it all under the bus to avoid the issue. I'll stick to not recieving gifts from companies that ask me to hide problems from my viewers, and being transparent about it all. I sometimes think "why not just get bribed for good reviews? None of the viewers care...". Sounds like that's what people want - just accept the gift and don't talk about it. Viewers want this stuff hidden from them... Just doesn't make sense to me. I'd want to know when someone is being gifts after being asked to hide a discovered problem.