You are here: Home Gadget Reviews

Do Bad Reviews Kill Companies? | Asmongold Reacts

— April 24, 2024 37 comments




by @mkbhd https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QztFpzKsdeA ▻ Asmongold’s Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/zackrawrr …

source

Previous Article
Next Article

Recommended For You

The Rabbit R1 is Just an App??

This Ultra-light Laptop is Powerful…

The Porsche Phone is Here (SOUND ON)

The Apple Vision Pro ghosts are here! #mkbhd #apple #waveformpodcast

Rabbit R1: Barely Reviewable

How MKBHD Became The Most Powerful Man in Tech

About the Author: Asmongold TV

37 Comments

  5. While 𝙸 ​think that it is true that people's preferences play a significant role in determining the success of a company, negative reviews can also have a significant impact. Studies have shown that many consumers rely on reviews and ratings before making purchasing decisions, and a large number of negative reviews can deter potential customers from trying a product or service. In today's digital age, where information is readily available and easily accessible, one negative review can quickly spread and harm a company's reputation. This is why many businesses prioritize customer satisfaction and often work to address and rectify negative feedback. Ultimately, while preferences do play a role in shaping consumer behavior, companies should also be mindful of the impact that negative reviews can have on their bottom line. It is important for businesses to prioritize customer satisfaction and address any concerns or issues that may arise in order to maintain a positive reputation and attract new customers. At the end of the day it's all about just one's preferences, likes and taste in the product. So in conclusion, yes, bad reviews do indeed destroy companies.

  9. Many don't seem to realize that being killed by reviews is actually good for a company and its investors if the product concept or direction they're going is fundamentally flawed 💭

  11. A review is a documentation of a person's experience and opinion on a product. I hate that we call a negative review a "bad review" because its not bad if it's honest. We should instead call dishonest reviews bad reviews.

  12. His reviews have traction with the public because he says things that reflect the state of the product (good and bad), If he didn’t he wouldn’t be so successful.

  14. Truth be told a lot of companies take care to send reviewers golden samples products that are already checked to be fine… the fact that someone as big as Markus gets a bad product and has to publish bad review makes you sure it really is crap.

  15. Just wanted to comment so starforge no longer has problems with louse screws , the problem could be solved by using thread lock & a screwdriver that clicks at a set torque setting for the screws do this & you should never have trouble with a louse screw in shipping agen . Also the symbol will always be a cock & balls spaceship to me lol

  18. I watched the MB review before watching your reaction video and I agree that reviews with integrity and more precisely, an unbiased origin, are incredibly valuable. However, I must disagree when you state that reviews are about the product and not the company. This is MOSTLY true. There are many cases, particularly in movie and TV show reviews, where a majority of the review video or article is spent trashing the company that made it and using the current product (show or movie) as yet another example of why this company is to be avoided. Now, taken together, all of these anti-company reviews can be viewed as a series of videos or articles that are reviewing the company itself, and in many ways companies can be viewed as products (especially if they are publicly traded), but the whole modern culture of "reviews" and "reviewers", the effects they have, and the low if not nonexistent barrier of entry to becoming a reviewer, is a topic that needs to be discussed far more deeply than a summary judgement telling companies and people: "don't take the review personally". People review escorts. There are sites that do that. Hookers. Guys give reviews on buying hookers. They really do. I'm pretty sure those escorts take the bad reviews personally. Let's not ignore nuance here.

  22. fisker… this is the 2nd time this company went under.. they made gas cars 15 yrs ago and went under.. now electric.. fix the issues before you tank again

  25. the whole "drama" is dumb, the product was obviously dog s**t. i feel like the people defending it where people who invested in it, or already bought it and are trying to cope… or they just want to follow an outrage trend.

  27. You can say whatever you want, freedom of speech. But society has to get their shit together and realise that the burden of proof is on the side of the accuser.
    In this example it's even better: MKBHD had PROOF that the product sucked and he showed the world why. If someone says that his proof was paid false "anti-adverstisement?" then proof it.

    The problem lies within the fact that people, as in society, as in we consumers of Asmon and MKBHD's videos, shouldn't take everything at face value. Innocent until proven guilty, simple as that. Sadly enough there are way too many people who get confronted with these kinds of statements all day everyday without having the time and/or resources to find proof for those statements so they feel forced to take it at face value or feel left behind on society. Which is rediculous, but it's the truth.
    It's funny, dr Phil was on Steve-O's podcast the other day and he said something super simple that's completely true. A lie spreads faster than truth because the truth is complicated and has so many layers that it takes long to get to the real truth. This is what's important for everyone to realise. Something reaches you? Well chances are (and statistically it's true) it's not the whole truth if it is the truth at all.

  28. it's insane to me consumer advocacy at its most basic level is being questioned.

    Oh, no it's not really, because anyone with a vested financial interest otherwise will fight the fuck out of it.

  31. There's a reason that explains those ridiculous "do no harm" takes, on reviews of an AI product: a bunch of the biggest cheerleaders for AI are literally in a cult trying to make machine god and therefore any setback, and criticism that "harms" the unchecked forward advancement of AI development – when all signs by non-grifting sources point to it plateauing in… about 9 months or so, because they can't fix the hallucination issue, don't have enough data to even train the models on, and are about 0% of the way to anything resembling AGI, still – is because it's impeding the creation of the definitely inevitable and plausible "machine god" they're convinced is "just around the corner" thusly the reviewer "doing harm (because it's delaying the creation of AI god who is going to save humanity from themselves, you see)". These people are not serious critical thinkers, they're a weird math cult adopting the ideas of a guy whose only life accomplishments are writing a Harry Potter fanfic and somehow getting millionaires/billionaires to give his bullshit "foundation" a bunch of money.

    They're the Roko's Basilisk dummies, in other words. That's who is championing the plagiarism engines that entirely lack reasoning capabilities, claiming that bad reviews are the moral equivalent to murder.

  34. We already know that our phones and social media are constantly harvesting our data to sell and use. Why would anyone with more than 2 brain cells get a $700 camera that sees and hears everything they see and hear and is constantly sending that to the cloud?

  37. Honestly i like the product its like star trek. A little ahead of its time but i think its cool. If it was $200 id buy one at $700 i wont but still not a terrible product

Comments are closed.