@teajay I appreciate your viewpoint. A “no conflict” statement is easy to make for publications, so why the pushback? It’s simply a general statement that reviewers should make about what their conflicts of interest are with respect to products under review, particularly when they are making statements in a commercial, for-profit, publication that might lead to inducing others to make a purchasing decision, as this thread amply demonstrates in spades. This is common in even scientific publications, where no commercial transaction is even contemplated. If none exists, then so state it. Period. End of story.
And with all due respect, stating something is an economic, high value product sort of depends on what the value is to that person. That is, the cost to them. The publication can make its policy a blanket statement that applies to all reviewers. But to endorse a product with the statement, “I bought the reviewed product” suggests that the price offered to ordinary consumers was paid. Your audience is not like-minded reviewers who can get the gear at your cost, but folks who pay full price for their gear.
And with all due respect, stating something is an economic, high value product sort of depends on what the value is to that person. That is, the cost to them. The publication can make its policy a blanket statement that applies to all reviewers. But to endorse a product with the statement, “I bought the reviewed product” suggests that the price offered to ordinary consumers was paid. Your audience is not like-minded reviewers who can get the gear at your cost, but folks who pay full price for their gear.