Here's something I think many of you know. I am not a fan of product reviews by "official" reviewers. Why? Well a couple things. First, my experience is that "official" reviewers tend to have vested interests in their reviews (i.e. advertising or free schwag) that they don't reveal. And, I rarely find reviewers more knowledgable than your average joe. In fact, I often find official reviewers making value judgements based on their own stupidity whereas the average joe (say Stoked) might actually get edumacated first.
Case in point, while we were in CA this summer I picked up a copy of Wired Magazine. The magazine had a sunglass review. I think the 3 brands were Oakley, Smith and Tifosi. Both Oakley & Smith got very good reviews. Which made sense because I could tell the reviewer was partly repeating the press release that comes with the glasses. Similarly, I've had reviews done of our glasses were the reviewer basically published our press release verbatim. On the otherhand Tifosi got slammed. Why? Because the reviewer felt the lenses were not dark enough for sunglass use. To which I thought.. duh. You are using the low light lens moron. Switch out for the darker lens. To me, that's user error not the product.
Now, if the reviewer wanted an orange sunglass lens and Tifosi didn't make it it might be legitimate to say "I would have liked a orange Sunglass lens, so was disappointed in the selection of lens colors available" but then they need to say the same thing about Smith.
So with that said, wtf is
this review about? Go read it. For the record, I am not upset that they think the Lynx are ugly. Our philosophy is to make a variety of glasses that have different profiles. We don't want to do a bunch of similar, neutral looking glasses. We only need to have 1 or 2 models that look good to a customer. Everyone's different.
What annoys me is that the philosophy clearly worked because he casually states early that the other glasses got lifted quick. One pair wasn't a hit, so what do they do? They spend the review on that pair. What about all those pairs people liked? Where's the review of those models?
2nd, he makes a point in the article that they got these for free*. He doesn't mention that they got the product by claiming they were represented a couple shops and were going to place an order. But, nevertheless, way to devalue the product right off the bat guys.
And then, the statement about so-so optical quality is just an absolute WTF moment. You can say the glasses are ugly (personal opinion). You can say you don't like the adjustability. But so-so optics?????? OMG. That's just ignorant and it's not a personal opinion. The lenses are freakin' Carl Zeiss. Now a lot of optical types may argue whether or not you can get as good a quality cheaper from other companies. But no one in the industry thinks Zeiss is so-so.
*OK, so I am also a little annoyed because these were given away on a sales reps discretion after I had specifically said no spiffs. The stuff ain't cheap to make (see those Zeiss lenses) and most shops that are serious (i.e. care about customers and quality products) are willing to pay for product to test. The sales rep did it because the reviewers claimed to represent a couple shops and convinced him they would pick up the line. So I feel a)irritated that the rep spiffed product and b)irritated the reviewer didn't come correct in terms of promises (opening shops) or use (actually reviewing the other models).
