On est "vendu" ? : La vérité sur nos TESTS et nos REVENUS

This discussion addresses the controversy and questions surrounding Frandroid's decision to award a "10 out of 10" rating to a product, specifically a Samsung computer, and clarifies the media outlet's policies on product reviews, financial independence, and transparency. The conversation begins by acknowledging public reactions to a video where a Samsung computer received a perfect score. This sparked questions about whether Frandroid is paid by brands for favorable reviews, given that a "10 out of 10" is rarely awarded. The speaker immediately refutes the idea of being paid by brands, emphasizing that if that were the case, their presence and independent critical stance would be compromised. They explicitly state that Frandroid journalists are not paid by brands for the tests they conduct. As an example, they point out that while a Samsung product might receive a perfect score if it's truly exceptional, other Samsung products, like the S25 Edge or S26 Classic, have received lower scores (6/10 and 7/10 respectively) due to identified flaws, demonstrating that ratings are not influenced by brand sponsorship. Transparency is highlighted as a core rule and a legal obligation. Frandroid ensures that any sponsored content or advertisements are clearly marked, both within videos and in descriptions. This includes a clear disclaimer for paid content, distinguishing it from independent editorial work. The speaker acknowledges that the negative feedback on the "10 out of 10" rating indicates a need for clearer communication and greater transparency, which is the primary motivation for creating this video. A key question raised is whether prior sponsorship history of a brand influences the review scores given by journalists. The response clarifies Frandroid's internal structure: financial contracts and sponsorships are handled by a separate commercial team, completely independent from the journalistic team. The journalists, including the speaker, operate with full independence, conducting tests based on market trends, product quality, and their expertise. They are explicitly not influenced by the commercial team or any financial considerations when assigning scores. The discussion further elaborates on the separation between the editorial and commercial teams. The commercial team operates under strict restrictions regarding sharing financial details, meaning the editorial team is often unaware of specific brand sponsorships until content is published, which is typically after a product has been tested and reviewed. This reinforces the idea that financial considerations do not influence editorial decisions. The core mission of the journalistic team is to write articles and create videos daily for Frandroid, sharing their passion for technology. Maintaining honesty and public trust is paramount, as losing audience confidence would undermine the entire purpose of a media outlet like Frandroid. The speaker, with 10 years of experience at Frandroid, emphasizes that his role has always been to share expertise and passion, not to manage company revenue. The conversation then delves into the philosophy behind awarding a "10 out of 10." For the Samsung Galaxy Book 6 Ultra, which received this rare score, the question arises whether it signifies a "perfect product." The speaker explains that for 10 years, Frandroid had a tendency to cap excellent products at a 9/10, even if they were outstanding. However, this approach led to an "impasse" where truly exceptional products couldn't be adequately recognized. Now, a "10 out of 10" on Frandroid signifies a product of excellence, a reference point for its targeted public and market. It means the product's experience is so refined that any minor defects do not detract from its overall outstanding quality. It's also clarified that this philosophy isn't exclusive to ultra-expensive products. While high-end products (e.g., over $3,000) naturally incorporate the latest technologies, the "price-quality ratio" is central to every review. A product costing under $500 can also receive a 10/10 if it offers exceptional value within its price category, meaning it doesn't get better for that price point. This demonstrates that the rating system accounts for market positioning and consumer expectations relevant to different price segments. The video then reiterates the three main pillars of Frandroid's remuneration: 1. **Publicity:** Advertisements displayed in articles or within videos. 2. **Sponsored Content:** Articles or videos explicitly paid for by brands, clearly marked as such, and managed by the commercial team, not journalists. 3. **Affiliations:** Commission earned when users click on product links (e.g., to Amazon, Fnac) in reviews or "good deals" articles and complete a purchase. The specific commission is negotiated with the market site, and journalists have no knowledge of these figures. These revenue streams are described as indispensable for an independent media outlet like Frandroid, which employs around 20 people and produces a vast amount of daily content. The speaker stresses that without these financial mechanisms, it would be impossible to sustain the operations and pay the team. While acknowledging that some people might suspect bias due to these revenue models, the strict separation between editorial and commercial functions ensures journalistic integrity. An example is given where a smartphone reviewed negatively (6/10) by Frandroid journalists might simultaneously be advertised on the website via a commercial campaign, demonstrating that editorial independence is maintained even when commercial interests are present. Brands need platforms like Frandroid to communicate with their target audience, either through influencers or established media. Frandroid sees its role as creating compelling content that draws users to its platform, while the commercial team's job is to monetize that audience without compromising editorial integrity. Finally, the topic of "press trips" is addressed. When journalists attend conferences or events abroad, their travel expenses are often paid by the inviting brand. This is explicitly disclosed in articles, stating that the trip was sponsored by a particular brand. While this raises the question of potential bias (e.g., if Apple pays for a trip, will the coverage be positive?), the speaker notes that Apple is a "bad example" as they never invite Frandroid. Nevertheless, it is affirmed that such trips do not alter content. The purpose of a press trip for a brand is to ensure media coverage, and Frandroid chooses whether to attend based on potential audience interest. Once at the event, journalists maintain their editorial line, expertise, and share what they deem relevant, without any contractual obligation to promote products. If a brand wants specific product coverage, it becomes sponsored content, handled by the commercial team, not the journalists. The video concludes by emphasizing that this ongoing discussion about media independence and transparency is vital. Frandroid's strength lies in its internal debates and commitment to providing coherent, honest, and transparent information, ensuring that even if the audience doesn't always agree with their opinions, they at least understand Frandroid's vision and methodology.