Reviews tell it as it is with information that is not intuitive. What is actually in the box? How does it feel after an hour standing in one spot? Where is that one setting that everyone has to click their way through three menus to find? What noise does it make when it’s working?
That’s something you’ll never see on a spec sheet; where every thin review is written from. It gets written from the product, with the reviewers’ notes made when the product was in front of them.
When customers access reviews, they already know what a product is described as on the manufacturer’s page. They evaluate whether or not the manufacturer’s promise was kept. Restating the manufacturer’s promise on your own page will provide no value whatsoever. Your page will not be visited, rather the page that has the actual work done will be visited.
Models blend product generations. Asking for a review of this year’s model gets you last year’s port layout, a discontinued color and a launch price from two revisions back, written with total confidence. One negligent specification in a buying guide is enough to lose the reader.
The reviewer documents the log the day he unboxes and sets it up, unlike the author who claims to write his review after two weeks. Instead of checking specs against the retail listing, the reviewer checks the specs against the manufacturer’s current documentation because specifications on retail listings are often several generations behind what is actually shipping and what the manufacturer is currently documenting.
Everything you see in the text can be referenced to either something that the reviewer measured or to a number published by the manufacturer, and which of the two it is is clearly stated. Prices show a date. Comparisons state which competing model they are comparing to instead of saying something like “one of the competing models.” If a unit was given to the reviewer freely, then that is stated in the review.
One rate, whatever the format: $10 per 100 words. You are paying for the writer’s time and judgement, so the price scales with the words rather than with a package tier.
| Typical product review | Words | Writing | Fee (1%) | You pay |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Short review | 600 | $60 | $0.60 | $60.60 |
| Standard review | 1,000 | $100 | $1 | $101 |
| In-depth review | 1,800 | $180 | $1.80 | $181.80 |
The writer receives 100% of the writing price. Our 1% fee is added on top of it, and 0.5% is donated to tree planting. Full pricing breakdown.
What the piece is for, who reads it, roughly how long it should be, and anything it must include or avoid. Links to your existing material help. If you are unsure, send what you have and the writer will come back with questions.
Up to 3 days. The writer has to read around the subject before writing it, so we quote honestly rather than promising an hour. If your deadline is tighter, say so in the brief and we will tell you before you pay whether we can meet it.
Yes, we can do that if it’s under embargo. We may be able to provide a unit or demo to one of our reviewers in advance to give you a heads-up. However, without that access we write a preview and we call them previews because calling a preview a review is the best way to lose your readers.
Yes, and the piece will say that you commissioned it. An honest vendor review that shows two real weaknesses sells better than an anonymous rave, because the weaknesses make the rest of it trustworthy. Finalize and make edits only after reviewing the word count. Observe #2 last sentence rule.
Completely. Copyright transfers to you on delivery, with no attribution requirement and no licence back to us. Nothing written for you is resold, repurposed or republished.
Reviews from completed, paid orders in this category.
The writer emailed before starting to ask which returns numbers we were allowed to publish. This is the first time anyone has asked this of us. The email came back as the argument with the caveat inserted, and Legal cleared it with no comment.
We’ve been outsourcing blog posts for two years and need to rewrite every intro, but this one didn’t need anything. This one went directly to our editor. The writer noticed something the rest of us and probably the past writers missed, and that is a reference to “members” in an older post, which I attached to this brief. We swear by “members” and never say “customers.”
A lot of thought leadership articles outline a few positions and remain neutral. This piece takes a stand on procurement in the second paragraph and supports it for 1100 words. Two rivals have written answers. That was the goal.
We do not ask you to take the no-AI promise on trust. Each draft is run through these platforms and the reports are attached to your delivery email.
Originality.aiAI detection + plagiarism
GPTZeroAI detection
TurnitinAI detection + similarity
CopyleaksAI detection + plagiarism
Winston AIAI detection
ZeroGPTAI detection
SaplingAI detection
Content at ScaleAI detection
Send the brief, get a human draft back within 3 days. No account, no subscription, no AI.
$10 per 100 words · all of it to the writer · 0.5% to trees