I think most, if not all the reviews we see are “tainted” in some way. I’m not sure it makes them worthless. One needs to read between the lines. If one does so, one can usually glean some info, although it may not be what the reviewer intended.
The best reviews we get for HT are the ones we get in person. We attend the HLAA conference most years and setup a booth and two laptops and give out free hearing aid batteries for reviews. We check the aids on people’s ears and make sure we get them on the right product page. So much great info.
I’m just saying that this guy has been caught out corrupting his review thereby rendering it worthless.
Let alone all his biases.
Of course we don’t know how much corruption might be in any and all reviews. For me…for online reviews…I actually look for negative reviews. Someone has taken the time to sign up and say their piece. Positive reviews can too easily simply be paid. And that has been found to be true. Particularly now in this day and age of social media and bloggers and box-opening videos etc…the reviewer more often than not is being compensated in some way for their efforts.
Edit: Thinking further on this and what with another thread going on…I suppose one needs to keep a wary eye on negative reviews as being paid-for slamming of a competitor.
1 Like
I’m curious with the in person reviews if there’s any interaction that leads to clarifying what kind of info you want and what they’re trying to say?
What this Nance fellow did was unethical at the very least, if not outright blackmail. Kudos to Phonak for not playing along.
All the info seems to be second hand. I am not saying it isn’t correct but legally inadmissible… And I say the courts are where it should go if @BarryNance-TestLab can back his claim.
Trade publications often send similar notes to vendors that renege on review participation, especially after an exchange like the following:
_To Phonak’s product manager: _
Hi –
Please, would you characterize the nature of the involvement Phonak would like to have in your participation in a comparative review? I’m curious to know how much support you would lend to the project.
Barry Nance
----------------------------------------
_From Phonak’s product manager: _
Hi Barry
Thank you for your detailed information. Not every hearing aid style is suitable for every loss but I am sure we will find the appropriate solution for you. Let me check with our US team to find an audiologist near you that will support you in getting a Virto B-Titanium fitting. As your initial audiologist mentions, a small in-the-ear hearing aid can cause some occlusion, depending on the size of your ear canal we will be able to provide you with a large enough venting to avoid that however.
We certainly want you to be able to test these devices and support you with this. I will get back to you once I have received a note from our US organization.
Thanks
----------------------------------------
_And then also from Phonak’s product manager: _
Hi Barry
Someone from our US organization will contact you about the next steps.
Thanks
Such is the rough-and-tumble real world of computer hardware and software reviews. Messy, isn’t it?
And let me reiterate:
Every statement in the review is true and accurate.
No one received any compensation, financial or otherwise, for the review. From anyone.
Unlike in most reviews, every hearing aid product reviewed was actually purchased from a vendor.
Still no survey.
No. You came in with presumptions and biases. Those inherently have no basis in “true and accurate”.
Unfortunatelky, you’ve lost all credibility at this point due to the manner with which you engaged Phonak. Why would we trust the results?
iHear Medical checking in. The device that Barry “reviewed” and returned to us has clearly been intentionally damaged. There are pry marks on the lid and it is bent/twisted. Barry claims that all this happened as he “removed the device from his ear.” A lie plain and simple. I will gladly add pictures of the damaged components if anyone cares to have a look.
The plot thickens…
“It uses advanced technology, sophisticated Digital Signal Processor (DSP) programming and a superior design to deliver clear, natural sounds.”
This generic statement describes just about any modern hearing aid. Of course everyone has a different idea of what “natural” sounds like. With hearing aids there is a significant trial time required to get used to hearing frequencies one has not heard for years so level of HA user experience matters. This is just one example of how your review is flawed. Users who are used to one brand may find a different brand will sound less “natural”. It makes the value of that term limited.
Receiving a free HA would count as a financial incentive so you cannot deny you attempted to do that.
Just for the less experienced users who read this thread - I have worn Phonak HAs for almost three years now and found them to be comfortable, durable, well made and providing a good hearing experience. From my reading your description of Phonak aids sounds anomalous. After reading the email you sent them I am not however surprised. You can see why no one here will be inclined to trust you.
Here we have Barry’s lid compared to a new one. Barry claims that the adhesive failed and the lid just fell off.
These images clearly show that the lid was removed with force using some type of tool which also crushed the hooks that keep the battery in place. Barry had this device for ~3 weeks. I have additional pictures to upload but am currently limited to 1 due to my new user status.
Careful, Andrew. Your public accusation that I intentionally damaged the device is as demonstrably false as your private accusation in email that I work for Siemens/Signia.
iHear refunded my money when I returned the broken devices.
iHear says it refunds money only after it inspects the returned devices and that inspection shows no damage caused by the customer.
iHear’s exact words:
“Upon inspection of the returned hearing device, we will issue the refund. iHear will not refund hearing devices that were modified, damaged through no fault of iHear, or if repairs have been made without the written consent and knowledge of iHear.”
Where/when did I ever say (as you quote), “removed the device from his ear?”
The review’s exact words are the following:
“To our huge disappointment, as we tested a pair of HD devices, the one for the right ear failed. It randomly changed programs, causing us to have to reset it on a frequent basis. Just as its replacement arrived from the iHear Medical company, the left ear device fell apart – literally.”
And what about the right ear HD spontaneously and randomly changing programs?
Still no survey I see.
Those petards are getting awfully hoisty aren’t they BarryNance-TestLab.
Sure maybe there’s a quality point to be made but make it honestly.