🔎 KEY FINDINGS
- 37% of search results on page one of Google are fake reviews according to our analysis, from sites which claimed to test but wound up with a Trust Score under 60%.
- Huge names from Good Housekeeping to Wired wound up marked as fake reviewers according to our research.
- Out of 43 sites and YouTube channels we analyzed, only 11 (25%) both scored over 60% and actually test.
- 41 out of 151 total search results (~28%) come from publications owned by Future PLC. Each of their six publications in our dataset claims to test, but only two actually do.
- These six Future-owned publications hold an average Trust Score of 56%.
Imagine you’re shopping for a brand new TV. You’ll probably do some initial research on Google and read a TV review or two, right? Now multiply that action by 6 million. In reality, 6.1 million TV review-related searches occur every month.
However, not all reviews are created equal. What we uncovered was that one third of the sites appearing in Google’s most popular TV search results DON’T test. The world’s biggest search engine is serving up misleading reviews, published by large media conglomerates like CNN, Forbes, and Rolling Stone.
Why Publishers Create Fake Reviews_
The TV industry has $7 billion in annual sales globally. From our internal numbers, the online TV review industry (for affiliates) boasts an annual gross profit of $6,806,142.
The allure of such high profits creates an environment susceptible to greedy behavior. Some reviewers take shortcuts that require little effort yet still rake in the dough, which are usually in the form of misleading, unreliable reviews that can misinform consumers into wasting money and time on a total dud of a TV.
We’ve been researching how trustworthy TV review sites are since 2021, with analyzing 210 sites in total. This Trust List has been nearly three years in the making, and we’ve concluded that there’s a concerning difference between the small amount of true TV testers and the vast amount of unreliable review sites in the online TV review industry.
From our latest Google search analysis in October 2023, there are only 11 true testers out of 43 sites that appeared in the 18 popular TV keyword search results. From our overall TV research since 2021 where we’ve analyzed 210 sites overall, only 24 actually test their TVs.
This small group of true TV testers is up against the Goliath of Google’s algorithm and widespread, profit-driven practices that compromise information quality and reliability for consumers. Our research is adjacent to the findings in Detailed.com’s affiliate search results analysis, where only 4 independent sites ranked in the top 100 sites for affiliate SERPs. Detailed’s study highlights Google’s preference for larger, established networks regardless of quality or trustworthiness.
HouseFresh’s article “David vs. Digital Goliaths” discusses how Google’s algorithm changed and the dominance of big media publishers that produce low quality, misleading reviews are negatively impacting independent review sites like theirs. Our research takes this even further by quantitatively determining how few trustworthy product testing sites there actually are and how one-third of Google’s search results are fake reviews.
Detailed’s study, HouseFresh’s article, and Gadget Review’s research underline the importance of genuine content quality and trustworthiness that should influence rankings, not size, legacy, or network affiliation.
One example of a misleading buying guide is ZDNet’s Best Samsung TVs guide which ranks #2 on the search results page for the popular keyword “Best Samsung TV”. At first glance, it’s reassuring to see real photos of the TV to show that they actually had the TV in front of them at some point. Then it gets sketchy when they claim to have performed “hands-on testing” (they even have “Expert Tested” in their title), but you can’t find any quantitative measurements of the performance criteria that determine the true performance of the TV, such as brightness, response time, and color gamut. This means they didn’t actually test the TV.
As consumer rights advocates, Gadget Review’s mission is to uncover a system rigged against consumers, revealing the truth behind all the fake reviews, manipulated ratings, and deceptive online practices. By exposing these tactics, we equip you with the knowledge to make smarter purchases, saving you time and money.
KEY STATISTIC
⅓ of search results on page 1 of Google are fake TV reviews—the publications who say they test but have a Trust Score below 60%.
Gadget Review, TV Trust List 2023
This is a long-term investigation into TVs and is part of a broader examination of consumer tech fake reviews. For each category, we compile a top 100 Trust list that forms the basis of our True Score, ensuring that our assessments are as accurate and reliable as possible.
Our other categories’ Trust Lists are coming soon, but we already have some concerning high-level statistics that shed light on the disappointing state that these other categories’ online reviews are in. For example:
- For soundbars, 7 of the 122 publications analyzed actually perform product tests on their soundbars. That means only 6% of publications test soundbars.
- For robot vacuums, 27 of the 93 (so 29%) publications actually test the robot vacuums they review.
- For computer monitors, 31 of the 98 publications we analyzed actually test their monitors, meaning only 29% of publications test.
How do we fix this problem?_
- Be aware of the prevalence of untrustworthy reviews.
- You can educate yourself by reading this Trust List of the most trusted testers in consumer tech. We update it annually, so check back now and again for the latest information.
- You can use our True Score on every product to pick the best one for your needs. If you’re curious about how we score with this system, True Score is a synthesis of trusted experts and customer ratings.
What is a True Score?_
Our True Score system revolutionizes product evaluation by combining expert reviews, customer feedback, and advanced AI analysis to provide accurate, unbiased scores of a product’s value and effectiveness. By integrating expert reviews with Trust Scores and customer insights, the system filters out fake reviews, ensuring only genuine assessments influence the final score.
The AI tool, powered by machine learning and a Bayesian model, analyzes a wide range of data, offering a balance on real-world product performance and user satisfaction. Our True Score system dynamically adapts to new, fresh reviews, maintaining its relevance and accuracy over time.
Check out the following TVs that earned the highest True Scores in the whole TV category, showcasing their exceptional quality and performance. Based on no bias, no BS, just quantitative testing data from the most trusted expert reviews and authentic, long-term customer reviews.
Cosmic Wonder
Cosmic Wonder
Cosmic Wonder
Cosmic Wonder
Cosmic Wonder
Cosmic Wonder
Cosmic Wonder
Cosmic Wonder
Cosmic Wonder
Cosmic Wonder
Cosmic Wonder
Cosmic Wonder
Cosmic Wonder
Absolutely Fresh
Absolutely Fresh
Absolutely Fresh
Absolutely Fresh
Absolutely Fresh
Absolutely Fresh
Absolutely Fresh
To be transparent, our reviews contain affiliate links so we earn a small commission with each purchase. Here is how we earn money at this current time. However, Gadget Review is on a path to move away from relying only on affiliate commissions, and we’re working on adding a user subscription system.
Who Do You Trust?_
We have been testing products for years! Gadget Review has tested almost 1,000 products in over a dozen categories. Now, we’re testing the testers. We know exactly what to test for and how the test is supposed to be measured. As part of this process, we took a look at the page 1 results of some common TV-related search queries. Our findings didn’t present a very flattering picture of the market overall!
| STATISTIC | COUNT | PERCENTAGE |
|---|---|---|
| Total Search Results Analyzed | 151 | 100% |
| Search Results w/ Passing True Score ≥ 60% | 87 | 57.62% |
| Search Results w/ Failing True Score Score <60% | 64 | 42.38% |
| Search Results from Sites that Passed and Claim to Test | 87 | 57.62% |
| Search Results from Sites that Failed and Claim to Test | 56 | 37.09% |
| Search Results from Sites that Don’t Claim to Test (AKA Researchers) | 8 | 5.30% |
| Average Trust Score of Search Results | N/A | 63.59% |
A Note On Testing Claims_
Just to clear up some potential confusion, here’s what we mean when we talk about a site’s “testing claims:”
- A site “claims to test” if they use the word “test” in a review or buying guide. For instance, you might read things like “according to our testing,” or “the best TV we’ve tested.”
- Many sites, like those owned by Future PLC, include small blurbs as part of the page layout explaining why you should trust the site because of the rigorous testing they do. These are not counted in this consideration, as the author of the actual page content has no say in their presence.
- During our research process, we use a diverse selection of criteria to determine whether or not a site really tests, if they claim to in the first place.
- “Sites that passed and claim to test” means that they earned a Trust Score of at least 60% because our research found clear evidence of quantifiable testing from the site. The site also claims to test their products by using the words “test” or “tested” in their content.
- “Sites that failed and claim to test” means that they claimed to test, but they did not earn a Trust Score of at least 60%.
- We’re not out to call anybody a liar—in many cases, it seems obvious to us that the reviewer did at least have hands-on time with the product, or even did real testing, and just didn’t publish any data to back it up. However, as long as they withhold the results of this testing, they’re hurting their veracity as reviewers.
How Trustworthy Can Review Sites Be?_
During our Trust Score evaluation, we determined who tests the best, those who claim to test but don’t, and the sites who don’t claim to test but still have failing Trust Scores.
When our investigation concluded, we created TV expert classifications. We have 3 tiers of trust followed by smaller sub-tiers that exist in certain levels.
- Highly Trusted → 90-100+
- These sites passed our Trust Score evaluation by earning a score over 90%: the “cream of the crop” of publishers, so to speak. Strong testing methods, plenty of photos, charts and graphs, and all the numbers you could ever ask for. We refer to them as “Industry Leaders”.
- RTINGs and PCMag are in this class in most categories they cover.
- Trusted → 60-89
- These publications earn a passing Trust Score, provide you with enough quantitative testing to make a purchase decision, though they might feature more qualitative analysis and discussion than the top dogs do.
- Reliable Tier – 70-89; Solid info you can always rely on.
- Passable Tier – 60-69; Not as good, but still usable.
- These publications earn a passing Trust Score, provide you with enough quantitative testing to make a purchase decision, though they might feature more qualitative analysis and discussion than the top dogs do.
- Not Trusted → 0-59
- These testers failed the evaluation. It could be from a lack of support and proof for their testing, from being fraudulent in their claims about testing, or from simply not offering up enough useful information. When better alternatives exist, these sites are difficult to recommend, at least for product reviews.
- Struggling Tier – 50-59; Might be on the come-up but they’re still failing.
- Not Worth it Tier – 30-49; Your time is better spent elsewhere.
- Totally Unhelpful Tier – 11-29; Not useful, could misguide you.
- Not Even Once Tier – 0-10; Don’t even bother.
- These testers failed the evaluation. It could be from a lack of support and proof for their testing, from being fraudulent in their claims about testing, or from simply not offering up enough useful information. When better alternatives exist, these sites are difficult to recommend, at least for product reviews.
Here’s a bar chart below to help you visualize how the experts are distributed across the classifications. It’s crazy to think that 89% of sites that appear in the most popular TV search results failed our Trust Score evaluation.
The Keywords We Used_
The list of 18 TV keywords includes mostly the popular “best-of” keywords along with best-seller TV model review keywords. If you’re new to these types of keywords, let us explain:
- “Best-Of” Keywords: These are searched by users with transactional intent, helping them compare top product options before purchasing, as seen in searches like “best outdoor TVs.”
- “Review” Keywords: These are searched by users with transactional intent seeking in-depth product reviews before purchasing (example: “Samsung Galaxy S21 review”).
| KEYWORD | TYPE OF KEYWORD | MONTHLY SEARCH VOLUME |
|---|---|---|
| best oled tv | Best-Of | 6,600 |
| best gaming tv | Best-Of | 6,600 |
| best samsung tv | Best-Of | 4,400 |
| best 4k tv | Best-Of | 3,600 |
| best tv for bright room | Best-Of | 3,600 |
| best budget tv | Best-Of | 2,900 |
| best roku tv | Best-Of | 2,900 |
| best large tv | Best-Of | 720 |
| best sony tv | Best-Of | 2,900 |
| best small tv | Best-Of | 1,900 |
| tv with best sound | Best-Of | 1,600 |
| best qled tv | Best-Of | 1,600 |
| best vizio tv | Best-Of | 1,300 |
| brightest tv | Best-Of | 320 |
| best budget 120hz tv | Best-Of | 140 |
| lg c2 review | Review | 1,000 |
| samsung tu7000 review | Review | 1,000 |
| sony x90k review | Review | 1,000 |
We evaluated 210 different sites total with our Trust Score criteria to determine who publishes the most transparent and thoroughly-tested TV reviews.
See below for the full breakdown of how much presence each type of site has within the 151 search results. We provide definitions and examples of these types of sites below.
Type of Sites Breakdown_
| TYPE OF SITE | AVERAGE TRUST SCORE | PUBLICATIONS/YOUTUBE CHANNELS COUNT |
|---|---|---|
| Multiple Tech Review | 54.24% | 20 |
| Niche Tech Review | 28.84% | 7 |
| Niche News | 38.43% | 10 |
| General News | 23.93% | 5 |
| Video Review | 5.50% | 1 |
The type of site that earned the highest average Trust Score is the Multiple Tech Review type, which is still a mediocre 54.24%. It’s interesting that 9 out of 10 of our top 10 trusted publications for TV reviews are of the Multiple Tech Review type though, so they aren’t completely unreliable. That average is so low, however, because out of the total 20 Multiple Tech Review sites, only 9 earned a score over 60%.
FYI: Other categories also exist outside of the five above, but be aware that no sites showed up in the 151 search results fell under those umbrellas. Here are all type of site definitions and examples:
| TYPE OF SITE | DEFINITION | EXAMPLES |
|---|---|---|
| Multiple Tech Review | A site that covers more than 15 product categories such as a broad range of product categories from beauty and tech to kitchen and car products. | 1. PC Mag 2. Best Products |
| Niche Tech Review | A site with 3-15 product categories. They cover many products in a particular space (such as automotive). | 1. RTINGs 2. America’s Test Kitchen |
| Hyperniche Tech Review | A site that reviews 1-2 product categories. They evaluate a tighter scope of products, so they might only review running shoes or VPNs or vacuums and so forth. | 1. Top10VPN 2. Brick Fanatics |
| Consumer Review | They are not a product retailer, and their main purpose is to let consumers post their own reviews of products or businesses | 1. G2 2. Trust Pilot |
| General News | Their navigation bar leads with “News”, and less than 10% of their content is affiliate. They cover a broad range of news topics. | 1. MSN 2. CNN |
| Niche News | Their navigation bar leads with “news” & less than 10% of their content is affiliate. Their content is focused on a particular space (tech, business, etc.) | 1. Mac Rumors 2. Apple Insider 3. Forbes 4. Electrek |
| General eCommerce | Their navigation leads with their retailer pages. Less than 15-20% of their content is affiliate. They sell a broad range of product categories. | 1. Amazon 2. Walmart |
| Niche eCommerce | Their navigation leads with their retailer pages. Less than 15-20% of their content is affiliate. They sell 2-4 types of products that belong under a similar sphere. | 1. BTOD |
| Video Review | The review is in the form of a video, which gets evaluated against a different set of Trust Score criteria geared towards video content. | 1. YouTube 2. Vimeo |
Parent Company Presence Within Search Results_
We found that Future PLC accounts for 42 of the 151 search results, which is the largest portion over any other parent company. This means you have a one in four chance of running into one of these Future publications while shopping online for TVs.
That number’s probably so high due to the large amount of publications that they own. However, their average Trust Score across their publications is nothing to write home about, at a disappointing 56.38%. However, they do possess two of the top 10 most trustworthy publications. Wouldn’t it be great if all their publications were held to the same standard as their two MVPs?
Check out the following chart that visualizes how Future dominates the TV search results over any other parent or holding company.
The Two Problems Online Shoppers Face_
| TLDR: Many experts don’t really test the product, plus many consumer reviews provide unreliable information (some are not even reflective of the product but other aspects). |
Consumers face trouble on both the expert and customer review sides when trying to make a purchase decision. Remember that our findings discovered how you have a 2 in 5 chance of running into an unreliable review where the site has a failing Trust Score, whether they claim to test or not. Plus 37% of the search results come from a misleading site that claims to test but earned a failing Trust Score.
These shady practices distort the information pyramid, tilting it away from the consumer in favor of big business and unscrupulous review peddlers.
And you can’t ignore the voice of the people. Customer reviews matter as well when it comes to understanding how good a product really is.
KEY STATISTIC
87% of consumers say that ratings and reviews posted by real-life customers have a greater impact on their purchasing decisions.
Emplifi, “Meeting the Demands of the Modern Customer” December 2022 Study
Customer reviews/ratings have become the most influential factor in purchasing decisions – outranking price, return policy, and shipping costs.
But in today’s world of fake reviews, customer ratings aren’t as safe to rely on as they should be. “One tap” reviews of just stars and no substance are easy to fudge. A lot are missing details on long-term usage of a product. And even if a review isn’t faking it, many of them are born out of apathy.
Frankly, we’ve had enough of a system that wants us to believe it’s OK to live in a game rigged against us, and we’re committed to driving change.
Our Solution To Fix This Problem_
Our commitment, our big “why,” is to expose the fake reviewers and reward the true testers through transparency and cooperation. Too many so-called “review sites” are nothing but a house of cards. We want to blow them down and give you the tools to make the best choices on the products you want.
Here’s how we do it:
- Identify which publications actually test.
- Look for authentic, long-term customer reviews*.
Then, we distill that information down to what really matters so you can make an informed decision.
We understand that our investigation’s findings may rustle some feathers, but this is all for the sake of the consumers. We want to send out the call for every single publication in the industry to strive for transparency and real testing in the landscape of online reviews.
*FYI: Long-term customer reviews are product evaluations provided by customers who have used a product or service for an extended period.
The Dirty Dozen Creating Misleading Reviews_
Let’s talk about the popular yet misleading publications first. You might recognize a few of these guys. We were disappointed with them since they claim to test TVs in their content, but they received a failing trust score under 60%. In other words, they don’t really test these TVs.
The following list of 12 publications is in descending order of who is earning the most traffic via #1 ranking TV keywords. These keyword market shares were pulled in early December of 2023.
Publication #1: Lifewire
- Parent Company: Dotdash Meredith
- Type of Site: Multiple Tech Review
- TV Trust Score: 48.40%
- Total #1 Ranked TV Keywords: 3,378
- Monthly TV Traffic: 183,600
- How they earn their money: Affiliate programs, Advertisements, Sponsored posts
Testing Quality Analysis:
- Do they claim to test TVs?: Yes
- Do they have a TV Testing Methodology?: No
They describe their experience using the TVs, like exploring the different models. They claim to test but nothing that’s provided in their write ups indicates proper, effective testing was performed.
While there are photos that help to confirm that Lifewire did actually have the televisions in the presence of the reviewers (their original photographs help support this) they do not have any kind of measurements that would help support their claims of testing.
Additional charts and graphs would make these reviews more convincing. None of the custom questions we’ve laid out are addressed in the three reviews we sampled, which means there’s no hard numbers or data/graphs for input lag, peak brightness, color gamut or contrast.
Publication #2: TechRadar
- Parent Company: Future PLC
- Type of Site: Multiple Tech Review
- TV Trust Score: 56.60%
- Total #1 Ranked TV Keywords: 1,208
- Monthly TV Traffic: 177,100
- How they earn their money: Affiliate programs, Advertisements, Sponsored posts
Testing Quality Analysis:
- Do they claim to test TVs?: Yes
- Do they have a TV Testing Methodology?: No
TechRadar’s failing score is owed in part to their claims of testing on their TV reviews, which is only sometimes true. Though one of the three reviews sampled included measurements for input lag (in ms) and peak brightness (in nits), these measurements were absent from other two reviews, along with answers to the remaining two custom questions (color gamut and contrast.)
We don’t doubt that TechRadar actually got the televisions, based on their photos, but their testing leaves a lot to be desired on some of their reviews. Inconsistency creates a problem for the consumer, as it becomes difficult to know if a review is going to be well made and the product of careful testing or not.
Publication #3: ZDNet
- Parent Company: Red Ventures
- Type of Site: Multiple Tech Review
- TV Trust Score: 38.20%
- Total #1 Ranked TV Keywords: 1,035
- Monthly TV Traffic: 124,500
- How they earn their money: Affiliate programs, Advertisements, Sponsored posts
Testing Quality Analysis:
- Do they claim to test TVs?: Yes
- Do they have a TV Testing Methodology?: No
ZDNet’s failure stems from the fact that, despite their claims of testing, very little of what is presented in their reviews supports any kind of proper testing beyond “using the TV.” A product test is more than just watching movies or playing games on a television.
There are plenty of photos to suggest that the testers at ZDNet did plenty of activities with their TVs, but there’s nothing that shows equipment being used to test brightness to get the reported nits measurements. Input lag and contrast are talked about in a qualitative sense with no hard numbers provided.
There’s plenty of proof they got the TVs and used them – but there’s not much proof they did anything beyond that.
Publication #4: Make Use Of
- Parent Company: Valnet Inc.
- Type of Site: Niche News
- TV Trust Score: 29.80%
- Total #1 Ranked TV Keywords: 965
- Monthly TV Traffic: 70,200
- How they earn their money: Affiliate programs, Advertisements, Sponsored posts
Testing Quality Analysis:
- Do they claim to test TVs?: Yes
- Do they have a TV Testing Methodology?: No
They definitely use these TVs for their reviews, but “testing” seems to be a stretch. The visual evidence of that aspect is there, but we’re missing proof on any testing equipment or results.
The review is filled with qualitative assessments of the TVs, but if you’re after test results about the TV performance criteria that matter, you should probably look elsewhere.
It’s great how they used the TV for various usage cases like watching sports, playing games, etc., but they don’t defend these descriptive claims of the TV’s performance with quantitative tests.
Publication #5: Consumer Reports
- Parent Company: N/A
- Type of Site: Multiple Tech Review
- TV Trust Score: 35.40%
- Total #1 Ranked TV Keywords: 960
- Monthly TV Traffic: 98,600
- How they earn their money: Affiliate programs, User subscriptions, Investors (Note that they’re a non-profit*)
Testing Quality Analysis:
At the time of this report, we’ve reached out to Consumer Reports for actual test results and units of measurement.
They say they test, but there’s little evidence provided to show it. Worse still, the paywall is a barrier to entry. Scoring system is a breakdown of multiple criteria, which is good. Their results section on their reviews is decently sized, with ratings given to multiple criteria, but there are no photos, graphs or charts to help confirm to the reader that the testing they claim to do was actually performed.
They provide a “detailed results” section that uses qualitative language instead of quantitative data to drive their points, so instead of seeing a color gamut graph or contrast screens, we just get statements saying brightness is “very good” or contrast is “excellent.”
* A “Non-Profit” is an organization that operates for purposes other than generating profit.
Publication #6: Forbes
- Parent Company: Integrated Whale Media Investments
- Type of Site: Niche News
- TV Trust Score: 43.20%
- Total #1 Ranked TV Keywords: 728
- Monthly TV Traffic: 65,000
- How they earn their money: Affiliate programs, User subscriptions, Investors, Advertisements, Sponsored posts
Testing Quality Analysis:
- Do they claim to test TVs?: Yes
- Do they have a TV Testing Methodology?: No
Forbes has run into issues with the consistency of their testing. Their failing score stems from the uneven way that TVs are tested across writers. Some claim to test, others don’t, some use concrete numbers, others don’t.
Even the presence of non-stock photos varies across reviews and it creates an environment where it is difficult to really understand how much testing is really being performed. Brightness is covered, but there’s no mention or proof of testing equipment, and the remaining custom questions we’ve laid out are fulfilled to different degrees by each review differently.
This uneven landscape raises serious questions about the validity of the numbers that Forbes does provide, as well as the truth behind their testing claims.
Publication #7: CNN
- Parent Company: Warner Bros. Discovery
- Type of Site: General News
- TV Trust Score: 32.40%
- Total #1 Ranked TV Keywords: 530
- Monthly TV Traffic: 41,200
- How they earn their money: Affiliate programs, Advertisements, Sponsored posts
Testing Quality Analysis:
They certainly used these TVs, but their testing claims are rather weak. In their reviews, they have multiple real photos of the TVs. One features a real person mounting the TV, but we realize in the review that that person is the hired installer, not the author.
CNN does provide a TV testing methodology, but the actual reviews lack quantitative testing evidence. They do discuss certain criteria, though they forgot about input lag. They compare the model to other TVs, which is a great concept, but test results would support why the author thinks one is better than the other for certain criteria.
Publication #8: Electronics Hub
- Parent Company: N/A
- Type of Site: Multiple Tech Review
- TV Trust Score: 16.20%
- Total #1 Ranked TV Keywords: 526
- Monthly TV Traffic: 26,000
- How they earn their money: Affiliate programs, Advertisements, Sponsored posts
Testing Quality Analysis:
- Do they claim to test TVs?: No
- Do they have a TV Testing Methodology?: No
More detailed analysis under construction. Thanks for your patience!
Publication #9: Rolling Stone
Profile Page | Buying Guide Example
- Parent Company: Penake Media Corporation
- Total #1 Ranked TV Keywords: 525
- Monthly TV Traffic: 80,700
- Type of Site: General News
- TV Trust Score: 11.20%
- How they earn their money: Affiliate programs, User subscriptions, Investors, Advertisements, Sponsored posts
Testing Quality Analysis:
- Do they claim to test TVs?: No
- Do they have a TV Testing Methodology?: No
More detailed analysis under construction. Thanks for your patience!
Publication #10: The Verge
- Parent Company: Vox Media
- Type of Site: Niche News
- TV Trust Score: 34.40%
- Total #1 Ranked TV Keywords: 505
- Monthly TV Traffic: 89,500
- How they earn their money: Affiliate programs, Advertisements, Sponsored posts
Testing Quality Analysis:
- Do they claim to test TVs?: Yes
- Do they have a TV Testing Methodology?: No
We don’t deny that they actually had the TVs in front of them and used them, for their real images clearly prove that. However, their content does not include images showing hardware testing equipment, screenshots of test results, etc. This absence raises concerns about the thoroughness of their testing process.
The lack of transparency regarding their testing methods and tools further undermines their credibility. Though they describe their impressions of important performance criteria like contrast and color quality, their quantitative test results to support their claims are nowhere to be found.
Publication #11: Wired
- Parent Company: Condé Nast
- Type of Site: Multiple Tech Review
- TV Trust Score: 26.80%
- Total #1 Ranked TV Keywords: 486
- Monthly TV Traffic: 87,200
- How they earn their money: Affiliate programs, Advertisements, Sponsored posts
Testing Quality Analysis:
- Do they claim to test TVs?: No
- Do they have a TV Testing Methodology?: No
More detailed analysis under construction. Thanks for your patience!
Publication #12: Good Housekeeping
- Parent Company: Hearst Digital Media
- Type of Site: Multiple Tech Review
- TV Trust Score: 23.80%
- Total #1 Ranked TV Keywords: 330
- Monthly TV Traffic: 32,000
- How they earn their money: Affiliate programs, Advertisements, Sponsored posts, User Subscriptions
Top 10 Trustworthy Publications That Test TVs_
Below are your Most Trusted Testers for 2023. Please note that if you see “No Parent Company Found” it refers to a company that’s not a subsidiary of a parent company. If they also have “No investors found”, that means they’re a self-funded business that isn’t financially supported by investors.
Publication #1: RTINGs
- Parent Company: Quebec Inc.
- Type of Site: Niche Tech Review
- TV Trust Score: 101.40%
- Total #1 Ranked TV Keywords: 4,189
- Monthly TV Traffic: 555,400
- How they earn their money: Affiliate programs, Selling products
Testing Quality Analysis:
RTINGs undoubtedly tests their TVs. Their comprehensive scoring breakdowns and heavy use of quantitative tests in their reviews (plus willingness to provide proof of them) earn them their high Trust Score.
They have elaborate TV testing methodologies for every performance criteria, which is something we’ve never seen done before in the electronics review industry. They provide numerous real photos of the TVs and testing equipment, and they use correct units of measurements in their test results.
Their video reviews have the reviewers speak in front of the camera as well for further transparency.
Publication #2: PC Mag
- Parent Company: Ziff Davis
- Type of Site: Multiple Tech Review
- TV Trust Score: 91.40%
- Total #1 Ranked TV Keywords: 611
- Monthly TV Traffic: 180,100
- How they earn their money: Affiliate programs, ads, sponsored posts, paid traffic
Testing Quality Analysis:
Engaging in proper testing with a clearly defined (though not completely explained) testing methodology that values quantitative testing over qualitative. They employ multiple pieces of equipment, test everything they review, and present their results within graphs such as this color gamut graph, earning them a high score.
Testing Quality Analysis:
PCMag engages in proper testing in their reviews with a clearly defined (though not completely explained) testing methodology that values quantitative testing over qualitative. They employ multiple pieces of equipment, test everything they review, and present their results within graphs such as this color gamut graph, earning them a high score.
They provide test results of all four custom questions we were looking for for the TV review category, so they know what TV performance criteria are most important to evaluate for a consumer.
The only question they missed was a bonus question looking for recently-published video reviews, which can take their excellent reviews even further.
Publication #3: CNET
- Parent Company: Red Ventures
- Type of Site: Multiple Tech Review
- TV Trust Score: 89.00%
- Total #1 Ranked TV Keywords: 2,039
- Monthly TV Traffic: 399,600
- How they earn their money: Affiliate programs, ads, sponsored posts, and paid traffic
Testing Quality Analysis:
CNET has dedicated testing equipment that it shows off in their reviews, dedicated testing setups (including whole rooms designed to help test TVs) and they provide clear explanations of their performance criteria, testing methods, and scoring breakdowns.
Their support for their testing methodology includes their use of quantitative testing methods, as well as providing pictures and videos of how they test and what they test.
Their comparison tables are great ways of communicating useful information gained through testing for the consumer, while also providing proof you’re doing your due diligence.
Sign up for our Newsletter!
Keep up with more Top 10 Testers in future Trust Lists coming soon.
Publication #4: Trusted Reviews
- Parent Company: Incisive Media
- Type of Site: Multiple Tech Review
- TV Trust Score: 81.20%
- Total #1 Ranked TV Keywords: 128
- Monthly TV Traffic: 29,600
- How they earn their money: Affiliate programs, ads, and sponsored posts
Testing Quality Analysis:
They provide an outline of testing methods, equipment, and performance criteria, as well as how the scoring is broken out and weighted. Trusted Reviews features many real photos of these TVs. The reviews cover most of the custom questions we were looking for, except for one regarding contrast.
To improve their score further, it’d be great to see more real photos that features test equipment, software test screenshots, etc. Trust Reviews also has a lower General Score, so adding some missing features such as an in-depth scoring system can help out their TV Trust Score further.
Publication #5: Tom’s Guide
- Parent Company: Future PLC
- Type of Site: Multiple Tech Review
- TV Trust Score: 77.80%
- Total #1 Ranked TV Keywords: 1,587
- Monthly TV Traffic: 377,500
- How they earn their money: Affiliate programs, ads, and sponsored posts
Testing Quality Analysis:
Their reviews feature visual evidence of the products and they have a TV testing page, though it could use a refresh. It’s over four years old, which isn’t as helpful to consumers since technology is constantly evolving year after year.
Tom’s Guide test several core Performance Criteria except for contrast. They presents their findings in helpful comparison tables as well.
Their General Score is a big factor in what lowered their TV Trust Score below the others in the top 10. They could be more transparent in certain areas, such as their ethics via an ethics statement and their ratings of categories of performance, usage cases, and performance criteria.
Publication #6: Wirecutter
- Parent Company: The New York Times
- Type of Site: Multiple Tech Review
- TV Trust Score: 75.00%
- Total #1 Ranked TV Keywords: 1,342
- Monthly TV Traffic: 144,400
- How they earn their money: Affiliate programs and user subscriptions
Testing Quality Analysis:
Their TV testing methodology, real images of the TVs, and quantitative measurements help their Trust Score out a lot. They have a decent trustworthy General Score thanks to their ethics statement and comparison tables, but they could benefit from an in-depth scoring system to bring further clarity to their final verdicts on products.
On the Category side of the questions, they missed an opportunity to provide test results of contrast. Their buying guides appear rather text heavy, so we’d suggest images of testing equipment to space out the text.
They can also embed a recent review video into the text, which we couldn’t find during our evaluation.
Publication #7: Reviewed
- Parent Company: Gannett
- Type of Site: Multiple Tech Review
- TV Trust Score: 74.20%
- Total #1 Ranked TV Keywords: 781
- Monthly TV Traffic: 56,200
- How they earn their money: Affiliate programs, ads, sponsored posts, and paid traffic
Testing Quality Analysis:
​​What is tested and how, as well as equipment used, is discussed, but only briefly. There is a focus on quantitative tests, though the assignment of “best” is not clear in their discussion because of a lack of scoring.
One can tell that the pictures are authentically theirs thanks to the “Reviewed” LED neon sign in the background of most of them. To further break up the text, tables would be nice to see. For some variation in the TV photos and to add to their Trust Score, photos featuring test equipment would be helpful.
Publication #8: Gamesradar
- Parent Company: Future PLC
- Type of Site: Multiple Tech Review
- TV Trust Score: 73.80%
- Total #1 Ranked TV Keywords: 156
- Monthly TV Traffic: 31,600
- How they earn their money: Affiliate programs, ads, and sponsored posts
Testing Quality Analysis:
They provide a TV testing page, real images, and quantitative measurements, so they tested TVs to a certain degree, but we wish their testing was more thorough in regards to Performance Criteria.
They don’t have many images of software test screenshots or testing equipment. Though they answered some custom questions, they missed the other half that regard brightness and contrast.
Gamesradar uses a simple five star rating system, so utilizing a more in-depth scoring system down the road would also improve their Trust Score.
Publication #9: Digital Trends
- Parent Company: Designtechnica Corporation
- Type of Site: Multiple Tech Review
- TV Trust Score: 70.00%
- Total #1 Ranked TV Keywords: 562
- Monthly TV Traffic: 197,800
- How they earn their money: Affiliate programs, ads, sponsored posts
Testing Quality Analysis:
Digital Trends definitely tested these TVs. They provide several real photos of the TVs along with quantitative test results in their reviews. They did not cover all of our custom questions though, so we’d like to see them take their testing further.
They have an organized TV testing methodology that applies to all their reviews and explains a consistent testing process. They also provide YouTube reviews with a real person and the TV in the same room, all which help out their Trust Score. Digital Trends is another site that uses a five-star scoring system, so though it’s a good start, having a scoring system out of 100 will improve their Trust Score.
Publication #10: Expert Reviews UK
- Parent Company: Dennis Group
- Type of Site: Multiple Tech Review
- TV Trust Score: 66.20%
- Total #1 Ranked TV Keywords: 36
- Monthly TV Traffic: 42,100
- How they earn their money: Affiliate programs, ads, sponsored posts
Testing Quality Analysis:
- Do they claim to test TVs?: Yes
- Do they have a TV Testing Methodology?: No
Expert Reviews thoroughly tests their TVs, for they answered all of our custom questions, which is a rare find. They provide several real photos of the TVs along with quantitative test results in their reviews. They even identify the software that they used to test their TCL RC630K.
They lack a TV testing methodology along with a thorough scoring system out of 100, so adding both would help out their Trust Score. Honestly adding more transparency onto their site in general would be great to further build trust, since they seem to already be thorough testers.
All TV Trust Scores Ranked_
For those curious about all the sites we evaluated and what Trust Score they received, here’s the entire list of researched TV review publications in order of best Trust Scores to the bottom of the barrel.
What The Testers Need To Be Testing_
So how does one measure and determine how “good” a TV is? Through evaluating its performance, which refers to the product’s ability to deliver optimal results and meet or exceed expectations in terms of its intended functionality, efficiency, and effectiveness.
There’s no one thing that makes a particular TV or product good too. It’s a combination of several different factors called Performance Criteria (PC), and each has a unique impact on a given product’s performance. Multiple Performance Criteria make up a single Category of Performance (CoP).
1. Category of Performance – An encapsulation of related Performance Criteria to evaluate the overall performance of a product in a certain category. The right criteria must be selected to properly assess a Category of Performance.
2. Performance Criteria – An individual standard, measurement, or benchmark used to evaluate and assess the performance of a product for a specific use or purpose.
Examples:
- Electronics i.e. TVs 📺, Smartphones 📱, Laptops 💻
- CoP: Display/Picture Quality
- PC: Resolution, color accuracy, brightness, contrast ratio, viewing angles.
- CoP: Sound Quality
- PC: Clarity, volume range
- CoP: Display/Picture Quality
- Appliances i.e. refrigerators, washing machines, vacuum cleaners
- CoP: Energy Efficiency
- PC: Energy consumption, Energy Star rating
- CoP: Durability
- PC: Lifespan, resistance to wear and tear
- CoP: Energy Efficiency
To accurately compare different models against each other, it’s important to test the same Performance Criteria across a category. So, we’ve identified the various Performance Criteria that make up each Category of Performance for TVs and compiled them into one comprehensive list.
Note: Although “value” is important to us, there isn’t a test for value. Value is a subjective judgment call that gets made (or doesn’t get made) by a tester. We do not give any tester a leg up for deciding to include value as part of their criteria. It doesn’t hurt them, but it won’t help them either.
Quantitative Vs Qualitative_
Part of our examination and analysis includes a look at quantitative and qualitative testing. While some things simply can’t be measured (like local dimming or the overall smart-OS experience), many things can be. As such, we value quantitative tests with clearly defined methods and units of measurement.
While we still consider qualitative tests based on how a tester feels about a feature, we know that quantitative testing provides a more comprehensive picture of a product’s performance.
TV Categories of Performance & Performance Criteria
The following are the metrics that experts should use to quantitatively review how the top televisions compare, and a large factor in how we recommend the best televisions:
- Picture Quality (Category of Performance)
- Color Gamut (Performance Criteria)
- Contrast Ratio (PC)
- Brightness (PC)
- Input Lag (PC)
For the full list of TV Categories of Performance and Performance Criteria along with their units of measurement and testing equipment, they’re all listed in the TV Testing Methodology.
How We Test The Testers_
Before we can start handing out True Scores to great and not-so-great TVs, we need to identify the most trustworthy experts on the internet. The Trust Score is the bedrock of our True Score system. They are used to determine the Expert Score for a product which helps calculate its True Score.
This process is not automated. We hire real people to visit each publication and conduct a thorough inspection to determine if they’re really testing these products.
You can learn more about all of the individual questions that go into our Trust Scores here.
The product True Scores are calculated using a Bayesian model, which is a type of probabilistic model. In a Bayesian model, beliefs and uncertainties are expressed in terms of probabilities. We get that statistics aren’t everyone’s forte; we explain the Bayesian model as simply as possible when we discuss how we test the testers.
We had our entire True Score system validated by a professional statistician. He even found correlations between our top scoring TV testers’ expert product reviews, which can suggest that those thorough testers (those with high TV Trust Scores) have consistency and methodological agreement in their product testing.
Check out the following chart that illustrates which publications strongly correlate with each other based on product ratings. Most pairings positively correlate, while a few have negative correlations.
Here is a scatter plot illustrating our top two trusted sites’ product ratings. You can see that they correlate positively together.
To be clear, correlations in general are not necessarily definitive—as the saying goes, “correlation does not imply causation”—but we can draw valuable insights from them. This is a great sign that we’re on a path to effectively identify publications that engage in more thorough testing practices.
Parent Company Trustworthiness Regarding TV Reviews_
We were seeing some parent companies frequently across the board while evaluating the search results. We wanted to find out the average Trust Scores that a parent company earned based on how their subsidiaries perform plus how much of the TV search results a parent company actually possesses.
| RANK | PARENT COMPANY | SEARCH RESULTS COUNT | % OF SEARCH RESULTS POSSESSED | # OF PUBLICATIONS APPEARING IN SERPs | AVG TRUST SCORE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Future PLC | 42 | 27.81% | 6 | 56.38% |
| 2 | Red Ventures | 21 | 13.91% | 2 | 63.60% |
| 3 | Quebec Inc | 18 | 11.92% | 1 | 101.40% |
| 4 | New York Times | 11 | 7.28% | 1 | 75.00% |
| 5 | Ziff Davis | 8 | 5.30% | 2 | 75.60% |
Click “read more” below for the full table.
| Rank | Parent Company Average Trust Score | Search Result Count | Percentage of Search Results | Publications In SERPs | Average Trust Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Future plc | 42 | 27.81% | 6 | 36.49% |
| 2 | Red Ventures | 21 | 13.91% | 2 | 63.60% |
| 3 | Quebec Inc | 18 | 11.92% | 1 | 101.40% |
| 4 | NY Times | 11 | 7.28% | 1 | 75.00% |
| 5 | Ziff Davis | 8 | 5.30% | 2 | 56.67% |
| 6 | By Gamers For Gamers | 6 | 3.97% | 2 | 21.45% |
| 7 | Gannett Co., Inc. | 6 | 3.97% | 1 | 74.20% |
| 8 | Designtechnica Corporation | 4 | 2.65% | 1 | 70.00% |
| 9 | Condé Nast | 3 | 1.99% | 1 | 26.80% |
| 10 | No Parent Company Found | 2 | 1.32% | 2 | 20.17% |
| 11 | Dotdash | 2 | 1.32% | 2 | 31.00% |
| 12 | Axel Springer SE. | 2 | 1.32% | 1 | 61.20% |
| 13 | Consumer Reports | 2 | 1.32% | 2 | 35.40% |
| 14 | Dennis Group | 2 | 1.32% | 1 | 66.20% |
| 15 | Guiding Tech Media | 2 | 1.32% | 1 | 10.80% |
| 16 | Hearst Digital Media | 2 | 1.32% | 2 | 15.60% |
| 17 | Superlativ, LLC | 2 | 1.32% | 1 | 25.70% |
| 18 | Valnet Inc. | 1 | 0.66% | 1 | 33.35% |
| 19 | IDG Inc. | 1 | 0.66% | 1 | 50.57% |
| 20 | Bauer Media Group | 1 | 0.66% | 1 | 16.60% |
| 21 | Vox Media | 1 | 0.66% | 1 | 22.90% |
| 22 | Electronics Hub | 1 | 0.66% | 1 | 16.20% |
| 23 | Penake Media Corporation | 1 | 0.66% | 1 | 11.20% |
| 24 | Recurrent | 1 | 0.66% | 1 | 10.80% |
| 25 | Forbes Media LLC | 1 | 0.66% | 1 | 43.20% |
| 26 | Roku | 1 | 0.66% | 1 | 5.60% |
| 27 | Telegraph Media Group | 1 | 0.66% | 1 | 24.63% |
| 28 | Trusted Reviews Limited | 1 | 0.66% | 1 | 80.40% |
| 29 | Warner Bros. Discovery | 1 | 0.66% | 1 | 32.40% |
| 30 | WiredShopper | 1 | 0.66% | 2 | 15.20% |
| 31 | kelsey media ltd | 1 | 0.66% | 1 | 38.20% |
As you can see, Future PLC holds the largest portion of the search results out of any other parent company (over a quarter of the 151 search results!).
However, other parent companies like Quebec Inc. outshine them when it comes to average Trust Scores. Quebec Inc. possesses only 13.91% of the search results despite their outstanding Trust Score of 101.40%.
The presence that a site or parent company possesses within the TV keyword SERPs is important to note because this can translate to the profit these parent companies are raking in. To be frank, the market potential of TV affiliate keywords is enormous–meaning there are millions of dollars at stake here.
Total Addressable Market (TAM) for Affiliate TV Keywords_
In 2022, the global television industry was worth $108.09 billion USD, and it’s anticipated to reach $135 billion USD by 2028. Being an extremely profitable industry, it attracts many publications to pursue writing expert TV reviews.
TERM
VALUE
DEFINITION OF TERM
Total US TV Review Keyword Market Share
1,922,161
Number of “best/review/how-to/what-is/etc.” transactional, review-related TV keywords that are applicable to affiliate publications.
Total TV Monthly Searches
6,100,000
How many times users search for the keywords in the Total TV Keyword Market Share.
Potential Monthly Affiliate Traffic
4,880,000
80% of the Total TV Monthly Searches. This is an estimation of the traffic that actually goes to affiliate publications aside from e-commerce sites.
Retailer Traffic
2,366,800
This is 48.5% of the Potential Monthly Affiliate Traffic above. We send on average 48.5% of our TV-related traffic to retailers.*
Monthly Sales
236,680
This is 10% of the Retailer Traffic. 10% of that monthly traffic converts into actual sales.*
Monthly E-Commerce Sales via Affiliates
$104,139,200
Multiply the Monthly Sales by the Average TV Order Value to get this total sale amount that E-Commerce retailers earn.
Average Commission Rate
1.17%
Review Site Monthly Revenue
$1,218,429
Multiply the Monthly E-Commerce Sales by the Avg. Commission Rate to get the potential monthly revenue that publications earn.
Review Site Annual Revenue
$14,621,144
Multiply the Monthly Revenue by 12 to get the final annual revenue that goes to publications.
Gross Profit Margin
The difference between earned revenue and operating expenses for publishers in this case. This percentage varies across industries.
Monthly Gross Profit
$567,179
Multiply the Monthly Revenue by the Margin.
Annual Gross Profit
$6,806,142
Multiply the Annual Revenue by the Margin.
*Based on our own traffic data in Google Search Console. Gadget Review receives over 100,000 visitors in regards to our TV content every month.
“Best 85 inch TV” SERP_
Let’s take a look at some TV-related Search Engine Results Pages (SERPs) now that we know how much money is at stake here. The query “best 85 inch TV” earns 6,600 searches every month, which is a pretty competitive keyword.
For more context regarding how much a site can earn if it’s in a SERP’s #1 spot, Gadget Review was #1 in the “best TVs for bedroom” SERP for the entire month of January 2023. That query earns 1,000 searches a month, and our buying guide earned $231.54 that month.
On this “best 85 inch TV” SERP screenshot below, we’ve highlighted in red the publications that earned failing Trust Scores under 60% and those that passed in green.
It’s alarming that two of the top three publications received failing Trust Scores. Positions 1 to 3 earn the most clicks out of the entire top 10 results, so it’s unfortunate that most of the traffic is going to publications that have unhelpful, unverified TV recommendations.
“Best TV” SERP_
What about broader search term SERPs with very high search volume? “Best TV” is a very competitive query that earns over 33,000 searches a month. This SERP is fairly healthy but has room to improve.
Looking at the SERP below, the third seat is taken by a publication that failed our Trust Score criteria. However, the top two positions usually earn more clicks than the third, so at least the bulk of the traffic is going to expert testers with passing Trust Scores. Referring back to our “best tvs for bedroom” example, the top seated results on this SERP are probably raking in thousands of dollars.
Top 10 Publications By Google’s TV Keyword Market Share_
The following table is sorted from highest to lowest according to how many keywords a site has in the #1 position in a SERP. We’ve excluded general e-commerce sites from this list along with sites that don’t claim to test TVs.
The Next Evolution Of This Trust List_
This concludes our Trust List that analyzed the best and worst TV testers and the current climate of the TV review industry.
Our goal was to help you discover a way to spot that fake review, and to follow our lead on the most trusted sites out there when it comes to purchasing your latest television.
And we’re not finished yet! This Trust List has room to grow, so make sure to check back soon! In the next version, we want to incorporate more actionable opportunities that you, the consumer, can check out. Here’s what’s coming next:
- TV Buying Guides based on the True Scores
- Long-term authentic customer reviews
🔦Assets To Our TV Review Investigation
- TV Trust Scores Airtable View
- Trust Score Criteria Breakdown
- TV Publications That Say “Tested” or “Tried” Airtable View
- Parent Company Average TV Trust Scores Airtable View
- Trust Score Classifications
- Type of Site Average TV Trust Scores Airtable View
- TV Keyword Market Share Airtable View
- TV Keywords Search Results Breakdown & Analysis
