Review & Collaboration Policy

I make reviews, tutorials and demonstrations about laser engravers, 3D printers, UV printers, CNC machines, software, tools and related technology. Sometimes a product is supplied free of charge, loaned, or part of a wider collaboration with the brand. I may also use affiliate links or discount codes.

None of that changes what I say about a product. A brand can pay for my time and the work involved. It can't pay for my opinion. Opinions and conclusions are mine.

Editorial independence

A commercial relationship with a brand doesn't give that brand control over my opinion. Supplying a product, sponsoring a video or offering affiliate commission does not guarantee positive coverage.

Working with a brand means putting my time and work into producing the content. It doesn't mean handing over my opinion, a particular conclusion, or control over what I say or how I present it. Factual and technical feedback is still welcome, through the fact check described below.

Product reviews are based on genuine hands-on use. I include what works well and what doesn't. If a product has weaknesses, limitations or problems, I'll say so. If it performs well, I'll say that too. The aim is useful, balanced information, not hunting for faults and not promoting for the sake of it.

I keep control of:

• The opinions expressed and the overall conclusion
• Testing methods
• Structure, presentation and creative direction
• Video titles and thumbnails
• Wording and commentary
• Which strengths and weaknesses matter to my audience

Brands are welcome to send product information, technical documents, or suggestions for features to test. That's useful, but it doesn't give editorial control.

Technical checks before publishing

Where it makes sense, I may let a brand view a video before it goes live, purely to check facts. That means things like:

• Incorrect specifications or terminology
• A misunderstood product feature
• Anything shown or described inaccurately

This is a fact check, not an approval process. A brand doesn't get a veto over publication simply because it disagrees with my findings, and it can't require genuine findings to be withdrawn or an opinion or conclusion to change for that reason. Genuine factual mistakes will be corrected.

I don't normally share scripts for approval. Content stays in my own voice. A brand can raise factual requirements, safety information, important technical details, agreed disclosures or features they'd like to see demonstrated, and I'll take those on board. That's different from approving or rewriting the finished video.

Testing and publishing timings

Products get a reasonable amount of hands-on use before I review them, depending on the product and how complex it is. I don't want to publish a review based on a spec sheet, marketing claims or an afternoon of light use.

I'm happy to agree publishing timings in advance, but those timings need to allow for meaningful testing. If more testing is genuinely needed, publication may need to move.

If I find a significant problem along the way, I'm free to look into it and report it fairly.

Review hardware

Sometimes I test beta, pre-production or near-production hardware. If the product I'm testing differs materially from the version customers can buy, I'll make that clear where it matters to the review.

Problems and manufacturer responses

If I hit a serious issue, I may contact the brand before publishing. That lets us rule out a setup mistake, investigate a firmware problem, identify faulty review hardware, and gives the brand a chance to explain relevant technical context.

Getting in touch doesn't mean the criticism will disappear. If the brand fixes the problem, supplies updated firmware or explains the cause, I'll include that so viewers see both my original experience and the response. The aim is a more accurate review, not manufacturer control of it.

Fair comparisons

When I compare products, I try to make the comparison fair and meaningful. I won't manipulate testing to produce a chosen winner or to make one brand look better than it is.

Identical test conditions aren't always possible or sensible, because machines can differ a lot in design, capability, power, software, price and intended use. Where those differences affect a comparison, I'll explain them.

Disclosure

If content involves a commercial relationship or other incentive that requires disclosure, I identify that clearly and prominently. You should be able to tell when:

• A product was supplied or loaned
• A video is sponsored
• I'm using affiliate links
• I may earn a commission if you buy
• Any other relevant commercial relationship exists

Disclosures are made clearly and in a way that's hard to miss, with further detail in the description, including affiliate links and any discount codes. Where there's any doubt, I disclose more rather than less.

Affiliate links don't change the price you pay unless I say otherwise. None of these relationships determines the outcome of a review.

Corrections

If something I've published is factually wrong, I'll fix or clarify it. Depending on the situation, that might be an updated description, a pinned comment, a written amendment, or a clarification in a later video.

Correcting a fact is different from changing an opinion. A brand disagreeing with an honestly formed opinion isn't a factual correction.

Early access and embargoes

I sometimes receive products before launch. I always respect agreed embargo dates, non-disclosure agreements and confidential product information. Early access doesn't buy a favourable conclusion, and it doesn't change the editorial independence of the review.