Idio Syncrasy Disc Golf Shoe

[Titan037]

Major update dropped. May 15th is the completion date for the first mass order of shoes. They have invested in a vendor setup at Goat Hill, the Masters Cup and OTB open. They have sample shoes you can try on as well as a basket and beer to test them out if you're going to be near by at those tournaments. Hopefully the next update is transit time estimates once they hit the water

 

[Titan037]

Basket and net, not ****ing beer��

 

[BillFleming]

Now their production timeline is showing receipt of the shoes by customers in July 2022. They are just now at the part of loading the product for shipping and customs clearance. They will still have to receive the shipment, inventory, and then start getting it shipped out.
https://idiosports.com/pages/production-schedule

 

[TurnedOver]

Basket and net, not ****ing beer��

It was better with beer. Obviously, we'd need a basket and some beer to properly test these shoes out.

 

[zontar]

It was better with beer. Obviously, we'd need a basket and some beer to properly test these shoes out.

I would need a lot of beer to consider buying them.

 

[Streets]

 

[ru4por]

A couple reviews from Michael Holt and Trash Panda. Obviously, they were supplied with shoes before public sales. Neither are very forthcoming as to what their full relationship with the company is. Were the shoes free? Were they paid to wear the shoes?

 

[Rastnav]

A couple reviews from Michael Holt and Trash Panda. Obviously, they were supplied with shoes before public sales. Neither are very forthcoming as to what their full relationship with the company is. Were the shoes free? Were they paid to wear the shoes?

YouTube's TOS now require creators to clearly state if they are in sponsorship deal with someone for content in a video, so I'm guessing they weren't paid. That said, even free merchandise can comprise a sponsorship, so it's also possible they are just ignoring/unaware of the TOS.

If I were a company like idio, I'd try to get numerous people to become alpha/beta testers, paying perhaps a nominal cost for the product, or agreeing to provide detailed feedback, and then make sure I offered content creators a chance to be in that program. You are sure to get content that promotes the brand just because the creators are always hungry for content.

But that's just a scientific wild ass guess.

 

[Titan037]

A couple reviews from Michael Holt and Trash Panda. Obviously, they were supplied with shoes before public sales. Neither are very forthcoming as to what their full relationship with the company is. Were the shoes free? Were they paid to wear the shoes?

Legally they need to disclose a sponsorship or being paid for their review. If I were to guess most likely they were sent free shoes and that's the extent of it

 

[FlightMedic]

Holt says in the video that he wasn't paid, but that Idio provided the shoes for him to test. So it seems like a normal brand/influencer exchange of free product for channel exposure.

The Trash Panda video was more like an informercial so I have little confidence in that review.

 

[Titan037]

Holt says in the video that he wasn't paid, but that Idio provided the shoes for him to test. So it seems like a normal brand/influencer exchange of free product for channel exposure.

The Trash Panda video was more like an informercial so I have little confidence in that review.

Yeah he really should have disclosed the same information and tweaked the review a bit. Seemed over simplified

 

[BillFleming]

Holt says in the video that he wasn't paid, but that Idio provided the shoes for him to test. So it seems like a normal brand/influencer exchange of free product for channel exposure.

The Trash Panda video was more like an informercial so I have little confidence in that review.

The shoes cost over $100....that's $100+ they didn't have to pay for their shoes...the way I see it is they were paid for their review. True, unpaid reviews are when the reviewer buys the item themselves and reviews it. ((And, IMO, more honest also....the company isn't going to send the reviewer a mis-made pair of shoes....nope, they are going to make sure the reviewer gets the best fitting, best quality version)).

 

[Titan037]

The shoes cost over $100....that's $100+ they didn't have to pay for their shoes...the way I see it is they were paid for their review. True, unpaid reviews are when the reviewer buys the item themselves and reviews it. ((And, IMO, more honest also....the company isn't going to send the reviewer a mis-made pair of shoes....nope, they are going to make sure the reviewer gets the best fitting, best quality version)).

I suggest you watch Mike holts review if you haven't already as it disproves nearly every point you made in this response.

 

[ru4por]

I suggest you watch Mike holts review if you haven't already as it disproves nearly every point you made in this response.

Nope, he provides his opinion on these points. Opinion and fact are two very different things. I find the reviews here valuable, but let's not pretend they are anything more than a golfer speculating.

 

[BillFleming]

I suggest you watch Mike holts review if you haven't already as it disproves nearly every point you made in this response.

I did listen and it didn't disapprove "nearly every point" I made.

Originally Posted by BillFleming View Post
The shoes cost over $100....that's $100+ they didn't have to pay for their shoes...the way I see it is they were paid for their review. True, unpaid reviews are when the reviewer buys the item themselves and reviews it. ((And, IMO, more honest also....the company isn't going to send the reviewer a mis-made pair of shoes....nope, they are going to make sure the reviewer gets the best fitting, best quality version)).

I said [he] didn't have to pay for the shoes. That is correct, he says they sent him the shoes.

I said '..the way I see it is they were paid for their review.." That is correct. He wasn't given the shoes for the fun of it or because he needed shoes. The company sent him the shoes and expected a review in return for the shoes. The shoes cost $129. He didn't pay the company $129 for the shoes...they gave them to him in return for a review. So that is $129 that he received from them....in merchandise, but it is still a payment.

I never said his review wasn't honest. I said that a "true, unpaid reviews are when the reviewer buys the item themselves." That is still correct. When a company pays for and sends an item to a reviewer, they are sending the best quality they can. Will the rest of the shoes bought by 'non-reviewers' be the same quality? There's no guarantee...I hope they will though.

Anyways. He received $129 (at least) to review the shoes. He received the best quality of the shoes for his review. And Idio expected a review in return for the shoes. Was his review honest - sure, but based on shoes picked out specifically for him to review.

And that is my point, the reviewers who got free shoes from Idio are reviewing shoes picked out for them - as close to flawless as the company can provide. That doesn't mean the shoes sent to actual buyers will have the same quality/performance.

 

[Horsman]

I suggest you watch Mike holts review if you haven't already as it disproves nearly every point you made in this response.

Would you be able to give us a breakdown of where he disproves every point that was made. I watched the video and saw nothing.

 

[Titan037]

I did listen and it didn't disapprove "nearly every point" I made.



I said [he] didn't have to pay for the shoes. That is correct, he says they sent him the shoes.

I said '..the way I see it is they were paid for their review.." That is correct. He wasn't given the shoes for the fun of it or because he needed shoes. The company sent him the shoes and expected a review in return for the shoes. The shoes cost $129. He didn't pay the company $129 for the shoes...they gave them to him in return for a review. So that is $129 that he received from them....in merchandise, but it is still a payment.

I never said his review wasn't honest. I said that a "true, unpaid reviews are when the reviewer buys the item themselves." That is still correct. When a company pays for and sends an item to a reviewer, they are sending the best quality they can. Will the rest of the shoes bought by 'non-reviewers' be the same quality? There's no guarantee...I hope they will though.

Anyways. He received $129 (at least) to review the shoes. He received the best quality of the shoes for his review. And Idio expected a review in return for the shoes. Was his review honest - sure, but based on shoes picked out specifically for him to review.

And that is my point, the reviewers who got free shoes from Idio are reviewing shoes picked out for them - as close to flawless as the company can provide. That doesn't mean the shoes sent to actual buyers will have the same quality/performance.

Except his shoes were coming unglued at the soles…how is that the hand picked best quality?

 

[jakebake91]

Except his shoes were coming unglued at the soles…how is that the hand picked best quality?

And maybe that is the best quality. Which is concerning.

This whole project reeks of massive disappointment......

 

[BillFleming]

Except his shoes were coming unglued at the soles…how is that the hand picked best quality?

He says they were from a sample batch and the response from Idio indicated the issue was happening with all the sample batch. So, it was the best quality. Which makes my point even stronger....it isn't until he shows the viewer the response from Idio that you find out he isn't reviewing the actual product. He's just reviewing a sample - a pre-production version - the actual product could be totally different from what he reviewed. ((And he may not have known until then that his shoes were a sample version and not a production version)).

Anyways...I've never said his review and others aren't honest. All I've said, or intended to say, is that they are being paid (in merchandise, but still paid) to provide a review. I never said they were told what to say. I was just making a point that a paid review can have bias and that an unpaid review would have more meaning to me.

 

[Titan037]

He says they were from a sample batch and the response from Idio indicated the issue was happening with all the sample batch. So, it was the best quality. Which makes my point even stronger....it isn't until he shows the viewer the response from Idio that you find out he isn't reviewing the actual product. He's just reviewing a sample - a pre-production version - the actual product could be totally different from what he reviewed. ((And he may not have known until then that his shoes were a sample version and not a production version)).

Anyways...I've never said his review and others aren't honest. All I've said, or intended to say, is that they are being paid (in merchandise, but still paid) to provide a review. I never said they were told what to say. I was just making a point that a paid review can have bias and that an unpaid review would have more meaning to me.

That makes sense, but a sample batch is exactly what it is, a sample of what could potentially be the final product, the beta test if you will to make sure there aren't any other bugs that need to be worked out before final production begins.