The technology to produce a video is so widely available, that there is a broad spectrum of quality, which is also affected by the author's knowledge, experience and sense for staging, directing and starring in a video.  And by broad spectrum, I mean that it's more of a pyramid, with a lot of vids of just poor quality, at the bottom, and a few that increase in quality, forming an apex.

I follow some guys on YouTube, but do I prefer video content over written content?  I don't necessarily prefer one over the other, but when I find a source of well-written, well-produced, well-thought-out content, I will keep going back to it, be it video, online form or hardcopy.

Rob Gronovius

Fly-n-hi

Many in box reviews on modeling websites aren't completely accurate.  I don't want to say they are dishonest, but the modeling companies or the vendors will send out kits to the website so that they get a favorable review on order to get more sales.  The website reviewer gets to keep the kit in many cases.  If they give bad reviews then the vendors stop sending them kits.  

Take a look at Cybermodeler.com's review section.  I'm not saying they are dishonest but try to find one kit out of dozens that has a bad review.  Even the kits that are known to be trouble have favorable reviews.

I took the same stance whether I received the kit from a website, manufacturer, vendor or bought it my own self. My biggest complaint about reviews was that the kits were not always directed towards the right reviewer. I am a modern armor builder and often times I would get sent 1/72 scale German WW2 armor kits. Now I can review the kit in terms of level of detail, fit, engineering, instructions, quality of molding, decals, etc., but not accuracy, proper markings, and things of that nature.

I know there was a site that was accused of favoring a particular manufacturer to stay in its good graces. It was a matter of not wanting to bite the hand that feeds you, but in the long run the site's reviews suffered credibility issues.

And just to be clear I'm not trying to bash any reviewers even though I singled out cybermodeler.  And I'm not suggesting that all reviewers have objectivity issues.  Its just that I rarely see any negative reviews of kits...even kits that we all know are lemons.  I picked cybermodeler as an example because they don't have any negative reviews.

hypertex

I figure that with all those review videos on youtube somebody must be enjoying them!

No, it just means that someone enjoys making them and posting them.

Fly-n-hi

Many in box reviews on modeling websites aren't completely accurate.  I don't want to say they are dishonest, but the modeling companies or the vendors will send out kits to the website so that they get a favorable review on order to get more sales.  The website reviewer gets to keep the kit in many cases.  If they give bad reviews then the vendors stop sending them kits.  

Take a look at Cybermodeler.com's review section.  I'm not saying they are dishonest but try to find one kit out of dozens that has a bad review.  Even the kits that are known to be trouble have favorable reviews.

I took the same stance whether I received the kit from a website, manufacturer, vendor or bought it my own self. My biggest complaint about reviews was that the kits were not always directed towards the right reviewer. I am a modern armor builder and often times I would get sent 1/72 scale German WW2 armor kits. Now I can review the kit in terms of level of detail, fit, engineering, instructions, quality of molding, decals, etc., but not accuracy, proper markings, and things of that nature.

I know there was a site that was accused of favoring a particular manufacturer to stay in its good graces. It was a matter of not wanting to bite the hand that feeds you, but in the long run the site's reviews suffered credibility issues.

I think "in-box" video reviews are pretty much a waste of time.

At the risk of sounding like an old curmudgeon, I have no interest in watching someone trying to describe the contents of a kit that I first built thirty years ago.  Especially when the person has no knowledge of the actual subject and can't even correctly identify the parts.

On the other hand, I do enjoy watching videos of skilled folks actually building kits.  I've found those helpful, especially with kits that can be tricky to build, like the Hasegawa F-14's for example.

Mark

Thanks for the feedback, all. I concur with most of what has been said. I wasn't sure if my dislike of in-box reviews was just me being a curmudgeon. Looks like it's not just me (this time).

I am surprised that no one chimed in with high praise for in-box review videos and a demand to shoot more of them. I figure that with all those review videos on youtube somebody must be enjoying them!

Chris

Most of my experience has been with book reviews. In that genre it's taken for granted that the publishers give the books to the journal editor, who then passes them to the reviewers. The reviewer gets to keep the book - which normally is the only payment he/she gets. Anybody who hopes to make substantial money off reviews is in for a rude awakening. And in the academic realm, anybody who tries to brownnose somebody with a review can expect to lose his job if his colleagues find out.

I have mixed opinions about in-the-box reviews. They certainly don't tell us as much as a review by somebody who's built the model. On the other hand, they can reveal a lot of useful information - if the reviewer is knowledgeable and the photos of the parts are clear.

My favorite modeling genre is sailing ships. Few good reviews of those kits get published. One big reason: if the reviewer takes the time to do a decent job of building it, by the time he/she finishes, the kit won't be new any more. And quite a few of the sailing ship reviews that do get published are, I'm afraid, written by people who don't really know much about the subject.

I once watched a promotional video from a major ship model distributor/manufacturer that featured a wise looking man in a shop apron "lifting the lid" of one of the company's sailing ship kits. After the first minute or so it became obvious that the gentleman had no idea what any of the parts were. In fact I got the impression that, prior to this "lifting of the lid," he'd never laid eyes on the thing. He even mispronounced the name of the ship. That video was utterly useless. (I wound up buying the kit anyway - but not on the strength of the video.)

I have to say I find written reviews illustrated by still photos just as valuable as videos. I keep up with the reviews on modelwarships.com, and have based buying decisions on them several times. (I have to say, though, that being told a detail is "pretty good" doesn't do much for me.)

One common feature of reviews does bug me a tiny bit. (FSM doesn't do it often, but it's a regular feature in many of the British journals.) The reviewer starts by telling me how many sprues are in the box. Why on earth does that make any difference?

I much prefer FSM's approach of listing the number of parts, in a sidebar. A huge parts count obviously doesn't guarantee a good kit, but if one kit has 75 parts and another one depicting the same subject on the same scale has 350, that tells me something useful.

Bottom line: I think in-the-box reviews are highly useful if they're written knowledgeably and well illustrated. But I'm not convinced that video reviews are much preferable to written ones. I'll be happy to be proven mistaken.

Many in box reviews on modeling websites aren't completely accurate.  I don't want to say they are dishonest, but the modeling companies or the vendors will send out kits to the website so that they get a favorable review on order to get more sales.  The website reviewer gets to keep the kit in many cases.  If they give bad reviews then the vendors stop sending them kits.  

Take a look at Cybermodeler.com's review section.  I'm not saying they are dishonest but try to find one kit out of dozens that has a bad review.  Even the kits that are known to be trouble have favorable reviews.

Couldn't care less about what's in a box. If I want a kit, I"m going to get it no matter what's in the box. I don't think I've ever watched an in-box review. Total waste of time in my opinion.

I agree as too many "unboxing" video are excruciatingly loooooooong and borrrrrriiiiiiiing and takes forever to get to the point.

Just tell me if there are : 

detailed cockpit and weapons load-out ? check

individual track links ? check

vinyl tires ? check

don't spend more than 30 minutes talking about your feelings on olive drab

Gamera

To be honest I prefer just a plain written review with photos over video myself.

I steer clear of videos related to modeling.... they just do not do much for me. Give me the written word with some good photos any day of the week over a video.

I find a lot of the videos seem to feature kits that are old, like decades. Videos of kits that were more current, like one done about the motorized Tamiya Mark IV WW1 tank was well done. That video was used to more or less to demonstrate how to use the motorization feature with good effect in a static display.

But I often see someone cracking open the 1970s era Tamiya PzKpfw II F/G and doing an in box review of it like he's handling buried treasure.

To be honest I prefer just a plain written review with photos over video myself.

Agree with tojo72. Also would be nice to have either a partially built or completely built model and explained any flaws or issues during that process. Also for less experienced modeler maybe show the illustrated instruction lets say an automobile engine and the actual built engine itself to show what it looks like assembled as I find some instruction not clear on certain areas and end up gluing the parts incorrectly.

They could be somewhat helpful,things like crisp molding,no flash,and so forth.But an in box review, video or not, isn't all that helpful.What I look for is a build review.Need to know building pitfalls and issues,not how cool the parts look in the box.