Some Thoughts on Youtuber Nick Shabazz

Status
Not open for further replies.
Airedale1 said:
Someone said that he sounds like Gilbert Godfried. I agree; he reminds me of Gilbert too.
That being said, I enjoy his reviews very much. They are well produced, have very good content and his presentation is always entertaining. He is definitely one of my favorite reviewers.
Click to expand...

Shabazz is no Gilbert Godfried. That's like comparing Champagne to a wine spritzer :)
 
whitty said:
My gripe with any reviewer doing a bad or damaging reviews on any product, is that if there are problems they don't contact the manufacturer or seller before doing the review. Duds happen with every company. I think as a reviewer you have a responsibility to give a maker/manufacturer/dealer the chance to make it right before you trash a product.
Click to expand...

NickShabazz said:
5) Makers are *absolutely* welcome to leave comments. I won't name names as a courtesy, but I've had a few different makers jump into the comments section. Comments ranging from "Oh wow, that is a bad detent. Please let your viewer know to reach out to me to get that fixed", or just "I'm really sad to see this review, as that knife never should have left the factory, I'll talk to our QC team", or even just a simple "Thanks for looking at our work, and we appreciate the praise and criticism, we'll take both to heart". When makers do this right, it's a great opportunity for them to leave a great impression, both for me and for my audience.
Click to expand...

whitty said:
Nick you make very solid points. I will certainly recommend your stealth reviews to a few makers that I think can use an honest and fair assessment before putting a knife to market. Thank you for a very detailed response you are definitely first class!
Click to expand...

This was nice to see, but Nick seems to be a nicer guy than I would be in his shoes. It's simply not the job of a reviewer, at least one obviously trying to maintain an objective viewpoint, to QC products for a manufacturer. I realize these comments are 3 years old, but it's always on the manufacturer to QC their "duds." That's the entire point of quality control as an industry. The internet has been an explosion in easily accessed criticism, but Consumer Reports were founded in the 1930s to advocate for consumers and give unbiased reviews of products. It was a revolutionary change for the manufacturing industry, and the birth of QC as it exists today. If your company hasn't adjusted since 1930 to the impact that a negative review can have on your business, I have some bad news for your management team. Look at the difference between reviews on BladeHQ (where they're selling 99% of those products and seem to love every knife they see), a reviewer like Nick, and the reviews you see on yelp (which skew negative as often only people with problems are willing to put in the energy to review.) If someone is taking the time to break their experience down into the good, the great, the bad, the ugly - they seem pretty fair and balanced to me.
 
rp5 said:
This was nice to see, but Nick seems to be a nicer guy than I would be in his shoes...
Click to expand...

For what it's worth, Whitty and I have talked a good bit since this interaction, and I think we both see each other's perspectives pretty well. More importantly, he's been kind to me as a human, has been supportive of the channel, and he's even sent some gear my way for review himself. So, although I can see you getting that impression from that snapshot, you should have no hesitation about working with him or his company/shop, as he's gotten no shortage of my money since!
 
NickShabazz said:
For what it's worth, Whitty and I have talked a good bit since this interaction, and I think we both see each other's perspectives pretty well...
Click to expand...
Understood, appreciate the feedback.

I'll repeat my point that I see your reviews as consumer advocacy, and as a consumer, thank you for your time, effort, and approach. I've bought several knives you've reviewed, not all "gems," and I'll continue using your reviews as one source of input.
 
Nick's great!

I was sold the first review I saw where he disclosed upfront that he was sent the knife by a manufacturer for review, and still had plenty of bad/ugly comments. Granted, maybe the overall was more favorable than if he'd bought the knife. Too many YT reviews fail to disclose the source of what they're reviewing, and those reviews become infomercials. Of course most YT reviewers love getting gifted free great stuff from the manufacturer, and don't want to risk losing that with a negative review. And that's fine, but please at least be upfront and tell me that the manufacturer sent you their product for free.

He's got philosophical side as well which I really appreciate.

I can't help but notice he doesn't review a couple brands; neither Kershaw, Zero Tolerance have had any reviews in a few years. I read somewhere maybe Kershaw has acted with some questionable tactics in copying other knives and maybe that's why he doesn't review them. But ZT? Does anyone (or Nick himself) know?
 
Consumer Reports was founded on the concept that if the manufacturer supplies the product, there is an inherent bias. I don't know about now, but when I worked at a nutritional testing lab, Consumer Reports bought all the tomato sauce they sent us for testing.

Think about it, if you gave a reviewer your product and they severely critcized it, would you send them more? Inherent bias is why Blade magazine reviews of maker supplied knives are virtually useless.
 
brownshoe said:
Think about it, if you gave a reviewer your product and they severely critcized it, would you send them more? Inherent bias is why Blade magazine reviews of maker supplied knives are virtually useless.
Click to expand...

This is something I've thought a lot about, and something that's really tricky with review channels, particularly if you're trying to make the channel your 'full time job'. I've talked about this some in this video:


For what it's worth, balancing this tension between 'giving honest negative feedback', 'generating friction with makers', and 'doing more good than harm' is harder and harder to balance as the channel grows, even without review samples being on the table. This is a part of the reason that, as the channel has grown and as more and more reviewers have entered the space doing great honest work, I've been slowly shifting my focus towards being a 'gem hunter', highlighting the 'best of the best' products, where I can honestly say there are few faults and describe them clearly, and just selling (or sending back to makers with feedback) pieces which don't measure up.

It's nice because, as I have less and less time, it allows me to spend more time finding great stuff and less time slogging through 'meh' and objectively flawed gear, and because it allows me to still be completely honest and straightforward with viewers, while having less negative effects, particularly on smaller makers for whom an honest-but-negative review from a major channel would be really rough. Plus, from a purely selfish perspective, I love nothing more than finding something that's gonna bring people joy, and sharing that joy, so if I can spend more of my time doing that, that's a win.

Anyways, brownshoe, this is a really good point, and it's something to consider any time somebody discloses that they've gotten a review sample (or, concerningly, doesn't). 'Objectivity' isn't a thing, so considering the potential (and guaranteed) sources and natures of bias in any information source is a great idea.
 
Last edited:
The best thing one can learn is reality is subjective.

It's hard to believe a reviewer if they don't tell how they got the gear. I believe you often do.
 
Once again, a very well spoken (typed) reply.

My point was that I appreciate that Nick does actually disclose when he receives free merchandise for review. Too many product reviewers all over YouTube don't. When motives are disclosed, we can then make our own judgements with that knowledge in mind.

We're talking about a relatively small YouTube channel that provides fantastic information and great entertainment. He's never tried to masquerade as an unbiased authority like Consumer Reports.
 
I have been a pretty hard core knife enthusiast for the past 10 years. I have seen a lot of knife reviewers come and go. Nick may be the most systematic/thorough reviewer on Youtube at this present time. I trust his reviews.
Luckily we have very different tastes in knives/gear, or I might be even poorer.
 
Hi Nick, big fan here. I've been watching your reviews for a long time now. I appreciate your honesty and humor. You seem like a good guy!

Thanks for the entertainment and the laughs, Nick!
 
The Good: Although he might initially come across to some as a fast talking used car salesman, i enjoy the sheer enthusiasm he brings to his reviews, and I'm impressed by how skillfully he walks the fine line between candor and tact, and how he pays homage to the fact that different people have different tastes. I also enjoy his reviews of other EDC items like flashlights. I appreciate the window he provides into products that one might otherwise not be aware of.

The Great: How hard he tries to balance his reviews between good and bad.

The Bad: He reminds me of my childhood growing up near NYC

The Ugly: i dread the obligatory size comparison to the spyderco delica ;)
 
Last edited:
Nicks voice is just fine, a few videos in a row is doable.,, but the voice of Metal Complex is like chalkboard scraping to my ears, three seconds and I am closing the tab.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top