TL;DR: Some links on our site are affiliate links. If you buy through them, we earn a commission; this never changes what we recommend. As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases. We place clear, proximate disclosures in line with the FTC’s Endorsement Guides and prohibit tactics like cookie stuffing, link cloaking, or forced redirects.
Who We Are
We built Reviews.com to earn your trust by showing our work and being transparent about how we fund it. Independent research indicates that nearly everyone checks reviews before buying; about half of consumers say they trust online reviews as much as personal recommendations, and people typically read multiple reviews (often around ten) before they feel confident in a business (BrightLocal, 2025). Shoppers also look for authenticity signals—a mix of positive and negative feedback, verified-purchase indicators, and visible responses to criticism—which measurably increases confidence and conversion (Bazaarvoice, 2025). At the same time, platforms continue to remove millions of fake or suspicious reviews annually—roughly 5–6% of submissions—underscoring the need for rigorous integrity practices (Trustpilot Transparency). Consistent with the Edelman Trust Barometer (2025), we emphasize subject‑matter expertise, evidence, and clear disclosures so you can evaluate our recommendations with confidence.
Our Motive
Our mission is simple: help you make smarter choices with evidence you can see. We follow Google’s expectations for affiliate and review pages—adding substantial, original value beyond merchants’ descriptions and demonstrating hands‑on experience, quantified measurements, and clear comparisons (Google: affiliate content; Google: high‑quality reviews). We maintain a strict editorial‑commercial firewall aligned with 2025 best practices: editorial teams choose what to cover and what to recommend without visibility into commission rates or partner terms; editorial compensation is not tied to revenue outcomes; and we never sell placement in rankings. These standards reflect guidance highlighted in recent reviews‑site best‑practice research and exemplars such as Wirecutter and the stronger, ad‑free model at Consumer Reports.
Our Investigative Process
We run documented, reproducible tests and publish criteria so you understand what “best” means in each category. Whenever possible, we buy products and subscriptions at retail to evaluate them like you would; where loaners are unavoidable (e.g., pre‑release units), we require written terms preserving full editorial control, disclose the loan, and return the item after testing—policies consistent with independence standards from organizations like Consumer Reports and Which?. Our methods include hands‑on evidence (original photos/video), instrumentation (e.g., calibrated meters where relevant), benchmarking tools, comparison tables that explain trade‑offs, and data logging with notes on test environment, firmware/app versions, and any anomalies—approaches aligned with Google’s review guidance. We keep lab logs and change histories so we can retest after updates and display what changed. AI tools, when used, are limited to non‑delegated support (e.g., organizing notes); we don’t let AI write reviews or handle confidential materials, and we follow governance expectations such as the NIST AI Risk Management Framework (Generative AI Profile) and editorial norms that require disclosure and human accountability (Nature policy on AI use).
How Our Business Works
Access to our work is free, and we keep the experience ad‑free: no display ads, no programmatic ad tags, and no third‑party ad trackers such as DoubleClick or the Meta/Facebook pixel. Independent analyses show that third‑party scripts (especially ads/trackers) are major contributors to page weight and CPU time, slowing sites and harming UX; removing them improves speed and stability (Web Almanac: Third Parties). User research behind the Coalition for Better Ads Standards finds intrusive formats drive annoyance and abandonment, and large‑scale behavior data show many people actively avoid interruptive ads—for example, around a third of UK adults report using an ad blocker (Ofcom Online Nation). Conversely, demand for ad‑free experiences is significant: YouTube Premium surpassed 100 million subscribers (including trials), while ad‑supported tiers like Netflix’s also grew (40M+ MAUs), illustrating diverse preferences (YouTube; Netflix). Our choice to stay ad‑free prioritizes speed, privacy, and clarity.
We also operate with privacy‑first measurement. As Chrome’s third‑party cookie deprecation proceeds under UK oversight and Safari’s Link Tracking Protection can strip known tracking parameters, the industry is moving to first‑party, server‑to‑server, and code‑based attribution with stronger consent governance (UK CMA: Privacy Sandbox; Apple: Link Tracking Protection). In practice, we rely on first‑party identifiers, conversion APIs/postbacks where supported, and promo‑code fallbacks; we minimize data collection, honor consent in EEA/UK via a CMP, and document retention limits—measures aligned with current affiliate‑program best practices.
SO HOW DO WE MAKE MONEY? After our editorial team completes a review, our business team may set up affiliate relationships in which a retailer or service pays us a commission or fixed fee when a reader clicks a link and completes an action. Commission rates, dynamic commissioning by SKU or new‑customer status, or hybrid CPC/CPA arrangements do not influence our picks or rankings. We label monetized links, use rel=”sponsored”, and repeat clear, plain‑language disclosures consistent with the FTC’s Endorsement Guides and UK ASA/CAP guidance. We avoid unethical tactics (cookie stuffing, forced redirects, link cloaking) and audit compliance; the FTC’s 2024 rule against deceptive reviews reinforces why we do not buy, fabricate, or suppress reviews (FTC rule on fake reviews). For Amazon links, we include the required statement: “As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases” (Amazon Associates Program Policies). We also evaluate additional revenue options common in 2025—memberships/contributions, newsletter or podcast sponsorships, selective events, platform revenue sharing, and licensing—adopting only those that preserve independence and user trust (Digital News Report 2025; IAB Internet Advertising Revenue; TikTok Creator Rewards; FT–OpenAI licensing; News Corp–OpenAI licensing).
What If We Do a Review We Can’t Make Money From?
Editorial decisions are insulated from revenue. If a former partner underperforms in updated testing, we explain why and update picks based on evidence—regardless of commercial relationships. Our conflicts policy requires staff to disclose financial interests and bars coverage where conflicts exist; we don’t accept gifts that could influence coverage; and we never sell ranking placement. When vendors provide a sample or loaner, we set written terms preserving editorial control, disclose the arrangement, and return loaners after testing, reflecting standards used by independent organizations like Wirecutter, Consumer Reports, and Which?. We maintain a published corrections policy: if we get something wrong, we fix it promptly and note the change. We also prohibit review manipulation and follow the FTC’s rulemaking and guidance on reviews and endorsements (FTC rule; FTC business guidance).
If our top picks don’t generate revenue, we still recommend them. Including non‑monetizable options is a deliberate policy aligned with independence research and user expectations. Consumer evidence shows that transparency and realistic, mixed feedback build more trust than “too perfect” praise (BrightLocal 2025; Bazaarvoice 2025). We publish pros and cons, who each option is best for, and links to our methods so you can judge whether a product fits your needs—an approach reinforced by Google’s review guidance.
That’s our story, and we’re sticking to it. We will keep this page current through 2025 as standards evolve—covering Google’s expectations for affiliate and product‑review content (affiliate guidance; review best practices), privacy and attribution changes under CMA oversight, and disclosure/compliance updates from the FTC and ASA/CAP. If you have questions about our methods, disclosures, or independence policies, let us know—we’re happy to share more detail.