Is Curtis Judd a Shill?!
· Audio · General / technique · 7:08
In this episode we contemplate the possibility of accepting no free gear to review for the next three months and focusing more on technique and tutorials. This is to say that we might engage in some ‘de-influencing’, if you will. Let’s talk about it!
Gear used or mentioned
The links below are Amazon, B&H Photo, Sweetwater, or other affiliate links. As an affiliate, I earn from qualifying purchases.
- Sennheiser MKH50 microphone — B&H, Sweetwater, Amazon
- Sound Devices MixPre audio recorder — B&H, Sweetwater, Amazon
- Impact Turtle-Base C-Stands — B&H, Amazon
- Aputure LS 600x Pro Bicolor LED Light — Aputure, B&H, Amazon
- Aputure Light Dome III Softbox — Aputure, B&H
- Amaran 300c RGBWW Single-Point LED Light
- Amaran Spotlight SE — Aputure, B&H, Amazon
- Rosco Prismatic Glass Gobo in Cool Lavender — B&H
- Canon C70 Cinema Camera — B&H
- Canon RF 24-70 f/2.8 lens — B&H, Amazon
- Panasonic GH5 camera — B&H, Amazon
- Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8 II lens — B&H, Amazon
Read the transcript
A reflection on whether accepting free gear for reviews makes someone a “shill,” starting from dictionary definitions (a decoy or promoter acting out of self-interest, personal profit, friendship, or loyalty).
By US law, creators must disclose paid promotion, and free products count under that broad definition — this channel checks that disclosure box whenever gear is received, and goes further with an explicit statement of the arrangement: usually either self-funded purchases, or a manufacturer providing a product for review with no additional payment and no right to review or require changes to the video before it’s posted. That’s a personal line, not necessarily the “correct” one — there’s a wide range of acceptable practices across creators, from full independence to paid sponsorships (which can be lucrative; a fellow creator once suggested an agent could land roughly an extra $12,000/month in sponsor deals, appealing for full-time creators, though this isn’t a full-time job here — income instead comes from courses at school.learnlightandsound.com).
An important framing: everyone carries bias, free gear or not. Simply having a particular filming style, working mostly in-studio rather than vlogging, or covering certain product categories over others is itself a form of bias/perspective that shapes what’s useful to different viewers. Accepting free products adds another layer of real or perceived bias on top of that, and being paid to make a video adds yet another layer beyond that (something this channel currently declines). None of this means the resulting reviews are worthless — different creators’ differing biases and perspectives, taken together, can give viewers a fuller picture of a product.
The announced experiment: pausing acceptance of free gear from manufacturers for roughly three months (after finishing a couple of already-committed loaner/gifted reviews), publicly, to be held accountable, expecting fewer product reviews during that window as a result, since self-funding every review isn’t financially sustainable long-term. Curious to hear other perspectives on this in the comments. Get out there, make some great videos, and we’ll talk to you soon.