Discussing Option Cutter
Chapter 6: Advertisers, Promotion and Live Events
Only designated spokespeople speak for Option Cutter on company strategy, revenue mix, affiliate network changes, or legal matters. Reviewers may discuss their own published methodology and general editorial standards. This section applies across wearables, smart home, phones, and every category where readers rely on Option Cutter comparisons, Top Picks, and Content Egg buy paths alongside honest verdict prose.
Do not share unpublished launch calendars, WordPress embargo schedules, or personnel disputes on social media. Critiques of our own work are welcome in postmortems internally; public trashing of colleagues is not.
Media interviews about “how review sites make money” should be honest about affiliate models and Content Egg without revealing confidential rates or partner contract terms—see commerce conflict rules.
Former staff respect ongoing embargoes they knew about while employed.
Correction policy and reader trust messaging should align with what we publish on Editorial Standards—not ad hoc promises in a thread.
Conference Q&A about editorial independence should cite public policies—affiliate disclosure, sample handling, corrections—not internal Slack debates or individual performance issues.
Job interviews and recruiting talks may describe our testing culture in general terms without sharing confidential conversion metrics or unpublished editorial calendars.
Glassdoor and anonymous forums are not the place to air personnel grievances; use internal HR and leadership channels instead. Questions about how these standards apply to your assignment belong in editor chat before publish. Document decisions in editor notes or the CMS so future updates honor the same rule; repeat issues escalate to leadership and may affect samples, affiliate-heavy beats, or outside-work approvals.
Only spokespeople comment on company strategy, revenue mix, affiliate contract terms, or litigation. Reviewers may explain published methodology and public policies linked from Editorial Standards—not confidential rates or embargo calendars on social threads. Document decisions in editor notes or the CMS so future updates honor the same standard.
Media interviews about how review sites earn money should be honest about affiliates and Content Egg without revealing partner-specific EPC tables. Align public statements with published correction and disclosure pages, not ad hoc Twitter promises. Document decisions in editor notes or the CMS so future updates honor the same standard.
Recruiting conversations may describe testing culture generally without leaking conversion metrics or unpublished editorial calendars. Former staff respect embargoes learned while employed even after they move to brands or rival publishers. Document decisions in editor notes or the CMS so future updates honor the same standard.
Anonymous forum venting about colleagues is not an outlet for HR issues. Use internal channels; public trashing damages reader trust in the whole desk, not just one dispute you wanted to air anonymously. Document decisions in editor notes or the CMS so future updates honor the same standard.
Conference Q&A about independence should cite public policies—affiliate disclosure, sample handling, corrections—not internal Slack debates or unpublished editorial calendars that partners could misuse to time PR campaigns against our comparisons. If you are unsure what is public, ask a spokesperson before the session.