Ive seen stuff like this happen numerous times with the brands I rep. The most irritating one was a blogger known to like mild cigars and not enjoy smoking full cigars doing a review of one of the strongest cigars in my portfolio and of course giving it a very unfavorable review. Some of these guys just dont realize how much they can hurt us, its hard to read bad reviews knowing that it could hurt my brands and of course that would hurt me as well. I guess what it comes down to for me is that I would rather see bloggers guiding smokers to cigars that they enjoy rather than trying to knock ones that arent their taste for the sake of attempting to look like legitimate critics.With some (not all) bloggers/reviewers I kind of look at them as art critics--those that can paint/sculpt/create DO...those that can't become 'critics.' I understand that those critics are necessary to our business; however, with that comes a responsibility. Being 'contra' for the sake of being 'contra' and trying to look 'cool' seems to me an abuse of that responsibility. Example: I read someone's review of the EPC Inch a while ago. The first sentence of that review started with, "..I am not a fan of big ring gauge cigars." So then WHY are you reviewing a cigar that is marketed and based entirely upon large ring gauges?! That review went on to slam the cigar and it was 'awarded' a very lackluster score of '82.' Why?
And of course on a side note, I thoroughly enjoyed HG