Part 1 – The Basics
Who is a critic?
Few misconceptions about critics
How to become a critic?

Part 2 – The real deal
Profile or Biography
Qualities of a critic
Where critics go wrong
Reviewing the reviewer
Treating your audience
The ‘ideal’ critic
For critics reading this piece

Part 1 – The Basics

Who is a critic?

• Any individual who shares his/her opinions for a publication / website on a consistent basis is a critic.
• Critics are usually adept at expressing their viewpoint and some are paid by media publications to review products.
• Generally critics review items that are purchasable so as to inform their readers whether that was worth investing money or not.
• It is common to see critics for books, music, movies, TV shows, professional sporting events, etc.

Few misconceptions about critics

• Critics don’t have to be experts in the field they are talking about. Rather they have to be superb in explaining their point of view.
• The job of a critic is to share his/her individual point of view rather than predicting whether the masses would love it or how much money it’d fetch.
• Critics, like other humans, do go wrong at times but one wrong review shouldn’t be taken seriously.
• Critics aren’t supposed to know how to construct the stuff they are reviewing. They are merely individuals sharing their opinion on the experience of using that product. That’s it.

How to become a critic?

• Ensure that you have a command over the language you wish to share your views in and are able to explain your point of view as to why you liked / disliked that particular product. Start a blog, write some reviews, promote among your circles and that’s it, you are a critic.
• To apply for a media publication of your choice, you’d have to check their requirements. Some might require a degree in Communication and ask you to submit couple of reviews before they finally bring you on board.

Part 2 – The real deal

Profile or Biography

• Every critic should have a short Biography on their web site or a Profile section for the journal they are representing that’d give the reader an idea about their thought process and the parameters they use for measuring.
• When I open up a magazine and read a short review then in almost all cases I cannot make out what was in reviewer’s mind. In case of Computer Hardware, it’s not much of a problem since they are usually compared using automated software’s, info about whom is available on their respective web sites. But what about books and restaurants? I have no idea what was going on in the mind of the reviewer, and what were they looking for. I can trust a judgement only if I respect reviewer’s thought process. Once I know that, I can invest my resources in the product even if the critic had disagreed to it, simply because I understood their perspective and could equate my viewpoint with that.

The Profile / Biography can have the following sections
i. Favourite products and artists in the field they are reviewing.
ii. What interests them in a product.
iii. How they prefer using products. E.g. do they prefer reading books for half an hour a week or is that a full time hobby, do they use Cars for driving in City or outskirts, use web sites on PC or tablet, watch TV shows with family or alone, etc.
iv. Who is their target audience? E.g. Kids or grown ups? Working professionals or students?
v. Is reviewing a full time job for them or they have other interests as well?
vi. What is their exposure level for the products they are reviewing? E.g. do they play every PC game that releases in market or have played selected ones, are they into non-Indian books also or only Indian ones, etc.
vii. How much time did they devote to while using the product. E.g. do they watch a movie in morning and write review in a couple of hours, or they see it on Monday and write review on Friday after thinking about it for 4 days?
viii. Do they follow pre-release hype or go use the product without any expectations whatsoever?
ix. Admit whether they are skilled in their craft or not. Do they discuss from development perspective or observer perspective? Mostly it is the latter, and specifying this info would clarify some of their readers.
x. Are they open to experimenting with different genres or play it safe.

• If a critic wishes then s/he can do a write up on separate page explaining the difference between opinion and facts, personal and professional appreciation, praising or despising something without taking into consideration who was the person behind it, how we should learn to accept them despite disagreeing over something, and lastly but very importantly it is not the end of world if you diss something related to their favourite celebrity.
  So that every time they get trolled they can reply back with URL of that page instead of getting into lengthy discussions. This one time activity would save a lot of time.
• There is an advantage if a critic openly admits her/his bias about a particular artist. Like if a critic is extremely fond of someone say a musical band but totally despises their latest song, then it means there is something terribly wrong with their newest creation. Similarly if a critic has a huge dislike for a musical band but lovingly laps up their latest creation, it means there is definitely a nice ring to it. It would convey their opinion in a more profound manner.

Qualities of a critic

• Is able to convey her/his feelings to the reader so that they can decide whether they should invest in the product or not. A critic might detest a product yet her/his readers could get the impression that it’d suit them as they’re well versed with the critic’s reviewing process.
• Personally I am fine with simple language as well as one with words that make me refer dictionary, provided I am able to comprehend critic’s vision. The quality of a reviewer is marked by their ability to list what made them appreciate or loathe the product they reviewed.
• How much times does it take for reader to go through the review? Editing is vital especially for Internet users since they prefer easy reads. I wish every critic offers summary in the end of their review so that their reader can quickly infer whether they should go for it or not. Particularly useful when comparing multiple reviews before making a buying decision. IMO this is more efficient than giving ratings.
• Critics who give ratings such as 4 out of 5 should be able to ascertain the reason for deduction of 1 mark. Parameters for rating could be as per critic’s wish. For software it could be User Interface, Features, Response Time, etc. For books it could be story, dialogues, editing, etc.
• Improving audience level with each post is totally critic’s choice. While some readers do like to explore something innovative in whatever they come across (books, meals, etc.) I’ve observed that most are fond of tried-and-tested routine. There’s nothing right or wrong in that, it is just the way people are. I personally feel that a critic should stay true to herself/himself and do as per her/his wish.
• The opinion of Independent critics has added weight when they buy product with their own money and write review. Then the makers cannot question critic’s judgement, as the customer is always right.
• Writing “legendary sentences” is fine as long as they don’t make the review difficult to read and divert from explaining the point of view over like/dislike.
• This tweet says a lot about what goes on in any human’s mind when sharing their opinion.

  What people say about you is a manifestation of their own thought. It says more about them than about you. Learn not to take it personally.

  — Jerry Corstens (@JerryCorstens) September 22, 2012

• I am yet to see a critic who explicitly mentions whether a product has repeat value or worth using one time only.

If I had to review Software, my top 3 parameters would be the following
i. User Experience
ii. Stability and error handling
iii. Features offered

If I had to review meals at a restaurant, my top 3 parameters would be the following
i. The way they treat Vegetarians
ii. Non-spicy and customized meals
iii. Health and cleanliness

Where critics go wrong

• Every critic is biased towards someone, but very few admit that.
• A critic should be careful regarding projecting oneself as a human of class tastes. I admire those who share their opinion straightaway without bothering about people’s reactions. Personally I am not in favour of justification over one’s tastes, if you like it then say only that. No need to feel guilty.
• Offering suggestions should be avoided. I feel that a critic should simply state likes or dislikes. When s/he starts offering suggestions on how the end product could have been better, it implies as if they know more than the creator. The most respected critics have a way of voicing their dissent in a way that the product makers appreciate and they understand where the gaps were.
• One shouldn’t let personal enmity or friendship with anyone reflect in reviews. This isn’t very practical, and almost all reviewers end up doing that some way or the other. That’s why they should admit their set of biases. Critics with anonymous identity, who never interact with product makers, are at an advantage as they may not end up doing friendship and thus their reviews would be less biased.
• Friendship between critics and product makers is often unfruitful. Especially when a critic blasts something created by her/his friend. Lucky are critics who do that and the makers don’t take that personally.
• Critics should be as strictly professional as they can and avoid bringing creator’s public image into picture.
• Many critics give a cliched argument to defend themselves, that they need not know how to cook in order to say how the food was in terms of taste. While that is fine, they should keep in mind that a lot of people are getting diseases like High Blood Pressure and Diabetes due to developing food habits that focus more on taste and less on nutritional value. So if a food critic rates herself/himself competent only on the basis of taste factor and and goes on to proudly proclaim how s/he has a class, then I need not add anything else. Same goes for music reviewers who look only at how easy it was on ears, book reviewers who look only for story, photography critics who bother only about visual appeal, etc.
• If a critic praises everything, then people stop taking her/him seriously, doubting honesty and assume them to be bribed for giving a positive review. Whereas if a critic starts blasting reputed brands/celebs by the dozens, then even though s/he’d start observing a lot of venom in her/his replies, but that’d ensure that they’re keeping a check on her/him. Assume a critic to have truly arrived when someone creates a hate club on some social networking site. In fact this is where attractiveness is – don’t feed the trolls every time, but observe who are genuine blokes. If the critic is able to explain her/his point of view to a reader, then not only would it teach them a thing or two about personal perspective from a certain angle, but also how to accept those who are different from them in some way.
• If die hard fans of a particular star/celeb abuse a critic, they shouldn’t abuse them back. Ignore as much as possible, they aren’t worth investing energy in. Nearly all of them have nothing personal against the critic, and if they aren’t serious about understanding critic’s viewpoint then the critic shouldn’t be serious about them too. But the critic better be careful while ignoring, so that s/he doesn’t end up missing out on constructive criticism as well.
• I admire critics with originality. Those with a unique style of reviewing. Rather than those trying to ape someone or being lazy about their job.

Sticking to an opinion – Like all humans critics also make mistakes. They could go wrong in a judgement, and repent the same later. Accepting mistakes has an advantage as well as disadvantage.

Advantage is that it’d make a critic come across as human towards her/his followers, and they’d perceive her/him as someone who’s willing to learn.
Disadvantage is that it could work against them for future reviews, as all would be looked under scrutiny. Some of the most critical followers would perceive them as someone prone to mistakes whose judgement can’t be taken seriously.
If a critic sticks to her/his viewpoint forever despite feeling contrary after few years, there is advantage and disadvantage for this too.
Advantage is that people would take their viewpoint seriously, and paint a picture of someone who pens down her/his views after a lot of thought.
Disadvantage is that even if they wish to accept their goof-up after a point of time (happens with every critic) then they won’t be able to admit that in public, thus misleading their followers.

Reviewing the reviewer

When a critic reviews a product made by you then keep in mind that
i. S/he does not have any personal enmity with you (exceptions are there but not in most of the cases).
ii. What s/he has discussed is your product and has nothing to do with what you are as a person.
iii. It is not end of the world if someone criticized the result of your hard work. If you are happy with what you did, then this is what really matters, isn’t it?

• Personally I feel that if you have enmity with a particular critic, then express your feelings on their face. No point holding press conferences dissing all critics and stereotyping them.
• I really appreciate those whose products are successful in market despite not being admired by critics yet they maintain friendly relations with them and appreciate their point of view.
• And if they happen to read views by independent critics who invest money in their product and voice opinions on their blogs, then that’s encouraging. That way they are getting to know what a member from general audience feels about their product, and it is totally up to them as to how they deal with genuine user feedback.
• If a manufacturer/composer has problem with critics, s/he should stop being one herself/himself. Like a film maker should stop rating food in a restaurant if s/he doesn’t know how to cook, or stop criticizing the government if s/he has never been a member of the ruling party, or refrain from commenting on their kids’ teacher if they’ve never taught in school, etc.
• If you, the creator, share positive reviews by a critic for your product, then shouldn’t you share the negative ones too by the same author?
• For a creator, when propped about critics on an interview just say “Critics have their own viewpoint and I respect them for that”. Arguably the most diplomatic response.

Treating your audience

• How do you react to people who read your reviews and give feedback? Do you block the ones giving negative feedback and merely share the positive reactions?
• If a critic represents a publication, then s/he should be serious about user feedback. When her/his employers are investing money in them, then they have to produce optimal output so that it benefits their employer. Even if it is an independent critic then also user feedback is important as the reader has invested time in going through their work which could have been devoted elsewhere. Of course, wise critic is the one who understands the difference between genuine feedback and trolling.
• Remember that if a critic does not need to have knowledge of making the product that s/he is reviewing then their readers don’t need to be a critic themselves to rate the work they are doing.
• If an online reader uses abusive language for you that is getting out of hand, take down screen shots of the same and register a complaint with Cyber Police. They would take care of the rest.
• When a celeb blocks you on twitter or writes hate reply to your criticism, it means that a critic has truly arrived.

The ‘ideal’ critic

Does not exist! And that’s the beauty – what fun would it be if two people thought exactly alike and never disagreed?

For critics reading this piece

Thanks to people like you whom I observed over the years that led to formation of this article. Above all a very special thanks to Mr. Karthik Srinivasan, several of my interactions with him set the tone of this article.

I enjoyed writing this article and shared what I believed in. Seems I am all set to become a critic myself, ain’t I? 😉