And so we adapt. We still demo the bike and resort to the days of the cub reporter and newspapers. Take lots of photos. Shoot some before and after video. Use a digital recorder hooked to our mic in our helmet to record our thoughts and experience while riding that 125cc with all our 240lbs of might or even dragging knees on the dreaded Nikken.
Then we produce our review and have a snazzy photo for the thumbnail. A bloody gloved hand giving a thumbs up or down. Have a catchy title like - What brand X does not want you to know about this bike.
How's that different than us shooting first person POV other than a bit more work?
BTW, by bloody I am referring to blood soaked and dripping.
Checked my BMW paperwork and the camera thing was a track requirement, not a BMW thing.
Over here its kinda different, we really have one large dealer/importer that has most of the brands, if you want to go on a demo ride with them, you have to follow someone on a set route, so there isn't really any opportunity to do much anyway.
The couple of smaller dealers never seem to have a demo bike of whatever it is you want to ride.
I think the point I was trying to make with my earlier post is about people who slap on a camera and think they should be given bikes or stuff to review just cause they're a motovlogger/YouTuber, this gives others a bad rep to the brands, because the companies will think negatively the minute they see you have a cam on your helmet.. I didn't refer to whether the viewers trust the review or not..
On the other hand we must also understand that these companies can't simply just give anyone bikes for a number of reasons which includes safety (for the bike and rider), lawsuits (in case of injuries), criminal acts (speeding/road rage), etc etc etc, I know about this when teaming up with my friend running a Internet based moto portal thingy.
But getting back to the topic of the thread, I guess it's the brand's call and decision if they want to allow recordings, I'm sure they their reasons for it.