Tech Review Script Template

Use for any tech product review: phones, laptops, earphones, cameras, software, accessories. Works for honest independent reviews and disclosed sponsorships.

---

Creator Archetypes

MKBHD (Marques Brownlee)

Brownlee delivers a binary verdict — "this is the best phone camera I've tested this year" or "this one surprised me" — in the first 90 seconds, before any setup. Most reviewers build to their verdict; he leads with it and makes the rest of the video the reasoning. This creates a specific kind of Identity Debt: viewers who are deciding whether to buy in this category stay for the logic, not the conclusion. His "who should buy this" section appears second-to-last, not last — after he's earned trust with evidence. The final section is the comparison/alternatives, which serves viewers who are already committed to buying something and just need to know if this is the right one.

Dave2D

Every Dave2D review is framed around a use case rather than a spec sheet. The review question is never "is the battery good?" — it's "is this the right laptop for someone who carries it to four client meetings a week and needs it to last through a flight?" This use case framing creates immediate Identity Debt: either your workflow matches, or you learn early that this review may not resolve your specific question. His B-roll is filmed in actual work environments — coffee shops, desks, airports — not on a light table. This isn't aesthetic choice. It constantly asks the implicit question "could I see myself using this here?" rather than "is this product impressive?"

---

Written Example: AirPods Pro 2

This section is written out in full — no brackets. Use it as a model for how to execute the template.

The AirPods Pro 2 cost $249. I've been wearing them for four months across two countries and more flights than I'd like to count. Here's my honest assessment — including the thing Apple doesn't put in the spec sheet.

Quick verdict before we go further: buy them. Not because they're perfect — they're not — but because the gap between what these do and what anything else at this price does is still large enough that the competition hasn't caught up.

Here's what you're actually getting. The noise cancellation on the AirPods Pro 2 is the best in any consumer earphone I've tested at any price. Not incrementally better — meaningfully better. I tested them on a subway commute and on a four-hour flight. On the subway, I held a normal conversation without raising my voice. On the flight, I landed without the ear fatigue that comes from ANC systems that over-process low-frequency noise. If you've ever finished a flight feeling like your ears had been doing something physically hard, you know what I mean. These don't do that.

The H2 chip runs active noise processing at a claimed 48,000 times per second. I was skeptical of that number because it comes from Apple's marketing materials. The output is audible. Low-frequency rumble — engine noise, air conditioning, the specific drone of being in transit — is eliminated in a way that passive ear tips and first-generation ANC don't achieve. The competition has closed the gap on midrange noise. They haven't closed it on low-frequency sustained noise. That's where the Pro 2 wins.

Here's where it gets honest. The sound quality in a quiet room, at 100% volume, is not $249 good. It's $129 good. The Sony WF-1000XM5 at a similar price point sounds meaningfully better if you sit somewhere quiet and listen to music you know well — the bass is tighter, the soundstage is wider, orchestral recordings have more presence. If your primary use is focused listening in a controlled environment, get the Sonys.

But almost nobody buys earphones to sit in a quiet room. They buy them to commute, work in coffee shops, get through flights. In those conditions, the noise cancellation advantage over Sony is larger than Sony's sound quality advantage over Apple. The product that wins in real-world conditions beats the product that wins in test conditions.

Battery life: six hours with ANC on. That's real-world, not Apple's rated number at lower volume with ANC off. Six hours is enough for a workday of intermittent use. It's not enough for a long-haul flight without the case.

Buy if: You commute or travel regularly. You're in the Apple ecosystem and want seamless device switching. You want the best noise cancellation available at this price.

Skip if: You listen primarily in quiet environments and care more about sound quality than isolation. You're on Android — the integration advantages don't exist for you, and Sony's ANC has closed the gap significantly this generation.

---

The Template

Use this structure for any tech product. The bracketed items are the only things that change by product.

---

Hook (0:00–0:30)

"This [product] costs $[price]. I've been using it for [X weeks/months] — not a three-day first impressions video, a real-world test. Here's my honest assessment, including the part [brand] doesn't advertise."

Why the time signal matters: it immediately differentiates you from launch-day reviewers. "Four months of use" is a specific credibility claim that unboxing content can't make.

---

Who This Review Is For (0:30–1:00)

Help viewers self-select early. A viewer who realizes mid-video that the review doesn't address their use case will leave. Give them the information to stay or go now.

"This review is most useful if you're [specific situation — type of user, specific need, upgrade context]. If you're [different situation], I'll tell you upfront that [alternative product] is probably the better option for you."

---

Verdict Preview (1:00–1:30)

State your verdict now, before the evidence. Viewers who are deciding between products need the conclusion to evaluate whether the reasoning applies to them. Detailed viewers will stay for the why.

"Bottom line: [buy it / skip it / wait for the next version]. Here's the reasoning."

---

Section 1: The Real-World Test of the Core Claim (1:30–4:00)

Every product has a primary claim — the reason people buy it. Test that claim specifically.

"The main reason people buy [product] is [core claim]. Here's how I tested it: [test methodology — be specific about conditions, duration, and what you compared it against]. Here's what I found: [results with specifics, not adjectives]."

Translate specs into experience: "40-hour battery life" means nothing. "I went three days of heavy use without charging" is useful.

Bridge: "That's the headline feature. But [secondary feature or unexpected discovery] is what actually surprised me most — and it changes the recommendation."

---

Section 2: What Surprised Me (4:00–6:30)

The unexpected finding is the highest-value section of any review. It's what separates your content from the press release.

State whether the surprise was positive or negative, then explain what caused it — and what it means for the buyer.

"I didn't expect [finding]. The reason this matters is [implication for the specific buyer]. If you're primarily using this for [use case], this [changes / doesn't change] the recommendation."

Bridge: "Which brings me to who should actually buy this — and more importantly, who shouldn't."

---

Section 3: Who Should Buy It (and Who Shouldn't) (6:30–8:30)

This section gets shared and clipped more than any other. Make it specific.

Buy it if:

• You [specific use case with a real scenario, not a generic description]
• Your priority is [outcome] over [competing outcome]
• You're coming from [previous product or situation] and want [specific improvement]

Skip it if:

• Your primary use is [context where this product underperforms]
• [Better alternative] exists for your specific needs and here's why
• You're considering buying now — a [newer model / price drop] is likely [timeframe]

---

Final Verdict and CTA (Final 60 Seconds)

"After [time] with [product], the verdict is [2–3 sentence summary]. For [specific buyer], [recommendation]. For [other buyer], [other recommendation]."

"If you're comparing this to [main competitor], I've done that head-to-head — link in the description. If this review helped you decide, you know what helps this channel."

---

What Kills This Format

1. Publishing a first-impressions video as a review. "I've had it for three days" is not a review. It's a first impressions piece, and the distinction matters. Spec-sheet limitations show up in day three; real-world problems — battery degradation, software bugs, long-term comfort — show up in week six. Reviewers who publish on unboxing day produce content that's indistinguishable from the manufacturer's marketing. Name your usage duration in the hook and make it credible.

2. Leading with specs instead of experience. "40-hour battery life" and "f/1.8 aperture" tell the viewer nothing about what it's like to actually use the product. Every spec in a review needs a translation: what does this number mean in the context of how your viewer actually uses this type of product? "40-hour battery life means I used it for four days of commuting without thinking about charging" is a review. A spec sheet is not.

3. The hedge finish: "it depends on your needs." This says nothing and signals that you don't know your audience well enough to make a recommendation. Pick a position. Name specifically who should buy it and who shouldn't. Viewers who don't fit your recommendation will appreciate being told to leave — the ones who stay will trust you more for the precision. "It's great for most people" is the finish of a creator who is afraid of being wrong. "If you travel frequently, this is the best noise cancellation under $300; if you listen at home, the Sonys are better" is a finish that helps someone make a decision.

---

Quick Reference

• Your title should include either "[Product Name] Review [Year]" or "Is [Product] Worth It?" — both have sustained search volume and clear intent
• Update old reviews with "UPDATE" in the title when significant firmware, software, or pricing changes happen — these re-index in search
• Negative reviews perform at least as well as positive ones; don't soften honest conclusions