At OfficeLogixShop, we welcome honest feedback and value transparency, especially when reviews shape how customers decide to spend their money. But when a reviewer consistently promotes one brand while dismissing competitors without full disclosure, it is important to address the issue directly.
To anyone who was tracking what was happening, we only made one video, and a few shorts taken from the same video, responding to one review from a Youtube channel called "Ahnestly". After that, he continued escalating, creating more videos where it became clear that attacking us had become a goal in itself. Comment sections filled up with exaggerated claims and dismissive language. We chose not to respond further because our point had already been made. When someone keeps escalating and refuses to let it go, it becomes clear this was never just about a review.
A Shift in Tone
After we began producing headrests that compete with a popular brand often promoted on Ahnestly’s channel, many viewers noticed a clear shift in how our products were covered. This change followed a video where we clarified that no third-party headrest, including ours, voids Herman Miller’s warranty. That statement directly challenged a marketing claim that was repeated online, and many clients of ours reached out asking if our headrests void the warranty since that brand was being presented as the only one that does not.
In one of his videos, Ahnestly replied to a comment by saying we were attacking that company unprovoked. It seems that simply correcting misinformation was seen as an act of aggression. For some reason, Ahnestly took it personally, almost as if he were acting as a spokesperson for the brand we were addressing.
When Fairness Turns Personal
Ahnestly made a review comparing our headrest to his preferred brand, clearly portraying ours in a negative light. We disagreed with several of his points and released a video explaining why a reviewer with a history of promoting one brand should not claim neutrality. We were proved correct when he went on to create multiple videos praising that brand and even featured their products in the background of his content. He opened his response by calling it a beef, making his intentions clear. That tone kept going on from that video, his comment section, and future videos, using expressions like trash, shady, and scum, language that does not reflect the objectivity expected from an unbiased reviewer.
His comment section often echoed the same message, just written in different ways. His replies to those comments only reinforced our concern, as anyone reading them can see the clear intentions behind his language.
On Conflict of Interest
Reviewers, like professionals in any field, should disclose potential conflicts of interest. Just as a physician should not prescribe medication based on commissions or a judge should recuse themselves from a case involving personal connections, reviewers should be transparent when financial incentives are involved.
Using affiliate links to both our headrest and the competitor’s in the same video while directing traffic and praise toward only one brand does not make the review neutral. Ahnestly repeatedly argued that including an affiliate link to our product was proof of fairness. But neutrality is not defined by the presence of links. It is reflected in how the products are presented. The affiliate link on one side is combined with a direct link to the product and a promo code, while the other product is being bashed. When one product is clearly favored and the other is targeted with dismissive or aggressive language, viewers deserve to know there may be underlying motives, financial or otherwise.
That video and the discussion around it focused heavily on a Redditor's comment about their experience with our headrest. That is completely fair. On the other hand, there are many threads and comments on the same platform expressing dissatisfaction with the competitor’s product and specific issues users have faced. Yet Ahnestly chose to ignore those entirely. That is also his choice, but it clearly aligns with the narrative he has committed to.
So Does He Actually Endorse Them
Spotting the pattern is fairly easy. An unbiased reviewer made 17 videos in the last year, including videos where he is aggressively attacking us and trying his utmost to discredit our brand. Others were either dedicated to that brand’s products, mentioning them very positively in general comparison videos, or even featuring their product in his video thumbnails when the supposed content of the videos is not even about the headrest. He even added their headrest in the thumbnail of a video that was actually about a lighting box. Not to mention how their headrest is almost always placed in the background of his setup.
When a product appears that frequently and consistently in both content and visuals, viewers have every right to question whether this goes beyond preference into active endorsement.
The Comment Section
That video, for such a specific niche of a product, has over 800 comments. It is quite something to see that people are extremely engaged with a topic this narrow. The comments range from praising his so-called unbiased review to how his videos were an eye-opening experience for many to get the competitor's headrest, to emotionally attacking us.
It is also quite interesting to see one specific word, shady, mentioned tens of times throughout the comment section. It became a recurring theme, almost a signature term repeated across different replies. It is a word Ahnestly seems to favor, and he even used it when replying directly to us on one of our videos.
We would like to remind you that this massive backlash and these emotions poured into each comment are because we pointed out that this person has a conflict of interest. It is quite interesting to see how regular people can get so heated and express all kinds of emotions over something this specific.
Let us consider this logic for a moment. Our video currently has approximately 27,000 views and has received 1,166 dislikes.
To put that in perspective, consider a controversy involving MrBeast, a globally recognized YouTuber with a channel far larger than ours or Ahnestly's. During that controversy, hundreds of creators, including Ahnestly, produced videos covering the topic. Many of those channels have much larger audiences than Ahnestly's and were addressing far more serious accusations than a simple video about a potential conflict of interest. For anyone who was following even remotely closely, it was clear that MrBeast was at the center of intense negative attention for months, when people flooded his channel and disliked his whole library of videos.
For example, one such video posted around the same time received 341,694,909 views and 99,188 dislikes.
In other words, our response video, aimed at a creator with around 60,000 subscribers in a highly specific niche, received a remarkably high number of dislikes relative to its views. In fact, when adjusted for total views, the dislike-to-view ratio was over 149 times higher than that of a video from one of the most famous YouTubers in the world, posted during a time of serious controversy and widespread public criticism.
The numbers simply do not add up, and this discrepancy appears to be directly tied to the "viewbotting" narrative he continues to promote. We explore this further in the section titled Taking It to the Next Level: "Viewbotting."
It's also interesting to see that whenever someone, though rarely, shares a critical opinion about Ahnestly in his comment section, he or some of his followers often respond by saying the person must be a bot, an OfficeLogixShop employee, or using an alternate account. It gives the impression that the discussion is only welcome if it supports one side. Meanwhile, the many emotionally charged comments attacking us are never questioned in the same way. The repeated mention of bots in his responses raises a fair question. Why is there such a focus on this idea? It makes us wonder if there is a deeper understanding or concern about how online narratives can be shaped that we might not be aware of.
The Actual Relationship Between Ahnestly and That Competitor
While we have stated that we do not know the exact nature of the relationship between Ahnestly and that company, we can only go by what is publicly visible. Even before the release of their headrest, Ahnestly, despite saying he has no stock or stake in the company or the CEO, was actively promoting it on Reddit. He published multiple threads hyping up the product and even went so far as to call it the best headrest he ever used, while it was still in its prototype phase, a 3D printed version.
But again, he admitted that he has a personal relationship with that company.
Even the CEO of that company publicly stated that Ahnestly is a friend of theirs. So which one is it? Is there a personal influence on the tone and direction of his reviews or not?
These are valid questions viewers deserve to ask when a reviewer repeatedly promotes one brand, defends it, and maintains close ties with its leadership, all while claiming neutrality.
On a side note, it's quite interesting to notice a Reddit exchange where a user responded to Ahnestly’s comment calling the competitor’s headrest the best he has ever used. The user asked if they should hold on to their Embody chair just to get the headrest, and Ahnestly responded with "10000%." That user was apparently about to get rid of a chair worth over 1500 dollars but decided to keep it just for the headrest. That’s completely fine. People have different tastes and priorities. What makes this situation more intriguing is that when looking into that user's Reddit profile, it appears their account has been suspended by Reddit. While it could very well be a coincidence, Reddit typically suspends accounts that display bot-like or spammy behavior.
Taking It to the Next Level: "Viewbotting"
We have made it clear several times that we are not YouTubers or influencers and we do not rely on YouTube for our business. A quick look at our YouTube library makes this obvious. The majority of our videos are tutorials, hands-on guides meant to solve real problems for users, especially our clients. While we occasionally share reviews or announcements, we do not operate on a content schedule. Days can pass without us even checking our YouTube channel. We post videos only when we believe they are necessary for our customers or when we manage to find time to film something meaningful.
In our view, our response video performed well, or so we thought. Just a few hours later, Ahnestly began posting screenshots accusing us of "viewbotting" to artificially boost exposure. We found it very convenient that someone was actively monitoring our views in real time and was immediately ready with screenshots and commentary. He shared Word documents and detailed breakdowns that it felt as if everything had been prepared in advance. We are not accusing anyone of wrongdoing but we are pointing out some very convenient timing and behavior that is worth noting.
This "viewbotting" narrative kept growing. Eventually, he escalated to claiming that we had even "viewbotted" his own videos. According to him, that kind of manipulation hurts a channel and could lead to being banned from the platform. But then, using that same logic, did we also risk our own channel by supposedly doing it to ourselves? To explain that contradiction, he argued that our videos do not get views so we must be "viewbotting" them too. That line of reasoning raises serious questions. Would we knowingly jeopardize our own channel? We mentioned earlier the MrBeast example, where we highlighted how the number of dislikes on our response video simply does not make sense given the view count. The contradictions here are difficult to ignore. If those dislikes were organic, the numbers still do not align with the views. And if they were generated by bots, how does it make any sense to suggest we would "viewbot" our own video in a way that hurts its performance, risks being banned, and then somehow also flood it with dislikes? It defies logic. This pattern points to someone trying very hard to build a narrative while leaving behind inconsistencies that anyone paying attention can see.
Ahnestly has been pushing this "viewbotting" narrative for months now, and when no one seemed to care, it appears that someone decided the story should be shifted to blaming us of attacking instead.
After days of not receiving any comments on our response video, suddenly, all kinds of comments started to appear, many of them following the same pattern and repeating a spammy narrative. We pinned a comment stating that we were receiving disrespectful and even xenophobic comments and made it clear that the pattern was easy to spot. Shortly after, Ahnestly updated his pinned comment to say we were accusing him of sending those comments. Again, we are not saying he did that, but he felt offended for some reason and made a point to highlight it. It shows how closely he is watching and how ready he is to react to anything, waiting for any type of response so he can keep fueling this.
Mind you, this is all about a niche so specific, it is not about office chairs in general or even headrests broadly. It is about a headrest designed for one particular chair. The sudden volume and intensity of engagement over something this narrowly focused is, to say the least, quite astonishing.
What's extremely interesting is that we made a video unboxing and reviewing the competitor's Leap V2 headrest. We made sure to be as fair as possible and even stated clearly that we would be biased toward our own product, both in the video and in the description box. For almost ten days, that video only received one comment from someone discussing the conflict of interest topic. We appreciated his input, thanked him, and responded.
Then Ahnestly commented. We also thanked him and answered his comment respectfully. However, for some reason, he deleted his own comment and then publicly accused us of deleting it ourselves and replying to it just to make it seem like we had won the exchange. While we’re not sure what winning has to do with deleting a comment, we actually had screenshots showing that his comment had been live for some time after we replied.
Please note that we have never engaged with him beyond that one response video, other than a couple of public Reddit messages explaining our point of view and asking if he would like to talk about this. Despite his constant aggression, mentioning us repeatedly at every opportunity, and continuing to escalate the situation, we did not respond to any of it. Even after all that, he still chose to comment on our video, seemingly to keep the situation going.
That’s not the main issue, though. The really interesting part is what happened next. After ten days of almost no activity and only one organic comment, his appearance in the comment section seemed to trigger something. Within the next 24 hours, the video suddenly received three more comments. We chose not to publish them because the pattern has now become very clear. These comments appear to be systematically directed toward our videos, possibly sent by someone aiming to stir things up. We chose to follow the exact same approach we took with our response video when we began receiving a similar influx of comments, and we did not publish those either.
Addressing the Warranty and Design Concerns
From both legal and engineering perspectives, our headrest does not void Herman Miller’s warranty. Under the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, specifically 15 U.S. Code Section 2302(c), manufacturers cannot restrict warranties based on the use of third-party accessories. Herman Miller has confirmed they do not endorse any specific headrest brand. Claims that only one headrest preserves the warranty are legally false.
As for product design, we built our headrest to protect the chair’s function and appearance. We have improved it over time in response to real customer feedback, such as expanding the hook for headphone clearance, using high quality foam, matching materials to the chair’s aesthetic, and reinforcing pressure distribution.
Some of Ahnestly’s claims, like experiencing sharp pain from regular use, are unrealistic and do not reflect the experience of thousands of satisfied users. Still, we stand by our open refund policy and are happy to honor any returns as per our Returns Policy page.
A Broader Responsibility
Our critiques are not just about defending our product. We have seen real world issues with the competitor headrest from our experience as refurbishers, most notably concerns of breakage in the antler to dome connection on the Embody spine. We have observed customers using zip ties and pipe straps to reinforce those headrests, which raises serious concerns.
Despite this, we have acknowledged the design strengths of other products. For example, we have pointed out when a feature was thoughtfully engineered or when a backplate design offered clarity and user-friendliness. Our goal has always been to improve our own designs, not to attack others.
The Bottom Line
This is not personal. We respect creators who help buyers make informed decisions. But honesty must go both ways. If you are recommending a product while financially benefiting from its success, say it. If you are connected to a company you are reviewing, say that too. Otherwise, do not claim impartiality.
We continue to refine our products with feedback from the community. Our headrests are used by customers around the world who trust us not just for ergonomic quality but for fair pricing and responsive support. We stand behind every product we sell and will continue doing so with integrity and transparency.
We remained silent through months of aggression, allegations, and conveniently timed screenshots because we have a business to run, not a YouTube channel. But this has gone far beyond an unbiased review. What we are witnessing appears to be a deliberate and systematic effort to cause harm, sparked simply because we pointed out an obvious bias and a personal connection to a competing brand.
To anyone observing this one-sided feud, it should be clear who is investing their time into creating online drama. While we understand that some YouTubers operate in a space where attention and incentives drive engagement, we unfortunately can't invest any resources to entertain something labeled as the "beef of the century." We will continue doing what we do best. And as always, we believe results will speak louder than any video.
Highlights From The Video:
Addressing The Conflict of Interest:
The Legal Background:
Atlas Headrest Warranty:
OfficeLogixShop Embody Headrest Hook:
Atlas Headrest Hex Key Knob:
Embody's Antler:
Atlas VS OfficeLogixShop Headrest Design:
Continuous Improvements:
Price and Warranty: