I partially disagree: fake (paid) "organic" mentions and fake reviews are the most effective form of marketing. And, obviously, they're much easier for a company to achieve than the real thing. How unsurprising is it that the most effective class of ad spend is the most scummy? The reason (fake) organic marketing is effective is exactly because it fools people into thinking that it isn't marketing.

Take paid Amazon reviews for example. This is advertising, just one of the most scummy possible forms of it. It's effective because people like me look to reviews to provide a third-party take on whether or not a product is any good. If I have a choice between two otherwise equivalent products, I'll pick the one with better reviews. But usually this just means rewarding the company that paid more to "advertise" on Amazon.

I realize you're probably talking about "real" organic mentions, but those are growing increasingly harder to find. A good example is the last time I bought headphones. I got suckered by a bunch of small review sites that had either been paid or gotten free samples in exchange for reviews. I bought two pairs, and when they arrived the sound from both was distorted. One pair broke within a few months. It was clearly trash that had been pumped using fake organic marketing. When I went back to find the sites that had provided the reviews in the first place, a few of them did mention (in very tiny print) that the reviews were paid. Me, suckered by advertising?! More likely than you'd think.

Back in the day, Johnny Carson reading an ad was convincing to the median consumer because they could be led to believe that the ad really was an endorsement of the product. That doesn't work any more, or not nearly as much at any rate. The basic strategy hasn't changed: it's still an attempt to find someone the consumer will trust. This is why, in my opinion, ads have always been and always will be bad, an attempt to subvert human rationality. Johnny Carson endorsing a product didn't mean that the product was good, it meant he was paid to endorse it. A review site endorsing a product nowadays doesn't mean that the product is good, it means they're paid to endorse it. In both cases the breakdown between what the consumer believes is happening and what is actually happening is the very thing advertising is trying to create, its raison d'être.

I generally agree with your gist; however, I would point out that there are niche review sites run by enthusiasts (whether computer parts, cameras, tools, gadgets, clothing, and so on.) and there are the SEO types that are near-worthless. Enthusiast sites have a range of community-only and not ads, some have affiliate links and some have paid reviews and so on. So you have to know how the site operates and take that into account.

The niche ones have mods which allow genuine dissent as well as other recommendations from competing solutions.

So you happen to have a list of these niche sites or a link to a site that reviews the review sites?

I am thinking about the car enthusiast sites/forums (where you can search for information how to fix minor issues), also places like cpubenchmark, tomshardware, anadtech, dpreview, shoptoolreview and so on. You have to get to know the forum and how they make money, whether it's a labor of love or main source of income, how transparent they are about sponsorship, etc.

Genuine social proof is always the best.

Smart marketers don't try to get you to buy from an ad click. They want to move you one step down the funnel, which is usually getting your email/contact info if it's the type of product that has a longer nurturing process and sales cycle.