I didn't mean that Reinhold or Uwe were personally involved in Maco Marketing. Maco just added their reports/reviews of the film as custumer review (or something like that). I personally regard both of these texts as trustworthy reports of the authors' experiences. Nevertheless I do not think Maco added these two reviews without ulterior motive... as positive reviews, especially positive reviews of experienced users, are a quite effective way of convincing consumers of the quality of a product... in this sense I see the texts as part of Maco's Marketing strategy.
For me it is not a bad thing to contribute to the succes of a product I like to use...everyone does it in some way or another. I personally would just feel kind of uncomfortable, if my review still would be used in a product presentation while the product is not the same anymore. (which seems to be the case with Grommi's review...)
Maco indeed seems to change products without informing costumers a lot... no one can tell me, that Rollei Retro 400s is named Retro 400s, because they thought with adding a "s" to the name, it would be clear to everyone, that Retro 400s is an absolutely different film than was Retro 400 (without the "s") The technical datasheet uses the same sample picture as did Retro 400...
As Uwe says, they changed this film again... without informing the costumers at all. (Maybe they think it would startle the consuments if they told them, that they have two names (or are it three... what is Rollei IR400)) for the same film, and that the 400ASA FIlm should at best be rated at 100...