The Telegraph’s “best scented candles” guide looks like expert testing, but read it as a candle maker and a different picture appears. Here’s why affiliate bias and shallow methods mean it’s more glossy shopping page than definitive review.
Are “Best Candle” Guides Really Independent? A Look Behind the Curtain
Every winter the glossy lifestyle pages roll out their “best scented candles” lists. This year’s Telegraph article is no different; styled as a definitive, expertly tested round-up of the top seasonal candles.
Reading it as someone who actually works with wax, wicks, fragrance load, burn profiles and vessel design, something feels off. Not malicious, just quietly misleading.
The biggest problem? These guides present themselves as expert-backed and independent, while being shaped, almost entirely,by affiliate marketing and superficial testing methods that wouldn’t pass even the most basic candle making scrutiny.
1. It isn’t neutral, it’s an affiliate funnel dressed as expertise
The Telegraph does include a disclosure:
“The products or services listed have been independently tested by our journalists. We earn a commission from the affiliate links in this article.”
That one sentence tells you a lot. If a publication only earns money when readers click “buy now”, it’s impossible for that not to influence what gets included and how it’s framed.
The list leans heavily towards big, affiliate friendly brands, the sort of names that sit comfortably in department stores and prestige beauty halls. What you don’t see are independent makers, niche perfumers, unusual blends or experimental vessels.
In other words, it’s not really a list of “the best candles”. It’s a list of the best-selling, affiliate-friendly candles.
2. The testing process is lifestyle journalism, not candle expertise
The article describes a process that sounds thorough on the surface. The team:
- sniffed the candles in the office and scored them
- took shortlisted candles home
- burned them for around three hours
- judged scent throw, melt evenness, design and “value”
To the average reader that sounds professional. To anyone who actually understands candles, it’s surface level at best.
Three hours of burning isn’t a test - it’s a first impression. Many of these candles claim 40 to 70 hours of burn time. You’re only seeing the opening chapter of a much longer story.
Missing entirely are things candle makers obsess over every day:
- flame height and stability over multiple burns
- whether the wick mushrooms or develops excessive carbon build-up
- soot output and jar staining
- true burn time compared with the claim on the box
- how heat is distributed through the vessel
- whether tunnelling is caused by the candle, the environment, or the burn routine
- how the fragrance performs after 10, 20, 30 hours
- wax behaviour, frosting, crystallisation, cold vs hot throw
There’s a huge difference between:
“I burned it in my lounge and it smelled nice,”
and
“I understand the physics, chemistry and engineering behind how this candle burns.”
The Telegraph does the former. The article is marketed as if it delivers the latter.
3. “Value for money” is framed through branding, not performance
One of the candles praised in the guide costs around £100. It’s described as fair value largely because:
- the ceramic pot feels luxurious
- the unboxing is an “experience”
- the brand carries prestige
That’s perfectly valid if you’re reviewing luxury gifting. But a candle is still a functional object. If performance is barely part of the value calculation, the scoring becomes almost meaningless.
At the same time, mid-range or smaller-brand candles are gently criticised for minor cosmetic quirks - a slightly uneven melt here, a bit of cloudiness there - issues that every candle maker knows can come from room temperature, air flow or wick trimming just as much as from the candle itself.
The overall message to the reader is clear: branding and price define value more than performance does.
4. The article claims authority, but never really speaks like specialists
The quoted “expert” in the piece is a fragrance influencer. To be clear, there’s nothing wrong with that; scent knowledge is valuable, and perfumery is an art in its own right.
But if you’re positioning a guide as technically authoritative, you’d expect to hear at least some of the language candle makers use every day:
- melt pool diameter and depth
- wax blend composition and stability
- flashpoint behaviour of different fragrance oils
- how vessel mass and shape affect the burn profile
- whether the wick series is suited to that particular wax and fragrance load
None of that appears. The article talks like lifestyle journalism, but badges itself as expert testing, and that gap matters.
5. Why this matters for people who actually care about candles
If the Telegraph had titled the piece “Our favourite luxury winter candles - staff picks”, there would be no real problem. It would be clearly opinion-based and obviously rooted in personal taste.
Instead, it’s presented as:
“The best scented candles, tested by experts.”
That framing carries weight. Readers assume:
- there’s meaningful technical knowledge behind the recommendations
- brands were chosen on performance, not just prestige and margin
- the testing was genuinely independent
In reality, it’s a thoughtfully written affiliate article that leans heavily on luxury branding and surface level testing.
That doesn’t make the candles bad. Many of them are beautiful. But it does mean the guide is far from definitive, and certainly not the last word on what makes a well-designed, well-performing candle.
In summary
This isn’t about tearing down individual brands or writers. It’s about being honest about what these seasonal “best candle” lists really are: curated shopping pieces that exist first and foremost to drive clicks and sales.
If you’re serious about candles - how they burn, how they’re made, and how they perform over time, it’s worth reading these guides with a critical eye. Enjoy the inspiration, by all means. Just don’t confuse affiliate funnels with true expertise.