I thought I'd chime in again to clarify my process a bit.
Yes, I have to evaluate lots of these televisions in the store. These are indeed always set to "Vivid" or "Dynamic" picture settings for the customers because they do have to compensate for the over-the-top lighting in our store. But of course I switch them back to a somewhat calibrated setting. On most tv's this is called "Cinema Home/Pro" or "ISF expert" or anything like that. This makes the TV's look dim in the bright store lighting but gives a more honest idea of the picture quality. I wouldn't compare 2 televisions unless I've done some basic calibration on the TV's in question. After 2,5 years of doing this I surely know that this "vivid" setting is just for catching the eye. But, even then, since "vivid" pushes each panel to (or even past) it's limits it does show the shortcomings or strengths of certain panels, even if they don't represent the correct at-home setting.
And yes, after those 2,5 years I've gained some understanding of the tech in televisions. Most brands always throw terms at you that are essentially the same thing with a different execution. Take extended colour panels. Samsung "Nano-crystal colour technology", Sony's "Triluminos", LG's "Colour prime". They all mean they use an extended colour space but they differ slightly in execution. I could go in depth on this, but just know that (apart from slight differences) these are essentially the same. This is all technical jargon that's used to impress a potential buyer.
The refresh-rate of the panel, the colour-space, contrast-ratio. These all amount to the purely technical aspect of the television, the "specs". But more often than not, I see a television that boasts slightly lesser specs than another TV while still looking better than a more highly-specced model. These brands all include their software for image enhancement, and a lot of these are merely used for the "Vivid" setting, quite a lot of them actually DO ENHANCE the image past it's original content. The way Samsung saturates their colours, the almost unrivalled up-scaling of Sony or the sweeping motion enhancement on the newer LG oled models. (But once again, all of these enhancements are turned off in "Game" mode.)
And that's how I evaluate TV's. Sure, I do look at their specs to get the general idea. But then I also use my own eyes to see the effect of this. I can take any customer that walks in, explain the white-sub-pixel in less than a minute. And even some technology illiterate people will then be able to pick these panels out of the bunch. I do not discourage them to buy these, I merely show them the effect of these and let them find the other TV's. Where a salesman just looks at the model with highest specs and highest profit for the store, I tend to take my customers through a comprehensive crash-course and let them find their own TV.
In the end each person has their own preferences for image-quality. Just as there is no definitive "Best headphones" or "Best speakers". They offer, even if in a smaller degree, a personal preference. I'm just here to share my experience with this particular model. It's one the least popular models in our store but that doesn't mean it's immediately a bad television. Just a very budget-oriented choice that is rarely picked up for it's image quality.
I hope this clears up some things. If there's any further questions I'm always excited to share my experiences or answer any questions, so ask away if needed.