 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
70.81.109.100
In Reply to: RE: Nordost's new employee .... posted by Bhasi on May 21, 2009 at 01:57:30
Yes.
Follow Ups:
.
All reviewers work more or less for a manufacturer at some point, either formally or informally. If I remember correctly, Johnathan Scull worked for Furetech, Srajan Ebaen worked for Meadowlark.
I have no problem with that, police and thieves are colleagues and sometimes can jump to the other side.
The only problem I have is when some "journalist" claim press independance relative to advertising. Come on, there is no such thing as independance in trade magazines.
> All reviewers work more or less for a manufacturer at some point, either
> formally or informally.
This is incorrect. And in the few instances here it is true, this
magazine's writers don't work for any manufacturers while they are on the
magazine's masthead. See the link below, where it says "Stereophile
reviewers and editors do not act as paid or unpaid consultants for audio
companies. During the review process, reviewers confine their interactions
with manufacturers to logistics and social pleasantries. The purpose of
the review process is to inform the readers, not to assist in behind-
the-scenes product development, no matter how flattering that may be. It
should go without saying that the usual rules of journalistic integrity
apply. Other than meals, and travel expenses for factory visits,
Stereophile's reviewers and editors do not accept from manufacturers
payments or gifts worth more than $100."
> If I remember correctly, Johnathan Scull worked for Furutech...
Still does. But it was _after_ he left Stereophile and was no longer on
the magazine's masthead. Would you prefer Jonathan collect unemployment?
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Edits: 05/26/09
Gifts are limited to $100. Accomodation pricing on a pair of big W speakers might be well above $25000. That's 250 times higher than the "gift" limit. Either reviewers are too poor to buy full retail (like all customers) and manufacturer wants to help for altruistic reasons alone (hum), or manufacturers expect said pair might profit on the long run.
> Gifts are limited to $100. Accomodation pricing on a pair of big W
> speakers might be well above $25000. That's 250 times higher than
> the "gift" limit.
So what? As has been pointed out to you, the discount pricing, which is
around the product's wholesale price, is available from all manufacturers
to anyone involved in the audio industry. As has been asked of you before
in this thread but which you chose to ignore, where is the opportunity
for corrupt behavior in this scenario?And in addition, reviewers cannot purchase products until after they
review it and cannot resell it for an agreed length of time. And in your
example, the reviewer still has to find the $25,000, which hardly makes
it a "gift."> Either reviewers are too poor to buy full retail (like all customers)
> and manufacturer wants to help for altruistic reasons alone (hum), or
> manufacturers expect said pair might profit on the long run.
You are also ignoring the fact that reviewers, unlike regular customers,
have to purchase multiple components, if their value judgments are not to
emerge from a vacuum.
All these facts have been explained on this forum in the past; I don't
comprehend why you find it so difficult to use the site's search engine.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Edits: 05/26/09
I see it's a touchy subject.
A forum is a two way communication tool. As in dialogue. If you do not want to discuss a business practice that non-reviewers (as in "most of your readers") might want to discuss or even question, just move on and skip the subject alltogether.
There is no need to be so defensive, unless you feel you need to defend what seems to be a common practice upon hi-fi reviewers - and not journalists.
> There is no need to be so defensive, unless you feel you need to defend
> what seems to be a common practice upon hi-fi reviewers - and not
> journalists.
This subject has been raised many times in the past and I have posted
comprehensive replies and explanations. You were recommended to read
those responses, which you can find with the "Search" function. I don't
see that as too much of a hardship for you. However, it seems you prefer
I do all that work for you. :-(
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
"If you do not want to discuss a business practice that non-reviewers (as in "most of your readers") might want to discuss or even question, just move on and skip the subject alltogether."
This has been discussed ad nauseam.
You were asked to use the search feature and instead of doing that, you want to continue without reading what's gone before.
Let's not assign guilt unless we've done our due diligence.
Best regards,
Jim Smith
Oh Please go get a grip!
This subject which you have happened upon has been dredged up ad nauseum!!!!
JA isn't touchy about the subject, just fed up of having to the defend the bridge one more bloody time
I am an Aussie
I live in Perth Australia
I have never met JA
I am not on their (Sphile) payroll
I have never received a discount based on the fact i know anything or anyone
And no there is not a world wide conspiracy by Stereophile to make people by expensive equipment,or infiltrate ur drinking water: PS watch out for the Coke a Cola Machine!
Enjoy
DD
That's a real sweeping statement and I'd like to see proof that even 50% work for manufacturers and review at the same time. Actually, very few writers that I know of.
I've never worked for any manufacturer at any time. I've turned down a few gigs, primarily on the music end, because I felt it to be a conflict of interest-or down the road would rear its ugly head. As I also remember from my days at TAS, HP wouldn't allow that either.
As far as I'm concerned, reviewers can't be on both sides of the fence; they can't be audio salesman and equipment writers. They can't work for a manufacturer and do equipment reviewing, regardless or not of the circumstances.
Myles B. Astor
You are right. All reviewers do not work for manufacturers, but all trade medias do.
I am sorry I offended some. However, name a single magazine/web site where advertising sales reps who do not use a good review to cut a deal. None of the reviewers around here seem aware of this, and if they do not speak with the reps then they see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil. Fair enough, but do not pretend reviews plays no role whatsoever in the paycheck.
Reviewers do not sell space, and I accept there's a gap seperating editorial and advertising. The fact remain that all magazines and web sites ARE businesses and those businesses need revenues to keep going.
It's also another fact that readership do not cover for publishing expenses. Nobody ever said that earning an honest living is bad, but please stop acting like offended virgins.
Yes, an ad sales person will use a good review to try to sell ad space, but this works in one direction alone. Good reviews may generate advertising, but advertising does not generate good reviews. Usually, the advertising and editorial departments are at least at one remove, both physically and mentally.
It's well known in publishing circles that ad people never read editorial pages and vice versa (we both look at the other bits as 'filler'), just as 'crayons' (designers) look at the text as word salad. Without having the magazine to hand, I'd struggle to say what companies are advertising within my magazine and most editors I know (both inside and out of the audio industry) are similar. It's the single-mindedness of the process that makes us look at magazines differently from regular readers.
Writers are at an even greater remove from the ad-ed process, because they have even less idea of what advertising is in a particular magazine. An editor may scan through advertising pages with casual disinterest, but they will at least have an appreciation of ads in their magazine; a freelance writer will generally receive their copy of the magazine, read their words first, then scan through their friends and rivals work, re-read their work and then usually put the mag on the shelf.
In 20 years of magazine work, I've only encountered a couple of times where advertising 'influences' editorial. And both times it came down to being asked (by the legal department, not the sales team) not to review products from a specific company, because we were in legal disputes over payment.
Editor, Hi-Fi Plus magazine, from sunny ol' Englandshire
Exactly my point, thank you for pointing it out because this is the whole idea of trade publications.
I also totally agree with the rest of your post. Thank you for telling things the way they are without jumping to the fences.
> name a single magazine/web site where advertising sales reps who do not
> use a good review to cut a deal. None of the reviewers around here seem
> aware of this, and if they do not speak with the reps then they see no
> evil, hear no evil and speak no evil. Fair enough, but do not pretend
> reviews plays no role whatsoever in the paycheck.
You seem to be making a large assumption here, which is that the fact that
ad sales reps sell ads of necessity a corrupting influence on reviews. I
think it behooves you to support that assumption, rather than asking
those you accuse to prove it wrong.
> Reviewers do not sell space, and I accept there's a gap seperating
> editorial and advertising. The fact remain that all magazines and web
> sites ARE businesses and those businesses need revenues to keep going.
The only way your case against reviewers makes any sense if there is a
causal link between the reviews and the ads. There isn't, and even you
admit that reviewers and editors are not aware of the ventures
advertising activities. In fact, you seem unaware of the direction of the
flow of time. Because a manufacturer may or may not buy an ad in the
future has no influence on a reviewer's findings on a product from that
manufacturer in the present.
Unless you can report a specific instance that supports your generalized
accusations, I suggest you recognize that your opinion is merely that,
and not a particularly well-informed one at that.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
I never EVER established ANY link between advertising revenues and corruption. You're attributing me things I never said. Advertising revenues are a necessity. Corruption is NOT a necessity. I also feel I was very precise in restricting the scope of my wrongfully sweeping generalisation. The only thing I said and repeat is that trade magazines are part of the industrial eco system. I say and repeat that trade magazines live with advertising, and as far as I know - and please correct me if I'm wrong - advertising spenders ARE manufacturers, distributors and stores, therefore a direct causal effect is real, whether you acknowledge it or not.
If, as business manager, you do not see any direct link between advertising revenues and editorial expenses (and survival!), please explain why the number of editorial pages is directly linked to the number of advertising pages - at least in printed publications? Did I say corruption? NO. Explain why some magazines make it and some other fold. Could it be that some magazine earn respect over time? Could it be that the strongest and fittest survive? On the other hand, could earned respect alone not be enough to garantee survival? Did I mention corruption? NO.
Do you feel internet robbed some readers of traditional print magazine? Why did Stereophile and Absolute Sound decided to have web portals? Why some like Soundstage and 6 moons decided NOT to have a print portal? What you failed to underline is that media buyers (acting for established manufacturers) most probably won't buy space in a start-up publication. At the same time, established content providers won't commit reviews to start-up manufacturers. This alone seems to be good self-regulation.
Mr Sircom said - and I do think this is VERY important - is that most if not all reviewers cannot make a decent living by reviewing alone. Most if not all reviewers do this pro-bono work because they enjoy music and gear, are curious and wish to make a contribution to the audio society. If the majority of reviewers - and I believe it - cover shows on their own vacation time; if reviewers put free time to listen to commercially available gear; if they all do this out of their own free time, then they all should be rewarded for this.
If part of the reward comes from discounts, on their trade tools (such as anything linked to audio), there's no wrong doing here. If part of it comes from public recognition in this small aquarium of ours (or asylum), again, no harm done. However, some examples of questionable conduct are sufficiently documented in these archives (and, yes, Mr Atkinson, the search function is helpful) to underline that reviewers are humans and can therefore slip into a grey area of disappearing cables and appearing non-reviews.
In his closing statement on the Munich show coverage, 6Moons' Ebaen said "Number of journalists (attending the show) upped by 7.6%, (but in the same sentence added) anybody can be a journalist". If the admission ticket for being a journalist is free time, a love of music and gear, a lot of people could qualify for the job. The same could be said about artists. Anyone can be an artist or a poet. Only the talented survive long enough to be recognised - and more often than not, after their own death.
If anybody can be a reviewer, anyone CAN write anything. Audio is a field governed by uncertainty and risk and subjectivity. Newcomers to the field can and probably will rely on opinions expressed here and there. Opinions and perceptions will become reality and reality does not always equal truth. "Best Ever?" are two words that seem to come up regularly in audio (and car) magazines. How does this fit in the vintage gear revival? How could we explain old clunkers like Garrard 301 being snatched off eBay at record (no pun!) prices?
Is it reasonable to think that the technology was and is still valid 40 years later? Could we reasonably say that the audio press went numb (Jean Hiraga being an exception) from idler drive to belt drive to direct drive to belt drive again onto idler drive again? Could it be that the press had been under the influence of the industry spin-doctors? The same thing happened when Kloss and Villchur introduced acoustic suspension. Out with the Altec, in with AR and Advent AND Phase Linear (not to forget SAE and other Ampzilla). Then the trade press rediscovered ported speakers - then rediscovered high efficiency speakers and 8 watts tube amps. Is this pattern entirely supported by the industry alone or also in large part by the audio press in need something new to talk about?
Advertising content can and do contribute to the establishment of false reality. Pseudo scientific achievements are taken as granted and spreaded like gospel. Mr. Atkinson, we're about the same age. Do you remember those advertisements from the mid '80s about "digital ready" speakers? Do you remember the promise of 100dB dynamics (while 12 dBs is actually a rare treat - at least in pop music)?
Ignorance - from all sides - can and do corrupt perception.
Actually, Marja & Henk said that and I published it, Robert. It does not change the meaning one iota but if you quote, it's important you quote the right person. Your quoted passage is prefaced by "From Renate Paxa's own show statistics, Marja & Henk crafted the following conclusions and questions..." (Renate Paxa being show management).
Their implication was that since we saw/recognized fewer journalists than in years past but their published attendance numbers went up, "anyone can be a journalist" (or get trade credentials to enter the show as one; or there simply are more publications).
To address another point in this thread, 6moons does not use any advertising reps at all and never has. Parties interested in advertising with us contact me, I dispatch our rate card and artwork specs and they make their decision accordingly. For years now, we never had to actively solicit for support but merely respond to direct queries. We simply exist and enough people consider our contributions valuable enough to merit support and approach us accordingly
This could change in the future if this unsolicited support dries up. But for now and the last seven years, we've kept ourselves lean enough to survive in exactly this manner. Hence the assumption that all magazines in this field engage salaried or commissioned ad reps; and that *active* solicitations for support are the only way; is erroneous.
Our approach has been *passive" - put out consistent content with enough people noticing and deeming it worthy. Very simple, very basic but surprisingly effective.
> You are right. All reviewers do not work for manufacturers,
> but all trade medias do.
Press is just the business which works for money & profit, no more or less. If you think they could be something like Delphi's Oracle or holy prophecy book you are a dreamer.
We Russians put strong "=" between whatever called "free press" and p*********, and within our society journalists are usually referred by jargon terms I cannot post here. No offense against anyone, just our life experience.
> SPJ (Society of professional journalists) Code of Ethics
> says blah blah blah ...
Men, are you living on planet Earth or where ???
Complete nonsense.
For example, when I wrote for Listener I had no interaction of any kind with the ad sales department. I think I may have spoken at most a dozen words to the magazine's advertising rep during Listener's entire life, and that was casual small talk at a party once. Editor / publisher Art Dudley never said anything about ads when we discussed my articles, save for one occasion when he told me that a speaker importer had cancelled his ads after I had given one of his models a lukewarm review. That information was not presented as a criticism or complaint; in fact Art took a sort of pride in the incident. John Atkinson has written here many many times that Stereophile's writers have no contact with that magazine's advertising staff.
Exactly. Perhaps you never spoke to any reps, the thing is, they are essential in the publishing eco system, because readership alone is not enough to keep the business alive. Please be aware that those reps you never spoke with show those nice reviews around to get contracts. The very fact that a speaker manufacturer chose to cancel advertising because of a bad (or not so good) review proves my point. That very same manufacturer chose to go elsewhere to get his money's worth of praise.
The biggest audio manufacturer (and advertiser), by far, is Bose. Did you ever see a Bose advertising in Stereophile or Absolute Sound or SoundStage or EnjoyTheMusic? Did you ever see a Bose review in any of those trade medias?
Well, duh, of course magazines depend on advertising revenue. That's obvious to anyone who reads magazines. Entertainment Weekly is not subsisting on the less than 25 cents I paid for each issue in my 3 year subscription! However, it's an absurd leap from the patently obvious fact that magazines need advertising to your assertion that "The only problem I have is when some 'journalist' claim press independance relative to advertising." Someone has to pay to produce a magazine, but the critical question is does that affect the content? To cite my own example, since I had no contact with the ad sales rep how exactly was the honesty of my reviews compromised by the presence or absence of any particular advertiser? My review had already been printed when the pissed - off importer cancelled his ads, so even if he had wanted to use the cancellation to threaten Art it was too late (in any case Art would have told the fellow to go f**k himself if such a threat had been made). The reviews I subsequently wrote weren't affected by the cancellation either. I wrote negative reviews (hello, Roksan Xerxes X) and positive reviews and Art published them all without alteration. How exactly was my independence affected?
May I ask what happened of Listener?
Also, what about this post of yours:
"...I'd take a discount if one was offered - what idiot would volunteer to pay more for anything?"
Now you're telling how independant you are???
> > May I ask what happened of Listener? < <
Sure, it's no secret. Art sold the magazine to a company that specialized in, as I recall, niche lifestyle magazines for the well - heeled. Under the new owners Listener continued to grow in circulation (it was on track to pass TAS in circulation within a few years) and was consistently profitable, as it always had been. Unfortunately the magazine wasn't profitable enough to suit the new owners. They decided that they could get a greater return by investing their money elsewhere, so they killed Listener .
As for accomodation sales, I'm afraid I have to agree with Sordidman's pithy comment "Newbie, Do a search; yo!" That issue has been beaten to death here for over a decade. No one has ever been able to present a logical and convincing explanation of exactly how the opportunity to buy a component at a discount - subject to the rules about resale that all the magazines impose - allegedly affects the content or honesty of reviews.
Accomodation pricing has nothing to do with honesty. Like you said, who'd be crazy enough to pass on a good deal. I just said it changes the whole notion of independance.
I know of at least one reviewer who bought and paid full retail price for a piece of equipment he reviewed - very - favourably. He's also a contributor to this forum, and didn't jump in to defend the illusion of independance because he proved well above that.
"I do not think it means what you think it means," to quote Kevin Klein as Inigo Montoya in "The Princess Bride."
You created this straw man of "independence" and keep tossing the word around as if it had some special definition in the context of publishing. It doesn't. No one who gets paid to write for a commercial publication is genuinely independent; you're doing someone else's bidding in return for money. Even if you own the magazine you're still not 100% free; you have to produce content that will interest readers. You're hung up on something that's meaningless.
The unnamed writer who doesn't buy gear at accomodation price isn't more independent (whatever that means) than I am; he's just stupid for paying full price when he didn't have to. I'd even say that he's showing poor judgement - yet you think that poor judgement somehow makes him more "independent" and superior?
.. is just about sensible, pragmatic self-interest and nothing more?* I referred to naivete in my original post but I think it's nevertheless legitimate to have a moral position on reviewers' perks. They're surely given for commercial rather than altruistic reasons, after all, so readers might reasonably ask how big the inducements are surrounding reviewers' published opinions. To suggest that robert.gaboury's concept of independence in this context is a straw man or meaningless seems over-reductive and defeatist, tantamount to arguing 'they're all on the take, directly or indirectly, so what can you do about it?'.If anything, it's heartening to see that these issues still generate interest and strong opinions - even though they may have been discussed to death by the 'lifers' here in years gone by!
* For me, at least, it's also about living in a dark world in which ill-gotten or undeserved gains have to be slyly defended.
Edits: 05/23/09
One of the best episodes of "South Park" involves little men called Underpants Gnomes. The Gnomes sneak into boys' bedrooms at night and steal their underwear. The Gnomes eventually explain that they're businessmen and that the underwear thefts are part of their brilliant business plan which they describe as:
Phase 1: Collect Underpants
Phase 2: ?
Phase 3: Profit!
Every attempt over the years by people like you to explain how extending trade discounts to audio writers causes unethical behavior has always been a lot like the Underpants Gnomes' business plan. It invariably goes like this:
Phase 1: Discount
Phase 2: ?
Phase 3: Corruption!
OK, so why don't you have at it now? Please explain exactly how the opportunity to get a discount on gear that you want to own anyway and have to keep for a year and can't resell at a profit directly causes either 1) undeserved positive reviews of crap equipment or 2) undeserved negative reviews of good equipment (obviously, those two possibilites are what must be prevented). When I bought my Dynavector 10X4 cartridge at a discount - to cite one example - how exactly did that affect my judgement and reviews of the Spacedeck or the HeadRoom Deluxe or the Naim CD3 or any of the other equipment I subsequently evaluated?
What's common sense to people like me is unimaginably irrational and unlikely to 'people like you' (sorry, not a phrase I'd normally use)! I think real-world corruption - or even just influence or suggestion - is a great deal more sophisticated and indirect than your question suggests. Also, isn't it a problem that, if you're denial is true, we're left with a scenario of mass altruism on the part of the industry?* How plausible is that? Put simply: why perks, then?*Obviously (I hope, and to save time), I'm not disputing that individual acts of altruism occur, but that it's enshrined in a common business practice ... ?
BTW Thanks for the entertaining analogy!
Edits: 05/24/09 05/24/09
In other words, you are absolutely convinced that audio writers who accept discounts are corrupt, but you cannot explain how that corruption occurs. But you just know it happens. Thank you for making that clear.
SPJ (Society of professional journalists) Code of Ethics says. Journalists who act independently should:
— Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
— Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
— Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.
— Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
— Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.
— Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.
— Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; avoid bidding for news.
Either this code of ethics should apply to reviewers as part of the journalism profession OR audio reviewers are not journalists and only a marketing expense for manufacturers, importers and distributors.
The SPJ is an American body. Hi-Fi+ is a UK magazine. So the SPJ's code of conduct does not apply here. We are tied to a minimum standard; the strictures laid down by the Press Complaints Commission. The PCC's Code of Conduct makes no mention about professional associations, free travel and gifts. As few magazine editors and journalists in the UK belong to a trade body or organisation, the PCC's Code of Conduct - and any in-house strictures from a publishing house - are the overarching guidelines used in the UK media.
However, I am also bound by the Code of Conduct instigated by the Chartered Institute of Journalists, which lays down stronger guidelines on this matter. I am not going to reprint the entire document for brevity, but the salient points in that code are as follows:
- You will behave in a transparent way. This will include declaring your professional status in any publication in which you operate. You are not required to maintain the same professional name, but must seek not to practise deception on the reader or viewer at any time.
- You will not request or accept payment for the publication of editorial matter under whatever guise, including costs relating to colour separation of pictures or other devices, which compromise your editorial independence.
- You will not accept money, or any other inducement whatsoever, to manipulate editorial comment unless it is clearly identified.
My contributors (and the previous editor) are not necessarily members of the same governing body, so not have been subject to the same strictures in the past. I have already introduced a greater degree of transparency in disclosing interests and I will be instigating stronger integrity guidelines under my tenure, but putting these guidelines in place will take time.
Editor, Hi-Fi Plus magazine, from sunny ol' Englandshire
> — Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.>
Even perceived by conspiracy theorists with no real reason or logic?
> — Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.>
Taking a discount available to the entire industry, including review journalists who may have reveiwed the product negatively or not at all, does not compromise anyone's integrity.
If you believe it does, please explain how.
Otherwise I would question the ethics and conduct of one who makes blanket accusations without evidence or cause.
May I remind you of the letter YOU sent to playback magazine regarding the very independence of reviewers...
"How can we trust that you'll keep your editorial content independent from advertising considerations when you founding partners' products will be reviewed in your publication?"
Perhaps YOU could question your OWN ethics, or perhaps YOU had sufficient concern to write Playback magazine. In either cases, I suggest your conduct might not be as high as you think it is...
(nt)
... but we don't know which half."
I expect you're familiar with this oft-quoted complaint. No, the business of persuasion is not an exact science and no, I don't have the forensic skills to prove what you - disingenuously? - ask.
And yet:
Does anyone really believe that trade discounts, freebies, etc do nothing at all to influence reviewers' opinions, that such 'benefits' result in absolutely no feelings of gratitude or beholdenness, conscious or otherwise?
Of course, it would be silly to claim there's direct 1:1 reciprocity involved most of the time. Marcel Mauss wrote interestingly about this in his book The Gift in the 20's. I'm pretty sure Vance Packard had something to say about it, too, in his classic The Hidden Persuaders.
And to take a more life-or-death example, how delighted can any of us be by the thought that doctors' prescribing decisions have been subtly influenced by drug company-sponsored trips, meals, desk ornaments, etc, etc?
I'm not saying such marketing practices can be eliminated from every sphere of life - not even just the essential ones like medicine and audio! - but I do think consumers, at least, should bear them in mind when reading reviews or listening to recommendations, perhaps adding a few more grains of salt than they already do.
Going back to my original post, I'm still quite irked that I paid good money to read the editor waxing lyrical about the astronomically-priced Nordost Odin line when a month or two later I could have got his thoughts free as advertising bumpf. Sure, one doesn't begrudge anyone career success in an honest line of work, but it's sad that the magazine's reputation should be sullied by the 'niggling doubts' that will arise in many thoughtful readers' minds.
I fear we're going to have to agree to differ, Rob, but feel free to have the last word.
Newbie,
Do a search; yo!
Your argument has been hashed and re-hashed ad-nauseum with the "facts on the ground" proving that there's no payola going on with the major print and online high-end review magazines.
The philosophies of the various publications have been clearly elucidated everywhere and the books have been opened, and truths have all been revealed.
Your speculative assumptions and meanspirited insinuations are serving only to hurt and discredit you.
You have some reading to do. When that's all done I'm betting that you'll get only praise from reviewers who might say that despite this guys wrong views on Payola, he makes a great sounding speaker.
Best of luck in your quest.
The worst thing in 1954 was the bikini; see the girl on the TV dressed in a bikini; she wouldn't think so, but she's dressed for the H-Bomb!
...your bias is blinding you from seeing is that every person working in the audio industry, including the media, is able to get accomodation pricing (dealer cost) from *every* audio equipment manufacturer.
So whether a reviewer reviews a product or not, he still gets the same pricing if he wants to purchase one.
How does that influence a reviewer and do you have any specific evidence it does?
This actually means that an independant reviewer could get accomodation pricing on a bad product.
Gee, wouldn't it be wiser to get accomodation pricing on highly praised products? I mean, what's the purpose of getting a good deal on something you can't peddle on Audiogon?
Oh sure, the whole independance concept...
...I only purchased products I had listened to.
Others' reviews were not an influence, as I think you're suggesting.
The magazine required reviewers to keep equipment they had purchased at accomodation for a minimum of one year before selling it, and then not selling it for more than you paid.
Any real evidence or just wild-ass speculation on your part?
Evidence of what?
You just said you relied on your own ears to purchase gear at accomodation pricing and that you had to keep it for a year before ditching it.
I jus say bravo and keep up the good work.
...you probably think the CIA killed Kennedy, too.
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
