 
|
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: Excuse me but all??? posted by Myles B. Astor on May 22, 2009 at 06:46:12
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.
Follow Ups:
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 ???
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 ]
