 
|
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 |
170.202.22.1
In Reply to: RE: "there is no such thing as independance in trade magazines" posted by robert.gaboury@videotron.ca on May 22, 2009 at 08:29:11
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?
Follow Ups:
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 ]
