|
Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry. |
|
|
|
Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry. |
|
In Reply to: RE: Excuse me but all??? posted by John Atkinson on May 30, 2009 at 10:00:14:
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.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Please Mr Atkinson - robert.gaboury@videotron.ca 13:54:28 05/30/09 (1)
- RE: Please Mr Atkinson - Srajan Ebaen 23:33:57 05/30/09 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
