HTTP/1.0 200 OK Content-type: text/html
Can't connect to database, trying again....
Have you noticed that on several occasions certain advertisers, and in particular a specific audio dealer, publish ads in Stereophile featuring specific products that they carry which are receiving a rave review in the same issue of the magazine? I have noticed this several times in Stereophile, for instance with the Boulder Digital Preamp.Does this mean that the magazines are circulating the reviews to potential advertisers ahead of publication? Would this be an ethical practice? I noticed for the first time that this same thing happened in the "new" TAS with the MIT Oracle cables review, where one particular advertiser actually quoted from the review itself in the ad that appeared in the same issue. I guess that since TAS publishes its content in the internet ahead of time one could argue advertisers can legitimately decide to advertise without having unduly influenced the reviewers. In any event it would be good if these "consumer" magazines clarified this aspect of their advertising practices.
By the way, I believe the quality of TAS has dropped dramatically with Mr. Harley as editor. This includes the following dissappointments in recent issues:
- no more comments from a second reviewer
- almost no controversial reviews
- where is REG?
- a shallow classification of components, in its first installment focusing on amplifiers, which seems like the flip side of Stereophile's classes, where "Class A" is awarded pretty lightly. In the case of TAS only stuff which costs more than $20K is worthy of "Class 1" (where is, for instance, the Marsh A 400S which at $2.5K REG though was "as good as amplifiers costing as much as houses"?)
- a bunch of less than convincing new reviewers
- a home-theater magazine like feel
- etc etc
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Topic - TAS, Stereophile Ad Practices and other issues - hexenboden 14:09:44 06/11/02 (46)
- Re: TAS, Stereophile Ad Practices and other issues - Ralph 10:37:58 06/12/02 (0)
- Re: TAS, Stereophile Ad Practices and other issues - Char 20:12:45 06/11/02 (0)
- you are so naive ... - porky_pig_jr 18:07:44 06/11/02 (2)
- I hope I stay that way (nt) - hexenboden 06:51:25 06/12/02 (0)
- Well spoken, Pig. (nt) - SalD 00:12:44 06/12/02 (0)
- TAS won't unsub you from their mailing list - what more do you need to know? (nt) - doesnt_suit_me 17:26:56 06/11/02 (0)
- I agree with you about how TAS has changed (nt) - GPB 17:15:55 06/11/02 (1)
- I don't - Dave Pogue 17:50:49 06/11/02 (0)
- Advertising is EVERYTHING to magazines - Guy de Sac 14:46:27 06/11/02 (0)
- Unfortunately... - Budrew 14:33:30 06/11/02 (5)
- Re: Unfortunately... - Charles Hansen 16:16:55 06/11/02 (4)
- So, is it the manufacturers... - Budrew 17:11:44 06/11/02 (2)
- Re: So, is it the manufacturers... - John Atkinson 11:06:36 06/12/02 (0)
- Re: So, is it the manufacturers... - Charles Hansen 19:19:37 06/11/02 (0)
- Re: Unfortunately... - Doug Schneider 16:23:14 06/11/02 (0)
- It's SOP - sjb 14:32:34 06/11/02 (0)
- A reviewer`s opinion is no more valid than your`s or mine - they`re guides, not gospel.[nt] - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 14:23:30 06/11/02 (29)
- To elaborate a little then...... - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 15:18:26 06/12/02 (4)
- Re: To elaborate a little then...... - Rob Doorack 08:53:00 06/13/02 (3)
- Re: To elaborate a little then...... - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 10:38:15 06/13/02 (2)
- Re: reviewers' equipment lists in Stereophile - Rob Doorack 10:54:13 06/13/02 (1)
- Re: reviewers' equipment lists in Stereophile - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 11:13:10 06/13/02 (0)
- Re: A reviewer`s opinion is no more valid than your`s or mine - they`re guides, not gospel.[nt] - Bruce from DC 15:59:26 06/11/02 (17)
- Re: A reviewer`s opinion is no more valid than your`s or mine - they`re guides, not gospel.[nt] - Robert H. 18:32:55 06/11/02 (5)
- Re: A reviewer`s opinion is no more valid than your`s or mine - they`re guides, not gospel.[nt] - John Atkinson 11:22:56 06/12/02 (0)
- Re: A reviewer`s opinion is no more valid than your`s or mine - they`re guides, not gospel.[nt] - Kal Rubinson 19:47:15 06/11/02 (2)
- Re: A reviewer`s opinion is no more valid than your`s or mine - they`re guides, not gospel.[nt] - John Atkinson 07:39:12 06/13/02 (1)
- Re: A reviewer`s opinion is no more valid than your`s or mine - they`re guides, not gospel.[nt] - Robert H. 14:15:08 06/13/02 (0)
- Re: A reviewer`s opinion is no more valid than your`s or mine - they`re guides, not gospel.[nt] - Charles Hansen 19:24:08 06/11/02 (0)
- "if they charactize something as 'the best I've heard at the price' that statement means a lot...." - doesnt_suit_me 17:37:09 06/11/02 (10)
- Re: "if they charactize something as 'the best I've heard at the price' that statement means a lot.. - Bruce from DC 07:33:19 06/12/02 (9)
- more on "negativity", which I consider critical thinking - doesnt_suit_me 16:57:01 06/12/02 (3)
- Re: more on "negativity", which I consider critical thinking - Bruce from DC 10:35:46 06/13/02 (2)
- You wrote: - Kal Rubinson 11:52:49 06/13/02 (1)
- Re: Sure, Kal - Bruce from DC 14:18:22 06/13/02 (0)
- Re: "if they charactize something as 'the best I've heard at the price' that statement means a lot.. - Charles Hansen 09:48:16 06/12/02 (4)
- Since we're not pulling any punches.................... - Chris Garrett 12:22:06 06/12/02 (2)
- Re: Since we're not pulling any punches.................... - Charles Hansen 21:31:00 06/12/02 (1)
- I give up.................. - Chris Garrett 09:31:56 06/13/02 (0)
- Re: ""nasty people" etc. - Bruce from DC 10:40:11 06/12/02 (0)
- That's dogma, not reality - John Marks 15:16:35 06/11/02 (5)
- Re: That's dogma, not reality - Timbo in Oz 23:02:28 06/11/02 (0)
- Pssst: it's 'Robert' Parker - hexenboden 15:42:29 06/11/02 (3)
- Refill!!!!! - John Marks 16:08:19 06/11/02 (2)
- Re: Refill!!!!! - Charles Hansen 16:18:54 06/11/02 (1)
- Re: RObert Parker - Refill!!!!! - Timbo in Oz 23:22:38 06/11/02 (0)