|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
98.145.163.72
I am not commenting on this one way or another, just thought it was interesting:
'Yes, we relish informing our readers about "dirty little secrets" in the audio biz. You'll see them throughout our reviews.
This one is not really a secret, it's very well known in the industry, but it's pretty dirty.
Anytime you hear an editor tell you that advertising does not influence their reviews, they are ...let's say...being disingenuous. Period.
That's not just in audio publications, but most for profit publications.
Almost all people at the top of major publications and many reviewers, audio or not,rely on income from them to put food on their table.
It's their job - their career. For me, it is not.'
"To Learn Who Rules Over You, Simply Find Out Who You Are Not Allowed to Criticize."
-Voltaire
Follow Ups:
Stereomojo protesting how honest it is makes me think the opposite.
I'd rather put my faith in someone who has a track record (good or bad, even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day) than someone who is reviewing for bragging rights. I have a huge ego on me, and I know how venal I can be when that ego is being massaged. I assume the same of others unless they are paid to be otherwise.
If advertising is even distantly related to reviews, at least that's a known and indirect source of bias. You can choose to ignore it, avoid reviews from major advertisers, accept it or move on.
If there is no visible link, then that doesn't mean there is no bias. Just that the bias is more malign and unspoken. That's like a clock where the hands are set at random before you look at them and expecting it to be right.
-
They call me The Kosher Butcher. I only fight in Orthodox stance.
Does anyone really care what mojo or video reviews or any of those guys are saying? Not one friend has ever come up to me and mentioned what one of those sites has said. So, let 'em talk, refute, all that, it makes no difference.
One thing the posters are missing is that the reviewers who are making no money at it are still getting something that most of them crave: to be noticed, to be "important", to be "relevant", and in many of the cases, to delude themselves into thinking that they are gurus and that other people are thinking of them as gurus. Ever meet most of these guys? If you did, you would understand why the above items are so important to them.
I am not talking about John Atkinson and the few at his level (very few). I am talking about the wannabees like the one the OP cited.
Well the only real negative I found in this thread was JA saying and proving they stole a graphic and modded it slightly in 2008. A little funny when you read Mojos about us page where their volunteer graphics people are mentioned.
I went to their page and only saw four ads, hardly enough revenue would come from them to support one person and costs for running the site. I cant see anything really self serving in that. Not financially which is what this thread link is about. They dont do HT or M CH and that appeals to me. In briefly looking at the page they seem to have a lot of first to review products which is good.
If they say anything really negative theyd be the Top Gear of audio mags. I find the statement regarding influence to be very true. In a few different businesses I saw first hand the benefit of being an advertiser.
This was true of TV and radio, periodicals and newspaper. So my life experience agrees with the claim. Im not much on audio reviews and dont follow the mags or online sites so I cant compare the many out there. I read a lotbof the linked page from the OP and enjoyed it. It seemed more frank and to the point than anybother audio review banter Ive read.
To me it boils down to the fact they can say whatever they want. Just like we can.
ET
(nt)
> the only real negative I found in this thread was JA saying and proving
> they stole a graphic and modded it slightly in 2008.If you read the complete thread, you will see that StereoMojo also used
images from Soundstage and Enjoy the Music without permission, as well
as using photos that had been taken by a Stereophile writer and previously
published on Stereophile's website.> To me it boils down to the fact they can say whatever they want. Just like
> we can.Yes indeed. But I have always felt that those who turn out to be dishonest
when it comes to small things don't change their behavior with bigger
things. My opinion - others' opinions may differ, of course.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Edits: 05/10/16 05/10/16
if it wasn't so blatantly obvious!
One paragragh or two on a pretty large page talking of over thirty pieces of gear or more? They arent big either I only saw four ads on their homepage.
ET
> Almost all people at the top of major publications and many reviewers,
> audio or not,rely on income from them to put food on their table.
I think it fairer to say that major publications rely on _readers_ to put
food on their tables, because without readers, you have no advertisers.
We also don't present other people's work as our own :-) (See link to an
older Asylum thread.)
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
"...without readers, you have no advertisers. ..."
That seems true - without product you have no buyers.
No they don't. The number of people who make a full time living from writing audio reviews can be counted on the fingers of one hand. For almost all audio reviewers it's a hobby that comes with a small paycheck.
Surely there is a better horse to beat than this one?
I speculate that the "pay" for most reviewers, myself included, is more an acknowledgment of a contribution than compensation for effort. Writing and listening are surely pleasures as well as an education, but there is no way the pay compensates for the time required for the effort.
The real benefit of getting a small payment for writing reviews isn't the money itself. Declaring the payments as "free lance writing income" on your tax return enables you to deduct some of what you spend on your hobby as expenses related to the writing job. I did that for years, back when I wrote for Listener , and the IRS never questioned anything I claimed.
Edits: 05/05/16
I think you are forgetting access to equipment at varying degrees of "dealer cost"! Of course there is the long term loaner thing as well. I am looking at an amp that is on its way back to a manufacturer from a reviewer who wrote the review nearly 6 years ago.
Art Dudley, Listener's editor and owner, didn't accept long term equipment loans nor did he allow his writers to do them. The trade discount was less important because I deducted the cost of whatever equipment I bought. I didn't buy new gear very often anyway; I probably averaged one component a year during my time writing for Listener . The larger points are 1) the number of people who make a living from writing about audio can be counted on the fingers of one hand, and 2) for part timers, the pay for writing an article is little more than an honorarium.
Maybe not pay but an honorarium.
Bill
"It's their job - their career. For me, it is not.'
So he is therefore being disingenuous
Alan
...maybe he's the Trump of audio review editors.
Who knew?
He was a busy guy.
"To Learn Who Rules Over You, Simply Find Out Who You Are Not Allowed to Criticize."
-Voltaire
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: