|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
173.52.247.92
In Reply to: RE: It's not a moot point.... posted by Ivan303 on May 21, 2016 at 16:55:10
>Art states that the dialog was taken from REAL communications with REAL
>print and web publications with a 'wink, wink' and a 'nudge, nudge' as to
>who he might be quoting.
PS Audio's Bill Leebens requested that the identities of "Randy" and "Dick"
not be revealed. We respected that request.
>I suppose it's in your best interest to leave your readers guessing as
>that could mean just about ANYONE.
What puzzles me is why you and others are so much more upset by this piece
in Stereophile than you appear to be by the "pay-for-play" strategy adopted
by some writers. All I can do is assure my readers that as long as I remain
at Stereophile's helm, there won't be any "pay-for-play" operating at Stereophile.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Follow Ups:
Right now in addition to brands less known in the U.S. that have 6 Moons reviews of one of their products either currently posted on the site or in process are these companies:Genelec, Gryphon, Nagra, Devialet, Metronome, Vinnie Rossi, Aurorasound, Yamaha, NVO, LessLoss, ModWright, Pass Labs & First Watt.
Since Srajan announced the new policy of requiring companies to buy some form of an ad on his site there have also been other well known/established brands that submitted products for review on 6 Moons. Here's some of them:
Job, Fostex, Lounge Audio, Soundsmith, Lindemann, Crystal Cable, Accustic Arts, Canary Audio, Oyaide, Harmonix, Klipsch, Harbeth, Rogers (spkrs.)
Are you insinuating that companies that agree to buy an ad on 6 Moons under Srajan's conditions for a review are all complicit in corrupting the review process? You gonna refuse ad money from them and refuse to review their products?
Can you point to a single review that has appeared on 6 Moons since the policy change where you think the conclusions are basically bullshit heavily influenced by receiving ad money?
As far as I can tell, "pay for play" has made no difference to the conclusions of reviews at 6 Moons. It simply means they require some kind of an ad on their site (not necessarily costing a large sum) in order to get a product reviewed. Big deal. No ads in S'phile, no mag. Pan 2 or 3 products from a company and they'll likely stop advertising in your mag. IIRC your own wife is in charge of ads for S'phile but we shouldn't be concerned according to you due to your impenetrable "Chinese wall".
6 Moons does the same things you do (with the exception of measurements, which you don't do for your "columnists"). They discuss what ancillaries work well and not well with the DUT, the strengths and weaknesses of the product, and provide rec's - which like yours and every other hifi mag/e-zine are damn near all positive.
Edits: 05/22/16
I haven't read a word in 6moons since he announced the new policy. Guess I must be the only one, huh?
Whether a hifi publication is "pay for play" or not..........a grain of salt at best IMO.
> Are you insinuating that companies that agree to buy an ad on 6 Moons
> under Srajan's conditions for a review are all complicit in corrupting
> the review process?I am not insinuating anything. What I am saying is that readers should be
skeptical of _all_ magazines/webzines that accept advertising.They should
compare a site like 6 Moons, where only products from advertisers are
reviewed and Stereophile where only around half the products reviewed are
from advertisers and think about what the likelihood of advertising
corrupting the review process will be in both cases. You are free to make
up your own mind, of course,> As far as I can tell, "pay for play" has made no difference to the
> conclusions of reviews at 6 Moons.And you are free to think that.
> Pan 2 or 3 products from a company and they'll likely stop advertising
> in your mag.Of course, But such advertisers almost always come back. You leave money
on the table in the short term to ensure you will still be around in the
long term. All my publishers over the years have understood that, which
is why I am now in my 31st year of editing Stereophile.As my mentor John Crabbe, who edited Hi-Fi News from 1964 to 1982, put it
(see link below): "If you tell the truth about components you review,
there will always be a small percentage of companies at any one time who
are not advertising in your pages. But if you publish the truth, you will
have a good magazine. And if you have a good magazine, you will have
readers. And as long as you have readers, disgruntled advertisers will
eventually return. But if you don't tell the truth, you won't have a good
magazine. And if you don't have a good magazine, you won't have readers,
at least not for long. And if you don't have readers, you won't have
advertisers."> IIRC your own wife is in charge of ads for S'phile but we shouldn't be
> concerned according to you due to your impenetrable "Chinese wall".Again you are free to think what you like, but please note that my wife
retired at the end of 2015.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Edits: 05/22/16 05/22/16
that Stereophile is the main lightning rod in this thread. Hardly a peep about the outrageous behavior at TAS revealed by a former writer! As for 6 Moons, I find their policy sketchy, at best. But whatever, I haven't read any review there for several years now - mostly uninteresting products and rarely well-written articles.
Stereophile ain't perfect but it's head and shoulders above everything else and with more credibility.
This is still largely a Stereophile friendly forum.
nt
nt
I assume you're talking about Sue's post.
How do you know they are related?
Do you know who Randy and Dick are?
Do you know what publications they write for?
Art and Bill and Sue didn't name any names. And even if they had been forthcoming with the specifics of their accusations, that doesn't mean the accusations are confirmed. You would need evidence for that. So far, we don't have any evidence, nor any testimony. We don't even really have an accusation. Just a smear.
I didn't name the manufacturer because I have no proof. My word against his. And TAS really didn't do anything wrong. They simply didn't know who to believe and chose the manufacturer, who was making a rather large fuss and denying any wrongdoing.
Looking back, perhaps I should not have said anything. It was simply a gut reaction to contact one of the TAS editors. I've actually had a few phone calls from friends since my post saying they would have taken the speakers. And how many other reviewers? Randy and Dick perhaps?
Sue
You did the right thing. Doing the right thing is not always without cost.
Daniel
Rather that these are cases of unethical behavior by audio reviewers/magazines
I'm really just tired of all the innuendo that gets thrown around the industry by manufacturers and press who don't like other manufacturers and press. Unless you're on the inside you'll never know enough about what really happens to pass judgment or to know who the "good guys" are, if there are any.
..and that, dear sir, is a huge point.
as your mentor said, its mostly about telling the truth. I don't view Srajan's policy as something that corrupts the reviewing. It may limit the pool of companies he has for products, but judging from the list of 'em who do submit products 6 Moons is not having much of a problem with that.
Didn't know your wife retired. Wasn't implying anything sinister anyway, just making a point. I stopped taking hifi reviews seriously enough to be concerned about any of this stuff quite a while ago, though I do hope to glean some info worth noting from them.
Well how convenient. Mr. Atkinson's wife retired 6 months ago..but how about the last 20 years. "Chinese Wall"..more like a paper wall by appearances. And appearances mean a lot, what ever the truth is, and even Mr. Atkinson explicitly says this with his comments about Pay To Play.Mr. Atkinson says 50% of the products reviewed in Stereophile are from non advertisers, but i would bet my bottom dollar that nearly 100% of that 50% is then solicited for ad sales. Matter of fact, I'd bet the farm on that.
Edits: 05/22/16 05/22/16 05/22/16
"All I can do is assure my readers that as long as I remain
at Stereophile's helm, there won't be any "pay-for-play" operating at Stereophile."
Good, that's ALL YOU NEED TO SAY!
How hard is that?
When it became clear that 'Bill' did not wish to reveal the identities of "Randy" and "Dick", that would have been a very good time to scrap the whole piece. As it is now, everyone is left to guess and just about every reviewer, not working for YOUR magazine, is left stained by your overly broad brush.
And I'm left free to guess that might have been your intention.
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: