 
|
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 |
71.237.50.209
In Reply to: RE: Art Dudley: The Goodness of Your Heart: A Tragedy in One Act posted by Isaak J. Garvey on May 18, 2016 at 08:05:59
There were three names mentioned in the piece, and you couldn't keep them straight?
I've worked with many manufacturers through the years, and handled reviews and advertising all over the world. Most reviewers, editors and publishers are highly ethical, and I've never had an issue with them. Some follow a model I find repellant, and I choose not to deal with them. In the past, my clients have agreed with my take on such things; at present my employer, PS Audio, agrees with me.
When we advertise, we do it because we know from experience that ads in/on a given outlet return increased traffic to our site and/or increased enquiries to our sales department. We never advertise as a result of coercion or extortion, nor do we ever give freebies to reviewers, either as a reward for a favorable review or in order to provoke a favorable review.
We just don't. Ever. Aside from the fact that we don't have to---PS is a well-established company with highly-regarded products---we wouldn't do it anyway. It's an offensive practice that undermines the validity of the whole review process, and implies that our products are incapable of receiving good reviews unless there is a payoff in some form.
I have worked with John and Art for many years, as has Paul McGowan. We hold them in the highest regard, and trust them implicitly. When the exchange with "Randy" occurred, I happened to mention it to JA and AD as a "you're not gonna believe this..." anecdote.
The exchanges depicted did occur as described. The "soliloquies" were my words.
To view the depiction of actual occurrences as vague slurs against an entire industry indicates to me that the piece wasn't read carefully, and the inability to track who-is-whom further confirms same.
Paul was aware of all events, and supported my decision to share the info, and approved of the mention of my name and that of PS.
It is both bewildering and astonishing to me that Stereophile's depiction of these incidents has been turned against them. They're the GOOD GUYS, for goodness' sake!
Bill Leebens
Follow Ups:
"There were three names mentioned in the piece, and you couldn't keep them straight?"
I was a bit confused at first myself. But then I'm an old, retired sales and marketing guy, unlike young still employable guys like yourself.
A question hit me once I'd figured out what Art was going on about: "Why is PS Audio being named as a party to all of this nonsense. What do they have to gain here?"
Brings to mind to old saw: "When you've got the order, shut up and stop selling." By any measure in the Audiophile market, PS Audio has the order. Good sounding product, great reputation, happy customers upgrading products left and right.
Nothing to be gained by stirring the 'reviewer-on-the-take' pot, IMNSHO. When's the last time you guys endured a bad review? Never? None I've read lately.
No, Stirring that pot is a job for the company that can't seem to even pay to get their product looked at by reviewers. "We can't afford to buy a good review and all of the reviewers expect free product.", they cry. We've all heard the stories, though few are to be believed.
Of course you guys don't give away free product in exchange for reviews, favorable or otherwise. You don't have to. And of course Stereophile isn't going to hold up a manufacture for free gear or even advertising in exchange for a review. They don't have to.
But in the case of Art's piece above, one could read into it that others do. Why would a reviewer assume that you would give him free gear in exchange for a review if others in the industry weren't exchanging gear for reviews? And if they are, who might they be? That DSD DAC I was about to buy; the one I read the favorable review of? The one that's half the price of the PS Audio piece that I REALLY would rather have but can't afford?
One can only wonder and some will.
That's what I find most objectionable about the piece.
We know 6 Moons was upfront about their no ad-no review policy (a policy you call "repellant"). Which other mags/e-zines require hifi companies to pay for an ad in order to receive a review, and which mags/e-zines have editors/reviewers on their staff that essentially ask for bribes? Which reviewers in which publications should readers discount due to this? Who are the bad apples?We don't know because neither you nor S'phile will tell us. JA said "....everyone in the audio industry knows who the bad apples are in the reviewing community....", then mentions that among other things audiophiles are ignorant about it. No shit we're ignorant, we're ignorant because we are NOT in the audio industry and you guys won't educate us as to who those bad apples are. If you lack the evidence and/or balls to tell the audiophile community who is NOT "highly ethical", what good does a piece like Art's do for us? We're left still ignorant regarding which publications/reviewers are corrupt, but we're told that S'phile and PS Audio are pure. Even accepting that your motive was good, do you really have such a problem seeing that the piece was self-serving for S'phile and PS Audio?
You say "Most reviewers, editors and publishers are highly ethical, and I've never had an issue with them." But by refusing to name the bad apples readers are left wondering "Who are Art and Bill and JA referring to?" "Is website X where I read reviews every month crooked?" Since almost every review in almost every hifi publication results in a positive recommendation, and every hifi publication contains ads from at least *some* companies whose products garner those positive rec's, we are left to just guess which ones are suspect. Isn't that pretty much where things were at prior to Art's piece?
What about manufacturers who have no problem buying ads in order to get a review on 6 Moons? Are their morals, ahh, questionable? How about the hifi manufacturers who agree to provide "favors" for reviews? Without them the bad apples in hifi review mags/e-zines couldn't exist. Who are those manufacturers? You don't have anything to say about that other than it ain't your employer, PS Audio.
IMO all Art's piece does is state the obvious. Previous to Art's article did you think we were all so dumb as to think the hifi industry and "press" is completely different from every other biz and has no bad apples? We were all so naive that we thought despite the symbiotic relationship between manufacturers and review mags/e-zines nothing untoward ever goes on? Jeez.
I accept that you're a good guy, likewise I accept that PS Audio and JA/S'phile are not among the "bad apples". But I don't see anything in that article (or this thread) that contains new info that is helpful to audiophiles who read reviews.
Edits: 05/23/16 05/23/16
NT
nt
Character being defined as what one does; when no one is looking.
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
It is both bewildering and astonishing to me that Stereophile's depiction of these incidents has been turned against them. They're the GOOD GUYS, for goodness' sake!
You just said that most reviewers, editors and publishers are highly ethical, but Stereophile is the only one I see trying to smear their competitors. So what makes them the good guys?
You seem to have a pretty cozy relationship with Stereophile, cozy enough to team up on this. Am I supposed to believe this doesn't court you some favor with the magazine?
Anyone who points out problems in the industry is labeled as negative, or as smearing those concerned.
Feel free to think what you will. We are all corrupt, we're all in cahoots. By the standards of this forum, no one in this biz can cooperate with anyone else without being a co-conspirator.
I frankly don't give a damn what you believe. Ever wonder why more manufacturers and journalists don't participate here? It's because they're greeted with snark and innuendo by armchair quarterbacks. Have fun.
Bill,
I'm a bit lost as to what you and Art were trying to achieve with this. Are you trying to say the industry has a problem, or just that there are a couple of bad apples? If you think the audio press are generally ethical and there's just a few bad apples, why would you put something like this out there? You haven't outed the bad apples but you have left a cloud hanging over everyone else. That seems unfair to all the rest of the press besides Stereophile.
Also, you took private communications exchanged with a press member and gave them to a competing publication to use as ammunition. How is that ethical? Even though you've withheld the names, you're still playing favorites.
Dave
I certainly appreciate you weighing in and your comments.But with all due respect, also incredibly self serving.
"We never advertise as a result of coercion or extortion, nor do we ever give freebies to reviewers, either as a reward for a favorable review or in order to provoke a favorable review."
Absolutely no body here thinks you have or do. This was not even up for debate.
"To view the depiction of actual occurrences as vague slurs against an entire industry indicates to me that the piece wasn't read carefully.."
Perhaps you should read John Atkinson's comments more carefully because he was crystal clear:
I quote:
"Personally I am sickened by the "pay-to-play" ethos that
is becoming endemic in the publishing industry and I felt that Art's
humorous approach worked well at signalling where we stood on this issue."And by the way, nobody to the best of my knowledge was accusing Stereophile of anything here!!! It was simply note then when you get on a high horse, someone is naturally going to try knock you off it.
And lastly, the reference to assclown was clearly to these amateur, unpaid "reviewers"..which I stand by 1000 percent.
Edits: 05/22/16 05/22/16
> Perhaps you should read John Atkinson's comments more carefully because
> he was crystal clear. I quote: "Personally I am sickened by the
> 'pay-to-play' ethos that is becoming endemic in the publishing industry..."Note that I said "publishing industry," not "audio publishing industry."
Under the euphemism "sponsored content," pay-for-play is indeed becoming
ubiquitous, but just not yet in audio publishing, despite the presence
of some "bad apples."And while North American companies respect my policy, many of the
European and Asian companies I deal with that don't have formal US
distribution expect as a matter of course that in return for their
advertising dollars, I will arrange a review. They are genuinely shocked
that I won't play that game and as a result, refuse to advertise in
Stereophile.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Edits: 05/22/16 05/22/16
Since the context of Art's piece was the audio publishing industry, I thought that was what you were referring to. Thank you for the clarification.
Interesting to note about Europe(not surprised about Asia). Since most of the Europeans I deal with like to feel they are sitting on high and ethical ground pertaining to society and business practices.
My response was to comments made in the entire thread, not just your comments. And yes, I know you meant the reviewers with "assclown"--but it was mentioned in connection with my name, and I tend to be defensive of that. My bad. ;->
...why not go public with the names?
How is anyone to know which publications are credible or not?
no balls.
To be perfectly honest, PS Audio is only incidental to the piece. I don't think anybody in their right mind would have any issues with your ethics.
BTW..with the DirectStream DAC being the hottest SOTA contender DAC around...it certainly is a nice endorsement that John Atkinson purchased the review sample. Certainly caught my attention as he has had many competing products come through. It must be really good. :)
PS Audio is not just incidental in this piece! A pretty quick examination and common sense should reveal why.
BTW I dont think that the DirectStream is SOTA. I can only guess where you would get this impression!
A good number of very trustworthy listeners I know have told me the DirectStream is fantastic sounding, and quite addicting. If you don't, well that is fine.That being said, for me personally, I don't like being locked into a DSD upsampling scheme. But that does not mean I would not find the DAC "pleasing".
Hard to believe you decided to attack their product, which not anywhere near the topic at hand.
Edits: 05/23/16
Isaak, no matter where we stand on this issue, I may be a bit naive, while I don't put much stock in reviews or reviewers I haven't followed for a long time, I had never given any thought to out right corruption. Sure, I figured some reviewers have gear on long term loan.
So, I didn't take this article as being some plot to build up Stereophile and PS Audio at the expense of the competition, I just did not read that into it.
Sautterj6 has 3 posts all in this thread. I am more suspect of him, than of any of the players involved here.
Someone asked me about 6Moons getting a pass, yes I meant in this thread, I never saw the other posts. As I said, I have only come back recently, and I find little has changed. Members still follow other members around, taking shots at each other.
Maybe Art's article was not all that well thought out, but I do believe his motives were not to make us only trust Stereophile, but to be aware that there is corruption. Like I said, I had never really thought about it.
I'm a music lover and audiophile, not a conspiracy theorist. I really am surprised at how much animosity there is towards Stereophile. To me they have helped move this industry and our interests forward.
It would be nice if everybody would just ligbten up, this is not a life or death issue.
Well, you say you don't put much stock in reviewers, yet in your previous post you speak glowingly of a few, and even talk about having personal communication with them. A contradiction. Which is it?
That being said, you make valid points. But there are counter points to yours.
Why doesn't Stereophile just put their nose to the grindstone, do their jobs as they say they do, and keep their mouths shut? That how I do my job, even though there are folks at competing entities who turn out work I think is substandard. My solution is to make sure the best product I can produce is out there.
Of course it is not life and death. :)
But..you they are talking about unethical behavior, not something to take lightly.
BTW, 6Moons is UPFRONT about their policy and made it public ahead of time. They are not trying to fool anybody or pretend they do not want advertiser support. He also had a damn good point. These manufacturers would take his reviews, by ad space elsewhere with quotes from his reviews, provide reprints at shows, and benefit at zero cost to them. The final point here is I don't think the publisher gives a damn..and if he received a product he feels is uncompetitive, regardless..he is going to say so.
TOTALLY different approach then "We take care of our own..."
Well, you say you don't put much stock in reviewers, yet in your previous post you speak glowingly of a few, and even talk about having personal communication with them. A contradiction. Which is it?"
Here is what I said, no contradiction.
"while I don't put much stock in reviews or reviewers I haven't followed for a long time"
I've been reading Stereophile for 23 years, to me that's a long time.
I've shared my opinion, I'm done.
nt
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 © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
