|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
184.95.55.18
Interesting point of view:
"...there’s this haze created because of the deep discount, and because of what this can suggest with regard to the exchange of value between the manufacturer and the reviewer, and also what it means to the customer who reads the review and has to lay down twice as much as the reviewer in order to obtain the same gear.
This leaves a potentially huge credibility gap, and is one of the reasons that audio enthusiasts are turning to each other in various social-media communities for guidance and turning away from reviewers. Much like the way the government works, the High End Audio industry seems more like an oligarchy and much less like a meritocracy. “Special Interests” have far better access and influence than ordinary folks, and the Special Interests with bigger bankrolls who are outspending those with small bankrolls get the benefit of more and better access to those taste-makers we call reviewers.
So despite the fact that the industry is teeming with meritorious small players, readers tend to read about the same gear across many publications multiple times per publishing season. As with government, the more cheese you spread on the right crackers, the more you can expect in return for your investment."
Follow Ups:
Perhaps Sommovigo feels the need to differentiate his Web site from other sites and publications by having his writers make no accommodation purchases. Perhaps Sommovigo thinks he can attract more eyeballs to his Web site if its writers don't make accommodation purchases. Perhaps he believes that readers will find articles on his Web site to be more attractive, more believable, or more something sufficient to increase its hit count to the point that ad buyers will spend more money with him. Perhaps his site is not generating enough traffic to convince advertisers to buy more ads and he needs to try something different.
Perhaps he believes his destiny lies in the taking of what he believes is a 'higher ground position' or he believes he is crusading for countless voiceless audiophiles yearning to be free of rapacious accommodation buying reviewers. Perhaps he's hoping to say something sensational enough - "hey did you read that article on THFR - man its about time this issue came out of the shadows" - to get links to it posted elsewhere - a shot heard round the audiophile universe.
If his writers are not compensated with the possibility of accommodation purchases, how are they compensated? Are the writers compensated with advertising dollars from manufacturers whose products they review.
Are reviews on a site where writers make no accommodation purchases better reviews - by whatever standard of 'better' one prefers to use? (True, accurate, reliable, honest, ... whatever.) Are readers of such reviews more likely to return to the site and increase its traffic (and ad revenue) especially because the site's writers don't make accommodation purchases? Are buyers of products more likely to find magical audio synergy - or whatever they're after - if a review of the product they bought was written by a writer who doesn't make accommodation purchases?
Obviously I'm not understanding. One can get a daily dose of righteousness on virtually any audio Web site or forum. What's his point?
I simply linked the article to provoke thought, and I have gone on record i the thread as saying accommodations do not taint the review process in my opinion. And after several read throughs, I agree it is wholier than though and self righteous.
First, as an importer he has CERTAINLY accommodated reviewers. Secondly, It is quite possible that forcing his writers to pay retail for products and to forgo accommodations could very well be restraint of trade and illegal.
Perhaps.
What did he pay? 50% of list at the time was what? $50k or so?Plus, there was a cosmetic blemish. Did he pay $40k? Less?
What are they asking for that TT, arm and stand now? $200k?
To his credit, he seems to give fair criticism to his tonearm (prefers the kuzma 4 point) and the qualities of his TT and other contenders.
Edits: 05/01/14
50k is still an insane amount of money for a component,
And it is more than Valin, Harley, and Pearson have spent in a lifetime.
> > And it is more than Valin, Harley, and Pearson have spent in a lifetime.
That's quite a statement. Got anything to back it up?
There is a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in.
—Leonard Cohen
See mr. Atkinson's reply.
I don't really know about the past, but as a long time reader of TAS I've noticed over the last few years the significant turnover of very expensive equipment in both Robert Harley's and J. Valin's systems.
They refer to their constantly changing reference systems in their reviews but I've never read any indication that any of it was personally owned by them. They have referred to long term loans etc. but I can't remember any other indications. Perhaps I've missed something.
Whether this is a good idea ( except for themselves ) in another question.
They have both gone on record in print and in person that they in fact do NOT own ANY of the gear listed in their reference systems.
> > They have both gone on record in print and in person that they in fact
do NOT own ANY of the gear listed in their reference systems.
Even if that is true, that doesn't mean they haven't spent anything on
their systems over time. And, regardless of Atkinson's response, yours
doesn't begin to address your original claim, which was "And it [$50,000]
is more than Valin, Harley, and Pearson have spent in a lifetime."
Your words, "... in a lifetime."
Back to Fremer, you may want to check out this post from Atkinson:
Posted by John Atkinson (R) on November 20, 2011 at 14:39:40
In Reply to: RE: "It costs $4200.00. If that's your idea of 'expensive',
well,.... posted by DanS on November 20, 2011 at 14:16:48:
> Would be interesting to know if Mr. Fremer actually pays for his audio
> equipment components.
Other than cables, Michael Fremer has purchased all the components that
comprise his long-term reference system, including the Music Reference
amplifier that triggered this thread.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
There is a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in.
—Leonard Cohen
> > over the last few years the significant turnover of very expensive equipment in both Robert Harley's and J. Valin's systems.
I don't dispute that dynamic, at TAS or elsewhere. My issue is with ST's
constant over-generalizations stated as facts .
For example:
ST: "[$50,000] is more than Valin, Harley, and Pearson have spent in a lifetime."
and
ST: "... 99.99999999 % of all the digital music anyone will ever own is in PCM ..."
For someone who is quick to jump on others' assertions, it seems ST is
okay with going overboard with his. It gets tiresome to slog through his
bombast and hyperbole.
There is a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in.
—Leonard Cohen
I agree with that. I would never do it unless I was very wealthy. It's up to the individual to make their own value judgement, however. If Fremer paid $50k of his own money for a TT, I think that is kind of awesome -- it shows true devotion to his love of analog.
I was curious, not to make a judgement or have a gripe that he got such a deal, but simply curious.
Understood. Actually I did not think you were judging.
Agree putting skin in the game adds much to credibility, as opposed to "loans".
How about a dose of reality thinking: You've got to have the discretionary money to spend it, whether its 50k or 100k, regardless of your 'love' for analog.
Assuming the premise is accepted that discounts range from 40-60% of cost the reviewer will still choose product X he likes the best.
So if you have three loudspeakers at $10,000 and all have a 50% discount the reviewer is still going to choose his favorite speaker. Since he could have all three for $5k or whether he was the consumer that has to pay $10k makes no difference because he would choose X over Y and Z whether he was paying $5k or $10k. So I am not convinced by that argument in itself.
Where it could apply is if speaker maker X at $10k is giving it at dealer cost say $4k and speaker maker Y is giving the reviewer an $80,000 speaker for $100 or $1 or whatever. That is a serious breach of ethics both from the reviewer and the manufacturer. Such manufacturers are desperate for sales which likely means the product is an egregious pile of crap.
Further, the review items once reviewed are second hand products. Most of which can be found on the second hand market for ~50% of the MSRP (and no one pays MSRP). So chances are you can go buy Unit XYZ on the second hand market for pretty much the same cash the reviewer is likely paying anyway. The dollars at least will be in the ballpark enough not to worry much about. I could get a few pieces at discounts but saw them cheaper at the second hand store here. Used is used.
Further the magazine can claim that policy but how do you know they will honor it?
Advertising also has no influence on reviewers. I can't speak for other outfits but I review what I want to review. I have no idea who advertises with Dagogo nor do I care.
Some of the more highly touted stuff on Dagogo isn't advertised that I can see and JA I believe has illustrated time and again that something like half the gear recommended in their magazine isn't advertised.
Maybe the magazine is trying for a new shtick to imply everyone else is a crook but them.
Lastly, good customers of dealers also get excellent discounts on gear - they value good word of mouth on internet forums etc.
Ah the search for the true prophet who lives in poverty to prove his truth. If you knew what most reviewers receive for many hours of work you'd realize it is poverty. And for that majority accommodation pricing is their only true reward other than fun and satisfaction. And buying the product reviewed even at accommodation is really only further evidence of a good review. Given the wages one buys only what one really believes in. More can't be afforded unless it comes from the family fortune.
Get off all this negative crap and read reviews to learn about the reviewer for fun, some information and direction so you can do a better job to make up your own mind, the only way you will ever be happy with your purchases.
I have spent far more money as a reviewer reviewing than I have gotten out of the deal. I do it entirely because I enjoy it. Perhaps I can help people to avoid the early mistakes I made. Interestingly, the mistakes were largely relying on reviews over my own ears. I should have chosen specific people who hear it the way I hear it.
Fellow forum posters can be just as good as any reviewer in this as well. I have had great insights from people on forums over the years - even the folks who I've argued with often have bits of info I store in the back of my head and used to inform my decisions at later dates.
I always scratch my head when I hear about "mistakes" like this. Was the mistake not listening to the component in our system or even at a dealer beforehand? If so then it's totally on you. If you bought the new hot thing after hearing at the dealer then it blew up a few months/weeks later then I get it. Most of the mistakes I have personal knowledge of fall into the first category and I just look at them and ask, what were you thinking buying something without hearing it in your system first.
As for the original article, the intent was to get the conversation out in the open. I don't think it's that big an issue but it should be talked about especially when you hear the "I bought the review sample" as it relates to the value proposition mentioned in another post in the thread.
The mistakes is in relying on other people/magazines/measurements to make decisions. While rooms are important, the speaker designer ought to design speakers that work in a large variety of rooms. So I don't buy into the notion that a speaker MUST be brought home to know if it will sound good. You can do this at a dealer with a good room or a show if the rooms are good. (walls not made of paper).
Most average North American homes are built from similar materials and have similar shapes and speakers should work in most of them.Since most current free standing loudspeakers designed to measure well in anechoic chambers the speakers are in effect designed for a "no room, room."
They "supposedly" should sound good in "most rooms" provided you keep them far away from room boundaries. Naturally the fact that people keep making excuses for them like "you need to take them home to get them to sound good" should indicate some things about these free standing designs but that's something else.
I should have said "inexperience" over mistakes. If person A has crossed a river and the way across is to jump from stone to stone person a can tell person b which stone is more secure and can tell person b which stones to avoid preventing them from falling into the water. That is where experience comes in. Avoid the pitfalls of those who wen before.
An example in audio is a fellow named Billy-Bob who is an absolute lover of Single Ended Triode amplifiers. But he doesn't know he is because he's never heard one. So he tries all the the usual amplifiers in all the usual hi-fi stores in his town for 15 years spending money buying, trading, reading magazines, and each issue tells him that this new SS high negative feedback amplifier is the best thing ever and some of them even win "Product of the Year" and promises to fix what ails Billy-Bob will be the salvation.
So another few grand out the window and 6 months later Billy-Bob is looking to trade the great new SS amp which will in a few years fall away being sold for peanuts in the used section of the hi-fi store. He see people talking about SETs. SET? Are you crazy? Billy-Bob says. Terrible measurements - no power - A guy on a forum told me so.Everyone says I need 50 trillion watts to drive my speakers properly - I need "grip." Michael Fremer says so and he is a reviewer and a "professional" so he must be right.
The fact that grip makes him unhappy and sounds a bit fake, and every amp he's ever owned that has that "grip" has bugged him in the past is a "mistake". The mistake is continuing to believe what he is told rather than believing in his ears.
Finally Billy-Bob walks into a new kind of audio shop. Strangely, this one has a lot of vinyl and weird tube amps on the wall. But also those big name solid state amps and even panels - interesting.
Billy-Bob sits down and listens to a system with far more organic and natural sound than - well - anything he has heard before. He looks and sees what he thinks he is a 500 watt SS beast - finally this is it - this is by far and by wide the greatest music listening experience of his entire life. "WOW" he thinks "This is making everything that came before it sound like absolute CRAP!!".
Indeed, the best of his previous best was now relegated to a score of 1/10 and this new set-up is a 10/10 - there aren't words for the astounding improvement. How could it be? Billy-Bob has heard plenty of $20,000 speakers with $20,000 amplifiers and $20,000 CD players. Whaaaaaat?
But it turns out that it wasn't a 500 watt SS beast but an 8 watt SET housed in a closed box. Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? He says to the dealer.How can 8 watts and those ugly rectangles sound that good? The dealer replies "Good sound looks like that."
Billy-Bob then thinks "I wasted 15 years on forums and reading BS reviews of stuff that is unmitigated and complete rubbish while the ENTIRE time this kind of amplifier/set-up was on the market sitting under my nose?
Billy-Bob looks at the watts and says wow that sucks (8 watts) and the measurements are bound to be kinda kinda sucky (SETS always look sucky) he mutters in complaint. Still the sound roundly bested his sublimely wonderful measuring .00005% THD flat response SS amplifier and all the others he had heard.
Billy-Bob goes back on several occasions to be sure he wasn't tricked by his mood and to ensure his cookies weren't laced with pot.
Billy-Bob even does an A/B level matched comparison cause it just can't be so. Those added second harmonic distortions must be fooling him.
But after a few months of trying and wanting to hate the 8 watt amp he finds that nope it is "da bomb" after all, and he realizes that he was mistaken to have wasted 15 years on an assortment of gear that were all varying degrees of wrong.
He should have been in stores (good ones with good room) listening to a variety of gear not paying even the slightest attention to name brand bias and prices nor to how sexy the products look. Indeed, he should have thought that some ugly stuff might be good because if is that ugly maybe it's pretty good sounding - eesh it would have to be."
That's how Billy-Bob became RGA.
Note: This is an example - the message being listen to as much "stuff" as is humanly possible and "try" to cover all the significant design types as is possible listening to the better examples of each. So not comparing a $80,000 SS Mark Levinson to a 1960s ST70 or $69 Chinese tube amp from shady&willcatchfireelectronics.net and say "I compared the technologies."
Edits: 05/07/14
Pretty incoherent there, RGA. I gave up after trying to make sense of your first paragraph :-)
Hi Dave - man it was truly atrocious - won't be typing on my phone again. I edited it.
... with little or no out-of-pocket expense, why should they care about accommodation pricing?
...as those manufacturers whose relationship will influence them, not only give them long term loaners, but loaned equipment for review.
If they want to really crow about their ethics, they can take the route Consumer Reports has - no ads and buy the stuff you review at retail.
The blame also goes to readership. A million online posts about reviewer ethics and ad influences and yet when asked if they would subsidize an ad free review publication you get total silence. They want to whine and moan and talk about conspiracies but they also want cheap content.
"We have mourned to you, and ye have not wept."
Luke 7:32.
So it is with audophiles, who looketh not in the mirror.
JM
They might not be able to give it away FREE.
By honest and unbiased review, that would require the reviewer be blinded as to the make, model and retail price of the product under review. ;-)
(nt)
I love this furry guy...!
...I saw the hamster eating a burrito video on the news last night and couldn't remember where I had seen it.
Is it a true Mission Burrito or just a Chipotle Burrito?
...you can suggest the audio review publication Martin Colloms and Paul Messenger do which is free of advertising.
US $122 a year.
Well..agree...but not all reviewers are brazen enough to exploit long term ahem, cough, "loans".
It is probably futile to seek valid information from reviewers, editors or manufacturers. I suspect there is little to no formal record keeping, which facilitates a mutually advantageous and informal relationship amongst all stake holders.
There's an element of truth in the quote you cite, but it pertains to most, if not all, industries. And Mkuller makes a good point below regarding accommodation pricing.
That said, here's how one guy went about avoiding this perceived problem.
"The Wine Advocate accepts no advertising. A subscription costs $50 a year. Each issue consists of an editorial or two and about fifty-six pages of blunt commentaries on wines that Parker has recently tasted. The commentaries are short, usually two or three sentences, grouped by region and winery, and associated with "Parker Points," which are scores on a scale of 50 to 100. One of the lowest scores Parker ever gave a new vintage was 56, for 1979 Lambert Bridge Cabernet Sauvignon, about which he wrote, "One has to wonder what this winery does to its cabernet to make it so undrinkable.... This wine has an intense vegetative, barnyard aroma and very unusual flavors." But generally, poor wines score in the 70s, adequate ones in the 80s, and really good ones in the 90s. There are significant gradations within those ranges. Rarely, Parker has given a wine a perfect score of 100 -- seventy-six times out of 220,000 wines tasted. He always lists an approximate retail price and provides an opinion about when the wine will be ready to drink. He works hard to avoid conflicts of interest: he pays his own way, accepts no gifts or payoffs, and does not speculate financially on wine. As a result he has an unimpeachable reputation for integrity in an industry that does not.
"The Wine Advocate has 40,000 subscribers, in every U.S. state and thirty-seven foreign countries. These are influential readers, and they pass the issues around, igniting the markets of Asia, the United States, and now even Europe, where collectors and wealthy consumers can be counted on to search out wines on the basis of Parker's recommendations. The effects are felt on store shelves, where retailers display Parker's comments or scores, and up the supply chain, influencing speculation, negotiation, and price-setting, until even the producers of mass wines feel the weight of Parker's opinions. The trade has never known such a voice, such a power, before. When it comes to the great wines -- those that drive styles and prices for the entire industry -- there is hardly another critic now who counts.
"The effects are global. As wines rise and fall on the basis of Parker's judgments, and as producers respond to his presence, the industry worldwide is moving in an unexpected direction, toward denser, darker, and more dramatic wines. It would be simplistic to believe that the movement is entirely due to Parker: he may just be its most effective agent. In any case, these denser, darker, wines are the wines that Parker and now much of the world prefer to drink.
"Last spring in Monkton, Parker said to me, 'What I've brought is a democratic view. I don't give a shit that your family goes back to pre-Revolution and you've got more wealth than I could imagine. If this wine's no good, I'm gonna say so.'
"That's the sort of English everyone can understand -- and the big French winemaking families don't like it at all…"
Since the time this was written the cost of a yearly subscription has doubled as the circulation rate has boomed.
...but I generally prefer James Laub's ratings in the Wine Spectator which does take advertising.
Go figure...
I'm a fan of Laube, too. What I can't understand is why Laube and Parker are so far apart in their evaluations of Randy Dunn's wines; given the fact that both men enjoy big, highly extracted Cabs. Parker raves while WS yawns (at least until very recently). I think part of it is due to Dunn's refusal to goose his alcohol levels, a trait that I apprecicate. Parker, to his credit, has not let this trait affect his evaluations even though he enjoys higher levels of alcohol himself.
...whether it's of wine, beer, food or audio equipment.
Different reviewers have different tastes.\
You follow the one whose taste best matches yours.
More than a few critics were irked by Dunn's letter below; penned several years ago. Dunn still stands by it and continues to call for lower alcohol wines. For one publication to award his wine a score of "96" while another publication ranks it "83" (using the same scale), is akin to Stereophile awarding Wilson's flagship speaker "Class A+" status and the TAS relegating it to "Class C" status (though both reviewers were on record as being huge fans of big box speakers). And if this were to occur year after year with the same product some hobbyists might be forgiven for scratching their heads.
"It is time for the average wine consumers, as opposed to tasters, to speak up. The current fad of higher and higher alcohol wines should stop. Most wine drinkers do not really appreciate wines that are 15 -16. +% alcohol. They are, in fact, hot and very difficult to enjoy with a meal. About the only dish that seems to put them in their place is a good hot, spicy dish.
"I don’t believe the average person is so insensitive to flavors and aromas that they must have a 15% Cabernet, Chardonnay, or Pinot Noir to get the aromas and flavors. Influential members of the wine press have lead the score chasing winemakers/owners up the alcohol curve and now I hope that it soon will lead them down.
"Winemaking is not really much different than cooking. The end product should be enjoyable to consume—not just to taste. Hopefully most who read this don’t think it’s a novel concept that we should be making wines to consume. Would you want to sample a soup, meat dish or other course that is so overpowering that you cannot enjoyably finish what is in front of you? These new wines are made to taste and spit—not to drink.
"This is all linked to my views on the ever evasive and vanishing terroir; the subtleties of terroir in wines have been melted together in a huge pot called “overripe” or the vogue “physiologically mature” grape. Gone are the individualities of specific regions, replaced by sameness—high alcohol, raisiny, pruney, flabby wines. Likewise, the descriptor “herbaceous” was often used in a positive sense when describing Cabernets. Now it is the kiss of death. Voluptuous—I do remember seeing that only occasionally, but not on the aroma/flavor wheel.
"So I would like the consumers to take the lead for a change, rather than being led. Ask for wines that are below 14% when you are out to dinner. The reactions are fun, but the results are not good for United States wines. The sommelier usually comes back with a French or New Zealand wine. On the restaurant level, high alcohol wines have reduced the number of bottles sold. It is very simple arithmetic; % alcohol times volume equals satisfaction. If % alcohol goes up, volume must go down for satisfaction to stay the same—or else we all get plastered.
"Consumers—wake up and get active. Reviewers—please at least include the labeled alcohol percentage in all your reviews, and try to remember that not everyone is spitting."
Randy Dunn
Dunn Vineyards
...they have new publication and they are trying to promote and market it.
There are three people I know of involved - Sommovigo, a former cable manufacturer and distributor, Harry Pearson of TAS and HP's "associate", Joey.
These guys are willing to give up accommodation pricing like it's a big deal but they still ACCEPT ADVERTISING on their site.
Which is more corrupting?
A discount price extended to reviewers along with EVERYBODY ELSE in the audio equipment industry or advertising the audio products you review?
I don't buy that a reviewer is influenced by a lower price on a component when he can get that same discount on ANY audio component - how does that influence him?
Are you that gullible?
I will repeat, I am not in any way against reviewer accommodations.
FYI, a few google searches turn up the fact that Sommovigo gifted his reference tier cables to Steve Hoffman, who then has posted about them positively numerous times on his forum. Hmmmmmmm.
Spreading cheese on the right cracker, as he says?
...why did your post seem to agree with the article called "Credibility Gap"?
Where did I agree, I quoted directly from the article. Simply food for though and rather amusing considering Harry Pearson is supposedly affiliated, and he never paid a nickel for a single piece of gear.
I also think it is amusing that a manufacturer would right this article, and then it dawned on me, this manufacturer does not participate in the review process.
...the manufacturer who wrote the piece.
The reason that readers are increasingly reading reviews for entertainment rather than purchasing guidance is due to other reasons.
First, many find that the sonic descriptions in reviews do not correlate with what they hear, and we can chalk this up to differing systems and differing aestetics.
The magazines have stressed detail at the price of tone now for some time and IMHO that is leading to designers designing to that aestetic resulting in increasingly less balanced components. The tail is wagging the dog.
Since all systems have distortions, we are all chosing the distortions that we find most consonant with the fabric of the music and what sounds good to Mr. Fremer might not sound good to you.
Additionally, enthusiasts keep their gear for long periods of time. Construction quality is addressed in most reviews but actual longevity and reliability is out of the scope of most reviews.
If you can find a reviewer that has an aestetic which is sympathetic to your own, ride that horse until it can't walk any more.
But reviewer accomodations are of little consequence. Now free cables, and cutting them up and selling them, well that's another story.
I can't comment on Mr. Salvatore's equipment reviews, but his opinions on "audiophile" vinyl are entirely reasonable (as are many opposing opinions, of course -- it would be a boring world if we all agreed).
Where I part ways with him are in the anger and invective hurled at nameless others who apparently disagree with him, and in the explicit attacks on the integrity of certain other reviewers he does name. There's no need for that, IMO -- better to simply let your own work speak for itself.
The article cited by the OP seams measured and civilized in tone, agree with it or not. I think it's difficult to generalize on an issue like reviewer accommodations, but if you read enough of a particular reviewer, you usually get a good idea of how worthwhile or credible his opinions are -- or aren't.
Art Dudley is a Tone Master. I think imaging is the way down on his list
That Valin/Nordost story is ancient history, and really has nothing to do with accommodations and how it may or many not influence pro reviewers.
to undermine the credibility of the reviewing community than all of the accomodations in the world put together.
Let's not forget that, quite often, audio sales persons influence the decisions of purchasers and accomodation is extended to them as well, not to mention spiffs, but no one is complaining about that.
First, Valin claims that the Nordost incident was perpetrated by an associate without his knowledge. For some reason I believe him.
As far as sales people influencing consumers..why is high end audio different than ANY other market..sales people are trained and given incentives to influence customers NO MATTER what they are selling. That is what makes the world go around.
Sales people pay cost in most retail organizations.
your belief, or lack thereof, has no bearing on that. In fact, even if the whole incident was reported speciously, it has no bearing. The damage is done.
Agreed that salespersons are known by customers to be compensated on their suggestions. No need to shout. But reviewer accomodation is out in the open as well. Mr. Dudley, who you referenced in your previous post has devoted entire columns to explaining where every piece of gear that he owns has come from. It's a bit of a tempset in a teapot.
We can agree to disagree on the gravity of accomodations and how they undermine reviewers credibility.
Well, going back to Dudley, ironically, he mentions in his review of the Jadis integrated amp that on his recent trip to Europe, his daughter secured first class Eurostar train accommodations via professional discount. Totally normal, totally ok. Why should the employees of a publication not enjoy industry benefits? Free is one thing. Discounts are another.
I am not disagreeing or agreeing with you. This is not my article. I actually have nothing against accommodations for reviewers. There are persk in every industry.
This is probably the best part of the article:
"So, Step #1 is for you, the reader, to understand that there is this somewhat incestuous relationship between the press and the commercial world of audio, and that opinions coming from the press must always be taken with a grain of salt. Not because reviews are written for the sole purpose of promoting brands or products, but because these relationships do exist, and because value flows from the commercial world into the editorial world, and therefore it is up to the reader to defend themselves with healthy skepticism."
They said:
> The most obvious indication that this exchange of value (discount for influence) is taking place is when the reviewer tells the reader, “I loved this thing so much that I bought the review sample!” I mention this not to suggest that the reviewer is being dishonest at all, because why would anyone part with serious cash of any sort if they didn’t really love something to begin with? This is certainly the most common occurrence of accommodation for the reviewer, and it reveals an enthusiasm so great that they are willing to lay down real money in exchange for the gear. I’d say that’s pretty authentic.>
Since they can buy VIRTUALLY ANY COMPONENT they want at accommodation pricing, it IS authentic.
How does this pricing influence a reviewer?
"How does this pricing influence a reviewer?"
I don't think it does. I would say a good portion of the gear reviewed by TAS and Stereophile are unaffordable, even at 50% off to the reviewers.
Proof is..Neither John Atkinson, Valin, Harley, and a slew of others have not made any significant purchases of gear they reviewed.
I believe all the amps and speakers Mr Atkinson has praised like the Lamm amps and Wilson speaker were either sent back to the factory, (in the Wilson review JA actually said if he were buying his last speaker, the Alexia would be it) or remain in on loan.
Fremer is a big exception and has spent a fortune, even at accommodations.
> Proof is...Neither John Atkinson, Valin, Harley, and a slew of others
> have not made any significant purchases of gear they reviewed.
I've actually purchased a great many components that I have reviewed over
the years. If you wish I can post a list.
By contrast, Robert Harley defended his policy of never buying any audio
products at a public seminar at the 2012 THE Show in Newport Beach, CA,
and has also discussed this policy in an editorial essay in TAS.
I have cut back my spending the past few years, because I have 2 children
studying for their bachelor's degrees and I am paying the tuition fees
out of pocket rather than saddling them with student debt. However, I
have also spent a 5-figure sum on test equipment in 2013 and 2014.
> I believe all the amps and speakers Mr Atkinson has praised like the
> Lamm amps and Wilson speaker were either sent back to the factory, or
> remain in on loan.
This is correct. Almost everything I review is returned once the review
has been published. I write about what products I have on long-term loan
in the June issue, as part of a review of an MBL amplifier.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Actually, I know you have purchased gear, and I used the word "significant" for a purpose. Some components that come to mind are the Benchmark DAC, and many years ago several expensive Levinson products. Funny, those "expensive" Levninsons would be considered downright affordable by the standards of today! I do understand you have skin in the game.By the same token, none of the reference speakers or amplifiers or sources you use in your reviews do you own.
I have no issue with that because you do have a history of investing.
I will go on record as saying again, I much prefer reviewer accommodation over "loans" that stretch years, if not a decade.
Edits: 05/02/14
"I loved this thing so much that I bought the review sample!" is a trite, meaningless and potentially misleading statement. Would the reviewer be so enthusiastic if he had to pay list or even street price for that thing? This statement shouldn't get past the editor.
Uh, really? Statements like this have been in DOZENS of reviews I have read in Sphile. Just worded less arrogantly.
...please explain to me why it matters why a reviewer bought a component at 50% off when he can buy ANY component at 50% off why that matters.
He liked it enough to buy it!
For example, Fremer bought a $100,000 turntable at 50% off when he could have bought any $100,000 turntable at the same price.
So what?
...Fremer likes a $100k TT so much he buys it...for $50K. So what do we really have here? A really good $100K TT or a really good $50K TT. Would he have made that purchase if he had to pay $100K for it like Joe six pack would? I don't care that he bought it for $50K. I do care that the statement "I liked it so much I bought it" implies he liked it so much he bought it for $100K when it was really $50K.
I don't give a rat's behind that reviewers get industry accommodation pricing...everybody pretty much knows this. I really dislike covert statements of value which is what that "I bought it" phrase really is. There are already enough disconnected statements of value in plain sight in the realm of high end audio reviewing
I agree about one thing. I DO NOT think accommodation influences the reviewer to HEAR any differently than if there were no discount.
What it MAY skew is their sense of value. Like when they write about a $5000 DAC or cable being a "bargain".
...Seems that skewed and obfuscated value assessments have become the norm.
Edits: 04/30/14
...true but in perspective.A $5000 component which performs as well as a $10,000 one is a bargain.
"I bought it" says much more than "I liked it".
Edits: 04/30/14
...he bought it because it was the best turntable/arm combo he had ever heard.
If some of them cost say $400,000, then his purchase of this one becomes pretty significant.
It was worth to him whatever he paid - just like it would be to you.
May be you got a 20% discount or paid a 20% premium.
Try to put this in perspective - buying it says a lot more here than merely "I sure liked it and was sorry to see it go."
...how the statement "I bought it" helps someone reading the review make a value conscious purchase decision. You know, where resources aren't unlimited and might have to be allocated. It seems you're missing the point of a review.
Later!
I think I get what you are saying. If the reviewer only has $5,000 let's say for an amplifier the reviewer because he can get accommodation pricing will be more apt to bring in $10,000 amplifiers for reviewer because he can get a $10,000 amp for $5,000.On the one hand it is still an apples to apples comparison because he could audition ten $10k amps and he is still choosing the "best" $10k amplifier to buy - but it does negatively skew the value relationship because "Joe Six Pack" has to spend $10k. Further, the reviewer may be influence into believing the $10k amplifier is much better than all $5,000 amplifiers because after all he is getting a $10,000 amplifier at a "deal" and most people like "deals" and like to feel "superior" in terms of the component value of their system - all of which creates or feeds a price bias.
This is why I have paid whatever the dealer has quoted me. Ie; I don't get a better deal that what a dealers' customer's get so when I say "I bought the review sample - I pay what you pay." Which doesn't mean MSRP but who pays MSRP? Some people are better at haggling than other people. Living in Hong Kong and China has taught me much.
In China those guys are selling wallets. At first the price was 480RMB for a wallet. My friend who is the ultimate haggler got them down to 40RMB. Most tourists might get it for $240 thinking they did good. It works like that for some audio products. They like to have high MSRPs so that when they give you 25% off you feel like you're getting a terrific deal. When in reality the thing was already marked up far higher than other products where you can only get 10% off after negotiating.
Some companies post on their website what the reviewer discount is - Say 40%
Devil's advocate though...
Of course the problem with that is that if I pay full price for a $2000 speaker and I could have had their $2000 speaker for $1200 what does that tell you?That is why I laugh at Stereophile's recommended list because ART Dudley buys $10,000+ Class B rated speakers over $1500 class A rated speakers. Class A is supposedly better than ANYTHING in class B - Art obviously disagrees with that notion now doesn't he? Either that or hi is batcrap crazy to be spending 8 times more money (50% discount or not) on worse sounding loudspeakers/amps etc.
Further, I would pay $2000 full price for a speaker that I like over several ~2000 speakers even if they gave me 50% off or indeed even if I could get them for $300. I'd rather spend the $2000 for something I like than $300 for something I don't.
I do agree with your point but I think we have to give ourselves a bit of credit for preferences. I recently bought the Line Magnetic 219IA at dealer list (they had a 10% sale on it but that sale was for anyone not just reviewers). I probably could have had several $12,000-$13,000 amplifiers for around the same price I paid for the 219IA (and from known brand names making them "safer" buys and netting higher resale values. In spite of that I purchased the 219IA. That's pretty high praise and tells my readers who share a similar sonic aesthetic to me just how much I liked it. 9 months later and I am always happy to fire it up.
Edits: 05/04/14
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: