|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
85.4.109.69
In Reply to: RE: Well one could certainly contest a couple of points posted by morricab on July 22, 2014 at 05:10:24
Not that it matters since posters to this board will believe as they will (and everyone is entitled to their own opinion in the first place), but I think here you're overlooking a few things, perhaps quite deliberately.
1/ It's not about whether *you* like my writing, Morricab. It's about manufacturers coming to us who aren't DIYers or hobbyists but professionals. They make money designing, making and selling hifi gear. They come to us wanting a review regardless of your feelings about it. Clearly they see a benefit in it or they wouldn't come. And how they use our reviews (on their websites, in hand-outs, in print-outs for shows etc) clearly demonstrates this benefit in further action.
2/ When I talk 'professional' about 6moons and myself, I'm referring to a number of things.
a/ I do this for a living, i.e. full-time, without a secondary income elsewhere. You may not like my writing, I may not like the amplifier you make. If we're both in it full-time to make a living, we're professionals by definition. This isn't an issue of 'like'. It's an issue of how one makes a livelihood. This is very basic.
b/ at 6moons we deliver our reviews in a timely manner and return products afterwards. We take our own photos. We tend to go beyond just basic coverage. We present things in a clean tidy manner. Considering the various standards at play when it comes to that, one could feel inclined to accord us professional behaviour on those counts as well. Or not. But again,that's not the main point. This is:
2/ Having professional manufacturers come to us (nobody forces them to) for a service (our time) and an actual product resulting from it (the review) which we deliver as promised; then clearly 'work' that product in various review quotes and other activities which further underlines that they perceive our product to have actual value and very real usefulness; but then totally fail to show any respect or concern for our economical well-being whilst perhaps being marginally aware (and if so, being totally okay with it) that their competitors foot the bill to sustain our operation... well, *that's* what's wrong with the current model.
You can disagree on that all you like. None of the commentators here would agree if they were asked tomorrow to write off remuneration on 70% of their paying clients or job assignments which henceforth were to be treated pro bono.
So please, don't confuse the issue as I have presented it. Feel free to disagree with it all you like (I don't care, that's your perogative and if you can afford to work 60-hour weeks for free, I salute you). But the actual issue I have very clearly stated in our policy and the linked-to editorial is that in the current system, a percentage of manufacturers fund a magazine's operations so that the remaining percentage can get their reviews for free. The actual percentage differs from publication to publication of course but the principle is the same. Some reciprocate for the work they receive, others do not.
No matter how tight magazines claim that editorial and advertising are separated by an iron wall... it's either advertising exclusively (web) or predominantly (print, with some revenues generated from sales) which generates the operational revenue. As they should, some manufacturers participate in that. The imbalance arises from those who do not despite being clearly in a position to do so. They become freeloaders.
Feel free to disagree and argue that this model is working just fine. I've made a public stand to the contrary arguing that it is deeply flawed, imbalanced and unfair on any number of counts. Funnily enough, except for the rare reader-funded publication, all the magazines and e-zines which rely on income rather than being pure hobbyist outfits live with the very same reality. It's just that they elect not to talk of it out in the open
As John Atkinson is fond of saying, you guys only have something to talk about in this thread because I told you about it first. -:)
Aside from grilling us (by all means, go ahead), I personally would appreciate to *also* see a discussion about the issue I have raised. There's a pervasive culture of 'I want it for free' at work. Readers want informative reviews with first-class photography but don't want to pay to read them. Manufacturers want the same and many don't want to pay for them either.
One solution is to just consign this sector of the industry to the pure hobbyist arena. Let publishers carry on regular day jobs so they can afford to do their publishing job on the weekend or after hours. Let all reviewers do it purely for fun and for the indirect pay of constant exposure to gear and the occasional purchase at dealer cost.
That's clearly an option. Since I've elected to pursue the other route, I'd be simply curious to hear rational credible proposals on how the current system can be improved. Of course Critic's Corner could be entirely the wrong place to ask for that -:)
Follow Ups:
...you have my sympathy and I don't disagree about the freeloading manufacturers who don't advertise or the freeloading customers today who demand free content, but that's the way it is.
At one point back in 1998 when TAS was about to go under for the final time, I considered buying the magazine and trying to make it successful (I also looked at opening an audio salon, but that's another story).
It didn't take long crunching a few numbers to realize that my audio hobby and equipment reviewing were not a good way to make a living.
I urge you to do some research, talk to manufacturers and write a business plan or at least put together a 3 year pro forma financial statement - this will be a reality test and an eye-opener for you.
As I posted in another part of the thread, there aren't many
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with your decision - Hey, it's your business and you can run it as you wish.I can sympathize with your situation in that you work long hours with little or no compensation at times. Most small business owners do the same.
I have friends that own and operate small businesses and they have 60 hours logged by the 4th day of the 6 day work week.Maybe, just maybe reviewing audio gear would be best left to trust funder's, or those with spouses that make the "dough". Think about it; Those in a very comfortable financial position would be less likely to need, or be corrupted by a few bucks from a designer/manufacturer.
I personally don't believe it is your, or anyone elses "right" to make a good living at what you love to do. God knows that there are many, many days and nights that I really don't feel like going in to work to get on a train and take it from point A to B. I do what I do because;
1) I have 3 kids.
2) A mortgage.
3) College tuition (for the kids).
4) Great medical, dental, and eye coverage.
5) A good retirement.
6) A good pay check.
7) 6 weeks vacation per year.Do I love my job? No.
Do I like my job? Most days.
Do I need my Job? Hell yes!I think that most people are in the same boat as I, and would agree with me.
I sincerely wish you well and hope you succeed with your new business model, however, if it is a flop you may want to seriously consider the lyrics of George Thorogood - "Get a haircut and get a real job."
........I was a vegetarian for 15 minutes... until the main course.
Edits: 07/22/14
I don't have to do this for a living; I just do it for the luxuries like bread and shoes.
-
Editor, Hi-Fi Plus magazine, Lun-duhnn, Ingerland, innit
Thanks! for sharing.
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: