|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
107.205.10.55
In Reply to: RE: The 'wall' is one of the biggest myths in publishing... posted by Ivan303 on July 24, 2014 at 07:28:11
...the only thing a publication like Stereophile has to offer readers is their integrity.
Follow Ups:
because it never really existed in the first place.
Does that mean I can buy a good review from a given magazine with my advertizing spend? Of course not. But at the end of the day, in publishing, the decisions of advertisers will eventually drive editorial decisions.
The would not be a large real estate section of your newspaper if there were not Realtors or property owners advertizing their properties.
Next you'll be trying to convince me that the Pharmaceutical Industry has no influence over what's in peer review journals nor influence at the FDA. ;-)
Well I have published in a number of peer reviewed scientific journals both from the university and from big Pharma and I have seen nothing but a relatively fair peer review system in place... it may not be perfect but it is far far better than hifi reviewing.
Most of the real scientific journals live off institutional subscribers because subscriptions run in the thousands per year and advertising is minimal.
I don't think you can even begin to compare in the manner you are attempting to.
That's FUNNY.
Of COURSE the Pharmaceutical Industry has NO influence on what appears in peer review journals!
None WHATSOEVER!
If you have some kind of magic insider information please share. I have not experienced preferrential treatment in publishing when I have a big pharma address on my correspondence or if I had university address.
Now, I am not publishing clinical trials results or other medical related aspects. I am publishing on technical measurements made of the molecules that form the active ingredients in drugs.
Obviously in our world today there are influences but the magnitude of this is definitely open to debate. Like I said, direct advertising is not much of an avenue...at least in the journals I publish in.
There are also "free" periodicals available and these run off the advertisement model. The articles in them are often from industry and either not peer reviewed or only lightly reviewed. Maybe these are what you are thinking of? I use those periodicals as a source of new information about what is the latest thing going on and not much else.
so that tells you all you need to know. =:-0And as far as those journals which publish medical research, as much of that research, at least here in the US, is now corporate funded, guess who decides what gets published?
In fact, here in the US, Big Pharma even decides what gets researched, what gets published and even what gets presented at the big meetings (or as you might say in Europe, the big 'Congresses'). OK, I've never seen a case where they tried to block a poster session, but out of the thousands of posters presented at a big meeting, what's the chances of anyone seeing one outlier?
Case in point: In the mid 1980's Big Pharma managed to keep data from being published, or even presented at meetings of gastroenterologists, which suggested that many if not all ulcers were caused by helicobacter pylori. Why? Guess what class of medications were the biggest money-makers for Big Pharma at that particular time?
Those medications continued to be the largest selling and biggest money makers for Big Pharma until the mid 90's when the NIH finally was forced to act and recommend antibiotic rather than big buck prescription anti-acid therapy for ulcers.
Edits: 07/27/14
...in audio review publications.
In other publications, who cares?
Sure the publisher will change the general editorial content if advertisers aren't attracted.
Or the publisher will ask manufacturers to pay for reviews...
Because they all make the same claims of a 'wall' between the editorial and the advertizing sides of the business.
But this wall has never really existed. It's a marketing tool to fool the reader into believing that the editorial content of a given publication is in no way influenced by the realities of the marketplace or said another way, influenced by where the publication gets its money.
As for 'audio review publications', exactly how may are currently in 'print'? If the answer is close to '1', then I guess I understand why you feel we must necessarily be talking about old what's-his-name at Stereophile. ;-)
...but the only place I have heard of the wall between advertising and editorial has been in TAS and Stereophile.
Part of the kerfuffle that led to her being fired involved, in part, her conflict with Times C.E.O., Mark Thompson over native advertising and the perceived intrusion of the business side into her newsroom.
Native Advertising! At the NY Times!
na·tive ad·ver·tis·ing
n. A form of paid media where the ad experience follows the natural form and function of the user experience in which it is placed.
If arguably the most respected newspaper in the land isn't immune to 'native advertizing' what hope can there possibly be for an audiophile rag?
Link below:
...but did anyone mention a wall?> If arguably the most respected newspaper in the land isn't immune to 'native advertizing' what hope can there possibly be for an audiophile rag?>
You mean my heroes have feet of clay?
It's a sad day in audio review town.
Edits: 07/24/14 07/24/14
Again from the NY Times, and much more recent.
Link below:
.
Link below:
...I believe Pink Floyd did an album about it.
And anyone who knows the advertising business knows that the advertising agencies have whole departments, "publicity departments", whose job is to break down or jump over that wall. Or at least that was the way it worked, pre Internet...
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
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: