|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
173.77.11.71
In Reply to: RE: The last 3 companies skewered by Stereophile..not advertisers? posted by Sprezza Tura on April 24, 2015 at 22:00:12
>When I look at the last three company's whose products were ripped in
>Stereophile, they do not provide Stereophile with ad revenue...You really need to get a life, Sprezza Tura, cherry-picking your data to
reach spurious conclusions. Look, to save you the time thinking up new
accusations, there are 4 scenarios you can examine to prove that a
magazine's editorial decisions are affected by advertising.You already mentioned one, where manufacturers who don't advertise get
negative reviews. There are 3 more:2: The magazine gives a positive review to a company that doesn't
advertise: this is to persuade it to advertise.3: The magazine gives a positive review to a company that advertises: this
is to say "thank you" for the advertising.4: The magazine gives a negative review to a company that advertises: this
is to punish it for either not advertising enough or for advertising to a
greater extent in the magazine's competition.So there you have it: every possible review outcome can be laid at the
feet of advertising. It's bullshit, of course, but if it makes you happy...But answer me this: when there are magazines and websites that explicitly
link editorial coverage to whether or not a company advertises - these
have been discussed on the Asylum in the past - why do you keep singling
out Stereophile, which doesn't do "pay for play," for your accusations?And I see that elsewhere in this thread, you have again raised the issue
that my wife is a sales rep for the magazine group that includes
Stereophile. (Her name is Laura LoVecchio, so I thank you for getting
that correct in future.) This begs another question: if you feel that
Stereophile is suspicious in this respect, why do you never raise the
issues concerning other publications and websites where, for example,
the editor is also the person who sells advertising?As I said, Sprezza Tura, you need to get a life.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Edits: 04/26/15Follow Ups:
Noted on your wife's last (professional) name. Apologies.
I am only interested in ONE scenario, and that is the one I pointed out..where companies that are not clients of Sphile get shafted with negative coverage. The Clue review was an emabarrsing train wreck. Herb Reichert is a self absorbed hack.
Not to contact the designer with concerns? Shameful. I am damn sure Dave Wilson, Ayre, or any number of Friends Of Sphile would be contacted with set up advice if a product was not sounding as it was expected.
I know you get constant complaints about the lack of "negative reviews" and you need to spill some blood every once in a while. I was simply commenting on the lambs led to slaughter.
Editors who sell ads? Please list them..let's expose that to the light of day..I would love to. If I knew of such folks trust me they would be the subject of threads like this. I am not being sarcastic..please name names...and their credibility will be up for judgement.
> The Clue review was an emabarrsing train wreck...
I disagree. And as the subject has been discussed ad nauseam on this forum
- see linked thread below, for example - I don't see any need to reopen it.
> Not to contact the designer with concerns? Shameful
Again, I disagree. A review is _not_ a collaboration between manufacturer
and reviewer. As I have repeatedly said both in the magazine and in this
forum, unless the product is obviously broken, we don't give _any_ feedback
to the manufacturer until they see the preprint of the completed review.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
I agree a review is not a collaboration. But when the sound a reviewer hears is SO divergent from a previous exposure, it is called COMMON SENSE and courtesy. Your defense of this review is a farce.
(Disclaimer, I heard this speaker in an unfamiliar environment and was impressed)
You are not going to sit here with a straight face and tell me Stereophile reviewers do not communicate with manufacturers.
Indeed, there droves of Sphile reviews where communication is noted, via email or phone, to discuss the product under review.
The fact that you allow such self indulgent drivel to masquerade as a review is telling.
I gotta say, as someone who has spent more than 20 years in journalism, in just about every variety of editorial roles -- as reporter, editor and publisher, journalism instructor; in all kinds of different publications -- in general interest and specialty interest/trade journalism, from bootstrapped two man start ups to major media conglomerates, I think the contention that a reviewer owes it to a manufacturer to contact the company if the reviewer thinks the gear under review sounds bad, is completely wrong. The reviewer owes the manufacturer fairness and the reader honesty. I guess if he or she thinks the gear is defective, contacting the manufacturer is a matter of fairness -- although I'm not sure they should be expected to know, short of a major failure, whether or no a piece of gear that sounds bad is defective; if they think it just sounds bad, reporting that is a matter of honesty. You don't give the manufacture input into the review.
There IS, and there always will be, a set of inherent challenges that publishers of specialty interest and trade publications face -- when the subject of their content, their advertisers, and to a fair extent their readers come from the same small universe of vested interests, and where inevitably a closeness approaching clubbiness seems inevitably to develop, where access to companies is essential, etc.
The best any publication can do in that environment -- short of ceasing to publish or going 100% subscriber supported (tantamount, I think, to ceasing to publish) -- is to establish clear ethics guidelines, adhere to them, and be transparent about them. I don't know whether or not Stereophile has a code of conduct. Like any publication, it should, and no reason the code can't be published on line for readers to care to see.
I think there are practices that are widespread across the audio press that do raise the eyebrows of all of us outside the circle. The industry's reluctance to publish bad reviews, sometimes with the rationale that a publication is saving its limited news hole for good reviews, seems like, at best, to be doing readers a disservice. Major pieces from major manufacturers should be reviewed, good or bad. Just like the latest blockbuster movie should get a good or bad review not no review when it stinks.
Reviewers' access to discounted equipment, and in some cases their personal relationships with manufacturers, raise my eyebrows and probably the eyebrows of most readers. Are these any worse than reviewers palling around with directors, actors, musicians and producers, being given free books, CD, DVDs, concert tix, and being flown here and there on junkets? No, but those practices inevitably color a reviewers' responses too; impossible for them not to. When I was in journalism school I had a professor, a former editor at Sports Illustrated, who told students that if they were working on the sports beat they shouldn't even eat the food spread that the pro teams put out for the press during games. He was a purist, and it's hard to argue with that kind of bright line.
But more often in life we're forced to make compromises than we're able to live by bright lines. And in these days of shrinking ad dollars and ad hole; competition from free, user-generated content; and the like, the challenges specialty and trade publications face are probably more existential than theoretical.
It's not my job to tell Stereophile what to do, it's my job to read it or not, and to read it with at least some grain of salt knowing that reviewers sometimes have relationships with manufacturers and have access to discount purchases of gear. Caveat emptor unfortunately also applies to "buyers" of news. I'm inclined to take the editor at his word that editorial is not tied to advertising. I mean, for one thing I have great respect for editors and just about every one I know is diligent, hard-working, and obsessively devoted to fairness and honesty. For another, there seem to be equipment from non-advertisers that have been reviewed, equipment from advertisers that hasn't, etc. However, I do hope that a magazine and company the size of Stereophile and The Enthusiast Network, isn't sending the editor's wife out to sell Stereophile ad accounts. I don't see how a potential advertiser wouldn't view that as, if not exactly an implied threat, at least carrying the implication that buying and ad has some bearing on editorial. With a mom and pop start up you might overlook that -- another compromise, another challenge in drawing bright lines. But, if she's out selling Motor Trend and Baseball America, who cares? As to these websites who have decided to go pay-to-play -- they're dead to me as a reader.
Jason Chervokas
I appreciate your perspective, and your post was well written.Just a few quick things:
As far as reviewers communicating with manufacturers about under performing gear, well either they are allowed to do it or they are not. Clearly some manufacturers get this benefit and some don't..the ones in the club so to speak.
I have no problem with reviewers getting dealer pricing, every industry has its perks, and they would not buy something they did not like, even at 90%, so I highly doubt that is a corrupting influence.
I do think having personal friendships with manufacturers whose gear you review is not a good idea and does not serve the readers well. I don't think it is a good idea for a company like DeVore to host get togethers at their facility and fill it with Stereophile writers, then submit product for review.
I don't if TEN is "sending out" the editors wife to sell ads, but she has the title of Advertising Manager, and clearly sells ads.
Edits: 04/28/15 04/28/15
> I am only interested in ONE scenario, and that is the one I pointed
> out..where companies that are not clients of Sphile get shafted with
> negative coverage.But as all 4 scenarios occur in Stereophile, all you are doing is "data
dredging" - choosing only that evidence that supports your case and, as
has been pointed out by other inmates, ignoring the evidence that
contradicts your case.And again I ask: why are you singling out Stereophile for your accusations
of impropriety? Your attitude appears to be that Stereophile is assumed
guilty unless proved innnocent whereas other audio publications and
webzines are assumed to be innocent.> Editors who sell ads? Please list them...
Do your own research. Surf audio websites. Note the staff listings.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Edits: 04/27/15
There is a line that says you can prove anything with statistics. Actually you can't. You can only prove anything with BAD statistics. You can't with well done statistics. Cherry picking like the writer who started this line is overtly the worst kind of statistics. Ignoring most of a statistical universe is a sure way to becoming totally lost.
You'd think that 30 years of Stereophile mentorship(which doesn't include your work with Hi Fi News) would lead to a bit more trust and honest investigation rather than this kind of a flippant few minutes of inadequate study by a casual person who always knows better than the people who spend their lives at a subject. There's nothing more dangerous than some one who has no sense of what they don't know. They too often believe their little sub universe is the entire universe.
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: