|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
66.85.148.50
In Reply to: RE: The last 3 companies skewered by Stereophile..not advertisers? posted by John Atkinson on April 27, 2015 at 07:30:27
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.
Follow Ups:
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
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: