|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
110.146.175.89
In Reply to: RE: Stereophile automatic renewal Scam posted by Shane from AUS on September 03, 2015 at 05:50:28
Guys, it is not the cost ( $76 not $12) or ruining my credit that has been the concern.
It is the automatic renewal and charge to my credit card, as I did not agree to any automatic renewal as I never do. I did not forget complying with this BS clause. The company did this without my permission.
It is this unethical behaviour that has made my mind up to cancel my Sterophile subscription.I probably would have just renewed if they sent me a normal renewal notice. I am not the only international subscriber with these thoughts.
I have phoned up the company and cancelled my Sterophile subscription. No cancellations number or anything, I just have to trust them that it gets done and the credit card charge is reversed.I would suggest if JA is reading this to stop his subscription company doing this.
Edits: 09/03/15 09/03/15 09/03/15Follow Ups:
Sorry to hear that you cancelled the subscription based on some act of the services department. Cancelling could be based on the contents of the magazine, not the misdeeds of some warped brains who have nothing to do with audiophile world.
Why not subscribe for one year and see what happens next year?
Cheers
Bill
It is not the first time I have had issues with the half arsed outsourced subscription dpt of Stereophile.
Stereophile is a luxury, not a necessity so I will pick up the odd copy when it really interests me.
Edits: 09/04/15
Hi Shane, from down under this is Mark from up over. I'm with you brother! It's not the cost of the subscription it's the integrity of the company. Hey John Atkinson, stop putting the blame of irate subscribers out of your hands and on the distributor. If your in charge make a move to improve or get someone else to put a Stereophile in the mailbox. If I ran the zoo heads would roll on this issue of issues! Shane, I had bills for re-subscription twice a month all year long and I was getting pissed. I had a little problem with Absolute Sound's subscription a while back. A few days later I got a mysterious manila envelope with 3 separate issues of their magazine and a personal I'm sorry note from Robert Hartley, the head man. Maybe Stereophile should hire Donald Trump although he might be preoccupied right now. I still love Stereophile even though a lot is over my head, but it's not rocket science to get it delivered and charged fairly for a copy....Mark Korda
The EDITOR works for the PUBLISHER, not the other way 'round. The PUBLISHER hires and fires the folks in charge of circulation.Which is why all of this nonsense we keep hearing about the 'Chinese Wall' between the editorial side and the advertising side in publishing is so silly.
When the managing editor of the New York Times can be given the boot, in part due to disagreements with the paper's chief executive over 'native advertising', it suddenly becomes obvious how this particular sausage is made.
As print media goes into its final death throes I'm sure things will get even worse.
A local newspaper here in San Francisco just did an editorial house-cleaning over a less-than-complementary piece on an Indian Casino forgetting that the Indian Casino in questions spent about 20K-40K a year on advertising. Editors were given the choice by the publisher of making up the losses out of their pay or writing a major 'fluff' piece in an attempt to woo back the advertiser.
Chinese Wall indeed!
Edits: 09/03/15
> A local newspaper here in San Francisco just did an editorial house-
> cleaning over a less-than-complementary piece on an Indian Casino
> forgetting that the Indian Casino in questions spent about 20K-40K a
> year on advertising. Editors were given the choice by the publisher of
> making up the losses out of their pay or writing a major 'fluff' piece
> in an attempt to woo back the advertiser.
A sad story but not a universal one. This summer, two audio companies
canceled their advertising contracts with Stereophile because they were
unhappy with our coverage of their products. This loss of revenue is
greater than the amount you cite. As of this morning, I still have a job.
And if I were ordered to write a "major fluff piece" on those companies
to win back their ad business, I would immediately resign.
> Chinese Wall indeed!
You are entitled to your less-than-well-informed opinion on how I view
my responsibilities as magazine editor, but in this instance your cynical
opinion is worthless.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
thank you.
...regards...tr
> thank you.You're welcome, hifitommy. Perhaps I am getting too sensitive, but I am
getting weary of Stereophile's name being linked to stories about
"pay-to-play" publishing. Yes, there are print magazines and web
publications that won't publish reviews of products from companies that
don't advertise - 6 Moons' Srajan Ebean has been frank about this policy,
for example - but Stereophile has always selected products for review
based on what we feel their relevance to our readers is, and pays no
attention to whether the manufacturer advertises with us or not.This has not been without friction with the business side of the
magazine - see the first paragraph of the essay linked below - and my
continued employment has on a couple of times been threatened. But as
long as I am Stereophile's editor, this policy will remain in effect.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Edits: 09/06/15 09/06/15 09/06/15
which is well known and get your Publisher to address the renewal policy whatever the Cartel arrangement is in the US publishing industry.
The subject was changed by another poster (see below), and I was commenting
on his post.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
.
but your reading skills don't quite measure up.
At no point did I share an opinion on how you view your "responsibilities as magazine editor", and for an obvious reason. I have no way of knowing.
Here's hoping your publisher didn't threaten to take the lost revenue from those two angry advertisers out of your pay.
Link below:
> but your reading skills don't quite measure up.
> At no point did I share an opinion on how you view your "responsibilities
> as magazine editor", and for an obvious reason. I have no way of knowing.
Don't be coy. You gave an example of "pay-for-play" journalism in a thread
about Stereophile, thus strongly implying that this was how it was at
Stereophile. Otherwise why would you think what you wrote relevant? You
then ended with a definitive statement and incorrect statement that there
wasn't a "Chinese Wall" between editorial and advertising.
> Here's hoping your publisher didn't threaten to take the lost revenue
> from those two angry advertisers out of your pay.
Why would he? He might be grumpy, of course, but my behavior ensures the
long-term survival of the magazine that pays his salary. As I wrote at
the link below in tribute to one of my mentors, John Crabbe, who was my
predecessor as the editor of Hi-Fi News & Record Review magazine:
"It was John Crabbe who defined for me the relationship between a
magazine's editorial integrity and the advertisers who financially
support it (readers, sadly, are never a significant source of income,
given the high costs of distribution): 'If you tell the truth about
components you review, there will always be a small percentage of
companies at any one time who are not advertising in your pages. But if
you publish the truth, you will have a good magazine. And if you have a
good magazine, you will have readers. And as long as you have readers,
disgruntled advertisers will eventually return. But if you don't tell
the truth, you won't have a good magazine. And if you don't have a good
magazine, you won't have readers, at least not for long. And if you don't
have readers, you won't have advertisers.'"
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Thanks for reminding me of him. If he was a fine a human being as he was a music and audio writer, knowing him must have been a real pleasure!
Jeremy
> > ...readers, sadly, are never a significant source of income given the high costs of distribution...
> > ...if you don't have readers, you won't have advertisers.'"
Perhaps an apt account acknowledges having readers as a necessary though not sufficient condition for having income and salaries.
that this was how it was at Stereophile."The thread was about subscription and circulation practices and yes, it was about Stereophile and no, subscription and circulation issues generally to not fall under the responsibilities of the editor.
And I wasn't responding to YOU, I was responding to those who seem to not understand that you are NOT responsible for your publisher's decisions on who is contracted to handle subscriptions and circulation.
But I could be wrong.
But you are NOT the only Editor in the world and further, Stereophile is NOT the only publication.
And unless your publication is different from most, and it may be, you have little or no control over who your publisher uses to manage circulation.
Best leave circulation to your publisher lest the publisher may decide to be more involved in the editorial side. :-)
Edits: 09/08/15
There are two prominent print magazines in the US that cover high-performance audio. They obviously have different journalistic and ethical standards. They also have different circulation numbers.
I would submit that all of the information we have strongly supports John Crabbe's statement quoted by JA.
what has John Crabbe and what he said to do with the subscription issue being discussed?
What does "pay to play" have to do with the origin of the thread?
but the subject of this thread is not editorial standards it's division of authority in publishing in general.
For good or ill, the editor works for the publisher in most if not all cases and circulation and subscriptions (the subject of this thread) tend to fall under the authority of the publisher, NOT the editor.
In most cases, the Publisher is simply given a policy which has been drafted by those many tiers above him.
Most individual magazines are a small cog in a large group, and such is true of Stereophile-- that's recognition of the realities of business structure, not a diminution of the high regard in which I hold John and Stereophile.
...forget about publishing the TRUTH, baby, it's all about the advertising revenues!
And for those REAL journalists who bravely defy the greedy, lying bastards at the top and DO tell some uncomfortable truths or facts about powerful people or well-heeled ad purchasers, they will find themselves out of work permanently, as not being a 'team player' (i.e., a boot-licking lackey whore who will print or say whatever bullshit makes the rich turds and corporate players happy, no matter how thick the lies are laid on, or how much the general public gets deceived --and possibly screwed-- by the deliberate misinformation and skewed reportage.)
And with 90% of the US mainstream media (MSM) now comprised of only six mega-corporations (e.g., Disney; Viacom; Newscorp; GE; Time-Warner; and CBS), one can reasonably surmise that the future of real, honest journalism, is long over, and that pablum horse shit and out and out corporate propaganda is only just beginning. The worst is definitely yet to come!
Publishing the unvarnished TRUTH? The US MSM? In today's world? Fuggeddabowdit!
What a bunch of greedy, lying scum bags......... :-(
And for those unaware of this, in 1983, 90% of the MSM in the US was owned by 50 companies, but with consolidation over the past 32 years, that is now down to only the 6 companies listed above. And while nothing can perfectly insure journalistic integrity (given human nature), I was far more comfortable with 50 companies controlling things, than just 6.
Variety, is, after all, the spice of life.
(And truthfully informed choice, the foundation of any real democracy.)
.
Hi Winston,Couldn't agree more. Fortunately the internet has allowed us to bypass the MSM. One of the best websites I've found is linked below. It is a repository of thought provoking video documentaries, many of which have been banned.
Yes, banned.
You will never see anything overtly banned, as that would draw far too much unwanted attention. Instead they simply sweep things under the rug. There are some brilliant BBC documentaries by Adam Curtis that were only shown one time and are curiously absent from the BBC archives...
Fortunately people were able to capture these on VCRs, and digital transfers are available at ThoughtMaybe. Go to the section on Adam Curtis:
https://thoughtmaybe.com/by/adam-curtis/
and all of his works are in reverse chronological order. I strongly recommend starting with his all time classic, "Century of the Self", a 4-part series that will explain how we have all been raised in Orwellian style. It turns out that "1984" actually happened in 1924, and we've all been immersed in it without realizing it...
Another great one is his most recent, "Bitter Lake". Just don't watch too many at once!
If you need an antidote that adds some optimism back into your life, take the time to watch a brilliant film, "I Am". It is an amazing film from the director of "Ace Ventura, Pet Detective", of all people. You can stream it from Amazon in 480p for $4 or 1080p for $5. Absolutely brilliant.
www.amazon.com/gp/video/detail/B006VEFQEE
Cheers!
Edits: 09/04/15
.... would you be kind enough to exchange e-mails on this subject privately? I accept e-mails from registered inmates.Of course, I can always send one to your business e-mail, if that is easiest, but I do not like to be rude and send unsolicited e-mail, if I can avoid it.
I, too, would like to share a few things with you, as we appear to be of a same mind on this subject.
And thank you for your kind support. It is always appreciated when someone of stature in our audiophile community lends the weight of their opinion to any subject, even if that subject is the deterioration of the basis for informed choice in a (allegedly) democratic environment.
[And btw, my wife and kid and I all watched the incredible documentary, "Operation 8", about five days after we emigrated here to New Zealand and arrived on March 11, 2011 (Fukushima Day), and were blown away by the film. Clean, fair, honest government here in NZ? Hardly! Check it out. Mind blowing stuff. The power of corporate greed and control over national governance, policy and the administration of 'law' and 'justice' is truly terrifying, when you really think about what they did to those innocent people. And they squished the nascent movement dead. Nice, eh? Fascism, i.e., the wedding of corporate control and national politics into one, is alive and well, doing quite fine, and spreading nicely, thank you! Even old NZ is far, far from immune from the basest elements of human nature, and the damage this can do free expression and democratic ideals, but currently (and sadly) speaking, what government isn't?]
Cheers,
WS
Edits: 09/05/15
> Hey John Atkinson, stop putting the blame of irate subscribers out of your
> hands and on the distributor.
The fact is, it is the policy of the independent company that handles our
subscriptions. From my own experience - I pay for subscriptions to both of
the electronic editions and the print edition so I can be aware of how our
readers are treated - there is an opt-out option when you renew the first
time. As the ex-subscriber canceled his subscription, his credit card will
not be charged. But I will let our circulation department know what
happened.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
will be to fire the 'distribution' company and hire a new one. The Publisher is the one responsible.
> The Right Way will be to fire the 'distribution' company and hire a new
> one.
Except that the small number of subscription fulfillment companies in the
US follow the same practices. I subscribe to other magazines; all offer
the automatic renewal option with credit-card payment unless instructed
otherwise on the form.
> The Publisher is the one responsible.
By which you mean the company that owns the magazine, I assume. In our
case, that company is The Enthusiast Network and publishes around 50
magazines, including Motor Trend, Automobile, Surfer, Snowboarder, Slam,
Baseball America, Shutterbug, Sound&Vision, etc, etc. They will not
make an exception for just one of those magazines, though as I said I do
pass complaints along to the appropriate people.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
This sounds like they are all breaking EU Law. Tax Free Treaty? I'd suggest that the European Commission look at fining all of them.
EU countries are now all bearing down on Starbuck, Amazon et al who escape local taxes by booking sales transactions thru third countries.
> EU countries are now all bearing down on Starbuck, Amazon et al who escape
> local taxes by booking sales transactions thru third countries.
And what on earth does this has to do with Stereophile, which doesn't
have a formal business presence in the EU, or with me?
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Your distributor sells to the EU and comes under EU law.
I do not believe that is correct. The difference is that Amazon and Starbucks have companies established in the EU.Stereophile and its proprietors have no EU presence nor do they "sell" Stereophile proactively to the EU. Some EU citizens (like me) choose to buy 'phile from the USA i.e we import it. Broadly, therefore, EU internal trading standards do not apply to the terms and conditions of the sale.
The sole EU interest(given that the goods are not prohibited)is that VAT and duty are payable upon the import. However magazines are zero rated (in the UK) so this is not a substantive issue here.
Having said the above the complaint concerning this thread comes from an inmate in Australia. I am unsure how the EU has become involved. Note my comment elsewhere in the thread that my recent renewal notice (sent to me in the EU) has no mention of automatic renewal.
The OP makes it clear that his situation arises from his taking part in a "special offer". There is no evidence that automatic renewal is otherwise commonplace in respect of Stereophile.
Edits: 09/04/15
you dispute the validity of the issue, which is:
''
I certainly don't recall responding to this special offer 3 years ago - This is BS as that is something I would never knowingly choose.
Now I look at my credit card and pending is the next 3 years subscription.''
and seek to justify it as 'Common Practice'.
As a very long term subscriber to Stereophile until recently, I was truly pissed off by their distribution company which:
invites all to put card and personal details on a 3in by 2in bit of cutout and send it to them
Choose not to accept long held international addresses so that subscriptions can be renewed on the web after log in
invites you to sort out subscription problems by phoning someone (who the hell are they?) not employed by the magazine and who now says it cannot control, to provide card and address details.
It is certainly not common or acceptable international practice to administer subscriptions in this way, and I would add that I have never encountered such behaviour from anybody, including those from the US.
In contrast, Absolute Sound and HiFiNews manage subscriptions in a straightforward way.
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: