Oh, gosh: not advertising supplements

Virtually every newspaper in North America comes with advertising supplements., posted on November 4, 2009 at 13:27:47
samtellig Reviewer Posts: 695 Joined: May 22, 2000	That's true abroad, too. Speaking generally, I am glad to see newspapers -- and magazines -- get the ad revenue.

What is a newspaper? -t, posted on November 4, 2009 at 15:02:54
Sordidman Dealer Posts: 9245 Location: San Francisco Joined: May 14, 2001	, Surrendered to self preservation, From others who care for themselves. A blindness that touches perfection, But hurts just like anything else.

I enjoyed it....., posted on November 4, 2009 at 13:12:24

double28
Audiophile

Posts: 774
Location: Greensboro, NC
Joined: February 20, 2008

Advertisements or not, the supplements provided much needed information which I have been yearning. Getting up to speed with PC based hifi today reminds me of the days of yore during the early 70's when I devoured High Fidelity, Stereo Review, and Audio in an attempt to master the wonderful world of high fidelity. To me, the messenge is important, not the messenger. Keep up the good work JA and team.

Just wondering....., posted on November 4, 2009 at 11:08:37
Bruce Kendall Dealer Posts: 26637 Location: SoCal Joined: February 4, 2005 Contributor Since: February 4, 2005	why does that bug you?

RE: Just wondering....., posted on November 4, 2009 at 12:32:25

jbcortes
Audiophile

Posts: 754
Joined: July 6, 2000

As far as I'm concerned, I objected having 8 or 10 p. of advertising in a row, especially since they don't look like advertising at first. To add to the confusion, the Ayre section in the middle actually has a different presentation and doesn't mention it's advertising, so I thought for a minute I was back to a normal article before realizing it was advertising too.

Nothing wrong with advertising, they need it, but the presentation of the whole thing (questions to designers, layout, etc...) looked to close to proper articles for comfort. I felt a bit "cheated" for lack of a better word.

JB

Television infomercials must drive you completely bonkers then., posted on November 5, 2009 at 09:59:49
Bruce Kendall Dealer Posts: 26637 Location: SoCal Joined: February 4, 2005 Contributor Since: February 4, 2005	I haven't seen the ads yet, but if I somehow manage to get more out of them than I usually get from an ad, that will be a good thing. So now you have me wondering what your -- and others -- impression of the last issue of TAS is.

Continental european sensitivities to this sort of practice differ from those in the US..., posted on November 6, 2009 at 03:26:06
Frihed89 Audiophile Posts: 8435 Location: Copenhagen Joined: March 21, 2005	Truth in advertising, conflict of interests have different definitions, legally, and different meanings, culturally, all over the world. I know just accept it: without the US participation in WWII, we'd all be Nazis! No, more ikley, we'd have been communists until the US saved us from the USSR (again). Keep smiling "What did the Romans ever do for us?"

Did you accidentally stumble upon a VFW bar over there? -t, posted on November 6, 2009 at 09:12:02
Bruce Kendall Dealer Posts: 26637 Location: SoCal Joined: February 4, 2005 Contributor Since: February 4, 2005

RE: Television infomercials must drive you completely bonkers then., posted on November 5, 2009 at 10:55:04

jbcortes
Audiophile

Posts: 754
Joined: July 6, 2000

I actually don't watch that much TV, plus I'm French and living in the UK. In both of these countries, advertising on TV is not nearly as present and intrusive as it is in the US.

I actually decided to stop reading TAS a couple of months ago. I was just fed up opening the magazine and reading rave reviews every month. I don't know how many "best ever" CD players they're reviewed over the past year but I remember being a bit puzzled... I remember one issue where a rather cheap DAC was qualified one of the best digital replay out there, as was the über-expensive CDP featured in a an another article a few pages later. Didn't make any sense at all.

I also got a general feeling that reviewers were overall less "qualified", or maybe experienced is a better word, than Stereophile's. I have read reviews in TAS of equipment I've owned which were way too generic, superficial, almost amateurish. I.e, I think I would've done a much better done reviewing the equipment in question. I don't have this feeling when I read Stereophile, whose editorial staff is much more solid for me and has earned my respect (not that I agree with everything they write).

Anyway, just to say I haven't looked at the latest TAS!

Jean-Baptiste

RE: Just wondering....., posted on November 4, 2009 at 12:46:11

John Atkinson
Reviewer

Posts: 1900
Location: New York
Joined: November 24, 2003

>I objected having 8 or 10 p. of advertising in a row, especially since
>they don't look like advertising at first.

The advertorial pages (but not the actual ads) are clearly marked
"advertisement" at the top. The mention of the cover also clearly
said "advertising supplement."

In addition, this supplement was produced without any involvement from
the magazine's editorial and writing staff.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Hi John, posted on November 4, 2009 at 13:42:04

jbcortes
Audiophile

Posts: 754
Joined: July 6, 2000

I have no doubt the staff wasn't involved, and that's why I objected to having the whole section looking like it's part of the magazine. And I don't think the Ayre section of it is marked as advertising.

And yes, I just noticed the "special advertising session" mention on the cover. Hadn't paid attention to it.

Anyway, Stereophile is an excellent magazine, I wouldn't mind paying double the ridiculously low amount required for subscription and free you from the tyranny of advertising.

Jean-Baptiste

RE: Hi John, posted on November 4, 2009 at 16:07:29

John Atkinson
Reviewer

Posts: 1900
Location: New York
Joined: November 24, 2003

>I have no doubt the staff wasn't involved, and that's why I objected to having the
>whole section looking like it's part of the magazine.

The designer (not Stereophile's) used a different font to Stereophile's (sans-serif
rather than serif) with different leading and a different visual "feel." I thought he did a
good job of differentiating the section visually from the magazine's regular content.
And as I said, the word "advertisement" was displayed at the top of every page
other than regular advertising.

>And I don't think the Ayre section of it is marked as advertising.

No, but it is clearly an ad, I thought. (It was prepared by Ayre.)

>Anyway, Stereophile is an excellent magazine.

Thank you.

> I wouldn't mind paying double the ridiculously low amount required for subscription
>and free you from the tyranny of advertising.

Ah, it would take more than doubling. I ran the numbers a while ago. Even if the
inevitable effect of price elasticity is ignored, you'd have to pay many times the
current subscription price to get a magazine free from advertising.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

RE: Hi John, posted on November 4, 2009 at 17:22:56

jbcortes
Audiophile

Posts: 754
Joined: July 6, 2000

John,

For double the price of subscription, I wasn't expecting a magazine free of advertising! Plus advertising in itself isn't unpleasant. But it would put less pressure on you guys maybe.

Having such a low subscription rate kinda cheapens the magazine in terms of marketing I think. It feels like the publisher is really desperate (maybe he is).

I think Stereophile is worth much more than that. I live in the UK and buy it in newsagents or when I travel to the States (like now, hello from CA). So I end up paying many times more than the price of subscription.

I'm not a raving, adoring fan, I read several mags and not every month but lately, find myself drawn more and more towards Stereophile.

I can't really understand people who complain about it. Is it perfect? No. Does it feel like everybody's trying hard to do a great job? Yes.

If Stereophile isn't doing as well as it should it's certainly not a question of editorial quality and content. I would personally rethink the business end of it but hey, what do I know. They seem to do a better job of it at Absolute Sound, but I feel the content much less to my liking. In other words, it's not as good but if looks better.

RE: Hi John, posted on November 4, 2009 at 14:54:37

kentaja
Manufacturer

Posts: 3116
Joined: March 26, 2001

Don't know what the actual dollar amount threshold would be, but I seriously doubt that at $2 an issue the magazine would stay afloat without advertising.

Now if everyone was willing to pay say $20-25 per issue perhaps it could make a go without advertising. But then everyone would complain about the price and not buy the magazine.

I can live with the advertising, even the supplements, and I actually kind of like all the pretty pictures!

RE: Just wondering....., posted on November 4, 2009 at 13:03:15
lord addleford Audiophile Posts: 336 Location: new england Joined: July 5, 2005 Contributor Since: April 11, 2006	interesting, john. what role, if any, did the editorial staff play in the production of this supplement?

RE: Just wondering....., posted on November 4, 2009 at 15:59:18
John Atkinson Reviewer Posts: 1900 Location: New York Joined: November 24, 2003	>what role, if any, did the editorial staff play in the production of this supplement? None. I knew it existed of course, because I had to leave a 16-page hole for it in the planning of the issue's paging, but we didn't see its content until we got the printed copies of the November issue. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile

RE: Just wondering....., posted on November 4, 2009 at 20:14:35
lord addleford Audiophile Posts: 336 Location: new england Joined: July 5, 2005 Contributor Since: April 11, 2006	i guess the content-side can be held 'safe-harmless' in this case. i would hope that readers can grasp and comprehend the 'business' exigencies of publications and maybe even grant the editors and writers a 'mulligan' on this one. lord knows, we spare nothing when it comes to matters that actually fall in your domain and control.

hmmm...most reviews are already infomercials, posted on November 4, 2009 at 10:53:25
Tom Schuman Audiophile Posts: 1861 Location: Hamburg Joined: October 22, 2003	i would readily spend 5x the yearly subscription price for a truly sober take on components and systems. still, s'phile as it is, is good entertainment.

Try Hi Fi Critic magazine out of the UK (nt), posted on November 6, 2009 at 06:05:37
Sboez Audiophile Posts: 50 Joined: April 9, 2002	.

I'm more concerned about reviews reading like advertising..., posted on November 5, 2009 at 08:57:48

Ladok
Audiophile

Posts: 27
Joined: November 21, 2001

...than I am about ads looking like editorial content. At least the ad says "Advertising". I know reviewers and editors get very indignant about this subject, but it's my strictly SUBJECTIVE view that over the last 30 years, reviews in the major high end audio publications (including web-zines) have become more advertiser friendly. I have also noticed a trend to place an ad which quotes from a review IN THE SAME ISSUE as the review. This gives the appearance of the editorial and advertising departments being in cahoots. There used to be a guideline that the ad couldn't quote the review until the next issue.

RE: I'm more concerned about reviews reading like advertising..., posted on November 6, 2009 at 04:07:24

John Atkinson
Reviewer

Posts: 1900
Location: New York
Joined: November 24, 2003

>have also noticed a trend to place an ad which quotes from a review IN THE SAME
>ISSUE as the review. This gives the appearance of the editorial and advertising
>departments being in cahoots. There used to be a guideline that the ad couldn't quote
>the review until the next issue.

This rule is still in effect at Stereophile, and the ad staff are on the alert for possible
infringements. However, as I don't see an issue's ads until it has been printed, I can't
prevent an unscrupulous advertiser who submits his material at the very last minute,
thus avoiding the ad staff's scrutiny, from slipping a violation past us. I am not aware of
any recent violations, though. Could you give an example of where the rule has been
broken, please.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Thanks for pointing this out..., posted on November 6, 2009 at 05:49:34

Ladok
Audiophile

Posts: 27
Joined: November 21, 2001

...the cases I have seen were in The Absolute Sound and Hi Fi Plus. I wasn't talking about Stereophile in particular, just the high end press in general.

And despite your protestations, and John Marks' below, I still say most reviews in TAS and Stereophile conclude with a paragraph that reads like advertising copy and borders on patronizing. Maybe I should just skip the last paragraph? Because I really do enjoy both magazines, my music and the hi-end hobby. (Note patronizing concluding sentence to this message)

"Most.", posted on November 6, 2009 at 06:47:41

John Marks
Industry Professional

Posts: 2420
Joined: April 23, 2000

Dunno 'bout that.

I have quite a few times ended writeups with "Pros versus Cons" segments.

Please also look at my continuing series (about to end in December) on affordable systems, wherein I have stated several times that while I can put together a system for $2500 to $3750 that can provide musical enjoyment, I still question whether you can get a "buy it once and buy it right, get off the upgrade merry-go-round" system for that kind of money. My guess is that the companies involved would prefer I tell people that their product is all anyone ever should need. I don't.

I can tell you that the people behind the Peachtree Nova were not happy with the section of my write-up that reported that compared to much more expensive Luxman equipment, on the DCC gold remaster of "Court and Spark," the Nova showed a tendency toward stridency. They sure did not act like the beneficiaries of a free advertorial. But of course, most people who fire broadsides at my writing never actually read it, so I am not at all sure you know what I am talking about.

In my December column I talk about some Denon headphones at $999, and I say they are great, but I also say that the now-discontinued Ultrasone Edition 9s were even more compelling, at half again the price ($1500). I don't know how Denon and its PR firm will take that, but I don't care, I "work" for the readers.

So, please stop making generalizations that include Stereophile, when every month's issue is full of counter-examples.

JM

(1) Might it be that equipment is now better?; (2) that rule is still in effect at Stereophile, posted on November 5, 2009 at 19:13:59

John Marks
Industry Professional

Posts: 2420
Joined: April 23, 2000

Hi-

As far as what you mean by advertiser-friendly, if you mean less likely to point out things that are by some objective standard not quite right, I think that over the past 30 years (and I have been writing for audio magazines since circa 1982), one thing that has really changed is that there are fewer not-ready-for-prime-time pieces of equipment to take issue with.

I can remember when there were parts of the world that you might be doing business with (OK, the business might be salted fish) where you had to use telex because there were very few phones, and now you can iChat with people all over the world. The same revolution that brought cheap telephony also brought computer aided loudspeaker design and measurement. Someone really has to be trying to make a loudspeaker today that is grossly out of whack.

So, from my perspective, the supply side has tightened up as far as quality goes. But I also can't agree that your observation such as it is is true in most cases. Please review Stereophile's writing about the McIntosh music server. As I recall, its jitter measurement was poor, and identified as such, and as far as value for money goes, didn't JA (who is off on a trip) disclose that the McIntosh unit was based on a commercial unit from Escient? Why don't you phone McIntosh and ask them if they thought that was "advertiser friendly?"

As far as no quotes in ads until the issue following the coverage, that rule remains in effect. Any violations are violations. That they can happen at all may be related to some advertisers holding their ads until after the deadline, hoping that in the rush to compile the magazine, their fast one will get by. I do, however, keep a list... .

JM

RE: (1) Might it be that equipment is now better?; (2) that rule is still in effect at Stereophile, posted on November 6, 2009 at 12:20:44
Ladok Audiophile Posts: 27 Joined: November 21, 2001	You are one of the exceptions to the rule. I always read your column and reviews and I hope you will continue to call it like you see it.

Goodness, how many times does it have to be explained?, posted on November 4, 2009 at 13:13:51

Sordidman
Dealer

Posts: 9245
Location: San Francisco
Joined: May 14, 2001

If it's not "good" equipment, - it's not going to be reviewed.

Very, very, very, rarely; an "expensive" component may crumble in your hands. (Excepting the fact that it won't probably even get to be reviewed).

These types of high end components, (subject matter for Stereophile/TAS/etc), are all good, just different.

It's up to you to determine not "goodness" or "badness" but what is "right" for you.

Surrendered to self preservation,
From others who care for themselves.
A blindness that touches perfection,
But hurts just like anything else.

The smell of burnt capacitors, posted on November 4, 2009 at 09:14:30

keith_d
Audiophile

Posts: 931
Joined: June 15, 2002

As long as the magazine doesn't literally emit the odors of whatever perfume it's advertising I don't care.

(Although a "Smell-o-Vision" issue of "Stereophile" might have a certain camp value, following John Waters.)

Of course the content in an advertising section falls or succeeds on its own merits; that's different from whether I object in principle.

yeah, I'm fine with it, posted on November 4, 2009 at 08:37:20
flatmap Audiophile Posts: 112 Location: Pacific NW Joined: June 5, 2008	Just so long as the section is clearly marked as advertising, it's ok. And, I know this is obvious, but it pays the bills for the magazine and lets the manufacturers connect with their potential customers. So it's all good -- just so long as it's not disguised as 'content'.

Times are hard. Good for them (BZ). Nt, posted on November 4, 2009 at 00:10:33
Frihed89 Audiophile Posts: 8435 Location: Copenhagen Joined: March 21, 2005	Nt "What did the Romans ever do for us?"

Hey, the more advertisers the better. Keeps our favorite rags in business. :), posted on November 3, 2009 at 20:02:58
Merlot_cat Audiophile Posts: 846 Joined: August 7, 2002 Contributor Since: May 27, 2004	nt

Page processed in 0.094 seconds.

Critic's Corner

Oh, gosh: not advertising supplements

24.250.122.158