|
Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry. |
|
|
|
Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry. |
|
In Reply to: Well one could certainly contest a couple of points posted by morricab on July 22, 2014 at 05:10:24:
Not that it matters since posters to this board will believe as they will (and everyone is entitled to their own opinion in the first place), but I think here you're overlooking a few things, perhaps quite deliberately.
1/ It's not about whether *you* like my writing, Morricab. It's about manufacturers coming to us who aren't DIYers or hobbyists but professionals. They make money designing, making and selling hifi gear. They come to us wanting a review regardless of your feelings about it. Clearly they see a benefit in it or they wouldn't come. And how they use our reviews (on their websites, in hand-outs, in print-outs for shows etc) clearly demonstrates this benefit in further action.
2/ When I talk 'professional' about 6moons and myself, I'm referring to a number of things.
a/ I do this for a living, i.e. full-time, without a secondary income elsewhere. You may not like my writing, I may not like the amplifier you make. If we're both in it full-time to make a living, we're professionals by definition. This isn't an issue of 'like'. It's an issue of how one makes a livelihood. This is very basic.
b/ at 6moons we deliver our reviews in a timely manner and return products afterwards. We take our own photos. We tend to go beyond just basic coverage. We present things in a clean tidy manner. Considering the various standards at play when it comes to that, one could feel inclined to accord us professional behaviour on those counts as well. Or not. But again,that's not the main point. This is:
2/ Having professional manufacturers come to us (nobody forces them to) for a service (our time) and an actual product resulting from it (the review) which we deliver as promised; then clearly 'work' that product in various review quotes and other activities which further underlines that they perceive our product to have actual value and very real usefulness; but then totally fail to show any respect or concern for our economical well-being whilst perhaps being marginally aware (and if so, being totally okay with it) that their competitors foot the bill to sustain our operation... well, *that's* what's wrong with the current model.
You can disagree on that all you like. None of the commentators here would agree if they were asked tomorrow to write off remuneration on 70% of their paying clients or job assignments which henceforth were to be treated pro bono.
So please, don't confuse the issue as I have presented it. Feel free to disagree with it all you like (I don't care, that's your perogative and if you can afford to work 60-hour weeks for free, I salute you). But the actual issue I have very clearly stated in our policy and the linked-to editorial is that in the current system, a percentage of manufacturers fund a magazine's operations so that the remaining percentage can get their reviews for free. The actual percentage differs from publication to publication of course but the principle is the same. Some reciprocate for the work they receive, others do not.
No matter how tight magazines claim that editorial and advertising are separated by an iron wall... it's either advertising exclusively (web) or predominantly (print, with some revenues generated from sales) which generates the operational revenue. As they should, some manufacturers participate in that. The imbalance arises from those who do not despite being clearly in a position to do so. They become freeloaders.
Feel free to disagree and argue that this model is working just fine. I've made a public stand to the contrary arguing that it is deeply flawed, imbalanced and unfair on any number of counts. Funnily enough, except for the rare reader-funded publication, all the magazines and e-zines which rely on income rather than being pure hobbyist outfits live with the very same reality. It's just that they elect not to talk of it out in the open
As John Atkinson is fond of saying, you guys only have something to talk about in this thread because I told you about it first. -:)
Aside from grilling us (by all means, go ahead), I personally would appreciate to *also* see a discussion about the issue I have raised. There's a pervasive culture of 'I want it for free' at work. Readers want informative reviews with first-class photography but don't want to pay to read them. Manufacturers want the same and many don't want to pay for them either.
One solution is to just consign this sector of the industry to the pure hobbyist arena. Let publishers carry on regular day jobs so they can afford to do their publishing job on the weekend or after hours. Let all reviewers do it purely for fun and for the indirect pay of constant exposure to gear and the occasional purchase at dealer cost.
That's clearly an option. Since I've elected to pursue the other route, I'd be simply curious to hear rational credible proposals on how the current system can be improved. Of course Critic's Corner could be entirely the wrong place to ask for that -:)
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Well one could certainly contest a couple of points - Srajan Ebaen 06:54:14 07/22/14 (4)
- RE: Well one could certainly contest a couple of points - mkuller 16:22:32 07/23/14 (0)
- You Could Always Get A Haircut And Get A Real Job.......... - geezerrocket 09:00:09 07/22/14 (2)
- RE: You Could Always Get A Haircut And Get A Real Job.......... - Alan Sircom 10:01:07 07/22/14 (1)
- RE: You Could Always Get A Haircut And Get A Real Job.......... - fantja 10:49:10 07/22/14 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
