 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
99.22.201.117
Just as a disclaimer. I have had any number of unfriendly exchanges with the editor of TONE (don't remember the guy's name) and I think the guy is a complete dick and a hack. so in case anyone thinks I am targeting him you have that bit of history up front.
In my latest "exchange" with the guy he said something that really jumped out at me.
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=276693&page=10
Post #200
"In the eight years I've been writing about audio, I've only uncovered about five products that were so dreadful, I could not come up with a musical combination whereby I could present a strengths and weakness analysis, and a few more that were so poorly built that I could not with good conscience suggest them for any reason. Those products were sent back to the manufacturer, even though they had the promise of advertising attached to them."
So he is accepting products with an attached "promise of advertising." Is that a conflict of interest? Is it in effect a bribe?! Is there an issue there or am I over-detecting because I think the guy is a dick?
In fairness I wonder what an editor does when they are offered a product for review with an "attached" promise of advertising. If accepting such a product for review is a conflict of interest how does an editor navigate this?
Follow Ups:
I've read through this thread and others like it. There seems to be plenty of plausible deniability to go around.
Peace
I imagine sometimes a product is sent for review and at that time, discussions around advertising are initiated by the manufacturer. There isn't anything a reviewer can do to stop a manufacturer from making a suggestion of advertising at that point in time. Just like anything similar in life, you have to do what you think is right. I don't think it makes a difference if it is for an audio magazine review or not.
On the other hand, it is extremely rare, but I've had one reviewer contact me and imply the reverse. In other words, bringing up advertising at the point in time they are asking about reviewing my product. This made me very uncomfortable and I ended up not sending them anything for a review.
In all other cases, for the venues that directly managed their advertising, I have only been approached to ask if I would like to advertise after a review was posted and available to the public. I believe this is a fine situation. In many cases I choose not to advertise with them, based on how I thought it would be best to allocate my marketing spend.
For other venues, advertising is independently managed by a ad firm. In this situation, it's likely they found out about me due to the review, but this is not always the case as I've been contacted about advertising on venues or ad networks because an ad person found out about me through a trade show or something similar. I imagine in those situations there should be very close to zero, if not completely zero, correlation between advertising and the reviewer.
..look at the products that adorn the advertising pages of TAS and Stereophile and then look at the products that make their 'Best Of' lists from RMAF ...CES...etc....
Edits: 03/06/12
> ...look at the products that adorn the advertising pages of TAS and
> Stereophile and then look at the products that make their 'Best Of' lists
> from RMAF ...CES...etc....
Forgive me for doubting what you obviously regard as a well-formed opinion,
but in the case of Stereophile, there is actually no such correlation. (I can't
speak for TAS, obviously.) Advertising has no influence on what we report
from shows, what we put on our covers, what we recommend etc.
Frankly, I grow weary of people damning magazines with such a broad
brush when, if they actually examined the reality, they would have nothing to
say.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
It doesn't matter whether payola exists or not because no magazines compare competing products in the same price range. They will never do it.
This isn't a criticism either. It's a business and they need the ad revenue.
The magazines should be read for nothing more than entertainment and obtaining basic information about equipment and the industry. I would commend John Atkinson, however, for still putting equipment through all those tests. This is something that magazines from the old days used to do and then somewhere along the line, the industry changed and more value was placed on flowery worded reviews of a highly subjective nature.
> It doesn't matter whether payola exists or not because no magazines
> compare competing products in the same price range. They will never do it.
You will find a surprising number of Stereophile reviews do just this, especially
at the lower end of the market, where conclusions are meaningless if not
placed in context.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
How disingenuous of you, Mr. Atkinson.
Perhaps you think you are in good company, since TAS also DOES NOT compare like with like, and is equally out-of-touch with 99% of audiophiles (in other words, THE REAL WORLD).
I have NEVER seen an American High-End magazine round up a bunch of similarly priced and/or competing products (I'm pretty easy going: How about four 50W stereo valve amps, say Rogue vs. Prima Luna vs. ARC vs. conrad-johnson or BAT? going head to head, with measurements AND subjective reviews? Or do this with preamps, valve vs. valve, or simply at a given price point but with a similar feature set) and do a good bash-up.
Funny, but I've got a few issues of a British magazine that should be well known to you, it was called Hi-Fi Choice!
Remember them?
Or is your memory, as I suspect, rather highly selective?
Entire issues dedicated, for example, to nothing but phono cartridges.
All measured, all auditioned. I have that issue.
And another that was devoted to receivers, and integrated amplifier/tuner pairs. Funny, I have one of those, too!
Never mind dozens of components: Dozens of brands! AND several components from EACH of those brands!
Grief!
It's there for you to see, plain as the day is long, but you'd like to pretend that audiophiles in 2012 have neither ever seen such a thing, or are too stupid to imagine it???
If one thing REALLY grates on me about the High-End press & its self-serving and self-editorializing conduct is that, like the politicians who run our countries, you lot are stupid enough to think that we, YOUR public, are stupider than you!
Tell yourself all the self-serving lies you like, and believe them if you feel you must.
But that conduct is YOUR problem, Mr. Atkinson, not mine, and not that of my fellow thoughtful audiophiles.
In your myopic & silly little audio universe, products that go out of production or get updated...off your recommended lists, POOF! they never existed! Bankrupt companies and discontinued products don't generate advertisements, do they?
DO THEY????
C'mon Mr. Atkinson, click the heels of your ruby-red slippers together, faster now, faster!
Products that lose their American distribution: POOF! They never existed!
It's all well & good to suggest an audio fantasy world where each new product from a given manufacturer is better than the last.
Sorry, doesn't work like that!
Nor the fact that Mk.II is 0.5% better than Mk.I, but Mk.I is discontinued, so POOF! we'd NEVER suggest you'd want to keep your eyes out for a second-hand one, now, would you?
The ONLY reviewer on your staff that even attempts to compare a few like with like products is Bob Reina, and I've never seen him do it with more than 2 or perhaps 3 products. And these are QUALIFIED comparisons, because either he's relying on sonic memory because the product was recently returned to the manufacturer from a previous review he'd done, or its just some sort of "happy" accident where you made the mistake of giving him yet-another $1500-ish loudspeaker that was also a small 2-way reviewed in the last issue, and he hadn't quite gotten 'round to sending it back yet, so he could say a few words about that.
Sorry, if you think that that qualifies as valid market comparison, that that is all the readers expect of you, then you are really quite pathetic!
I think you can, if you wanted to, bend your format and orient group tests done over a longer period of time, say an entire year, and put out the odd annual issue with group tests.
As it is, you are so bloody lazy that EVERY single "analog" review save the odd "non" review by Art Dudley is done by Michael Fremer.
Why is it that the readership has to endure YEARS of a monopoly on cartridge, tonearm & turntable reviews by ONE single reviewer?
Since Mr. Dudley has no idea what he's talking about, and his idea of good sound gravitates towards old mono junk & refurbished pottery wheels, his analog reviews, I'm sorry to inform you, don't count.
Quaint as they may be.
And that very clever friend of yours, Mr. Paul Miller, seems to have no trouble measuring turntable performance, with excellent measurements of rumble spectra, wow & flutter, and isolation. I'd like to see the kind of measurements that Hi-Fi Choice made in the "old" days: Cartridge square wave response to derive optimal values of capacitive & resistive cartridge loading (since after reading Mr. Fremer's horrid Soundsmith SMMC1/2 review some years ago, he CLEARLY could use his share of guidance in this area! And so could we readers!).
Trackability? Optimum downforce? Tonearm bearing friction?
In the 70's & 80's, many expensive tonearms had badly finished bearing races, and were, as delivered to the customer, defective by any measure.
I've seen my fill of defective Zeta, Syrinx, Linn (Basik & Plus, but even many an Ittok were disappointing) tonearms.
Paul Miller and Hi-Fi News even seem to find decent condition examples of vintage "classic" components, and review and measure them.
He's done it, we've been begging you to do the same for years, so what's your problem? He comes out monthly, has even less content than Stereophile, yet STILL manages to review products discontinued by long-dead companies...from the 70's? But your magazine can't????
We know what your excuses are, and claiming that Art Dudley's refurbished TD-124 & Garrard 401 "dumpster dives" represent the kind of classics the readers want to know about...well, that's hardly a representative selection, is it?
A couple of shitty old pottery wheels, modified with overpriced non-standard fittings, and of course no measurements in sight on this score, just the words of some befuddled Craphound with no concept of high-fidelity sound. A tinkering weirdo who plays with old junk, and understandably refuses to use "audiophile" terminology when doing his reviews. I can't understand jack-s*** what he's talking about sonically 90% of the time, and I'm certain he doesn't, either.
Just sounds good coming out of his pen.
And you're the editor, you vet his drivel.
Your claims about comparing like components with like ring EQUALLY HOLLOW.
Does publishing Mr. Dudley's nonsense make everyone else on staff feel fine and normal? I say this because I truly wonder if he's a whipping boy for you to say to the readership: "Look, we're not terribly honest or efficient, yet you can see how lucky you are...imagine if we were all like this guy over here..."
It's obvious to most readers that your strategy to ensure a constant stream of good reviews is to weed out those might be overly critical, and to apportion the reviews according to the most "appropriate" reviewer for the job.
If the thing kinda sucks, we send it to the deaf guy. Kal Rubinson's not too critical, is he? Nor was Larry Greenhill, as I recall. They're more impressed with tech than with sound. So poor Mr. Greenhill, he did all those boring tuner reviews, when you bothered to do such things. And Mr. Rubinson, he does all the multichannel homish-theater stuff. Couldn't see Mr. Fremer or Rob Reina making much of a fist with that!
OOOOH!Look! We've got this weird tube thingee here, yo! Mr. Dudley! Got a live for you! Says "Prima Luna" on the tin...!
So here's another closely related bone of contention:
If Sam Tellig says that he thinks this conrad-johnson valve amp is "Class A" in the recommended components listing, in it goes.
If Steven Meijas thought a $500 Cambridge integrated was as good as anything HE'S heard, wouldn't you put in "Class A" recommended as well?
Since when is one of your staff reviewers equally "gifted" in hearing acuity to the degree that their opinions of the absolute merit of a component shares absolutely EQUAL ranking?
Or was I not supposed to notice this bit of editorial laziness?
And don't get me wrong, I don't flatter myself that much. I'm sure I'm hardly the only one to discount the hyperbole that constitutes your list of "Recommended Components".
And sadly, that would be but one reason.
I'm really not sure how messy this business of audio reviewing is.
For the life of me, I think that TWO reviewers should audition EACH component under review. And if that means getting the manufacturer to send two of them, all the better!
TAS used to do this, on occasion. It gave opportunities for reviewer honesty. You could have a "Good Cop" and a "Bad Cop".
I mean, gob forbid that TWO honest reviewers couldn't find their way to raving about some poor value/poor performance component (and over the years I'd hear them all time, and many of them were from both your and TAS lists of "Recommended" and highly-ranked components).
And since your reviewers seem quite unable to describe the sound of components in any meaningful way (funny, I don't seem to have this problem, and neither do my friends. Interesting that, isn't it?), maybe one of them can describe the Elephant's right hind leg, and the other could perhaps describe the tail a bit, you know, we'd still have little idea what the damned thing was really about, but we'd know THAT MUCH MORE than with just one idiot mucking about on his word processor & dancing about the truth, wouldn't we?
Why so few reviews in any given issue? Lack of space? Well, two samples, two reviewers, ONE review, and a postscript or REAL "Further Thoughts" from the other guy! What would that postscript take, TAS did it in about two paragraphs, typical. Back in the '70's. Before they took advertising.
Before magazines like yours compromised journalistic integrity for circulation-based advertising revenue. Hence, the $10 magazine that now costs, what, $1.09 by subscription?
Well, that was 2 or 3 years ago, which I don't think was a terribly long time ago.
Stop trying to insult readers intelligence by saying that the Reader's interests' are supreme! Any fool can clearly see what the business model for your magazine has become. Even if the magazine was made in mainland China, and it isn't, you STILL couldn't make money on even 50,000 subscriptions at $1.09 per month!
The readership can very, very, clearly see what the business pressures are for Stereophile. And your publisher has made his decision.
Advertising allows the magazine to be profitable at pretty much NO COST, a balance is stuck between content & advertising, between size & weight for mailing cost purposes & content vs. overhead costs (such as per diem's for articles submitted, or outright staff salaries, never mind the elephant in the room, sheer production cost).
To me, it seems that is why we, the readership, see so much more of this monstrously overpriced hi-fi hubris from companies such as Engstrom & Engstrom, Koetsu (Axiss Distributing), Vitus/German Physiks, Plurison (Focal/JM Labs), and all those ripoff artists with their spiffy woven & braided nonsense cables (and even more nonsensical theories, like cutting snail shells in half has anything to do with anything other than the purchaser's gullibility...and wait! There's MORE! The price!!!).
Any given issue, all 150 pages or so, and fully one-half is advertisement!
One half!
Again: 75 freakin' pages of adverts!!!!
Oooh! You review products from companies that DON'T advertise in your magazine? OK, I'll "accuse" you of rolling out the welcome mat for their advertisement money.
And if you don't get it, will you keep on reviewing their products, even they're the "hot tickee", when your regular advertisers are clamouring for coverage?
Why don't you give it to them then?
What are they going to do, send all their advertising to TAS out of spite? With a circulation of what? Maybe 20,000 on a good day???
They need you more than us subscribers do! If you did have the SHEER BLOODY-MINDED TEMERITY to publish a MOSTLY or SLIGHTLY negative review, how long would an advertise hold it against you, anyways?
Like that T-Shirt that Nelson Pass wears: "Don't like that idea? I've got ANOTHER one!"
They'll be back!
Your readers...now, you aren't any good at getting new ones, let along young ones, and the rest of are dropping like flies, if we worked for Hitler we wouldn't even be fit enough to join the "Stomach Brigades"!
Smarten up!
A few, nice juicy "All Amplifier" issues, or "All preamplifier" issues, say every 3rd or 6th month?
Granted, that would mean stuffing the record reviews and a bunch of regular columns in the affected issue.
But I'm quite certain you won't get any major complaint, and the kudos would far outweigh them, as long as these issues were done as "specials".
Besides, we might miss Sam Tellig, but we wouldn't miss Art Dudley, or "The Final Word", or "As we (don't) see it (ever, it seems)", or even "Mikey". Besides, he'd be too busy scribbling notes on the listening panel for the group test, right there besides Arty & "Wezz" and...YOU!
So Mr. Atkinson, PLEASE stop insulting the intelligence of your readership! So, the conspiracies aren't quite how they seem to most of us. But you know what?
CLOSE ENOUGH!
However its' playing out in "absolute" terms, even if I or anyone else "nailed it" and told you that we see things EXACTLY as they are at your end, you'd dance & deny and just squeeze your eyelids a little harder & imagine you were wearing little ruby slippers as you clicked your heels furiously together and said a little prayer.
No Toto, we're NOT in Santa Fe anymore, are we?
A simple set of requests, Mr. Atkinson.
Or is your answer simply, "$1.09 an issue! Shut up and stop whining!"
WOW, I thought meds where cheap in Canada, hopefully they are well reviewed ...
I think we should go back to subscription review magazines.
Ok I get the fact hat some people believe the whole review system is corrupt and no explanation will satisfy them. What I don't get is why anyone would think that removing advertising would solve the problem?
How would a magazine with no advertising be any less susceptible to corruption? Instead of taking ad dollars in payment there could be direct cash transfers to reviewers instead of lost ad revenue to the whole company. The same threat of withholding equipment for review holds for both models and in my opinion could have more of an impact on the subscription based model because if the readers don't see the products they are interested in reviewed they will leave and then there is no income.
Seems like there are plenty of advertisers that would fill the gap if anyone decided to pull out. Is audio that different than say soft drinks. You would think by now that Coke or Pepsi would have enough brand recognition to drop advertising all together but it seems that be be viable you need your name out there.
That's true. On the other hand, refusing to take advertising does remove one common incentive for corruption. Advertising has long been used to influence what appears in the media; few magazines, for example, would publish reports on smoking and health, because they were so dependent on tobacco advertising that their survival depended on it. That's why Consumer Reports is ad free, and why Stereophile and The Absolute Sound were ad-free when they started. Back in those days, Stereo Review and High Fidelity were known for publishing whitewashed reviews to avoid offending the advertisers, who complained not only about bad reviews, but of excessively good reviews of competing products.
I know there was bribery even when there was no advertising, but many of the problems were gone. The big problem, however, is there were subscriptions needed. People have gotten accustomed to free information. There now are so many small manufacturers of everything in audio that there is really too much to review. There must be a thousand different cables available. Who has heard even five percent of them?
There's no question that the environment is more competitive than it used to be. Would it sustain the old subscription-based model? I'm not really sure. Of course, I'm not sure that that model would sustain publications on the scale to which we've been accustomed, either. The days when a couple of tiny undergrounds could cover everything of note are long gone.
and this has greatly complicated customers making buying decisions. Of course the proliferation of reviewing mags. often results in conflicting information. But there will always be the question of the corruption of reviews.
I don't much worry about it because if I find myself consistently disagreeing with a reviewer for any reason, I stop paying attention to his reviews. Also, there are so many sources of information today that it's easy to get a second, third, and twentieth opinion before you buy. I've never found that the hit rate is 100% anyway, and that's true even if I audition the gear at a dealer's, since I'm listening in different acoustics with different ancillary equipment. Reviews are a good way to narrow your list to a manageable number of candidates, a good supplement to what you hear at the dealer's (since the reviewer listens at length in a domestic environment), and a good way to get a fix on equipment that can't be auditioned because you live too far away or your local dealer doesn't carry it.
YES!
I've said this several times over the years. There's this misguided notion that somehow advertising is the only route to corruption. How much corruption do you know of that simply done through payoffs? You know, an envelope of cash handed over in a dark alley or room. Looks worldwide in any industry or occupation. Happens all the time.
Seriously, anyone who thinks that someone who doesn't take advertising is going to be corruption-free is living in a dreamland. If someone is going t be bought and paid for, they'll get their hands on the cash any way they can.
Doug Schneider
www.SoundStageNetwork.com
It makes electronic mags possible. Okay but its influence is very corrosive. Yes, I realize I want to go home, and yes, I am a cynic.
"I think we should go back to subscription review magazines."Magazines are already subscription-based, except in the those few places where they still have a newsstand. You don't end up paying close to $50 per issue because the subscription is part paid for by the advertisers.
Hi-Fi Critic in the UK is subscription only, covers a lot of US high end and is advertising free. Four issues per year, perhaps 60 pages per issue, $145 per year to the US (oh, and you do get a fifth issue free). How many people subscribe... honestly?
If you do subscribe to this, congratulations. Hold your head up high. If you don't, stop whining and get on with life.
We can all look back with rose-tinted glasses about the good old days when magazines didn't carry advertising. The reality was they kept vanishing and reappearing with new publishers because they couldn't sustain the costs involved, even when audio was 100x the hobby it is today. And at least with advertising up front, we know who has opened their pocketbook - I'm always deeply suspicious of no-advert magazines and websites, because someone is always behind the scenes. A secret paymaster is far more malign than one that plasters its brand over the back pages of every magazine in town.
Think it through for a second - who has more influence over, say, Fox News? The cereal company that advertises, or Rupert Murdoch's lunch partner?
Edits: 02/29/12
There exists no way to "navigate" this problem. When a magazine depends almost solely on adv. dollars to survive this publication ceases to be objective. Besides adv. dollars we also have problems with egos, long standing relationships and personal vendettas.
"When a magazine depends almost solely on adv. dollars to survive this publication ceases to be objective."
I think you're overlooking something, which is the shear number of revenue sources. When there are many, the impact of the loss of a few is reduced. No publisher likes to lose a client (or an individual subscriber), but the wiser among them know that will happen from time to time and not be fatal, especially if the revenue streams are broad enough. (Which you want them to be for business strength anyway, because advertisers and readers come and go for their own reasons all the time anyway.) It's certainly possible to hold on to your principles of editorial integrity even if it costs you an advertiser or reader on occasion.
Really?Let's use a real - world example. I wrote for Listener magazine for it's entire life span. I had no connection to the advertising sales person. I may have met her once at a party at Art Dudley's house but other than that I never spoke to her, ever. Art and I never discussed the magazine's ads, and I had no knowledge of what ads had been sold for upcoming issues or anything else to do with ads in Listener . Art never asked me to change a review in any way to make it more palatable to an advertiser. Given these facts, please explain exactly how the content of the reviews I wrote was rendered unreliable by the ads that were adjacent to those reviews.
Edits: 02/25/12
I have a friend who has been in publishing (not audio) as an editor and publisher for decades. He is an extremely bright guy, we were in high school at the same time and he got a perfect 1600 on his SATs. He laughs at the notion of an unbreachable firewall between advertising and journalism. His argument, and I think Gore Vidal made a similar one, is that there doesn't need to be any overt quid pro quo. The journalism staff, unless they are completely gormless, know who are the major advertisers and what kind of copy might adversely affect subscription rates. They have a seat at the table because they accept a tacit matrix of assumptions and perspective. It is wired into their subconscious and in the air they breathe.
Audio journalism tends to compound this tendency by virtue of the unusually high level of interaction between the reviewers and the companies producing the products under review. Factor in accommodation pricing, the occasional lunch or dinner, perhaps a trip to the factory, system set up help, other social interactions, etc. and claims that none of this, in any way, influences copy just doesn't pass the common sense test.
I'm not trying to make audio journalists out to be bad guys. I respect some members of the audio press and I think that most of them want to do a good job. I subscribed to HFN & RR, The Absolute Sound, Fi, Listener and several others and I still subscribe to Stereophile. I don't, however, believe in their unbiased objectivity any more than I believe in the tooth fairy.
Edits: 02/28/12
It's monstrously arrogant - insulting, in fact - for you and your invisible friend to presume to know what I was thinking when I wrote my reviews for Listener . The negative reviews my fellow Listener writers and I authored, and that Art published without any alteration save for grammatical corrections, prove that your silly theory is full of shit. To cite just one example, my review of a Pro Ac speaker not only caused the importer to cancel his ads but also ended his friendship with Art. I still get complaints about my pan of the Roksan Xerxes X that wasn't even published in this century.
> > The journalism staff...know...what kind of copy might adversely affect subscription rates. < <
So the other half of your silly theory is that critical reviews would somehow make subscription rates go up? How, exactly? Do you know even the basics of magazine economics? Let's take another real world example: Entertainment Weekly runs negative reviews of movies, TV shows, books, and music every week. By your illogic then an EW subscription should cost a fortune. Unfortunately for your silly theory, my subscription to EW costs less than 30 cents an issue. That's almost certainly less than it costs Time - Warner to print the thing and mail it to me. But how can that be if negative reviews drive up subscription prices?
> > Factor in accomodation pricing < <
Oh God, not that again.
Audio Asylum has been in existence for something like a decade and a half and in all that time not one person has ever been able to explain how the ability of reviewers to get a trade discount on gear leads to spurious reviews. Obviously, one concern is that poor components might get reviews they don't merit. The possibility of a discount provides no motivation for inflating the appraisal of a bad component! If the component is unimpressive then the reviewer won't have any interest in buying it. I guess you believe that the possibility of a discount on something the reviewer doesn't want to buy will somehow influence the review, as if the writer thinks "I don't want anything from this manufacturer so therefore I owe them a favor." That's just ridiculous. Humans simply don't behave like that. Consider the Xerxes X I referenced above. I didn't care that I could have bought it at wholesale, I didn't like the sound of it. I wouldn't have wanted it in my system even if Roksan gave it to me gratis. How was my bad opinion of the turntable affected by accomodation pricing? It certainly didn't earn Roksan a positive review. Conversely, how does accomodation pricing affect the review of a good component? It's going to get a positive review anyway, regardless of the price to the reviewer. Again, where is the conflict that causes a false review? Are you arguing that accomodation pricing causes good components to be given bad reviews? That doesn't make any sense either. Your "logic" is quite flawed - a discount won't improve a bad review, nor does it cause good components to be falsely disparaged. But if you think you can succeed where every other AA correspondent in the past has failed, have at it.
I'm sorry you took a broad characterization of journalism generally (i.e. not confined to audio) as some sort of personal swipe. That wasn't my intent. While I may not be the most articulate writer in the world I would venture that reading my post as such was a considerable leap.My friend's point, and I assure you that he is quite real, was that journalism, short of straight forward recounting of confirmed facts with no editorial comments, is inherently incapable of being unbiased and objective. It is by nature interpretive and the journalist will always bring his baggage (social, cultural, political, economic, emotional, etc.) into that interpretation. John Atkinson's measurements might have some claim to objectivity (I am not suggesting that they tell the whole story only that measurements, per se, can be relatively objective). Subjective reviews are inherently and inescapably biased. Any suggestion that a reviewer can completely wall off how he feels about the company, designer or importer completely defies both common sense and all available research. To offer another example of how bias can creep in example let us say that a reviewer is assigned to review a Dynavector DV20x2 but the reviewer has heard and was mightily impressed by the Dynavector DRT XV-1t. Would you really have us believe that that impression plus thoughts that "maybe I could afford/justify an XV-1t at half retail" never colors the review of the 20x2? The reviewer obviously is aware that a bad review of the 20 might cut off his access to accommodation pricing or an extended loan of a XV-1t. The intrusion of bias doesn't have to be a conscious process.
If we contrast audio journalism with a really good food/restaurant reviewer (yes, I'm well aware that most don't meet the following description), the food critic comes into the restaurant anonymously, pays for their meal at the same price everyone else pays (yes, they may expense the meal to the publication) and doesn't hang out with the cooks, servers or owner. In the best of all possible worlds the critic will also have some fairly serious cooking experience and/or training to inform their subjective interpretation. All this doesn't make the food reviewer objective but it at least reduces some obvious avenues for bias.
Until we can measure far better than we can today there will be room for subjective audio reviewers but claims of complete freedom from bias just makes the reviewing community look either rather simple or disingenuous. Speaking only for myself I tend to credence the comments of people who post here like Duke LeJeune, Bob Neill or Ozzy as much or more than most people with an (R) after their name in part because they make no claim to not being biased and make their biases quite public.
Edits: 03/01/12 03/01/12
You've managed to dream up one improbable situation where the possibility of a trade discount might - might! - influence the content of a review. The corruption would only happen if 1) the writer in question is a whore who is less interested in his integrity and reputation than in getting a discount on the pricier cartridge, and 2) the writer must have only the expensive Dynavector and no other cartridge from any other manufacturer, and 3) the Dynavector importer is a vindictive prick who punishes writers who don't rave about his entire line. Your scenario only works if all three conditions are met. Of course in real life the Dynavector importer is a nice guy who most likely would dismiss a negative review with a humorous comment about the reviewer's hearing rather than seeking revenge on him. But nevertheless you deserve praise for the novelty of your idea, even if it is as plausible as the absurd questions George Carlin concocted for the priest in his religious education classes as a child ("Father, suppose you're in a coma and miss your Sunday obligation, but you're on a ship and it crosses the international dateline so it's Sunday again, and you wake up - do you have to go to Mass?"). And your scenario still fails the broader challenge of explaining how trade discounts for reviewers routinely causes bad components to get undeserved praise or good components to be unjustly panned.
You might ask your invisible playmate to explain how the magazine publishing business works. Your claim that negative reviews would cause subscription rates to go up is risible.
You've managed to completely dodge the huge body of research that indicates that researchers, despite their best intentions, are highly susceptible to bias. Have you ever actually opened a scholarly journal in psychology, educational assessment, anthropology, field ecology or numerous other fields? Spend half a day in a good university library and you should easily be able to able to easily find twenty articles related to experimenter/observer/tester bias published in the last ten years. If you get a librarian to help you you can probably expand that count to fifty, many of them thoroughly peer reviewed. Of course we have your absolute assurance that you're better/purer than all those tedious science guys wasting their time with unnecessary elaborations in statistics and experimental methodology because you KNOW that you're impervious to bias either overt or subconscious. How could that possibly be interpreted as either monumental hubris or naivety? Are those priestly robes comfortable?The funny thing is that I'm actually not one of those people like the Hydrogen Audio crowd who insist that only measurements or statistically significant double blind listening tests are meaningful. As understand his position I'm probably closer to the sensibilities of someone like the late J. Gordon Holt.
Edits: 03/03/12
I've wasted enough time on you, obviously you can't defend your own illogic. Bye.
"You've managed to completely dodge the huge body of research that indicates that researchers, despite their best intentions, are highly susceptible to bias."
There are no unbiased experts. If you want to find out the truth of some matter you either do the necessary work yourself or you use someone else. If the latter, you are depending on that person's expertise and integrity. The problem is that experts gain their expertise through experience and that experience necessarily biases their point of view. Such is human nature. The legal system and investigative panels (such as the panels established by the National Research Council) deal with the problem by employing multiple experts and vetting their experience and biases. This works well, providing that the experts also have a certain amount of integrity. Having been an expert witness in Federal Court, I can tell you that it would have been a tough situation if I had been feeding out BS, as I would never have passed muster under the brutal cross-examination.
In the case of audio reviewers, there are two ways to calibrate a reviewer: compare their reviews with other reviews of the same product(s) and compare their reviews of products with which one is personally familiar with one's personal experience.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I guess some people are offended by accusations of being human. weird.
I think it very telling and a bit humorous that he took your response so personally. I also think it really concerning that he would think his experience as a reviewer demonstrative of the mechanics of the entire industry.
Let's see: I wrote that advertising and advertisers had no influence on anything that I wrote for Listener . Plantsman's response was that "claims that none of this, in any way, influences copy just doesn't pass the common sense test." And yet you're mystified why I might have taken that personally?
Edits: 03/02/12
I can tell you, many years ago, I sent a Vibraplane for review (will not publicly disclose to whom) but it was a major print mag who is still printing and after several months was sent a glowing review. In fact the reviewer actually called me the day the Vibraplane arrived and just couldn't get over what it did! Well after negotiating what I would charge him for the unit (below manufacturer cost) we set up a monthly payment plan. Never saw ANY $$$ and the review was never published. Yes there is politics in our industry just like every other industry to some extent. And yes this reviewer is still writing to this date and there is still controversy over him.
nt
As I slowly slip into the dark cesspool of audiophalia neurosis. . . .
My speaker building site
You were hoping the "complete denial and cover my ass" guys here would jump up and say "yeah, we've done that too!"?
"Apparently, people now believe that mental telepathy is the foundation of communication and magic is the source of daily events. Consequently, we no longer have to participate in our own lives."
I just interpret his remark to mean despite the *potential* of getting ad $$ he sent the product(s) back and didn't review it/them.
Over reacting? nah. Over detecting? Pehaps. I think JA offered up a reasonable way an editor *should* handle a case of a manufacturer offering a product for review with an attached promise of advertising. It is entirely possible that the TONE dude does in fact handle such things just that way. On the face of it though, accepting a product for review with such an attached promise without any clear communication that the "attached offer of advertsing" has no effect on the editors choice to review the product and no effect on the review should the editor chose to review it would seem like payola. And perhaps I am over detecting here but when they guy says he would send the product back "even when" there is such an attached promise of advertising/revenue it seems to say that such products are actually lloked at differently. Otherwise why give such products a special designation?
But you may be right.
The way I read the blurb was that the manufacturer sent them unsolicited (not sure why a manufacturer would do that) a component for review, and the manufacturer promised to buy advertising. If it is true that a manufacturer sent a product for a review, and then promised advertising, I don't see what Tone did wrong. I think his point was simply that the manufacturer promised to advertise, which Tone de facto declined when it returned the product for not being very good and not worthy of a review.Left unstated is what Tone would do if they solicited a component for a review, and found it to be lackluster despite their best efforts. Given their lack of any real negative comments relative to reviewed components (statements like "it was a little reticent in the midrange, but boy did that speaker kill when paired with tubes" is not really a negative comment in my book), and almost never a direct comparison with any reference components, I get the impression they would simply return it without comment. I think the Stereophile policy is that if they begin to review a component, which to me is not when you start writing, but rather when you start listening and working to make the component sound presentable, then the review is completed, good or bad. This, to me, is the proper way of running a railroad. Otherwise, the critic and publication become dangerously close to consultants for the manufacturer, particularly if they explain for the manufacturer where the component fell short. Can you imagine a film critic watching a film, not reviewing the film in print, but rather privately explaining to the studio what they did not like about the film, only to see some editing or re-filming? I suspect the film critic would not be writing for a respectable publication for very long. But I suspect this happens, while perhaps not regularly in audio critism, more than it should.
I just glance at Tone for the music reviews and the cool photos. It is a pretty slick looking e-zine. I don't consider their opinions high on my totem pole in terms of purchasing decisions or authoritativeness. Others may disagree.
Now, the bigger question is given the disappearance of the Valin thread, how long before this thread is hoisted on its petard?
Edits: 02/22/12 02/22/12
the poster formerly known as Regor Ladan was deleted. We had an agreement with Mr. Ladan whereby he promised to cease posting at AA after being caught up in a matter that we will leave undisclosed ... unless he does this again.
Fax mentis incendium gloria cultum, et cetera, et cetera...
Memo bis punitor delicatum! It's all there, black and white,
clear as crystal! Blah, blah, and so on and so forth ...
"Now, the bigger question is given the disappearance of the Valin thread, how long before this thread is hoisted on its petard?"
*Why* was the Valin thread deleted, and *why* did it take so long for the mod to get around to removing it? Was there a late entry in the thread that crossed a line? Did someone on here or elsewhere lobby to have it removed?
...and your attorney Garvin may have a case...
an answer to my original question. To wit: How many years/decades has it been since Mr. Valin actually *paid* for a component? Since you and he worked for the same publication perhaps you can answer that. Moreover, can you or anyone on here cite another example of such extravagant corporate largesse being extended to a reviewer in *another* field? One thinks of exotic automobiles. Has any reviewer been driving a subsidized Porsche for years, that you're aware of? Lamborghini? Is Valin’s the *only* such grand accommodation of its kind or is this sort of thing commonplace amongst high-profile reviewers in other fields? I'm merely curious.
... that some auto magazines, (well known magazines were mentioned), hold lotteries amongst their writers/test drivers for the cars given to them for review. So it happens elsewhere, too.I mean come on, ... You didn't really think that at the time, the 1983 Audi Quattro was the "finest European touring car", did you? LOL.
Road and Track did.
Wonder what Audi's ad contract was that year?
Edits: 02/26/12
The automobile press is well known for its 52x7 loaners, the "long-term loaner", the completely free car, and the brand new sports car for a dollar,
How To Be An Automotive Journalist, Part II: The Press Loaner
And as for writers fired for writing negative reviews, Stephan Wilkinson, former editor of Car and Driver, describes how he was fired:
FUCK THE READERS!
Wow, that's quite a tale.
...jealousy?
I have no clue about people in the audio review publications and whether they own or borrow equipment.
I never met Valin or chatted with him.
Back when I was reviewing, TAS had a bunch of equipment some manufacturers had loaned the magazines for reviewers to use and pass around.
For example, I borrowed a CJ second label solid state amp for about a year to compliment my tubed amps, which I owned, to use in speaker reviews.
I read AutoWeek magazine and they have a number of vehicles in a long-term test fleet for use of the staff. When they turn them back in after a a year, they publish cost per mile, long term gas mileage, maintenence costs, resale value, etc.
No Lamboroghinis, but they just turned in a BMW 550 XDrive.
So it happens in other industries, as well.
Get over it.
appear terribly truculent today. “Obsession”? This is the first time I’ve raised the matter of certain audio manufacturer’s orchestrating a grand accommodation where Mr. Valin is concerned, so I would hardly call it an obsession. That said, I would find it curious were *any* reviewer given nearly $250K of {fill in the blank} to be used by said reviewer *indefinitely* for his enjoyment. Such an arrangement strikes me as unique. How about you? I'm curious to learn if such grand arrangments are confined to the world of audio. If so, why should that be the case?Jealous? Quite the contrary. I applaud Mr. Valin’s adroitness in arranging such an ongoing accommodation. Many poor schmucks leave the audio store feeling good about getting a “deal” in which they saved 15%. But Mr. Valin has created a situation is which he can enjoy the (best of the best) in audio gear without opening his wallet. Bravo!
And when did you become so reluctant to discuss Mr. Valin’s audio proclivities? You weren’t always so averse on that score, were you? In fact, I recall a time, not long ago, when you were one of the cheerleaders in a large sewing circle of breathless audiophiles chronicling Mr. Valin's exploits. A search of this board will reveal that you’ve been *much* more obsessed with (and critical of) your former colleague than I. Let's take a quick stroll down memory lane:
Bye, bye TAS...
Posted by mkuller (A) on March 4, 2007 at 21:10:47
...I feel like a fool for defending TAS and their ethics.
It has come to my attention through two different reliable sources that it is a senior writer from TAS who was involved in the Nordost cable/AudioGon brouhaha that has been mentioned here numerous times and in print elsewhere.
I guess I'm the last to know.
It also appears the magazine is covering for him.
I can also tell you I've heard HP is appalled about the way it is being handled and that he would have fired the writer immediately back when he was running things.
It will be interesting watching the fall-out from this since it's no secret.
While I still trust some of the writers I know there, the magazine has lost a lot of its credibility with me.The real story...
Posted by mkuller (A) on March 10, 2007 at 10:36:07
In Reply to: Who reimbursed TAS? posted by eungkim67 on March 9, 2007 at 15:47:14:
...funny that after posting 'Bye, Bye TAS' above, I was contacted by a number of manufacturers with more information and even greater concerns.
So either Martin is not telling the whole story or what I heard from a couple of sources is incorrect.If it is in fact correct, it would appear Martin is still covering for Valin and may be part of the problem, rather than the solution.
Here's what I was told: Apparently Valin's move was years ago. When a pair of Nordost interconnect cables showed up on AudioGon which were traced to Valin by serial numbers, Nordost requested all of his loaner cables back. He returned them but was at least $20,000 short in the loaners he returned. No one has mentioned where all those cables ended up. So the magazine reimbursed Nordost and Valin is paying back the
magazine.Until Martin takes some action, this story is not likely not go away.
Posted by bjh (A) on March 10, 2007 at 12:32:00
In Reply to: The real story... posted by mkuller on March 10, 2007 at 10:36:07:
That's a rather odd subject title given that you also say, "So either Martin is not telling the whole story or what I heard from a couple of sources is incorrect."In summary, you're repeating information from unnamed sources and admit that you're unsure as to the veracity of the information!... that's the only part of this story that seems unquestionably "real"!
Let's just say...
Posted by mkuller (A) on March 10, 2007 at 13:22:16
In Reply to: "The real story..."? posted by bjh on March 10, 2007 at 12:32:00:
...that I've that or a similar story from enough sources that it appears true to me.
But rather than call Martin a liar, I'd rather give him a chance to respond.The TAS April/May issue...
Posted by mkuller (A) on March 18, 2007 at 11:39:31
In Reply to: Kudos to The Absolute Sound... posted by bjh on March 17, 2007 at 16:15:02:
...was out before my thread "Bye, Bye TAS" was posted down below.
The the first public acknowledgment of the issue by TAS' owner Tom Martin was his weak and incomplete response to my post.
So I wouldn't expect anything in print about it until the next issue.
Then you will be able to see whether Martin/Harley publicly acknowledge the entire scope of the issue in print or continue to cover for Valin.Posted by mkuller (A) on March 6, 2007 at 14:05:48
In Reply to: Now thart Charlie's outed the offender.... posted by Bob Rex on March 6, 2007 at 13:58:00:> I found it somewhat ironic that Harry brought both of them back, after the supposed back stabbing.>
Valin and Garcia left TAS for Fi on pretty poor terms.
Harry didn't bring them back.
The new owner of TAS, Tom Martin, did after Fi failed.
I know where I'd put my money...
After the Valin debacle...Posted by mkuller (A) on May 1, 2011 at 18:07:29
In Reply to: Mike, that may be true... posted by jamesgarvin on April 30, 2011 at 15:58:03:
...if you read TAS owner, Tom Martin's, comments here about the Valin incident, you would realize ethical practices regarding equipment loans ended when HP sold the magazine.My experience with Martin...
Posted by mkuller (A) on March 4, 2010 at 11:18:14
In Reply to: I posted on The Absolute Sound site posted by AudioTrip on March 3, 2010 at 22:03:21:
...is that he seems to have a convenient blind spot where Valin is concerned.You'll have to find someone else to defend Valin...
Posted by mkuller (A) on March 3, 2010 at 13:48:30
In Reply to: Marketer's Yes! posted by AudioTrip on March 3, 2010 at 13:09:52:
...I suggest you take it up with Harley in a letter to the editor.Two words...
Posted by mkuller (A) on December 29, 2011 at 10:59:21
In Reply to: RE: From my personal experience... posted by Chazro on December 29, 2011 at 09:55:20:...Jonathan Valin.
I ranted at the new owner of TAS about his issues (well chronicled here)and was blown off.
Who is in charge?
Posted by mkuller (A) on July 2, 2010 at 08:44:44
In Reply to: JA does at Stereophile (as far as I know) posted by Charles Hansen on July 2, 2010 at 08:39:18:...the guy who owns the magazine and protected Valin.
Edits: 02/23/12
...I didn't realize you were such a fan of mine to go searching for everything I've written on the topic.
Bet you have all my TAS back issues...
"I didn't realize you were such a fan of mine?"
Well, I've always been a fan of exposing hypocrisy.
...you so thoroughly researched and carefully cut, pasted and posted is so 4 years ago.
Where have you been?
Oh, I know...tirelessly searching the web for hypocrisy.
“That Valin controversy you so thoroughly researched and carefully cut, pasted and posted is so 4 years ago.”
I was unaware that there's a statute of limitations on hypocrisy.
Four years ago? In your haste to save face you seem to have overlooked this one:
After the Valin debacle...
Posted by mkuller (A) on May 1, 2011 at 18:07:29
In Reply to: Mike, that may be true... posted by jamesgarvin on April 30, 2011 at 15:58:03:
...if you read TAS owner, Tom Martin's, comments here about the Valin incident, you would realize ethical practices regarding equipment loans ended when HP sold the magazine.
...overlooked anything.That post was part of a conversation in which you were involved back in May of last year, not an hysterical posting like yours up above.
Perhaps you overlooked it.
Edits: 02/24/12
"There seems to be....
Posted by mkuller (A) on December 27, 2011 at 11:54:13
In Reply to: TAS seems better? posted by ruxtonvet on December 24, 2011 at 14:35:50:
...an unusually interesting assortment of audio products in this issue of TAS.
"REG always manages to find some wierd speaker to focus on, in this case a very expensive sat/sub system with built-in amplification and room correction he calls a "good value" or some such adjective.
"Minimizing HP's contributions has definitely hurt the magazine.
"Valin is a pretender and Harley isn't that interesting"
Your post above is less than two months old. It seems you never miss an opportunity to take a swipe at Mr. Valin. He’s become your bête noire. ~:)
...at least with Stereophile and TAS, we were able to watch the editors decison process in accepting advertising as well as the fire-walls they erected to keep it separate from the editorial side.
With the ezines, who knows what's going on because most of them haven't been that transparent or forthcoming.
Hello,
I always read comments like these and wonder where the comments come from.
If you look at the operations of most "print" magazines today, they're e-zines as well. They may have print versions of the magazines, but they're available electronically and, of course, they have websites they rely heavily on.
The division between print and electronic is basically gone -- publishing and media companies produce the content, and whether it gets distributed print or electronically is more a matter of preference and what works for the business.
Insofar as transparency goes, that has nothing to do with whether someone operates primarily in print or online but simply how they conduct their business overall.
Doug Schneider
SoundStage! Network
Perhaps I am wrong, but I think the point Mike was making is that the business model for a print magazine is different than that of an e-zine based publication. From what I can gather most if not all of the e-zine publications seem to be a creature of one or a few persons who started the publication, and pretty do or oversee everything to keep the thing running, and so every decision from editorial to transmission to advertising is handled by one person. The variable this model introduces is that when the same person has their hands in both the editorial and the advertising portions of the publication, it is much easier for the right hand to influence what the left hand is doing, and vice versa. On the other hand, the print magazines seem to be owned by corporations who own numerous publications across a broad spectrum of topics, and they pretty much operate their magazines in such a way that the editorial side is run by one group of people, and the advertising side is run by another group of people, because the advertising people, I would imagine, are handling advertising for multuple publications. Therefore, there is less chance for the editorial to influence the advertising, and vice versa - the two portions are run as two separate entities.
I don't think Mike was commenting upon the mode of delivery - so, yea, Stereophile and TAS have a web presence, but the web presence and the electronic delivery feed off the print edition, not vice versa. I doubt that because they both have a means of electronic delivery that they are therefore the same or similar.
Hi,
These are some pretty broad generalizations with some straw-man arguments.
Yes, many magazines are run by "corporations," but are these somehow uninfluenced by advertising? I'll argue that there are more reasons why they could be influenced. For example, how many times have you heard about editorial pages to ad copy? The concept doesn't really exist on the Web, but it certainly in print. Is the brick wall really made of bricks when that balance must be maintained?
I'm fully aware of how print magazines are forced to run today because I have plenty of friends and acquaintances who work in a variety of industries and I can tell you that some work for magazines that are owned by large corporations, while some of the print magazines they work for are one- or two-(wo)man shops, not unlike the Web. There are no black and white rules such as those that are outlined. In fact, in some print magazines the advertisers have shocking control over the content of the magazines.
As another person pointed out, it really comes down to how things are being run and who is running it. I can also say that many webzines (not just audio but outside of that) have numbers on their staff that outnumber print. Things changed a long time ago.
Doug Schneider
SoundStage! Network
Is it easier for one or two people to keep a secret than it is for six or seven people to keep a secret? You are correct. It is certainly possible that despite a chinese wall between editorial, publishing, and advertising that funny business occurs, but the question is what reduces the risk of it occurring. And its not about numbers. Its about who is doing what. You may have twenty reviewers, and one person acting as editor. The fact of the matter is that the twenty reviewers are not overseeing the editor, who is also handling the advertising. That is the problem, not the number of bodies.
What started this off was Tone's apparent position that when a product comes in for review and is somehow not ready for prime time it is sent back to the manufacturer with nary a warning to its readers. I am skeptical enough to think that when Tone sends the product back there is some comment about why it is not ready for prime time. I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that in that situation the magazine becomes an unpaid consultant to the manufacturer.
Is this policy the result of its business model? I don't know. I do know that Stereophile has a business model that is significantly different relative to a separate advertising department, and its policy is that if the manufacturer sends in a product for review, it gets reviewed, warts and all. Again, is that policy driven by the business model? I don't know.
I think Tone's policy is unethical vis a vis its readers. It would appear that an unethical person starting an e-zine has an easier time implementing Tone's policy than it does Stereophile's, because Tone's policy would require one unethical person, whereas Stereophile's would require an unethical advertising department, an unethical editor, and an unethical publisher, all of whom would need to keep their mouths shut. Is it possible for all of them to be unethical? Sure. But I usually prefer to play the odds.
I don't know what the policy's of all the magazines are, but it's not correct today to assume print runs one way and e-zines run another.Despite what the print publishers say, the print-based magazines are failing at an alarming rate, not just in audio but all industries. I'm good friends with people who work for various print magazines and they all have one foot out the door because most are on the verge of failing. That's not meaning all are going out of business, but all aspects of the Internet are taking a piece of the pie -- e-zines, videos, websites, etc. -- and the print mags are hurting because of it.
Also, the sizes aren't the same anymore. If you look at the staff size of a number of the print magazines, it's one or two. Not all again, but many -- again, in audio and in other areas. I would say more money is being put to the Web these days, for good reason.
The budgets of many of the print magazines are also shrinking. I'm surprised how little coverage the print mags do at shows anymore, how little traveling they're doing to events and to factories, etc. These are areas we're happening to spend a lot on. Again, being an e-zine doesn't mean necessarily a shoestring budget. I suspect we spend more this way than most in our industry, if not all.
So your points are well taken, but the thing I won't agree with at all (and I'm not sure if you said it or others, I'd have to check) is the line between print and e-zines. Most print magazines aren't running like people think anymore, and neither are most of the e-zines.
Doug Schneider
SoundStage! Network
Edits: 02/26/12
> Despite what the print publishers say, the print-based magazines are failing at
> an alarming rate, not just in audio but all industries. I'm good friends with
> people who work for various print magazines and they all have one foot out
> the door because most are on the verge of failing.
Hmm. Obviously, as the editor of a print magazine I have a horse in this race,
Doug. But the situation is more nuanced than you represent here. The more
widely a publication casts it editorial net and the inherently more shallow its
coverage, the worse it fares against competition from the Web. The Web
does "wide and shallow" very well, and does it for free!
But the narrower a publication's niche and the deeper its coverage, the more
likely it can sustain itself in the Internet age. Readers can't get exactly what
that publication has to offer on the Web for free, and that fact guarantees a
source of income for the print-based publication. I am not saying that the
Internet can't do "narrow and deep"; indeed it can. But a "narrow and deep"
print publication can compete successfully, unlike the "wide and shallow"
titles that are indeed in danger of going to the great newsstand in the sky.
But as you said yourself earlier in this thread, all print publications these days
also have Web presences. In the case of Stereophile, yes, the core content
appears in the print publication (though the fact that almost 10% of our
subscriptions are Zinio or Apple Newsstand editions makes the use of the
word "print" somewhat anachronistic). But then we have Stereophile.com
with half a million unique visitors each month and the two new websites
InnerFidelity.com and AudioStream.com we launched last year, with more on
the way.
So while I do have a horse in this race, I think the phrase "on the verge of
failing" paints with too broad a brush, at least as far as Stereophile is concerned.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Hi John,Obviously, we both have horses in the race(s), but I think the real proof of what's happening is that we see print either going out of business or moving increasingly to Web, but we don't see Web going to print really. In other words, it's obvious where the future lies.
I think one can either put their head in the sand or put on a brave face, but I'm sure the folks at Blockbuster Video were doing the same thing a number of years ago when Netflix took hold and basically paved the way to the future. Blockbuster today?
That's not to say that print will completely die. Print as it's been done in the past will die because it comes down to the mechanism for delivery, and with what most magazines deliver these days, the better mechanism is the Internet. It's as simple as that.
But for years I've said that there's a place for print today, but I don't think it has to do with width and depth. Those things can be replicated online today, probably better. The key comes to taking the strengths of the medium and leveraging that.
Do you know that Sunday mornings are, for me, a trip to the bookstore to magazine read? I do that partly to see what's being done in publishing these days, as well as keep abreast of competitors, but also to admire certain magazines. I look at magazines such as Men's Journal, Vanity Fair, GQ, and a few others, as great print magazines that deserve to remain in print. What they're doing their -- layout, content, photography, etc. -- can't be replicated as well online. In other words, these mags wouldn't be the same or better. I constantly tell our writers, "These are examples of how it should be done." The rest of the mags, well, it's hit and miss.
In the audio world, I feel the best print magazine on the market today is Paul Miller's "Hi-Fi News and Record Review" out of the UK. I've gotten to know Paul and I've commended him on it. There are a variety of reasons why I like it, but one of the main ones is that each month seems so cohesive and well thought out. That, to me, can also be a strength of print that few seem to consider today like they did decades ago. So many magazines today just seem like a mish-mash of articles that could just as easily be offered for download.
Doug Schneider
Edits: 02/26/12
> Obviously, we both have horses in the race(s)...
Exactly so, Doug. I believe people should judge what we say based on that
fact.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
I would state it as they should keep that in mind, but also form their opinions on what is said as well as what's is actually happening.
For instance, many people don't know that we could have turned to print numerous times over the 16 years we've been in business. I've always refused it not because I don't think a print publication can work, as I've said, but that the core work is on the Web.
I think it would also be safe to say that in all these years Stereophile has been reducing its page count (substantially compared to 10 or more years ago) and putting a lot more effort to their Web presence. Is it safe to say this trend will continue?
Obviously, behind the scenes there are things happening with both of our businesses that aren't being disclosed. So they can't make up their minds solely about that.
Still, I think that we're far beyond the "new Internet thingee" days and wondering if it will catch on. Remember, in the '90s and even up to several years ago there were people who thought like that. People are smarter than that now and they know that the Internet isn't just a thing for the desktop, but there are iPads, smartphones, etc. Look at Tone -- it's set up like a print magazine, but not printed.
So while people can keep our biases in mind, I think it's more important to look at WHAT is being said and, also, to look clearly at what is happening.
Doug Schneider
> I would state it as they should keep that in mind, but also form their opinions
> on what is said as well as what's is actually happening.
Fine by me, Doug. All I am saying is that when you express opinions on
Stereophile or I do so on Soundstage, neither of us is disinterested and people
should be aware of that fact. Of course, there is also an asymmetry here, in
that while you have recently said a number of negative things about
Stereophile, I have not said anything at all about Soundstage. I feel that
inmates should keep that asymmetry in mind also.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Of course we do John, but one can make points that are beyond dispute, particularly when there are objective standards that can be looked at.
I get tired of the nonsense about print magazines being A-OK in this digital age, when the fact is that when you get into the meeting rooms and the discussions are the opposite is true. You know that.
We don't have to look at Stereophile, we can look at almost any print publication these days and ask some simple questions that any business analyst might ask. For example:
Compared to, say, 10 or 15 years ago:
- Are your subscriptions up or down?
- Are you newsstand sales up or down?
- Are you advertising rates up or down?
- Are the number of advertisers up or down?
- Are your page counts up or down?
I think that you'll find that with 90%+ of the magazines on the market today, the answer is "down" in every instance. If that's a growing, thriving business . . .
Doug Schneider
> Of course we do John, but one can make points that are beyond dispute,
> particularly when there are objective standards that can be looked at.
With respect, Doug, I believe that everything you say about Stereophile is
suspect, just as anything I might say about Soundstage (were I to do so, of
course )is also suspect..
> I get tired of the nonsense about print magazines being A-OK in this digital
> age...
I don't actually know anyone in publishing who makes that wide a point.
> when the fact is that when you get into the meeting rooms and the
> discussions are the opposite is true. You know that.
No, I don't know that, Doug. What I do know is a) that the Web is indeed a
major source of competition for print-based media, b) that for the reasons I
outlined in an earlier posting, the competition becomes more intense, the
shallower the print publication's editorial strategy, and c) it is possible for
print magazines to continue succeeding in the Web Age, depending on
their editorial strategy and their attitude to Web and electronic publishing.
You appear to trying to make a specific point about Stereophile by drawing a
false conclusion from a generalized picture, perhaps, as I have suggested,
because the anachrophilic Stereophile continues to be a major player in
audio publishing, both in print and on the Web.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
> > > > You appear to trying to make a specific point about Stereophile ...Actually, no. I'm talking about print magazines in general, which, if you look across the board, run similarly in about 80% of the cases. Part of that could be that many are owned by large corporations that might own dozens to hundreds of titles.
If I were to pick a target, there are a few magazines. On the other hand, I pointed out what I feel is the best print publication (and one which I happen to read regular), and that's Hi-Fi News out of England. Miller is doing a great job with that publication. A really great job, and it deserves to stay in print. I've told him that.
As for publishers not making a point that wide? Do you remember the campaign a couple years ago where they tried to convince people that the Web was increasing print sales? At the same time they would have been answering "down, down, down..." to all those questions I asked in a previous point.
Nowadays, the lines between print and online are blurred, and that was one of my original points in this thread. There was a marked difference between print and online, say, 10+ years ago, but not anymore. As you've written here, Stereophile considers itself an online force. So these lines aren't clear anymore.
Doug Schneider
Edits: 02/28/12
It's still all a little relative, no? E-zines are on their way up relative to print, but does not that reflect the fact they started at ground zero, and you would expect them to increase their presence? Likewise, years ago, print was the only game in town, now there is some competition and changing technology, and would we not expect a reduction in its numbers?
Is the audio print world different than the news print world? I think a lot of people read news blogs and the internet, but I suspect many of those same people read newspapers such as the New York Times and Washington Post and rely and trust the information the print media disseminates versus the bloggers. The difference, I think, is that the bloggers and e-zines essentially give their content and opinions away for free, and there will always be a perception that when you give something away for free it is always less valuable, and in the situation where the opinion leads to a purchasing decision, less reliable than those who charge for their opinions and information.
My own prejudice is that print publishers require more standards of their writers. The majority of internet news providers, for example, could not write for the New York Times because they are not good enough writers, because they lack the experience, or they lack the educational background, or all three. I've lost count of the number of e-zine articles and reviews I've read which feature poor grammar, misspellings, sentences ending in prepositions, run on sentences, and on and on, all of which an editor, or someone, has proofread.
Just because print has lost some business for a variety of reasons does not mean the end of the road for print media is near. Print will continue to dominate the higher value of the content until such time as the internet provider can provide content people deem valuable and important enough for which which they are actually willing to pay. The e-zines can talk about numbers all they want, but I strongly suspect that if they required a paid subscription to read their content their readership would dwindle to almost nothing. Are the numbers e-zines register because of the value of the content, or because it is free? Most certainly the latter. Certainly, if they felt they could charge for their content, they would do so. Until an e-zine can provide the former, I think readers will continue to perceive print to be the more reliable, and as long as it is perceived the more reliable, it will survive.
I would guess Stereophile's numbers are down relative to where they were twenty years ago for the same reason that virtually every newspaper's numbers are down, which is that fewer people are reading, and in the case of high end audio, fewer people are partaking in the hobby. I would argue it is not because of the e-zines presence because the e-zine gives its content away for free, and therefore the reader does not need to make an economic choice between the two. If e-zines were around twenty or thirty years ago, or whenever you think was the golden age of high end audio when participation was at its zenith, the e-zine's numbers would be down as well.
Hi,
Actually, this isn't all true and in some instances not relevant to the audio industry. I'll explain . . .
First, if there were a top writer looking for an outlet for his or her work, we'd certainly look at them with commensurate pay. The thing is, in the audio industry, it's not like it is in the news industry where you have professional journalists. Instead, the bulk of the reviewers, both in print and online, do it as a hobby. The guys who do it full-time tend to be the guys who run the magazines. Paul Miller, for example, who I feel has the best print magazine on the planet: Hi-Fi News. So there really aren't those people to hire.
As for the rest of the arguments, it tends to be what standards you set versus whether you're print or online. Take speaker measurements for example. I couldn't imagine being a professionally run magazine and measuring speakers in my backyard or in a living room. If you're going to do it, do it right, and that's why we use the NRC's anechoic chamber, which is the proper place to conduct such tests. We've done this for 12 year and it costs us a pretty penny to do so -- yet no other magazine goes to those lengths.
Insofar as show and event coverage goes, I suspect that today our budget is as high if not higher than any other publication in the world. The investment we put into these shows is enormous -- whether you're talking print or online -- but again we feel it's worth it. Also, the efforts we try to bring to things such as photography, other measurements of electronics, etc.
What I will agree is that it's easy to start a webzine for next to nothing. Someone could have "something" tomorrow. But, again, it really comes down to what standards one sets for everything else. If you simply hold a higher standard, the costs mount. Running on the Web certainly isn't free.
Doug Schneider
SoundStage! Network
I understand most reviewers review as a hobby, whether it is print or e-zine. But writing for a hobby does not eliminate the other, very important quality writers possess - ego. I don't mean to demean your magazine, but I suspect in audio writing circles it means more to an audio scribe to have Stereophile on their resume, just like it would mean more to a columnist to have New York Times on their resume versus Huffington Post, even if both paid the same.
I think you can create exceptions to the rule, and for the sake of argument, let's say that your publication is an exception to my rule. The fact is that in most e-zines the writiing is, in my humble opinion, below average, sometimes far below average, there are significantly fewer technical articles, if any, from learned professionals or experts in their fields, and the reviewers tend not to have the same, um, resume.
Conducting measurements certainly helps, but they are only part of the story. Roger Modjeski commented on Audiocircle some many months ago that the only magazine he placed much stock in was Stereophile, not because John Atkinson conducts measurements, but because of JA's engineering background, he knew how to intelligently discuss the measurements he was conducting. I suspect its not too difficult to learn to conduct the measurement. The difficult part would be interpreting them to determine what they mean, which ones are really important, and how they relate to each other.
Hi,
I only wish to respond to one part of this because this is where certain thing could be mistaken as fact. Where you said that it's not to hard to learn how to conduct the measurement. I guess "learning" is relatively easy if something is already set up, but that's the biggest problem -- setup.
Actually conducting a proper loudspeaker measurement (as opposed to simply sticking a mic in front of a speaker) is extremely hard if you want accuracy, and that's why companies (and magazines such as ours) got to great lengths and tremendous costs to do so. In fact, I just traded emails today with an extraordinarily talented designer who was explaining just how difficult of a time he's having getting the kind of resolution and accuracy he wants in the bass.
We don't spend thousands of dollars every time we measure loudspeakers simply because we want to spend that money -- it's because we have to.
Doug Schneider
SoundStage! Network
"Print will continue to dominate the higher value of the content until such time as the internet provider can provide content people deem valuable and important enough for which which they are actually willing to pay."
I'm sure plenty of good content can be found on the web, otherwise none of us would read any of it. The problem is with the business model, in my opinion. Since day one I questioned why everyone on the web didn't work on a subscription basis, just as print does. Maybe it was to get people to move to the web, but it locks the model in pretty tight down the road. It seems to be one of those "I can't charge because no one else does" type things. And now, how does one do otherwise unless EVERYONE does?
See ya. Dave
The point about the subscription basis can be answered quite easily -- it's not desirable. If you can offer the content for free, why not? You'll get a larger audience.
This argument about paying versus not is what the print magazines used years ago to bolster their prestige, often arguing: You get what you pay for! Here's the thing today -- if you can buy a 12-month subscription for a print magazine for 10 bucks, that doesn't cover the mailing or printing costs. Therefore, they're actually losing money with each issue, or giving it away for "less than free." What's it worth then?
The key here is that on the Net, you don't need (want) to charge. You compete mostly on the content and getting traffic to the site. Better content, better traffic. There are no printing or mailing costs, pass the savings on to the reader and offer them something good for nothing. After all, they already pay a fortune for their devices, Internet subscription packages, etc.
Doug Schneider
In my experience, though, print publications offer superior content.
I'm not referring to your site, or suggesting that this is true of every site and publication.
But the quality of journalism at the Huffington Post is not the quality of journalism at the New York Times, and so on.
And note that a number of print publications, including the Times, have gone to a subscription model precisely because they couldn't afford to maintain that quality of journalism on the basis of web revenues alone. This despite the fact that their web readership is many times what their print readership is or was. And the move to subscriptions seems so far to have been a success: it seems that people are willing to pay more for top-quality journalism.
I like to think that that will change as publications continue to move towards electronic distribution, but, for now, the free Internet ad-supported model appears to have some limits, essentially financial.
It's an interesting point and, believe me, in the 16 years I've been doing this we've been round and round on this topic time after time.
Here's what few people consider though: The New York Times example is always brought up. But how many other examples are there of that?
Furthermore, would any current audio print magazine be able to charge a subscription if they were exclusive to the Web? My belief is that people are paying for the paper, and are happy to do that. In fact, free paper magazines don't seem to go over that well.
Going into the mainstream, I'm pretty sure Men's Journal, Rolling Stone, and Sports Illustrated couldn't sell online subscriptions, at least to their publications portions.
Doug Schneider
I gather that the industry is watching the Times experiment very closely to see what will happen. The Wall Street Journal and the Times of London have also gone to the subscription model, not sure how that's working out (and the Times of London is already heavily subsidized by Murdoch's criminal enterprises er other newspapers so it might be hard to tell).
Those considering going to a paywall model include local newspapers and for me one of the big questions is, as you suggest, whether the subscription model can be taken downmarket. I think there will always be a market for the kind of journalism that the Times and Journal practice: they're written for the elite and the elite won't make do with second-rate news sources. This may be in keeping with JA's remark to the effect that there will continue to be a market for in-depth, specialized, and I would add quality reporting. The same I imagine holds true for publications like Scientific American, the New Yorker, or Foreign Affairs -- they'll shift inevitably to some form of electronic distribution (I already read Scientific American in PDF), but they will be able to maintain a subscription model because of their editorial quality and specialized audience. Sports Illustrated and Rolling Stone, I'd think less so.
The Times's experience notwithstanding, I agree that it's easier to get people to pay for a print subscription than a web one. PDF's and such are one possible, though I suspect temporary, step. They have the advantage of coming closer to the print ad display format, I'm not sure how much that counts with advertisers. On the other hand, web sites offer at their best what, in some respects anyway, is a better computerized reading experience, with more opportunities for interaction. I'm thinking that it would be beneficial if publications could come up with a more effective way of displaying ads on the web -- one that neither exiles the ad to a small box where it's overlooked, nor bothers the reader with animation or pop-ups.
I think people are willing to pay for print because they are holding something tangible in their hand. On the other hand, with a web based publication, most people, I think as you stated elsewhere, are conditioned to not paying for content on the web, I think, in part, because it is relatively easy to produce. People are be willing to pay for paper versus opinions, particularly when those opinions seem to come from garden variety audiophiles.
The other difference between the two is the quality, or perceived quality, differences. I think people would still pay for a Sterephile subscription if it was available only over the web. I think the reason for this is because Stereophile started life as a print publication, and the perception, accurate I think, is that because it competes for reader dollars the free market forces it to be better than the next guy, which forces print magazines like Stereophile to invest in the best writers, the best test equipment, and contract with the top folks in their respective fields to write articles, otherwise it perishes.
On the other hand, it is relatively easier to start a web based publication, and because readers can read them for free, the web based publications are not really competing with each other, and so do not need to pay the best writers, reviewers, for the best equipment, and contract with leaders in their fields to write articles. Doing so will not increase their web circulations. There is no free market forces in play, so they simply spit out opinions. I understand that they are not free to produce, but because of them having significantly less overhead, their margin for error is significantly lower than a print magazine. People flock to something free. I glance monthly at all the web based publications too, and so manufacturers will advertise enough with a web based publication to at least allow it to break even.
So, even if a web based publication came along which offered a level of competence comparable to that of print based publications, I think it becomes a hard sell to get people to pay money for that content because the perception of the web is defined by other web based publications that are really only a guy and his friends generating opinions, and the fact that the web based publication is not really delivering anything tangible. The market eliminates most of the pretenders in the print world. The web gives the pretenders a place to call home.
I think that's a cogent analysis. Part of it I think has to do with how people typically approach web content, e.g., through search engines. That makes it less likely that someone will become a regular reader -- someone who leafs through each issue to see and read what's of interest. The asynchronous mode of publication, with new content appearing constantly, also tells against that kind of systematic readership.
But that's a generalization, I wouldn't say "never." Some web sites do have dedicated readers, by virtue of being early, or being best. If their content is unique by virtue of quality or utility or coverage, they might be able to pull it off. Which I think is again analogous to JA's point about the kind of print publication that prospers in the current difficult environment.
Hi James,
While I can respect a number of points, I think that the competitiveness (or lack thereof) is off-base. I'll explain.
Years ago (the '90s) the print and online mags were distinct entities. As time progressed, it was obvious that the same readership was being served and, therefore, publications started competing for that share. Today, if you look at the American print magazines, they're publishing in print, but they're also bolstering their Web presences not just with rehashed print content, but with new content as well. In fact, I'm watching as one magazine is taking their online content INTO print, which is sort of odd . . .
Anyway, I'll keep repeating that the lines here are not distinct. The competition exists among all publications these days.
Doug Schneider
SoundStageNetwork.com
Hi,
Actually, when it comes to the New York Times thing, I think most stopped watching years ago. It's been so long that I'm guessing a bit on time-frames, but it was relevant maybe 8 years ago? There was even a documentary produced about the newspaper's transition into the digital age. Again, that was a couple years ago. It's been a long time.
The truth of the matter is that it was watched, but then other factors have come into play -- one being figuring out a "better" way. On the surface the subscription model seems good. But is it the best way? I think it was for print; I don't think it is for the Web.
I have one acquaintance who is amazingly successful in photography and extremely Web savvy. He believes in giving a large portion of his work away, and then charging handsomely for other aspects. On the one side, the giveaway work builds his name and brand worldwide. On the other side, he makes his living. The two work hand in hand.
That's not to say that's the model for publishing on the Web, but to say that these days there are different ways to look at and approach things. I don't think the subscription model is really going to be the way.
Doug Schneider
SoundStage! Network
The Times subscription plan is more recent, it was instituted a bit more than a year ago and I've read that it's being closely watched by the industry. You may be thinking of the earlier, failed "Times Select" plan in which they charged for access to their opinion columns. That failed because subscription revenues were less than the loss in page-hit-driven advertising. The current plan is a very porous paywall: non-subscirbers can access IIRC up to 20 free articles a month. That way they keep their hits up for casual readers while charging regular readers. So in a sense, it's like what your photographer friend is doing -- or magazines that post some of their content on the web, or everything after a delay.
So far, the Times paywall seems to have attracted 325,000 subscribers and made up some though not all of the loss in advertising. It's also, thanks to bundling offers, increased print subscriptions, which earn the paper more in advertising revenue. So I think it can be called a success at this point, though subscription revenues haven't entirely offset the loss in advertising revenue. I just read that the LA Times is about to go to a paywall too.
I think what you point out is interesting, but I'm not sure it's realistic for, say, the audio industry. At 325,000 subscribers, you're likely talking about more readers than all the audio-based print magazines combined, times two.
The real test will be if they keep it up over the long term, or if the accountants come in and say, "well, if we drop the payment option we'll far outweigh it in advertising."
On the whole, we're only talking about a few VERY LARGE publications doing this. Has it been successful for a more typical magazine? Likely it's been tried, but I haven't seen any stats on the success -- perhaps there hasn't been any successes. I have a hard time believing that most print magazines today will keep close to their subscriber base if they moved exclusively online and charge for it there -- even if it's a fraction of the price.
Doug Schneider
SoundStage! Network
I think they've already demonstrated that, for the Times, anyway, subscription revenue more than makes up for any loss in advertising revenue. In part, this is because they intentionally made the paywall porous -- readers are allowed 20 free articles a month, so casual readers, or readers who are directed from a search, pay nothing, so they still get those hits. And they were counting on the fact that a significant percentage of more committed readers would subscribe. They're still the fifth most popular news web site, with 59 million unique monthly visitors -- not bad for a publication that targets the elite.
As far as I know, the magazines that have used a pay model for electronic distribution haven't done so via the web, but rather via PDF's or similar dedicated apps. They've kept their websites free and offered come-ons, like excerpted articles, or delayed ones. But it seems to me the "porous paywall" model might work for them as well -- in a sense, it's already what they're doing. Hard to know until someone does it (if they haven't already, this isn't something I follow closely).
There is good content on the web, but the problem as I see it is that it is much harder to separate the wheat from the chaff. Comparing the proliferation of web based magazines with the number of print magazines at their zenith, it is clear that starting a webzine is significantly easier than was starting a print magazine was at its height of popularity, even if you discounted printers, mailing, and other physical requirements that do not exist in the internet world. The significant difference between starting two, I think, is that if you are in print, you need to concoct a way for people to actually pay for what you are selling. How do you do that? You write better than the next guy, you have more authorizative, experienced, or educated writers than the next guy, etc. So I think that when a publication is in print there has been some sort of weeding out process.
The print folks actually compete against each other to some extent because I suspect they presume there is only so much readership money to spread amongst all of them, and more often than not, competition forces people to make a better widget. On the other hand, the e-zines really don't commercially compete against each other because their content is free, and readers can read all of them. I guess they can compete against each other for prestige, but really, at the end of the day, how important is that to them? Enough to actually pay the best, most educated, and experienced writers top dollar? I suspect not.
"their content is free"
Oh, they don't have advertising?
AFAIK the subscription cost mostly helps pay for the distribution expense. Indirectly it probably has a bigger effect in terms of enhancing the revenues from advertising since a population that has pre-paid to read the material is arguably more interested in, and more willing and able to pay for the products advertised.
Rick
The content is free to the reader. And as you stated, there are more advertisements in Stereophile and TAS than there are at most web based publications, and I would imagine the cost of the advertising is higher in the print based magazine, as well. Which tells me where most manufacturers think their money is better spent.
Edits: 02/28/12
As I understand it, advertisers aren't willing to spend as much per reader on web ads as they are on print ones. Maybe they think the print ads have more impact -- an ad next to a column of text, or a two-page spread that a reader has to leaf through, being more effective than a little box or an annoying pop-up. But this has apparently been a problem for newspapers that have tried to shift their presence online. So has the loss of very profitable classified ads to free media like Craigslist.
It still comes down to who is running it. It's not as if corporations are ethically superior to a one man shop - nor is it automatic that a one man show is ethically better than a corporation - then again corporations are never ethical. And if they claim to be - and if one believes it - then I have a bridge to sell you.
As a reviewer at dagogo - I can pretty much review whatever the hell I like from anyone whether they advertise or not is irrelevant since I don't get paid. And since I don't get paid there is zero reason for me personally to choose an advertised product or not.
And other than changing some grammar and spelling - my stuff doesn't get edited. And if that is the case for me it is the case for every other writer.
And it's probably the same at every known magazine print or not. The reviewers themselves have no interest, unless I am naive and missing something, in who is advertising.
An editor can simply ensure he has a writing staff that covers all the audiophile camps - need a LE high power SS reviewer - check. Need a "has to measure great in an anechoic chamber or it's crap" guy - check. Need a couple nutty Tube and SET and HE speakers guys - check. Need a guy who loves to write about classical music - check - need some panel lovers - check - need some younger newer and more technical savvy writers for those new fangled super up converting MP3 flac guys - check. Need a guy who likes rock and pop so the magazine doesn't seem to stodgy - check.
I mean once you have all those people you're pretty much set as a magazine - send of the super Soolos system to the tech head - the SET to the SET guy - the classical recordings to the guy who can sit through Mahler without killing himself and you've got a winning combination.
Magazines don't review gear - PEOPLE review gear. The fact that a bunch of people work under the umbrella of a magazine should not be confused with the reviewer speaking for the magazine.
The magazine is just a shell to house the review staff. And you can see this based on the very different reviewers that the magazines have. The fact that there was a good speaker review doesn't mean that I or another reviewer liked the speaker - it means the one reviewer liked it. You just have to look at what they buy.
I am not suggesting that corporations are ethically superior. I think Doug perhaps misunderstood Mike's point when Doug suggested because print based magazines have a significant web presence they are therefore similar. Mike's point was they have different business models.
Back to my point. Corporations are certainly not ethically superior, but when a corporation owns multiple publications, and their properties have an editorial department and a completely separate advertising department which does not answer to the editorial department, it is not only easier to maintain a brick wall between the two, but also to show the readership that brick wall exists. On the other hand, most, if not all e-zines, are operated by either a person or a very small group of people who generally have their hands in both kettles. There is simply no brick wall between the two at an e-zine. We can debate the merits of each, but we really can't debate the business models. They are what they are. I think your post essentially argues that the two are largely the same on the editorial side of the publication. That is not the issue.
Mike's other point was that because of the e-zine's business model, it is less transparent to the readership in terms of a brick wall between editorial and advertising. I think Mike was simply stating a fact.
I did not suggest that the e-zine's business model necessarily leads to funny business. But it can. Witness what I assume Tone's policy to be, which is if the component pretty much sucks, and there apparently have been several examples of sucky components that have arrived in the mail that they have worked to get non-sucky sound from, it gets sent back to the manufacturer unreviewed with nary a comment to the readership. It should not take a good writer long to put in writing their experiences with the product once they have devoted the hours attempting to getting it to sound good. Assuming this to be the case, there would be a reason Tone would not publish those opinions. I'll not speculate as to the reason. One reason a publication may give is that the bad sound may not reflect the component's sound in another environment. But then would that not also apply to a positive review?
I think Stereophile's policy is different, in that if the manufacturer sends in a product for review, the reviewer plops it in their system, it gets reviewed. Are these editorial differences attributed to their respective business models? Who's to say? But I suspect it makes it easier for JA when talking to a manufacturer that he has nothing to with advertising, can't help ya, that is their job. We just write 'em. I suspect it makes it harder for the editor handling both responsibilities when confronted with an irate manufacturer to pass an issue off when there is no advertising department. JA collects his paycheck regardless.
You may pick your own components to review, but let's say you pick a component you thought would be great and turned out to be a stinker no matter what you did or how hard you worked. Does your editor tell you to submit the review anyway? He may not tell you not to submit the review, but that is not the same thing as telling you to submit the review. I may be wrong here, but I get the impression from JA's writings here and in the magazine that he tells the reviewer to report on everything and submit the review. The reviewer has no choice. If, after the review, there are issues to address, they will do so in a follow-up. The reader knows the story from the time the box was opened to the time it was sent back. The reviewer has no choice.
Again, is that difference attributed to the lack of a brick wall at the e-zine? I dunno. But if there is a brick wall it reduces the speculation. Which may or may not matter to you, but then don't get offended if I use reviews in Stereophile to help me make informed buying decisions whereas I don't with e-zines, or I think Stereophile is more authoritative. That is just me.
Unfortunately, corporations don't have a very good record of keeping editorial and advertising separate. For example, many American magazines wouldn't run news about smoking and cancer back in the 50's because they were heavily dependent on tobacco advertising (Reader's Digest, which refused to accept tobacco advertising, was an exception). And J. Gordon Holt left High Fidelity after being pressured to keep the advertisers happy -- it seems they weren't just upset by negative reviews, but by reviews that praised a competitor's products too highly!So, really, the presence of a firewall depends on the magazine's publisher, just as I suppose it does in the case of an e-zine.
Edits: 02/24/12
I guess I don't even see the reason that so called firewall is really there - what's to stop the head of the advertising department from walking down the hall to the editor and saying "give this a good review or we lose advertising and if we lose advertising you're the one who will be out of a job since you make the most money."
So yeah you have one guy who does it all - or you have two guys who do it all - but the bottom line is still the money. If the advertising keeps the magazine or e-zine afloat then the advertising revenue department is the one in control - there is no real wall there. And if they throw the ole - journalism ethics thing at you - well that's a joke since ethics in journalism has been bankrupt for decades.
I found your comment about praising a competitor too highly really interesting - I never considered that that might in play. All I can say to that is wow.
> So it's not my world view - it's THE world we live in. Money talks.
But that doesn't mean everyone has to listen. I can only assume you are
inadvertently revealing your own worldview. Kind of a dumb thing for a
would-be reviewer to do, IMO.
> Obviously long term survival is more important than immediate profit - but l
> long term survival is still about money since it's money for longer. Japanese
> business model worked better because they looked at 40 years down the
> road not just the next quarter.
You appear to be saying that if being ethical results in a magazine having
better long-term prospects is still an example of money talking. With respect,
you are stretching too far to defend your position. The only people who
would escape your generalization would be St. Francis and Mother Teresa.
> Again I am not saying or implying - if I did I apologize - that you were doing
> anything wrong or that Stereophile was only interested in the dollar - my
> point was merely that simply by virtue of having more than one guy at the
> helm is not automatic proof that it has walls to ensure honesty and ethics.
No, but it is a better guarantor of ethical behavior than when the same
person both writes and/or edits the content and also sells the advertising.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
I agree that in theory more people running different departments is less likely to be unethical - but corporations are all BAD - and they are generally run by many many many people and yet the result is destroying the planet.
If you think it's a stretch that a company would forgo profits in the now to get more profits later then I am puzzled. Corporations are interested in long term financial health and will forgo making a bigger buck today if it could threaten overall profits long term.
Companies have absolutely no interest in being "green" they are only green because that is what the public demands and if they're not seen as green they could go out of business - so they market themselves to be green before their competition does so they will be seen as good guys - and thus will increase sales. It's still about profit not doing it because it's the right thing to do.
A little film to illustrate the point.
"corporations are all BAD"
This is, I think, an over-generalization. I'm not going to romanticize business -- I've seen enough of how it's practiced to know that there are plenty of corporate sharks out there. But there are good people, too, and companies that behave ethically. It depends entirely on who's in charge.
Well, seeing you've all had a good time discussing my magazine and business model, how about we set a few things straight?My good friend Analog Scott, like most other internet pundits, considers me a "dick" because I don't agree with his somewhat limited world view on high end audio. I think most people that spend any time on forums at all will agree that this is pretty common. You either agree with whatever falls out of someone's mouth, or you are labeled "a hater." It's not that I don't like criticism (actually I don't, but then, who does) but I would like criticism that is more intelligent and points out a way to actually improve what we are doing. We've received a bit of that over the years and it has helped tremendously. Besides, none of you will ever be more critical of TONEAudio than I am, so much as you might like to think you're taking a poke at me, I agonize over this way more than you could ever imagine.
I spend a bit of time, perhaps a little too much over at the Steve Hoffman forum, because along with the RMAF, it's pretty much the place we launched TONEAudio almost seven years ago. And to my discredit, perhaps I've gotten a bit too personal there. But hey we've all made a few mistakes.
But like those four or five guys on every forum (and you all know who they are) Scott is someone that goes out of his way to try and challenge everything I post on that forum because for whatever reason that must make him feel special at the end of the day. If that's truly what gets you through the night Scott, good for you. I've seen plenty of people here be equally rude to John Atkinson and I'm sure at some point it's equally annoying. I don't always agree with John, or Robert Harley, and even though I've taken a poke or two at him, on occasion, I've also praised Stereophile on numerous occasion both in my publishers letter and on our blog and Facebook page.
What Scott really failed to understand in my comment about the products returned, was that the mfrs. in question were very small, off the radar companies that I'm sure could never get a review in Stereophile or TAS and when I sent said products back, they said, "you don't even have to review the product, just run our advertising," which I refused to do, because I felt then and still feel now that accepting advertising from a company that I think makes lousy products is still a backhanded endorsement. Again, that's my policy, it doesn't need to be anyone else's.
The lesson here is really that you can't keep everyone happy all the time.
As for all the accusations about the publisher being the same guy selling the ads is well taken and it has been something that has troubled me for years. But, as TONEAudio grew very organically, we did what we had to do to get from point A to point B and do the best job we can. For a little history lesson, if you take a peek at the humble beginnings of TAS and Stereophile, if memory serves me correctly, for the first TEN years, neither of these guys even managed to publish an issue on time and on a consistent basis until they adopted an advertising based business model. So I think considering that we've gone from a six issue year, to an eight issue year and now a ten issue year is pretty impressive.
There's a good reason for that. We started as advertising professionals and my wife (our art director) and I both did our fair share of award winning photography and design for Fortune 500 companies. Stereophile and TAS at their beginnings were hobbyist magazines that have now evolved into successful business enterprises.
I also wrote "professionally" for about 15 print magazines in the photography space before I was hired by Robert Harley to work at TAS in 2004. I wrote six reviews for TAS and we parted company. Editor Wayne Garcia and I never got along and I knew that I would never get the chance to cover the gear I was interested in because that fell to Robert, Jonathan and HP. No gripe, just fact. I didn't want to review $1000 integrated amps for the rest of my life, so I moved on to start TONEAudio.
Unlike Scott and the other internet grumpies, rather than constantly sniping about what Stereophile or TAS are doing wrong, I started my own publication and did it my way. Stereophile and TAS aren't doing anything wrong, we are all different channels on the cable box. I still subscribe to both magazines and enjoy them both. I bought a lot of gear over the years based on their reviews.
Because TONEAudio was started as a business first, we made the conscious decision NOT to produce a print magazine. Even though we spent our entire lives in print production, as early adopters on the hardware and software side of the fence, we knew print was in decline. A number of my closest friends work at the largest advertising agencies in the world and even back in 2004, they all said the same thing, "how can we get out of print, now?"
As a long time enthusiast of print media, that's not the reason we chose to go PDF. I looked extensively at what Stereophile and TAS were charging for advertising and knew that starting a print publication would require two things I DIDN'T want: An investor (we had 1.5 million worth of venture capital that would have backed TONEAudio as a print publication) and we would have had to charge comparable ad rates to TAS and Stereophile, which meant we would have had to operate from a predatory position. I felt the high end audio industry really could not easily support another print magazine, and did not want to be a competitor to them in that way, I wanted to be an addition to the industry. I didn't want advertisers to choose between TAS, Stereophile, or us, I wanted to be another audience for them to reach.
I also wanted a bigger percentage of the magazine to be based on music, which is the reason why I have always owned a great hifi system.
We continue to spend a six figure sum (yes, I pay my writers, photographers and editor) on the music section of TONEAudio with no advertising support, because that's the way I wanted to produce the magazine, and judging from the circulation we enjoy and the enthusiastic feedback from our readers, we're on to something. Not having to print and ship 90,000 magazines every month frees up the $$ for other things.
While we started the magazine with a skeleton crew, today we employ three full time people and 20 freelancers. While I don't know what my competitors payroll is, I'd be willing to bet if we got together at the end of the day and compared 1099 forms, our numbers would probably be pretty close.
Which leads us to the last item on Scott's list, the separation of church and state. I have always envied John's sales staff, and the fact that he doesn't really have to deal with that side of the equation. Thankfully, as of Dec 1., 2011, I no longer have that problem. We have hired Christina Yuin, a seasoned industry veteran that helped HP sell ads a number of years ago, and she also worked for Primedia (Stereophile's former owner). That was like having a gigantic tumor removed and I must say that made this year's CES the best ever, because I didn't have to sit in a single meeting that was advertising related. While I'm glad I don't have to work that side of the fence, I hardly doubt it will change our editorial all that much. We will still continue to review gear that we find intriguing and send back the stuff we think isn't up to snuff.
That's my policy and I'm sticking to it.
Interestingly enough, Paul Messenger's publication, HiFi Critic (Which I think is excellent, by the way) does not accept advertising at all. Yet on a number of products that we've both reviewed, we've pretty much drawn the same conclusions on the sound of said pieces of gear, the Conrad Johnson ACT II/series 2 and the Premier 350, a perfect example of this. So, my question to the Scotts of the world, is that if we are so tainted by advertising dollars, how can this be?
As Paul has said on occasion, "hifi is in your blood," and I couldn't agree more. With the ubiquitous nature of the internet and message boards, if any of us in the media consistently wrote the trumped up reviews you all accuse us of, it wouldn't serve the manufacturers that advertise with us and it certainly wouldn't help you the reader and enthusiast.
I'm reminded by the viewing of the 500th episode of the Simpsons, where it says, "please take a minute to go outside, before you get on the internet to tell everyone how much this episode sucked."
So, in closing if you don't like TONEAudio, don't read it. No one is holding a gun to your head. It's just hifi. We aren't causing or curing cancer - the damn thing is free if you want to receive it that way. If you've learned something, found a few new good records to listen to, or even laughed at the cartoon, (and in case you haven't noticed, our cartoonist, Liza Donnelly has been a staffer at The New Yorker for over 20 years and is one of the world's most prominent female cartoonists) then we've done our job. Personally, I tell all of my readers and friends that they should read EVERYTHING before they start to shop for hifi and plunk down their hard earned cash on any of this stuff.
If you don't like me or you don't like our approach, I can live with that too.
But don't tell me what I've spent the last 7 years of my life producing is a piece of crap, because it isn't. For every one of the incredibly mean spirited people like Scott that I've met in the world of cyberspace, I pose two challenges: A - I'd love to see you talk that rudely to me directly to my face and B - I would love for you to submit to me what you do for a living, so that I could make equally snarky and dismissive comments about your work. I'm guessing you'd chicken out.
And if you want to know something about the magazine, the staff, how it's run or what my business model is, call me before you start spouting garbage on the internet. Anyone that knows me, knows that I am very transparent and will pretty much tell you anything you want to know. But that's the first rule of journalism, isn't it? Go to the source.
For anyone that's read all of this, I thank you for letting me vent.
Publisher, TONEAudio Magazine
Edits: 02/25/12
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "I felt then and still feel now that accepting advertising from a company that I think makes lousy products is still a backhanded endorsement. Again, that's my policy, it doesn't need to be anyone else's. < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < <"
I like that policy! There was a high end dealer in Vancouver that went out of business but before they did they began selling Bose. I overheard the sales people recommending them right out of the gate - this was their death rattle because they basically sold out to get the profit margin.
I think that what you put on your site represents you and if you advertise what you can say you support then that is a fine upstanding policy to have.
I believe you cleared this up quite well. I think I'll have a look at your site.
yes let's get a few things straight."My good friend Analog Scott, like most other internet pundits, considers me a "dick" because I don't agree with his somewhat limited world view on high end audio."
No, i think you are a dick because of your perosnality. You are rude and arogant and you start fights for no good reason. That makes you a dick IMO. There are any number of people out there that don't share my views on high end audio that are polite and considerate. Complete gentlemen. I don't think those people are dicks at all.
" It's not that I don't like criticism (actually I don't, but then, who does) but I would like criticism that is more intelligent and points out a way to actually improve what we are doing."Actually when you were given intelegent criticism on your review of AP's reissue of Cat Steven's Tea for the Tillerman you pretty much acted like a complete dick.
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=260957&highlight=cat+stevens+tea+for+the+tillerman
"Scott is someone that goes out of his way to try and challenge everything I post on that forum because for whatever reason that must make him feel special at the end of the day."that is just complete bullshit. And of course when one makes up bullshit about other people they are being a dick.
"Unlike Scott and the other internet grumpies, rather than constantly sniping about what Stereophile or TAS are doing wrong, I started my own publication and did it my way."There you go again just makin shit up. Please show us where I constantly snip about what Stereophile or TAS are doing wrong. Again, One of the reasons I think you are a dick is becuase you make shit up like this.
"If you don't like me or you don't like our approach, I can live with that too. But don't tell me what I've spent the last 7 years of my life producing is a piece of crap, because it isn't."Is it not clear that when I say I think you are a dick that is an expression of dislike towards you? So you can live with that right? And do you understand that when I say I think you are a hack it is an opinion I have of your writing skills and is based on reading a review you wrote? Again, it is an opinion I get to have. Doesn't matter whether or not you agree with it.
"I pose two challenges: A - I'd love to see you talk that rudely to me directly to my face"Rest assured that if we met and you were as rude to me in person as you are on line I would treat you no differently in person as I do on line.
"B - I would love for you to submit to me what you do for a living, so that I could make equally snarky and dismissive comments about your work. I'm guessing you'd chicken out."You are guessing I'd chicken out? That's a laugh. You know who I am and you know what I do for a living. If you want, feel free to start a thread on either forum and make all the snarky and dismissive comments you like about my work. I could not care less. OTOH I will step in and correct any factual errors. And I will certainly correct you when you misrepresent my motives as you have done in your post. So go ahead snark away.
Edits: 02/26/12
After reading TonePub's and AnalogueScott's reply it's pretty apparent who came off looking reasonable and who really is the "dick", or more applicable, the whiny-ass.
Love the "I will step in and correct..."
Well, that's enough fun for one weekend.
I think the folks at AA have better things to do with their lives than read another bitch fest. I said my peace, I'm done.
Publisher, TONEAudio Magazine
"I think the folks at AA have better things to do with their lives than read another bitch fest."
You may be overstepping your purview. :^)
But why bring your fight on that forum over to Audioasylum? If you know he posts there why not keep it there.
His explanation on this particular individual matter sending the product back and not allowing the company to advertise on his site because that is in essence a form or "support" or "recommendation" is a wholly acceptable policy in my view.
And c'mon - reviewers typically tend to feel they're right that's probably why they became reviewers.
Unfortunately, for those of us with Lit degrees (or any degree where essay writing is a main focus) we are practically trained to write in a persuasive - "This is a fact" style - none of those "In My Opinion" styled sentences allowed.
And it doesn't bother me to be called a Dick.
cheers,
Richard George Austen (RGA) :-)
"And c'mon - reviewers typically tend to feel they're right that's probably why they became reviewers."
I think there's a lot to that--same with music reviewers. At least you show some self knowledge about it.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
"His explanation on this particular individual matter sending the product back and not allowing the company to advertise on his site because that is in essence a form or "support" or "recommendation" is a wholly acceptable policy in my view."
That is fine. Of course he is just now explaining that. But the question I asked here was about accepting products for review that have an attached promise of advertising. I asked that question because I thought it was a legitimate question to what sounded like a real world problem that any editor might face.
Clearly that question has sparked some discussion
agreed - if a review magazine only reviews because they are going to get money then there is a serious problem.
JA has had to defend those attacks as well and then has to put out statistics to show how many non advertisers get reviewed vs advertisers.
Those issues I'm sure will always be brought up if you accept advertising of any kind. But if you don't accept advertising then how do you make any money? I mean if I am going to quit my day job to do it full time I need to make a living - if I run a website I am going to need advertising - and a lot of it - to be able to run the e-zine or print magazine.
I think it's a reality - and if you're a one person outfit like the Tone fellow then you have to do it all - at least to get it started.
I don't think there is any way around it - at least for the first several years unless you become big.
UHF magazine is a print magazine and there are lots of companies out there that will not send them anything - Arcam for years refused to since they gave a product a bad review.
The problem though is that UHF loses Arcam but other big companies that know about UHF won't send them anything - which is why you never see Paradigm or B&W - their advice columns have poo pooed them in the past.
So companies would rather send their gear to more sure bet publications. The companies that send to UHF tend to be smaller outfits who need to take the chance because they don't have the dealer network required by big magazines like Stereophile.
On the flip side a good review could mean a bit more because of the fact that they rip stuff - then when they do like something the review stands out more. No one need read between the lines to figure out how much the reviewer "really" liked it.
Unfortunately it means they don't get a lot of products to review because many companies will just avoid those publications.
Why should a big successful company put send them equipment to review?
Whether they give negative reviews or not is a complete red herring unless they have a reliable means of evaluating equipment.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
"Why should a big successful company put send them equipment to review?"
Big successful companies do send them stuff. Hello Bryston. The truth is that review publications have reviewers who can generally get most anything they want. Manufacturers will always take another review - it's cheap marketing - the more the better. It may be UHF doesn't want them - judging by their comment sections B&W isn't reviewed because they don't like the sound of them. UHF, I believe, has also mentioned that they'd be happy to borrow speakers for review - thus not going through a dealer and reviewing products whether the manufacturer wants it reviewed or not. And they can certainly do that with a purchased loudspeaker.
And the e-zines get the big boys Dagogo recently review B&W and it doesn't get bigger than them in hi-fi speaker brands. And we're not a print magazine nor do we measure equipment (if that's what you mean by reliable - UHF does do that - even if just a little).
"His explanation on this particular individual matter sending the product back and not allowing the company to advertise on his site because that is in essence a form or "support" or "recommendation" is a wholly acceptable policy in my view."
I can't imagine why anyone would have an issue here. One would think Tone whatever magazine would be applauded for that policy.
Your last sentence is laughable.
> > > my point was merely that simply by virtue of having more than one guy at
> > > the helm is not automatic proof that it has walls to ensure honesty and
> > > ethics.
> >
> > No, but it is a better guarantor of ethical behavior than when the same
> > person both writes and/or edits the content and also sells the advertising.
>
> Your last sentence is laughable.
I don't see why? When the same person both writes and edits reviews and
sells advertising, then the conflict of interest is internal. His optimal behavior
as editor is in immediate conflict with his optimal behavior as as an ad
salesman. By contrast, at a traditional magazine with a "Chinese Wall"
between the editorial and advertising departments, the conflict between the
optimal behaviors is externalized, involves different people. Thus when the
editor has to make a decision that affects the advertising, while the publisher
or ad director may shout and curse at the editor, they don't outrank the editor
within the corporation and cannot force him to rescind that decision.
Do you really not comprehend the difference between these two situations?
I wrote about this in the article linked below. From that article: "A newspaper
can flout an advertiser...but if it alienates the buying public, it loses the one
indispensable asset of its existence."—Walter Lippman
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
But John - Is the reviewer also not a firewall? An Editor corrects spelling and grammar and ensures factual content. And puts the page together in a somewhat attractive way.
But I as the review know what I wrote because I have the original copy. If that's not what it looks like when it gets printed to the website then I am the check or balance on the editor as well, no?
And if a reviewer can be in cahoots with an editor then why can't the advertising exec be in cahoots with the editor too?
I suppose it depends on what job the editor is doing. If the editor is choosing the gear that is reviewed and ALSO is in charge of the advertising then I fully agree with you - they should be separate bodies because the editor could simply choose to review manufacturers that are sending money.
But the editor in my case does not choose the gear I review - I do. The editor does not tell us what to review or from whom. I think that is the difference between a print magazine - you have to choose what goes into an issue - a magazine has a limited space in an issue and a limited number of issues in a year (and the issues have to be somewhat consistent). So you have to make a call as to what will fit. Maybe you have to make other calls such as - we need to have a truntable reviewed because it's been a while or we need to do more CD players, or less speakers etc.
A Website (E-zine) can have 50 reviews in a week or 3 in two months. So there is no decision needed as to having to "make a call" on which products will be reviewed because space is practically limitless. And consistency is less important since it's free to view - people are not expecting to get a review by the 12th of each month on classical recordings, or speakers.
The "ad firewall" is a short chain-link fence but in no way a complete solution. I would bet regularly in JA's time at the head of Stereophile that while attending the various shows manufacturers have in the conversation about reviewing one of their pieces of gear mentioned wanting to advertise. No firewall can stop that. Nor can a phone/email conversation about a piece of gear arriving safely or background/technical questions about the gear prevent the manufacturer from tossing in a statement inquiring about advertising costs.
One job of a publisher I assume is to act as a gatekeeper, especially if review products come to them first for a look-over before being distributed for review. If the product doesn't meet a base level of quality standard it should be sent back. In the case of Tone, it is obvious the publisher reviews gear (much like JA). It seems perfectly reasonable to me that a time frame be allowed to exist for basic capability checking before switching over to the review time.
The original purpose of this thread as I see it is a crying out in a further attempt at nanny-stating the audio community. Instead of expecting to be spoon feed the information the OP should go proactive and research. The world of information is at one's fingertips, and within a month or so of release any product is going to have a Google list.
> I would bet regularly in JA's time at the head of Stereophile that while
> attending the various shows manufacturers have in the conversation about
> reviewing one of their pieces of gear mentioned wanting to advertise. No
> firewall can stop that.
No, but I refuse to discuss advertising in such situations.
> Nor can a phone/email conversation about a piece of gear arriving safely or
> background/technical questions about the gear prevent the manufacturer
> from tossing in a statement inquiring about advertising costs.
Of course, but I always refuse to answer, and refer them to one of the
magazine's three ad reps and/or its publisher.
> One job of a publisher I assume is to act as a gatekeeper, especially if
> review products come to them first for a look-over before being distributed
> for review.
If you mean the person who is the publisher, then no, that person in a
traditional print-based venture is responsible for the business activities and
the advertising; it is the editor who decides what should be reviewed and
sets the magazine's policies about reviews..
> If the product doesn't meet a base level of quality standard it should be
> sent back.
This is plain wrong, in that it is putting that manufacturer's interest ahead of
those of the magazine's readers, by protecting him from criticism. At
Stereophile, as I said in the essay I linked to earlier in this thread, once we
have received a sample for review, the review always appears in print.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
From what I've seen, whether a magazine has a real firewall or not depends entirely on the publishers. Stereo Review and High Fidelity obviously didn't, and I'm guessing they were representative of the majority of publications at the time. But I mentioned the Reader's Digest, which rejected tobacco ads and campaigned against tobacco use. I remember too the New York Times having ads withdrawn when it ran some kind of article that the drug industry found unflattering. So there are always some publications that act with integrity.
Consumer Reports and even Mad Magazine refused advertising. Before we laugh -- would we kids have had those great fake ads skewering Madison Avenue falsehoods if they hadn't? Both Stereophile and TAS were ad-free when they started. Not only did it remove one avenue of potential bias and pressure, it makes that clear to the readers who otherwise have no way of distinguishing between an honest and dishonest publication. Sure, the magazines were expensive then, but if you're spending thousands on equipment, that seems a minor expense.
Of course, that doesn't remove other possible sources of bias, not the least of which is that if a product isn't getting good reviews the manufacturer can withhold review samples. So a manufacturer can cherry-pick reviewers who like his product, sending horns to the horn-lover, SET's to the SET-lover, etc. Sure, if you read every show report and forum post you'll learn that this product wasn't reviewed because the manufacturer wouldn't provide a sample, that one because it wasn't very good, a third one because there were just too many products to review them all. But most readers don't have the time to do that.
I think there are several issues at play with what is ethical and what isn't. And I think you have to consider the manufacturer here as well since there are people's jobs on the line if a bad review comes out. Yes reader's come first but there does need to be serious consideration for the manufacturer end of things. After all there could be reviewers out there who will deliberately go after some company because he has a personal vendetta against someone.
So looking at the review process from the manufacturer point of view - well they are only going to send something for review if they think it will benefit them in some way - it's free advertising (well cost of shipping). Would they want to cherry pick - of course but logically it only makes sense.
You don't send your horn speaker to the panel reviewer who has publicly stated that he hates horns. That does a disservice to both the manufacturer and the reader - the reader should want the Horn/SET gear sent to the HORN/SET lover because I as a Horn/SET guy want to know that the reviewer has good ears (LOL) and that he can tell me how good it is in the field of Horn/SET or how it stacks up in the value for the dollar department. Having the guy who hates the technology say he hates them doesn't help me and only serves to hurt the manufacturer's employees and dealers.
As for your arguments about no advertising - I agree with you fully - the best way to remove bias (certainly perception of bias) is removed. If you don't take any money and refuse to you are illustrating that you can't be bought. Of course that doesn't really stop a company from saying - I'll give you $10,000 in cash to give us a great review - hush hush wink wink nudge nudge.
Although I suppose if this was rampant we'd see a lot more pro BOSE reviews since they have enough money and they love marketing so...
Ultimately what I am saying is there is a difference between the "perception of integrity" and really having integrity. If someone is willing to be bought they can be bought.
Still I would consider what I said before - a print magazine can not survive without advertising dollars. The advertising price tag is very high for manufacturers - their survival depends upon it. I don't think you can say that about the online magazines.
Now I am talking a bit out my arse here since I've never run a website but I can't imagine the dollars to be very high - not high enough to be "buy" the editor.
And isn't the check also the reviewer? The reviewer is on the front line - if the editor changes it drastically then the reviewer can call him on it no? The editor can also serve as a check on his reviewers.
I use my magazine as an example - basically I am told - go review whatever you like. Until this thread I had no clue who advertised on our website (heck I get targeted audio ads when I go to Yahoo so there is probably some cookie that knows what I look at and targets me - I've tuned out the side bar adverts
Anyway on the front page it's all stuff I'll never be able to afford - Acapella speakers $80 grand LOL - and that's a cheap speaker for them. Ypsilon, Bergman, Einstein - Maybe I could afford Ayon. I don't even know if I've heard an Ayon.
What I would like to see at all magazines is a very clear code of ethics in writing and an explanation of policy. Manufacturers and dealers and consumers can see it right there in print. If the policy at Tone is that they will send something back if it sounds bad and won't review the item then it has to be explained why that decision was made. At least then you know what their policy is even if you don't agree with their policy.
Bottom line - trust yourself. People don't give themselves enough credit for trusting their own ears. That way you can read the reviews as pure entertainment.
I don't blame manufacturers for not sending products to reviewers that don't like their product. After all, it's an expense, and who would want to spend the money to send out a product only to damage sales?
That, however, doesn't serve the reader very well. So I think complete reliance on manufacturer samples is problematic. But this I think is an issue for the magazines rather than the companies.
BTW, I suspect that editors aren't likely to direct equipment to reviewers who don't have an affinity for it, and reviewers don't seem eager to review components about which they aren't enthusiastic. That last makes sense to me, insofar as it goes -- who wants to waste time and space reviewing a product that the reader isn't going to want -- but I do think negative impressions should be reported, since otherwise it's hard for a reader to know what wasn't covered because it was bad or for one of many other reasons.
Agree with you that magazines should make their policies available in print. John Atkinson wrote an article detailing some of Stereophile's policies. This would have the effect of increasing reader confidence in the magazine, unless, of course, the policies were ethically questionable, in which case I doubt the magazine would print them.
I see reviews as more than entertainment, BTW. Like many, I no longer live near a major dealer so don't have much of an opportunity to hear new stuff. If I were contemplating a major purchase, I'd make a trip, but I'd want a short list of products to listen to. And some people don't even have that option anymore, or don't have a chance to listen to an item that their local dealer doesn't carry. Also, I think that a review can be useful even if you do get to hear a product at a dealer's, because critics listen at length, under conditions that more closely reflect the conditions at home. So buying something on the basis of what you hear at the dealer's is something of a crapshoot, and a show even more so, given the vagaries of show sound. I also find that I get a sense over time of which critics hear the same things I do and have tastes that are similar to my own. I'd say my experience has been about 50-50, in that whether I took the recommendation of a critic I trusted (I bought my Tympani 1-D's used without ever having heard them, and they were my best audio purchase ever) or listened at a dealer's about half of the things I've brought home were successful purchases. That's far better than chance, and I think the best that can be achieved unless you can arrange a home trial.
I tend to shy away somewhat on talking too much about gear that I like and what it doesn't do well. I am a "big picture" guy and I want a speaker or product that overall sounds "right."
People seem to often keyhole on the 1-2 negative comments and ride those when debating the merits of the speakers. I don't know how many Audio Note E debates I've been in and some putz will bring up that Art Said -the left hand on the piano was a little strong - as if reason enough to write the thing off. When I consider that his other speaker is a Quad (which doesn't have enough left hand on the piano) then such comparison need to be in play. Regardless big picture was it was good enough at the price range to buy em - which should tell you something.
Stuff I really like I don't want to have thrown up as the reason someone discounts the speaker - or worse they read a graph. Plenty of fine measuring speakers in Stereophile's class A rating list sound utterly dreadful in the real world - every room I've tried them in regardless of what is driving them. You take the ten best subjective speakers - THEN after you have heard the ten and deemed them best ONLY THEN do you look at the measurements - what those measurements say is what is "the best measurements."
When I audition a speaker, I'm focused on the big picture as well. Namely, does it sound like real live music. Comparing it to my auditory memory of real live music.
However, it doesn't take long before I start noticing specific aspects of the sound -- is it detailed, is it peaky, how does it image, etc. These are the kind of thing that, in concert, determine whether the speaker will sound realistic or not. And I think it makes sense for a reviewer to report these aspects of the sound, so the reader can better determine whether the speaker might be of interest to him, what its special qualifications are, etc. Forex, if a critic says "Speaker X is wonderful in most respects, but a bit bass shy," and you happen to be a bass freak, you're probably going to want to look elsewhere.
Measurements are dangerous. I grew up in the High Fidelity/Stereo Review era, and as a teenager, really thought that great-looking response curves and distortion pictures told you everything you need to know about the sound. Then, as I heard a broader range of equipment, I realized that that wasn't so. Typical measurement suites are partial, and it can be difficult to correlate the measurements with what we hear, e.g., we're more sensitive to broad low Q peaks than narrow high Q ones, and there's research that tells us how sensitive, but how do you apply that to a frequency response curve? Still, with experience, I find that the measurements, and the overall speaker design, can tell me a lot about a speaker even before I hear it. There's a stat sound, a horn sound, a ribbon sound, a mini-monitor sound, etc., and while speakers of course vary sonically within their categories, they tend to share certain family characteristics as well, because of basic constraints of practical design. You can also see design flaws and good design -- if a manufacturer departs from good practice in one aspect, he's likely to do so in another. And you can tell a lot from the measurements, though it requires I think a fair amount of experience to do so. For example, what does diaphragm self-noise look like, and sound like? Metal cone breakup? Standing waves in mylar? Arguably, two waterfall plots that look comparable to the eye will sound completely different to the ear, depending on the harmonic (or aharmonic) relationship of the resonances, their Q, etc. The mylar resonances in electrostatics don't even sound the same as the mylar resonances in planar speakers. The more experience you have, the better you can make those distinctions.
In one regard, I think, measurements are invaluable: they keep us honest. In their absence, you chase your tail. There's too much of that in audio, producers who listen to the mix on a crappy little Auratone because it better suits the lousy equipment they think their customers will have, rather than just making a good recording and leaving it to the consumer electronics people to improve their gear. They can also tell me whether the reviewer is overlooking something that would almost certainly bother me, like certain response aberrations -- but again, you have to have the experience to know that ruler-flat response isn't always desirable, and that one meter and on-axis measurements don't necessarily correspond to what you'll hear in your listening chair.
"And I think you have to consider the manufacturer here as well since there are people's jobs on the line if a bad review comes out."
You do? If the manufacturer makes an expensive boat anchor, let's say a product that does not work, never mind the sound, then why should you or any reviewer care about that manufacturer continuing to make money off consumers by selling them a bad product? As a reviewer, you are in a position to live with a product for several months, certainly more time than a consumer lives with a product before learning a design may be faulty. If you are as a reviewer have a component that blows up every three months, then you have a responsibility to inform the reader - regardless of how it effects the manufacturer.
Yes but has that ever happened?
And when it does happen it will get reported by the reviewer and the magazine.
I own a Cambridge Audio CD 6 CD player. This model was reported by a lot of people as having QC issues. I have owned this player since 1996 and it operates flawlessly to this day - If I reviewed it then or now I would tell the world how great this thing was and how overbuilt it was for a sub $1k CD player.
If I got the lemon then I would report that too but in reality neither is particularly true - in order to really comment you would need statistics - this player broke down at a 10% rate within the first 5 years versus a competitor that broke down at a 2% clip.
A reviewer is responsible to review the product given to him for review - if it fails get another one (but say that in the review) From time to time I have read such reviews where a second unit had to be sent.
John Valin recently raved about the sound of technical brain amps but he noted that while the sound was first rate he could not recommend them due to their 100% failure rate or some such disastrous high failure rate.
That is a different thing than sound quality however. There is a hugely popular speaker out there right now that I find to be the worst above $10k loudspeaker that I have ever heard by anyone ever. I think it sounds like shit. But it's built well enough.
How does that review help anyone? - pisses off the fans. The people who agree with me already buy other things and would never own the thing anyway. It could in theory hurt the companies business.
The thing has received numerous glowing reviews that I shake my head at - even the dealer that sells the speaker doesn't love them.
This speaker has done very well in TAS and Stereophile so what should I do? Should I get one home and review it and pan it or just let it go?
I simply chalk it up to the fact that that sound is not my cup of tea but obviously there is a massive fanbase that thinks otherwise and they are built well.
I do not agree with what Tone did - if this is what you're wondering - if a maker sends something to be reviewed and no one liked it then someone should write something to say why - even if it's a half review or two paragraphs stating the reason we sent it back.
Manufacturer X sent us an amplifier however we sent the product back because it had a continuous hum that we could not get rid or. Or it sounded out of phase or whatever the reasons. But readers should know about it - so I do agree with you in those cases.
I dunno, I've learned from negative reviews of products that I happen to like. Sometimes the reviewer confirms a sonic flaw with which I'm familiar. Sometimes he mentions something of which I was unaware, or quantifies it.
> If the advertising keeps the magazine or e-zine afloat then the advertising
> revenue department is the one in control - there is no real wall there.
In your world, perhaps, RGA, but not necessarily in the real world. Every
month an editor, if he is worth his salary, will need to make editorial decisions
that result in ad dollars being left on the table. Long term, those decisions
help the publication survive. See my mentor the late John Crabbe's
comments on this subject in paragraphs 6 and 7 at the link below.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
I wasn't attacking you or Stereophile just making a point that whether it is ONE person or TWO - which is the debate in this thread makes very little difference.
Even the link you posted - I agree that having a good magazine increases readership which increases who will want to advertise.
But it still comes down to ethics - One guy can be ethical and run the entire show ethically - just as easily as it could be for two guys to be unethical in tandem but put on the "perception" of being ethical.
Plenty of people at Ford got together to cover up hide or ignore the fact that they would rather let people die from rear end explosions and pay court costs - that wasn't one bad guy - that was a bunch of bad guys.
Studying several of the biggest most respected Newspapers in the U.S. as part of my history degree and their so-called News reports during WWII were laughable - it took more than one person to put out some of those lies. And Fox News is allowed to be called News.
So it's not my world view - it's THE world we live in. Money talks.
Obviously long term survival is more important than immediate profit - but long term survival is still about money since it's money for longer. Japanese business model worked better because they looked at 40 years down the road not just the next quarter.
Again I am not saying or implying - if I did I apologize - that you were doing anything wrong or that Stereophile was only interested in the dollar - my point was merely that simply by virtue of having more than one guy at the helm is not automatic proof that it has walls to ensure honesty and ethics.
I'd rather assume they're honest and are genuinely into this for the right reasons until such time as they are proven guilty.
I see what you're saying but on the flip side - review dollars to run a website is far far lower than review dollars need to keep a print magazine afloat. Indeed, I have a personal blog - zero advertising and it is completely free to operate.
I could certain accept advertising to make some money on it but I certainly would not need to in order for the blog to survive. Print magazines losing a major advertiser and not being able to replace it might find themselves in a spot of trouble.
So they have to push the notion of a Brick wall between advertising and their review staff because they arguably have a bigger issue because they NEED the advertising for their very survival.
I can't address what might happen if I hated something what our magazine would do about that as it hasn't happened to me yet. But I will ask about this just in case because I agree with you - we can't ignore or try to hide something if it turns out bad.
The only thing I could see from our magazine was the following where the reviewer liked a CD player but later found issues with it and then made an addendum to the review as follows.
> I get the impression from JA's writings here and in the magazine that he
> tells the reviewer to report on everything and submit the review. The
> reviewer has no choice. If, after the review, there are issues to address,
> they will do so in a follow-up. The reader knows the story from the time
> the box was opened to the time it was sent back. The reviewer has no
> choice.
That's exactly the case. But we do try not to select products for review
that from our experience at shows etc are going to be dogs.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Back to Analog Scott's point-of-view:
I see NOTHING wrong in Tone's approach to returning a poor performing product. Why should any reviewer waste 2-3 months with something that totally sucks. Then, spend time writing about how bad it is. With the plethora of review websites and forums, it's pretty hard not find opinions on any piece of gear produced. Personally, the fact that Tone walked away from advertising $$ instead of doing a short vague review shows me a high level of integrity.
JA's comments are telling:
"But we do try not to select products for review that from our experience at shows etc are going to be dogs."
I enjoy Tone tremendously and find it without peer as a digital-based publication. Visually, it spectacular to look at, easy on the eyes for reading unlike Stereophile's e-version which is brutal (sorry JA). The photography is top notch and the fact that the publisher is a music fan first and puts emphasis on live shows and album reviews. Equipment reviews sans measurements are just as valuable as anything TAS or Stereophile (I subscribe to all three) offers and without some of the pretentiousness that can be found elsewhere.
Why should any reviewer waste 2-3 months with something that totally sucks."
To inform the readers of a bad product. Finding what we like goes hand in hand with avoiding what we don't like. If a product kind of sucks it is reported as such. Why would want to be kept in the dark about products that totally suck? Would you rather waste your personal time finding that out the hard way?
I, too, was struck by the editor's comment that bad products are not reported on (that is, reviewed). When a movie critic sees a bad movie, or a music critic hears a bad performance, they don't stay silent about it, they tell us. They report on the full range of what they review -- isn't that kind of the point? And doesn't it give the readers the most useful service?
While I sort of agree with this - isn't that what forums are for? I am a reviewer and I often state what I don't like as do publications.
Everyone whined and moaned that Stereophile never gave bad reviews - and then when they hinted at mediocrity with a Bryston and Totem then they get slammed because the reviewer was less experienced or some other endless bunch of reasons for being unfair to the product.
No one goes out of their way to go after something. There is stuff I don't like - and I will tell you that on a forum - but I am not going to bring it in for review to go after it.
And really it depends what it is. If it is some small "who are they" companies and you dump on it you're not really doing anything since nobody is likely going to audition it. If it's a big maker from well known brands you will get attacked for being a hack reviewer. People only want the negative review if it is a negative review of something that they don't own.
> > No one goes out of their way to go after something. There is stuff I don't like - and I will tell you that on a forum - but I am not going to bring it in for review to go after it.> >
But once it is brought in and the process has started it seems that burying the review is a disservice to the readers.
"But once it is brought in and the process has started it seems that burying the review is a disservice to the readers."
Agreed.
Frankly 4/5 of the stuff out there that I have heard that get raves I wonder about. I think to myself "wow they really had to reach to find something good to say about it."
It's no so much that the magazine sent the bad unit back without a review (though they should not have) - what is more worrisome is reviewing it positively when deep down they know it's rubbish. Or just as bad - not knowing it's rubbish when it clearly is.
...can separate the equipment procurement for review/editorial side with the advertising sales side of the business.
It takes at least two people who work independently of each other.
And I don't mean to malign the ezines - I don't read them so I am unfamiliar with how they handle this ethical issue.
...isn't he also saying that if a product is dreadful, he won't review it? In what way is that a benefit to readers?
I'm not trying to play down the apparent ad/coverage link. Just pointing out another issue I perceive here.
Making no judgment about this publication, which I barely know. I'm merely expressing an opinion on the the information offered here.
Jim
I'm not questioning having concerns while reviewing a product from a known litigious company. Especially one having as deep a money pocket as Bose does. (see link to Speaker Asylum below).
However, the more I've thought about the issue, I'm conflicted. While I still feel that saying nothing if a product is "God awful" (Tone's words) is spineless, I'm wondering if Tone even admitting that's their policy shows more backbone than some other review sources might display.
I called him on that issue as well. In fact it was the jist of my questioning in that thread. The potential conflict of interest issue kinda just popped up out of the blue.
> I wonder what an editor does when they are offered a product for review with
> an "attached" promise of advertising.
To be honest, I cannot remember an instance where something this explicit
has been said by someone offering me a product for review. There was a
recent instance where someone appeared to be connecting potential
advertising with future show coverage, but that may have been ambiguous
wording. I gave that manufacturer the benefit of the doubt.
> If accepting such a product for review is a conflict of interest how does an
> editor navigate this?
I have been approached several times by a new company wanting to know
a) how do they submit a product for review? and b) who should they talk to
about advertising? I don't believe in these cases that they are tying the two
questions together. I forward the second question to the advertising side of
the magazine and answer the first question by linking to my policies at the
URL below.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Well, congrats on the long stay & hope it continues to work well for you!
> congrats on the long stay & hope it continues to work well for you!
Thanks. 26 years at Stereophile on May 1. 30 years on October 2 since I
became editor of Hi-Fi News and 36 years on September 6 since I joined that
magazine. Now _I_ feel old!
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
55 here....and I don't have a clue where the time went.
I met you a couple of times back in the early to mid 90's when I covered shows for Soundstage!. Though the hair's a little grayer (mine too), your spirit and tenacity sound every bit as strong.
Wasn't it just the other day our computers were supposed to blow up on New Years Eve at the turn of the century?
See ya. Dave
Since it has never actually so explicitely happened I guess the question is what would you do if it did happen? How do you navigate that?
> Since it has never actually so explicitely happened I guess the question is
> what would you do if it did happen? How do you navigate that?
I guess I would explain that whether we decided to review the product or not
would in no way have any connection with any purchase of advertising. I
wouldn't make a big deal over it.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
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:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
