Critic's Corner

Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry.

Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.
You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.

You must login to use this feature.

Inmate Login

By default, logging in will set a session cookie that disappears when you close your browser. Clicking on the 'Remember my Moniker & Password' below will cause a permanent 'Login Cookie' to be set.

Moniker/Username: The Name that you picked or by default, your email. Forgot Moniker?	Examples "Rapper", "Bob W", "joe@aol.com".
Password:	Forgot Password?
	Remember my Moniker & Password ( What's this?)

If you don't have an Asylum Account, you can create one by clicking Here.

Our privacy policy can be reviewed by clicking Here.

Inmate Comments

From:
Your Email:
Subject:

Message Comments

Original Message

RE: A tad on the holier than thou side IMO.

Posted by John Atkinson on May 22, 2016 at 12:34:21:
>Are you insinuating that companies that agree to buy an ad on 6 Moons
>under Srajan's conditions for a review are all complicit in corrupting
>the review process?
I am not insinuating anything. What I am saying is that readers should be
skeptical of _all_ magazines/webzines that accept advertising.They should
compare a site like 6 Moons, where only products from advertisers are
reviewed and Stereophile where only around half the products reviewed are
from advertisers and think about what the likelihood of advertising
corrupting the review process will be in both cases. You are free to make
up your own mind, of course,
>As far as I can tell, "pay for play" has made no difference to the
>conclusions of reviews at 6 Moons.
And you are free to think that.
>Pan 2 or 3 products from a company and they'll likely stop advertising
>in your mag.
Of course, But such advertisers almost always come back. You leave money
on the table in the short term to ensure you will still be around in the
long term. All my publishers over the years have understood that, which
is why I am now in my 31st year of editing Stereophile.
As my mentor John Crabbe, who edited Hi-Fi News from 1964 to 1982, put it
(see link below): "If you tell the truth about components you review,
there will always be a small percentage of companies at any one time who
are not advertising in your pages. But if you publish the truth, you will
have a good magazine. And if you have a good magazine, you will have
readers. And as long as you have readers, disgruntled advertisers will
eventually return. But if you don't tell the truth, you won't have a good
magazine. And if you don't have a good magazine, you won't have readers,
at least not for long. And if you don't have readers, you won't have
advertisers."
>IIRC your own wife is in charge of ads for S'phile but we shouldn't be
>concerned according to you due to your impenetrable "Chinese wall".
Again you are free to think what you like, but please note that my wife
retired at the end of 2015.