|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
24.253.53.141
In Reply to: Re: Sterophile Reviewing Policy posted by John Atkinson on February 17, 2007 at 04:31:23:
I worked in a place that had limited fulfillment abilities, so our owner instituted a "rule" that he would not sell more of an item than we could provide, "unless more than that number want to pay me for that item."I.e. "The rule applies only when it fits my caprice."
The Stereophile "rules" just don't seem all that genuine to me.
If you want to review piece of gear that audiophiles can "reasonably" go audtition and require sufficient dealer support, explain again how this rule applies to the Zanden CD player or the Caliburn turntable.
I'd say the average audiophile has little chance of auditioning a great number of the pieces reviewed in Stereophile. But, much like not being able to test drive the latest Bugatti, I enjoy reading about those things anyway.
I don't care about your rules, you don't need them, and I don't see why you keep mentioning them when they are so obviously ignored when they get in the way of selling magaziines. You can review anything you like and I'll be a happy reader, but why make stuff up about "rules" when they apply only you decide they do?
*Not a complaint about your reviews, just a curious reader wondering why you wasted column inches on maintaining this facade.
Follow Ups:
> The Stereophile "rules" just don't seem all that genuine to me. <
I fail to see why not.
> If you want to review piece of gear that audiophiles can "reasonably"
> go audtition and require sufficient dealer support, explain again how
> this rule applies to the Zanden CD player or the Caliburn turntable.
In the case of the Caliburn, as I say in the March "As We See It,"
when a product is only sold direct, it's a judgment call on my part
whether or not we should review it. Inevitably, that decision will
not satisfy everyone.
In the case of the Zanden, we found out that they did not have enough
dealers as we went to press, when it was too late to abort the review.
I felt that I should mention that fact in the magazine. Did you not
read it? But it is also fair to point out that one of Zanden's dealers
is Sound by Singer in New York, within easy reach of a significant
proportion of the nation's audiophiles.
> I don't care about your rules, you don't need them...
As I explain in my March issue's essay, I feel very strongly that
magazines _should_ have such rules. You may disagree, of course, but
that is not really my concern.
> I don't see why you keep mentioning them when they are so obviously
> ignored when they get in the way of selling magaziines.
And, of course, the inevitable insult.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Hi, apologies if that seemed derisive.What I was getting at is that if these so called "rules" are subject to "judgement calls," then spare me the pretension and just let this issue ride as being based on your judgement.
That's good enough for me.
I trust you.
As a long term reader, I think I (an others) would be pretty adept at zeroing in on bullshit if you were running a corrupt enterprise.
My point was, why have rules if they don't apply when you don't want them to? Although I appreciate the ease of following rules in that fashion! ;)
I did not mean to be insulting. If the reason to break your own rules isn't based on the hope of making more magazine sales, then what is your reason to violate a self-imposed rule?
> What I was getting at is that if these so called "rules" are subject
> to "judgement calls," then spare me the pretension and just let this
> issue ride as being based on your judgement.
The only "judgment call" concerns products that are sold direct, as
there is no reliable metric to indicate the company's maturity or
reliability in its operation.
> That's good enough for me.
> I trust you.
Thank you. But if I were you, I'd be more skeptical.
> As a long term reader, I think I (an others) would be pretty adept at
> zeroing in on bullshit if you were running a corrupt enterprise.
I would like to think that was the case, but my experience suggests
otherwise.
> My point was, why have rules if they don't apply when you don't want
> them to?
And that is the point I am making: that exceptions to the rule are so
few to be non-existent. Yes, the Zanden review _was_ an exception, but
not deliberately so. My understanding was that the company met our
requirements re: dealers but by the time we had been given the correct
number, I had no option but to run the review, the alternative being
to publish 7 blank pages or to hold up the November issue's printing,
at a cost of several thousand dollars per day while we rush-prepared
another review. Neither option appealed.
> I did not mean to be insulting.
Thank you.
> If the reason to break your own rules isn't based on the hope of
> making more magazine sales, then what is your reason to violate a
> self-imposed rule?
As I have said above, the premise for your question is faulty. I don't
break the rules, other than in extremis, as with the Zanden.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
< < I don't care about your rules, you don't need them, and I don't see why you keep mentioning them > >JA is making a point. There is another US high-end magazine that apparently has no rules, as one of the reviewers there did a very bad thing. He took an extremely expensive set of cables (tens of thousands of dollars worth) that were on loan and sold them on Audiogon.
I can only think of two explanations:
a) The reviewer is a crook who stole the cables, thinking that the manufacturer wouldn't remember who he had loaned them to.
b) The reviewer mistakenly thought that the manufacturer gave him the cables instead of loaning them -- in other words, a bribe.
In either event, it's not such a good situation. That other magazine either has a crook or a person that expects bribes on its staff. The odd thing is that nothing has happened at the other magazine so far. It's like this is a normal situation and nothing to be concerned with.
Now to me, that is not the case. It's not OK to be working with a magazine that employs crooks or people that expect bribes. So we have pulled all of our advertising from that other magazine. I expect (and hope) that sooner or later they will rectify the situation so that I will feel comfortable doing business with them again.
In the meantime, JA is making a point that there are other ways of doing business besides hiring crooks and/or people that expect bribes. I think that is a fair point to make, personally.
His point was related to reviewing products which do not have the # of U.S. dealer's JA requires, not rules regarding equipment "loans", selling review gear etc.
I guess I can't help you out much here, as it seems you just want to be argumentative. JA's "As We See It" this month was concerning *all* of the rules that the magazine has. Enophile's post referred to Stereophile's "rules" and he said that didn't care about them and didn't need them.I was pointing out an example of what happens when a magazine doesn't have rules (or if they do, they certainly aren't enforced). I personally don't care for the resulting type of magazine, where the reviews are written by crooks and/or people that expect huge bribes. Maybe you do, I don't know.
nt
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: