|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
216.193.33.5
In Reply to: DUT Return Policy posted by bjh on February 20, 2007 at 17:45:36:
>While his intentions certainly seem noble and beyond reproach one
>must wonder how it is that on the one hand [Michael Fremer] has the
>proprietorship to dispose of the cables while on the other hand he
>openly declares that they are not his property?
It is generally difficult to get cable manufacturers to take their
products back, because once they are returned, they no longer get
listed in the reviewer's reference system. The benefit of being so
listed is a powerful incentive for companies to send reviewers cables
whether they are for review or not. That doesn't mean they become the
reviewer's property.
Michael mentioned the possibility of auctioning off loaner cables
that the manufacturers don't want returned to benefit a charity. If
they _are_ auctioned off for charity, as has happened at the auctions
organized by the now defunct Academy for High-End Audio at past
Stereophile Shows, it would be with the permission of the
manufacturers concerned. If Michael sells review samples of cables
for personal gain, then I would, of course, immediately terminate
his relationship with the magazine.
It certainly seems to me that despite your protestations, "bjh," you
are working very hard to tar Stereophile with the same brush as the
purportedly unethical behavior of the reviewer mentioned in earlier
postings. Perhaps you have too much time on your hands?
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Follow Ups:
If all you do is get pissed off by respondents?
Your "essay" was understood. Reviewers should return said goods without being prompted to do so.
When you drive Ferraris all the time it must suck to have to suffer a drive to the store in a Honda.
At least HP does not visit here to imply how much we all suck!
> Why do you visit here If all you do is get pissed off by
> respondents?
Because either I am asked a direct question, and I feel I should
respond, or a comment is made about Stereophile that I feel needs to
be addressed. As someone whose abilty to pay his mortgage depends
on the willingmess of readers to support what he does, I have always
tried to be publicly responsive to those readers.
And no, I don't get pissed off by all respondents on the Asylum,
only by those who appear to wish Stereophile be held to a higher
standard of behavior than other magazines. I think being skeptical
about what my magazine does and how it operates is a sign of health,
and in return I try to make as much as is appropriate about what we
do public knowledge. Hence Art's and my essays in the March issue.
But I remain puzzled why that same skepticism no longer appears to be
felt appropriate by some inmates regarding how other magazines run
their businesses.
And in response to a stateement of yours in another posting, no I did
not tell you to "Fuck Off." That is your projection, pure and simple.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
"And no, I don't get pissed off by all respondents on the Asylum, only by those who appear to wish Stereophile be held to a higher standard of behavior than other magazines. ... I remain puzzled why that same skepticism no longer appears to be felt appropriate by some inmates regarding how other magazines run their businesses."
If memory serves, you yourself have suggested you hold your writers to a higher standard, so why become disgruntled with your readers when they do the same? When it comes to ethics I’m sure you’d like to think Stereophile is the gold standard vis-à-vis audio journals. Therefore, I'm a bit puzzled as to why you become huffy with your readers when they embrace the same notion. You can’t have it both ways, old darlin. You’ve set the bar very high. Now live with it.
Judging from reading both JA and HP for quite some time, I would bet that insofar as either of them think "how much we all suck" HP would be for me the more likely candidate to think that more often or more intensely than JA.
I'm sorry JA. I was out of line.
AA was and should be entertaining to me. When it starts to result in getting "pissed off" it's best to do something differently.
Time for a break to regain perspective.
> I'm sorry JA. I was out of line. <
No problem. I apologise for not responding yesterday, but your posting
appeared as a response to Tom Larson and I missed it.
John Atkinson
Editor, Umbrellaphile (with a nod to Bruce Kendall)
Burberry? S.A.Brigg, perhaps?
God please help me.
...
I did not get any sort of negative vibe from JA's response. He simply stated the increasingly obvious- by reading the lines and between the lines it is becoming increasingly obvious that Stereophile is the leader in ehtical relationships between manufacturers,reviewers and readers.
The fact he bothers to respond and try to set the record straight while others,like the one you mention, seem not to care enough to at least respond to the degree they perceive legal requirments allow,seems an odd thing to complain about.
He basically told me to Fuck Off.
....and a gentleman. However you interpreted his comments is on you.
...
consider the cables so good that he/she "must" purchase them -- at insider's discount price -- why are they listed as being part of the reviewer's reference system? This seems to be an obvious built-in incentive for cable manufacturers to leave their cables with the reviewer for advertising purposes. Some may not want to do that with very expensive items, but what about brands/models for which manufacturers determine the benefit of what amounts to free advertising trumps getting the cables/equipment back?You have plenty of rules. It appears that you just don't enforce rules when it comes to cables. Additionally, it makes the cables in the associated equipment list meaningless. The reader has no way to tell what cables the reviewer actually liked well enough to purchase vs. cables the manufacturer wants them to have so the brand will continue to appear on the list. Does this same situation apply to components/spkrs on the associated comp. list?
Two simple solutions occur to me: a) Don't list cables (or anything else) the manufacturers refuse to pay return shipping for when the review is done; b) announce a policy that all cables not purchased by a reviewer after the review is concluded will be auctioned if the manufacturer does not pay for return shipping within X time period. This could certainly be written into a review contract signed by the manufacturer. Its tough to believe that a manufacturer wouldn't think that a good review in S'phile is worth shipping costs.
I would like to see a true Reviewer's System list which ONLY includes equipment the reviewer has purchased for their system. Other products employed in the review process? Fine, list them seperately.
"... generally difficult to get cable manufacturers to take their products back..." might I ask if this is also the case for amplifiers, preamplifiers, CD players, etc?It is easy to understand that a manufacture would find it desirable to have their wares listed in a prominent reviewer's reference system, it almost goes without saying, yet as I have said before the idea of providing a long term loan to facilitate such could easily be construed as a "gift", certainly in such a case a reviewer enjoys the component free of any financial considedration. In any event it seems obvious that a clear policy concerning such matters would avoid any misunderstanding.
No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
> Regarding your comment of it being ""...generally difficult to get
> cable manufacturers to take their products back..." might I ask if
> this is also the case for amplifiers, preamplifiers, CD players,
> etc?
Not nearly so difficult, no. Unless a reviewer purchases the review
sample or arranges for a long-term loan for reference purposes,
products other than cables are returned. Regarding your other
question:
> If their address is known isn't it a simple matter of putting it in
> its box and sending it off? If the manufacturer has no interest in
> the item leave it to them to dispose of it as they see fit.
Stereophile's policy is for the manufacturer to pay the shipping
to and from Stereophile. We cover the internal shipping costs from
the reviewer to and from me for measurement etc, unless the
manufacturer requests otherwise. Last Friday, for example, Chris
Sommovigo rented a van and picked up a very heavy, very expensive
pair of Peak Consult speakers from Michael Fremer and drove them to
my house. This way, Chris could be certain that the speakers wouldn't
be inadvertently damaged. He then returned to my house the next day
to deliver the speakers to a NY dealer.
In the case of the Santa Fe cables, I imagine the residual value of
the cables was less than the cost of return shipping, hence it made
economic sense for the cables to be disposed of. And please note that
most cables _were_ returned. The very expensive pair of Kimber Black
Pearl speaker cables that Wes Phillips had on loan at the time, for
example, went back to Kimber.
In fact, my March "As We See It" was written after a discussion I had
quite a while back with Ray Kimber about the problems manufacturers
have regarding review samples with magazines other than Stereophile.
(Though in that specific instance, Ray had been ripped off by a
reviewer who, many years earlier had worked for Stereophile. The
ripoff involved review samples that had been sent the reviewer long
after he left my magazine, please note.) Ray strongly feels that
magazines and webzines should conform to a common standard of
behavior regarding review samples and wanted me to take a lead in
this.
And again, I fail to comprehend why you seem to be so determinedly
looking for fault in Stereophile's behavior but appear to be
bending over backward not to do so with other magazines. I don't have
a problem with your inquisition of me, but it does strike me as odd
that you don't apply a similar inquisition to the other editors? As
I did a couple of days back, there appears to be a double standard in
operation here.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
regards the desirability of comprehensible policy that would have the effect of articulating sound business practices.Stereophile, IMHO, leads the critical review community in this regard, and I have already stated my opinion that it is to be commended for doing so.
It now appears that one category of product, i.e. cables, is in some manner unique, and the particulars would seem to create opportunities for misunderstandings. I have merely indicated that there seems to be no fundamental reason for such unique treatment.
---
Now back to pactical concerns, why not simply make it a matter of policy that manufacturers agree in advance to accept return of a test units by way of COD shipment from Stereophile, simple as that, no consideration given to residual value, nor anything else.
Unambiguous simple policy is obviously highly desirable and in this instance I can only imagine that something similar couldn't but please anyone who sought "... a common standard of behavior regarding review samples...".
Now the issue of long term loans has also propped up and, again, it seems to me that it would be prudent to review current practices given the potential for a long term loaner being construed as somewhat akin to a "gift".
The benefits of a reviewer having access to certain components for reference purposes are obvious, but how can one truly deny the suggestion of potential favorable bias toward a manufacturer who generously grants a long term loan?
Clearly if such components were purchased (at the industry concession rate) this potential gray area would be eliminated. Moreover upon sale of such a component, one that in all likelyhood has been designated as amongst "best of breed" by the reviewer, the magazine could reasonably expect to recoup at least a very substiantial portion of cost.
True this would involve some economic pain, and would likely result in access to fewer "reference" components, but the benefits likewise cannot be reasonably denied.
This, and the related issue of treatment of cable products, is something I, and I imagine many others, strongly feel would benefit from common standards, and as befits its' leadership role I would like to see Stereophile take a lead in this.
The leader of the pack doesn't complain of a double standard, it sets the standard!
> If they _are_ auctioned off for charity, as has happened at the
> auctions organized by the now defunct Academy for High-End Audio at
> past Stereophile Shows, it would be with the permission of the
> manufacturers concerned.
Please note that I not referring to cables in Michael Fremer's
possession in this sentence but making a general point. For example,
at one time Stereophile had some AudioQuest cables that we were trying
to return. AudioQuest's Bill Low suggested that instead we dispose of
the cables at one of the Academy auditions. Which we did.
Another example: when Stereophile moved its office from Santa Fe to
New York, we contacted all manufacturers whose samples we had to
organize their return. Almost all samples were returned as the moving
day loomed, the exceptions being some cables from various
manufacturers. We contacted those manufacturers one final time and
asked if it would be okay to dispose of the cables if they didn't want
them back. None of them did, so the day the Santa Fe office was
vacated, the cables went into a dumpster.
Are these actions unethical, as you appear to suggest "bjh"? No,
because at all times the cables remained the manufacturers' property
and the disposal was either at their suggestion or with their approval.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
If their address is known isn't it a simple matter of putting it in it's box and sending it off? If the manufacturer has no interest in the item leave it to them to dispose of it as they see fit.Such would appear to be reasonable for consideration as formal policy since it's clear, simple, and importantly, unambiguous.
Jeez...he threw them away.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: