|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
65.213.7.6
In Reply to: I found his article a little sanctamonious... posted by cfcjb on February 25, 2007 at 16:28:17:
>To be able to write a credible review you have to be completely
>impartial. Accepting any gift, no matter how small, jeopardizes that
>impartiality and thus has the ability to taint the review process.
It's good point, but when does the perceived value of the gift
become relevant? Reviewers and editors are literally besieged with
tchochkes of various kinds -- watches, pens, CD wallets, tote bags,
rolling bags, letter openers, notebooks, USB flash drives, key rings,
pen knives, flowers, bottles of wine and liquor -- and it is
impractical, even impolite to go through a press release package that
you receive in the mail and pick out all this stuff to be returned.
I deal with this schwag by giving it away. Does that still make me
unethical? And I admit to being just as bad -- a manufacturer who
visits my office often gets Stereophile CDs pressed upon him. Or even
a Stereophile shirt or a Stereophile CD opener. And how about those
Stereophile wine glasses? (http://forum.stereophile.com/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/756)
And yes, I have accepted dinner invitations from manufacturers whose
products I review. But I have also bought those same manufacturers
dinner. Doesn't that even up the ethical books? For example, last
month a manufacturer offered me a ticket to the Met which would
otherwise gone to waste. I agreed provided I bought us dinner at the
Met's restaurant before the performance. The face value of the ticket
was $220; dinner came to almost $300 with wine and tip. I felt that
ethically, the books were balanced. Perhaps you disagree, feeling that
I should never fraternalize with manufacturers? Yet my conversations
with industry figures are _never_ social.
I address this question in my March "As We See It," BTW, by defining
a gift that crosses the line as one being worth more than $100. If
you are not a Stereophile reader, both that essay and Art Dudley's
will be available in our free online archives at www.stsreophile.com
on Monday March 12.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Follow Ups:
He can remain impartial and uninfluenced if manufacturers give him gifts.But that may not be the case with a few other reviewers.If I were a reviewer, I wont even talk to the manufacturers during the review period, leave alone let them into my listening room to push around the speakers.That creates a sort of fellowship.After all man is a social animal.A reviewer,in my opinion, should be antisocial at least for the duration of the review.Maybe I am asking too much.
Although $300 dinners for two can be found out here in Tucson, anything more than about $50 total is legally (or illegally) considered to be a bribe and you will be arrested on the spot. I guess NYC is just a whole nuther story!
"It's good point, but when does the perceived value of the gift
become relevant?"John you make some excellent points. Let me answer your first question with another quote.
"Anthony Michaelson, owner and managing director of Musical Fidelity, sent me this watch a couple of months ago. At first I was reluctant to wear it, for fear that a jagged bolt of puritanical righteousness would come out of the sky and burn me to a crisp. But I tired it on anyway. Nothing bad happened. I came to like it.
So I did what I do in these situations: I asked my wife. She told me not to send it back, because Anthony Michaelson would almost certainly take that as a slap in the face"Perceived value becomes relevant when a reviewer fears sending a gift back because it may cause offense. It's not an expensive gift, no. In some ways it's better than an expensive gift. It makes the reviewer feel good, he doesn't think he's crossed any lines and he doesn't want to send back this inoffensive little trinket because it may jeopardize his (good) relationship with a manufacturer.
How can I be convinced that he won't tailor a review accordingly? He doesn't like a product he's reviewing by this manufacturer but doesn't want to offend him by writing a review that explicitly sates that. He's a really nice guy, heck he even sent him an inexpensive watch.
I am a subscriber to your magazine. It's an enjoyable read but I find Mr Dudley's article ethically dubious.
Regards,
Pony up. It's a "free" country, after all.
Hey Alan,
I'm willing to retract it all if you send me a lovely blue CD opener ;-)Regards,
....and there was none with John. Or are you going back on your mission here? Where are your standards?
I would urge you to re-read my reply to Mr Atkinson.
You were the one who went off topic, I was only humoring you.Regards,
nt
"lovely blue CD opener (sic)" just to see if that was enough to sway him.
You might want to carefully consider what you write as it may be interpreted by some as intentional obfuscation.For example you talk a great deal about marketing junk, exchanges of meals, etc., similar to how Dudley made good hay of some silly ARC screwdriver (I believe it was).
Yet on the other hand Charles Hansen openly (here!) offers you a trade out of cable products worth many $100s of dollars as if it were as natural as breathing! This on top of disclosures (your's included) of cable manufactures being reluctant to accept return of product... SF's MF stating he has so much of the stuff he'll "... soon have to rent a storage space just for the cables" drives that one home in a rather dramatic manner!
The astute reader will also not fail to notice that you devote more print to the topic of trinkets and gifts than to that of "permaloans", a topic that seems to send you into defense mode, ie:
"I have listed my own components in another response. Speaking personally, why I don't mind providing such information, I believe other reviewers, particularly for other magazines, will not be as forthcoming. But to do so in the magazine is cumbersome given the churn in components used and, I believe, unnecessary. Either you trust a magazine and read it or you don't trust it and you don't read it."
Any fair reader of my comments will show that I'm not even against "permaloans", only suggesting that disclosure of such would be a positive development, yet you respond by alluding to my "agenda"!
...
Were it comes to ethical practice and honesty I very much suspect SF stands head and shoulder above the audio journal crowd, something I attribute very much to *your* influence, so please don't tell me what requirement *your* reviewers might find forthcoming.
It is precisely for this reason that I get a little niffed when I see an article in which a SF reviewer (one of my favorites no less!) engaging in innuendo and accusatory crap, and the Editor carrying on as if he's got something to hide!
I don't want a SF that aspires to the lowest common denominator and will voice my opinion as I see fit to see that such does not happen, that's *my* agenda, if you don't like it *too bad*, it ain't your call!
No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
> on the other hand Charles Hansen openly (here!) offers you a trade
> out of cable products worth many $100s of dollars as if it were as
> natural as breathing!
I think you are misunderstanding what Charlie and I were discussing.
I have 2 sets of Ayre cables on loan, one of which was sent with the
Ayre CX-7 that I reviewed a while back, the other, more recent ones
with...actually I can't remember why and when Ayre sent me another
pair, perhaps it was with the C-5xe that I bought. But Charlie is
obsessive about reviewers using Ayre products with ancillaries that
he feels to be of appropriate quality, and in this case he wants me to
be using the current-spec Ayre cables.
In which case I will return the 2 sets I have on loan and use the
newer cables he is sending me with my Ayre C-5xe and the K-5xe preamp
that I am currently reviewing. When he wishes those cables returned,
I will do so, of course.
I will address your other points in a separate post. Right now, there
is a Bass Ale with my name on it in the fridge and I need not to
disappoint it.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
s
Just to amplify what JA was saying:Several years ago JA was doing a follow-up report on the CX-7 CD player. I asked him if he had any balanced cables to use with it and he said that he didn't. I wanted him to hear it in balanced mode, so I sent him a pair of prototype cables we were working on.
(Please understand that JA, like any good reviewer, takes what the manufacturer says with a grain of salt. Usually they will try it in the manufacturer's recommended configuration, but then they will try it their own way as well. I'm sure you can remember reading speaker test reports where the reviewer notes that he moved the speakers from their carefully arrived at position as soon as the manufacturer's rep left! So I have no doubt that JA tried the CD player with other cables besides the ones that I loaned him.)
I had completely forgotten about those cables until he mentioned them in his posting. He is currently in the process of reviewing the K-5xe preamp, so naturally we would like him to hear them with our balanced cables (along with any other cables he might care to try).
My concern was that he was using an old prototype pair of cables that never saw the light of day and are not representative of our production cables. Even you must realize that uselessness of that. That is why I asked for the prototypes back.
It turns out that he apparently already has some of our current cables also, apparently provided with the review sample of the preamp. I'm not completely up-to-speed on all the details of this, as I've spent the last three months in the hospital after a nasty accident. I'm working from home part-time now, but am not fully informed on every detail of which accessories were loaned to which reviewer with each piece of equipment.
All I can say is that bjh is making much ado about nothing. Neither I nor JA have anything to hide. We at Ayre have an opinion about how to get the best sound from our equipment. JA has enough respect for us to at least try our suggestion. He may or may not agree with us, I don't know. We'll both find out when the review is published later this year.
And from here it looks like your anxiety meter is pegged. Maybe it is time to get involved with a hobby or something.
.
No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
via the Asylum, if you wish.
z
I know mine does a great job of keeping me on my toes.
...what's a "rolling bag"?se
....the lovely blue CD opener I bestowed on you a few years ago.You are being held to the highest standards, don't you know!
Alan,
it's not about being held to the highest standards. It's about aiming for them. I'm sure that Mr Atkinson understands that.Regards,
it's not about being held to the highest standards.....you're holding John's feet to the fire.
It's about aiming for them. I'm sure that Mr Atkinson understands that.
"....you're holding John's feet to the fire."
Not at all, read my reply to him.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: