|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
64.12.116.6
In Reply to: A Simple Plan posted by jdouglas51 on March 8, 2007 at 16:03:16:
...as I said below under - "Ahhh...youthful idealism":Maybe you should start an audio magazine like you describe. The question is - would anyone want to read it.
Or would anyone want to write for it.
If there is a big market for a publication like that, someone would have already done it.First of all, no reviewer wants to spend their time reviewing bad sounding equipment.
I don't really think audiophiles want to read reviews of bad sounding equipment anyway, as much as they protest.
Every review is critical of the equipment, some more than others, since nothing is perfect.
Audio reviews are merely entertaining guides to help you chose equipment to audition. Unless you have exactly the same listening biases and priorities I do, my review won't help you purchase equipment you'll like.
Most audio equipment reviewers do it part-time as a hobby and get paid a couple of hundred dollars for investing many hours over a few months to do a thorough review.
Without the ability to purchase at accomodation prices - like everyone else in the industry - few would be willing to do it.
The vast majority of reviewers I know go out of their way to be thorough, impartial and protect their reputations.
The problems occur when people act unethically. That can happen no matter what kind of structure or safeguards you put in place.
Follow Ups:
NT
That's a bummer.What it says is that without this "subsidy," the reviewers would not find reviewing "worth their time."
It says that the magazines are essentially taking advantage of a perquisite in order to cut their cost and "indirectly" raise the compensation package for reviewers.
So, would "buying at accomodation pricing" be considered part of their salary?
I hope that's not the case.
That would be as bad for the industry as anything I can think of...it would lead to a situation where the gear chosen for review could based on personal desire (avarice) rather than chosing amongst representative samples of the marketplace's products.
The feeling I get from Stereophile's reviewers is that this is not the case. I hope I'm right. Stereophile's reviewers, as a group, seem to show genuine interest in examining the broader marketplace - their fascination with Musical Fidelity not withstanding. ;)
However, and I know this is often called "jealousy," but it's not; when a reviewer pays an amount different than is representative of the marketplace and says, "So good, I bought it," it means less to me.
Now, if a reviewer said, "This product is so good, I paid what you'd have to pay for it," that would mean more!
Value statements lose some of their weight when someone is saying, "The Caliburn is awesome, I was willing to pay almost 30% of retail for it!"
For that reason, purchase price info would be cool to include for purposes of seeing what gear is really "worth" to a reviewer.
(No flames or ill intention intended.)
> That's a bummer.>Life is full of disappointments.
> What it says is that without this "subsidy," the reviewers would not find reviewing "worth their time.">
Since this 'perk' is available to anyone and everyone in the industry, you could also say that about the people who work in retail or work for manufacturers.
> That would be as bad for the industry as anything I can think of...it would lead to a situation where the gear chosen for review could based on personal desire (avarice) rather than chosing amongst representative samples of the marketplace's products.>
A reveiwer can purchase ANY equipment he wants at this pricing form any and every manufacturer. It has nothing to do with what he reviews.
> Now, if a reviewer said, "This product is so good, I paid what you'd have to pay for it," that would mean more!>
It's really no different than him saying I could buy anything at dealer cost, but I chose this.
> > That would be as bad for the industry as anything I can think of...it would lead to a situation where the gear chosen for review could based on personal desire (avarice) rather than chosing amongst representative samples of the marketplace's products.The feeling I get from Stereophile's reviewers is that this is not the case. < <
Indeed. And I doubt it's the case for very many others. Fact is, that characterization (in the first paragraph seems to me not to make a lot of sense. There may be people out there who like one thing in particular and desire it to the exclusion of all else. But when I consider the situation of most audio reviewers I know about, that's just not where they're coming from. Fact is, if there's one particular thing they really want, they probably already have it. The appeal of this gig--at least in principle--is that you get to try a lot of different stuff.
I would argue, though, that it's good for readers when a reviewer specializes to some extent. There's too much stuff out there to become an expert in everything. And (since you're an "enophile") it doesn't make sense to have a reviewer who hates Cal sauvignon blanc reviewing Cal sauvignon blanc. There are lots of different "tastes" out there and if you're going to take a stab at covering the range of available products, you want (at least potentially) sympathetic reviewers. If you assume that there are (eg) good SETs and not-so-good SETs, you don't want a reviewer who's going to condemn SET's in general.
What's the most fun for reviewers is also, I think, what's best for readers: to have clearly stated and well-defined tastes, to work mostly in that realm, but to branch out and explore other things that complement your core interests.
But, to me, the idea that my desire for JUST ONE THING would blind me to all else is completely alien. Frankly, I'd love it if my tastes were that simple--I'd just go ahead and buy that thing and be done with it. Since I use the modest proceeds of my audio writing mainly to support my audio habit (thank god I'm not addicted to heroin; not much of a market for heroin-writing these days...), I wouldn't need to do this anymore. It's precisely BECAUSE I want to try new stuff that I do this. Different writers have different reasons, but I bet this one is pretty common.
"Fact is, if there's one particular thing they really want, they probably already have it. The appeal of this gig--at least in principle--is that you get to try a lot of different stuff."Indeed! Hence a good, albeit obvious, example of a motivation for reviewing that has nothing to do with the ability to purchase at accomodation prices.
No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
...that the ability to buy at accommodation prices is a necessary motivation for reviewing gear?BTW, accommodation deals aren't completely irrelevant to that particular motivation. One of the ways you can try a lot of different stuff is by buying it at accommodation. As someone else has mentioned, that way you can buy it without much financial risk.
BTW, though a magazine's editor certainly could restrict its writers from accepting accommodation prices, it's perhaps worth noting that this isn't exactly a matter of magazine policy. It's a benefit manufacturers grant to people who work in the industry, including writers, other manufacturers, and so on. What I'm getting at is that I don't want people thinking that this is some sort of perk that the magazine arranges for its writers. The magazines merely allow it.
Stereophile has skilled, entertaining writers--JM, ST, WP, others. They can work elsewhere, whether it's at another audio magazine or in a different field of journalism altogether. I can't speak for these writers, obviously, but if you start restricting the perks of the job, I think some of them are likely to go elsewhere.
Couple of post up in this thread mkuller said,"Without the ability to purchase at accomodation prices - like everyone else in the industry - few would be willing to do it."
From your P.S.
"I do think you'd find that if accommodation pricing, long-term loans, etc., were limited most of the online journals would dry up."
Personally I doubt it. The reason is that I strongly suspect that items purchased on accomondation represent but a tiny fraction of all items reviewed by any given reviewer, i.e. if a guy purchases one out of every 20-25 items reviewed then it would seem that purchase potential doesn't rate terribly high as motivation to engage in reviewing.
A minor point, there is an assumption in what you've said that the writers for the online journals do in fact enjoy the privledge of accomondations prices. How do we know that is the case? Sure it's a benefit manufacturers grant to people who work in the industry, but would a manufacture be willing to offer it to a fellow who, say, wrote 2 reviews for 6moons in his entire (part-time) career? Maybe yes (i.e. fromn the manufacturer's perspective it's just another sale), maybe no (many of these guys have their own strong opinions on things, any reader here can attest to such), point is who knows?For what it's worth I'll just like to remind that I personally don't object to accomondations sales, and I do think it makes good sense for the professional reviewer as an aid for constructing reference system(s)... I simply don't believe it is a defacto a necessary element to attract reviews to the field, that all.
> > A minor point, there is an assumption in what you've said that the writers for the online journals do in fact enjoy the privledge of accommodations prices. How do we know that is the case? < <You're right. I'm not sure it's true, but I assume it is.
"Accommodations" is a bastard to spell. I think I finally got it. Two c's and two ms.
...on the same terms as print publications, Jim.david
at half the price of the consumer? or more? how does this help?
I'm not suggesting "consistant" equipment swapping--whatever that means (is that supposed to be "constant" or "consistent"? If it's the latter, can you please explain what you mean?) but there's no doubt that I've bought stuff--and lived with it for years--that I would not have been able to pay full retail for (for the record I'm talking about 2-3 pieces of gear, total. So please don't envision closets full of the stuff).How does it help? It broadens the range of equipment with which I'm intimately familiar. I have no doubt that it helps me in my writing--indeed, it's essential. That kind of experience may not be something you value. I have no problem with that. There's a case to be made--a very, very weak one--that what one wants instead is a blank slate. It might be ignorant, but at least it's unbiased.
I've tried to be clear on one point, however: this is a perk. It's nice. I like it. But it also happens to be, in my experience, important for learning about the topic I write about.
here's the point...anything accepted as compensation, including soft money (accomodation or gratuities, trips, etc) should be between a writer and his employer. otherwise he has two masters to serve....maybe not always, but that 'in of itself' would make some of the manufacturers, business partners.
I do think you'd find that if accommodation pricing, long-term loans, etc., were limited most of the online journals would dry up. For the people who contribute there, these (and the opportunity to listen to the gear they review) is their only form of compensation. I could earn more writing for other markets, but Stereophile does provide me with better-than-token compensation. Still, I think you would have to assume that if you want to employ good writers, and you intend to take away their perks, you'd best plan on paying them a good bit more.
if mercedes benz loans a car to a detroit free press writer for a review, and he loves it and gives it an incredible review...mercedes doesn't let him buy it on the side at a discounted price. in fact, a mercedes employee, or immediate family member or even an employee of a dealership can. the difference is, the writer has to view the car as a consumer, not an insider, or the review isn't a review at all.
First off, there's nothing "on the side" about the transaction. It's upfront.Second, I think you're missing an important point. The writer isn't gonna sell the thing for a profit--that's not allowed, and if it happens it is--and should be--a major scandal. So if he doesn't like the car/amplifier, he has no incentive to plug it (he wouldn't want it anyway). But if he does like it, and would give it a good review anyway, then there's no incentive to make the review even better. S/he can get the accomodation price with an accurate review, so why lie?
It's possible, I suppose, that a manufacturer stung by a lousy review might keep a reviewer from getting an accommodation price. But in that case the reviewer wouldn't want that piece of equipment anyway.
Maybe the point you're missing is this: I don't have to please anyone to get these deals. I don't have to make my review extra-nice. I probably don't have to make it nice at all. So there's really no motivation at all to deceive.
If you want a source of bias, there are far better ones to fixate on. For example, if you get to know someone and you find them to be honest, serious, and kind, but they've built (or imported) a lousy component, it can be, I suspect, pretty hard to write something bad. Personally, I've never had this experience, since I still know very few people in this industry. And there are many, many instances (some of which have been mentioned on this forum) where reviewers have given bad reviews to components made by people they know well and respect. And that's because those reviewers have a sense of integrity and value their reputations.
You are seeking, apparently, proof of people's integrity and the integrity of the process. That's an awfully hard standard to meet--higher than most people require. And that proof--absolute, systematic assurance--would come at a very high price, even if it were obtainable. There are good, honest people in this industry, including in the media. If you don't trust them, that's fine--don't read them. But a lot of people do, and with some obvious exceptions that have been discussed here, they deserve it.
"The writer isn't gonna sell the thing for a profit--that's not allowed, and if it happens it is--and should be--a major scandal."It is my understanding that there are normally conditions on such sales, the agreement to not sell the item for some specified period of time being common (I've seen 1 year mentioned). After that the item could be disposed of just like any other property.
"It's possible, I suppose, that a manufacturer stung by a lousy review might keep a reviewer from getting an accommodation price."
Let me think real hard about that... {crunch crunch rattle bang rattle bang bang} ... and the ansewer is:
Glad I didn't write that!
LOL
> > It is my understanding that there are normally conditions on such sales, the agreement to not sell the item for some specified period of time being common (I've seen 1 year mentioned). After that the item could be disposed of just like any other property. < <Well I've been told that I am NOT free to sell this stuff at a profit, even after the specified term. That said, I don't know what the policies of the other magazines are.
> > Let me think real hard about that... {crunch crunch rattle bang rattle bang bang}... and the answer is:
Glad I didn't write that! < <
I'm afraid I don't get your implication.
here's what i'm saying....1. if you get an amp for 5k and a consmer gets it for 10k...is the recommendation based on what you paid? or will you say 'i can remmend this is good for 10k'...also, how do know that at another (lets say bigger company) the writer is told the accomodation price is the manufacturer's cost of goods or employee pricing...or they can pay the money over time. this wouldn't be fair to you as a writer. same difference.
"if you get an amp for 5k and a consmer gets it for 10k...is the recommendation based on what you paid? or will you say 'i can remmend this is good for 10k'..."Aren't you implying that the review is written AFTER the reviewer gets the accomodation price?? That doesn't seem to be what happens. AFTER the review, if the reviewer liked it (and supposedly better than what he currently uses as a reference) he buys it for the accomodation price. Still looks like a meaningful endorsement to me. And it certainly doesn't mean that the accomodation pricing buys an endorsement!
manufacturer...distributer.....retailer...consumer. other than the consumer, each or all of these links generally get accomodation to purchase at some stated discount. they also are, without question, part of the sales effort (and entitled as aperk of compensation), and its their job to sell product from the manufacturer. if it is the reviewers job to sell product, then they too would be part of this chain, which would make it less than objective. if that's the case, then that's the case.
The prices are different along the chain because of overhead costs added at each step. Very basic concept. A reviewer gets a product sold, essentially, as "factory-direct," so the mark-ups that result in the street price simply don't apply. There's no conspiracy, no quid pro quo. Those who think there are have too much time on their hands.
...but it's easy to answer. Value is a very subjective thing. I can't even begin to say whether it's "worth it" to a particular consumer. That's a decision consumers have to make for themselves. Of course it IS legitimate to make comparisons to other products at similar price points (which is widely done). But how much it would cost me makes no difference in those comparisons.There's a place near me that makes $18,000 speaker cables. I would not buy them even a fifth of that price. They're impressive looking things--like firehoses with a space ship on each end--but cables just don't make that much difference to me. Still, I know (of) at least one person who owns a pair. That doesn't make him wrong and me right, or vice versa. We have different priorities and different notions of value.
So the point is, I don't make such judgments for consumers. I don't think most other reviewers do either.
< < There's a place near me that makes $18,000 speaker cables > >Your info page on the Audio Asylum indicates that you live in Maine. Assuming that you are referring to Transparent, that is their *second* to the top product. A 10' pair of their top product costs $30,750, at least according to the price list linked below.
Unless of course, you were talking about accommodation pricing!
I THINK the $18K pair was top-of-the-line the last time I was there, but that was several years ago.Nice listening room.
.
No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
nt
... in the midst of this churlish pedantry, we suddenly find rationality?Do they know you have escaped from your world?
Careful they don't wipe the flecks of foam off their faces and come after you, like some George Romero movie! brrrrrrr
if we all get behind it.
NT
> Maybe you should start an audio magazine like you describe. The
> question is - would anyone want to read it.Why wouldn't anyone wish to read it?
> Or would anyone want to write for it.
Why wouldn't anyone want to write for it?
> If there is a big market for a publication like that, someone
> would have already done it.Really? Why do you say so? Are you saying that everything that could be attempted has been?
What hubris!
> First of all, no reviewer wants to spend their time reviewing bad
> sounding equipment.What has that got to do with the topic at hand? The poster said nothing about reviewers having to review stuff they didn't like!
> I don't really think audiophiles want to read reviews of bad
> sounding equipment anyway, as much as they protest.Same question as last.
> Every review is critical of the equipment, some more than others,
> since nothing is perfect.Man!, you're really on a tangent in a big way!
> Audio reviews are merely entertaining guides to help you chose
> equipment to audition. Unless you have exactly the same listening
> biases and priorities I do, my review won't help you purchase
> equipment you'll like.OK, that's you viewpoint, you're entitled to it of course but beyond that, so what?
> Most audio equipment reviewers do it part-time as a hobby and get
> paid a couple of hundred dollars for investing many hours over a
> few months to do a thorough review.It almost sounds as though you're describing exactly the situation the poster desired, why then all the talk about loaners, etc. etc. Did you just wish it all away?
> Without the ability to purchase at accomodation prices - like
> everyone else in the industry - few would be willing to do it.Ah, back on topic at last!... how do you know?
Personally I don't find it the least difficult to suppose that there would be any number of individuals willing to review equipment even were there no possibility of purchase at accomodation prices, part-time reviewers in particular.
> The vast majority of reviewers I know go out of their way to be
> thorough, impartial and protect their reputations.Sure that's to be expected, so tell that to the folks here that have been implying the worst about the TAS reviewer.
> The problems occur when people act unethically. That can happen no
> matter what kind of structure or safeguards you put in place.Well of course abuse is possible even with the strictest policy in place but it's also manifestly obvious that strict policy would reduce the possibility of unethical behavior; that of course assumes that the policy would have some teeth, would trigger automatic and unrelenting consequences to address abuse, etc. ... you know *strict* policy!
How about something simple for a start, not even strict, like sending cables back regardless of manufacturer reluctant? Surely such a simple policy would be effective at avoiding the scenario where reviewers end up with boxes of unwanted cables, e.g. cables that could potentially and inadverently go astray.
What do you thing?
---
So how about a little substance to go along with your many claims?
> > If there is a big market for a publication like that, someone
> > would have already done it.> Really? Why do you say so? Are you saying that everything that could > be attempted has been?
No, but free market capitalism works. If there were a demand, someone would satisfy it.
> > First of all, no reviewer wants to spend their time reviewing bad
> > sounding equipment.> What has that got to do with the topic at hand? The poster said > nothing about reviewers having to review stuff they didn't like!
Perhaps you missed that I was repeating a post that was in response to a little different question down below. Try to keep up.
> Personally I don't find it the least difficult to suppose that there > would be any number of individuals willing to review equipment even > were there no possibility of purchase at accomodation prices, part-> time reviewers in particular.
I don't see any, but have at it. You could be the first.
> What do you thing?>
"Perhaps you missed that I was repeating a post that was in response to a little different question down below. Try to keep up"Excuse me?
You repeated a post you had created in response to "a little different question", and when informed that parts of your [repeated] post made no sense [in it's new context] you chastise the reader to "keep up"!!??
Well I'd say you easily qualify for the Top-10 in Tortured Logic, good job!
Wait, did I miss a memo or something?... Is this Funny Friday ?
LOL
bjh,You have gone beyond the humorous with your nipping at the ankles of Sterophile, TAS, and their respective writers. Why don't you take the advice that many have given and try to lead the way in your type of magazine and shut the f--k up.
BJH may be the world's greatest Hi Fi troll. He does a hell of a job winding people up, and he seems to be able to argue both sides of most issues with equal skill.
you seem to be learning well from your superiors at SF.Let's see how long it take before you can vacillate effortlessly between low brow thug and abused diva ... only then, Grasshopper, will you have truly arrived.
...being a troll? Really?Take a good, hard look at the posts you've made over the last few weeks. I respect you BJH. You clearly know some things, despite the obvious pleasure you take at tweaking people. But in this case the shoe fits.
it appears you've already arrived!ROTFL
If your heros look like zeros don't blame me sweetie.Hear that? oh it's your Moma coming with a bar of soap in her hand... run child, run!
LOL
No, you're wrong as usual. You haven't gotten your fangs into any of the writers I respect.God, you're tiresome.
remember them? at AR, i identified and labeled them as such becuase they were "nipping at the ankles" of anyone that thought there were diffs in the sound of cabling or amps or CDPs.thats what we have here in a different context.
...regards...tr
No disrespect intended here, but you can't tell me that there hasn't been gear that's been well advertised and caused quite a stir that was not, in the end, the cats pajamas. If you want my personal list, that's fine by me. I have no problem starting a new thread asking the readership of this particular forum about their own personal let-downs and nightmares with components that were recommended by audio publications, in print or on-line, that were not "As Advertised".Wouldn't a reviewer be praised for analyzing such equipment and then showing with both test results as well as listening experiences that the component in question is NOT a good choice?
How did we get to the point in this hobby where reviewers can say in public that no one wants to read bad reviews? What sheer and utter bullshit! That's like saying no one wants to hear about recalls on faulty automobiles.
Wake up call to all reviewers............we want the good the bad and the ugly. Stop pretending that all we want is good news. WE never told you that that's all we want. YOU never asked us. Stop assuming. It insults us and it cheapens your endeavors.
x
to manufacturers.....if they were not generating sales, why bother.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: