|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
24.253.53.141
In Reply to: A not so simple plan... posted by mkuller on March 8, 2007 at 16:55:47:
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.)
Follow Ups:
> 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
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: