 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.238.54.18
In Reply to: ethical ? for reviewers: selling gear you reviewed posted by rhyno on April 13, 2007 at 21:30:45:
That would take care of most of the ethical issues, IMO. There's still an editorial issue--whether a desire to sell would compromise objectivity--but that's the editor's call, not ours (or the writer's).But the main thing is to eliminate financial conflicts.
Jim
Follow Ups:
What would you think of a review, when the Manufacturer, by what has been said here... sold a component "to be reviewed" for pennies on the dollar... if you could get a $20,000.00 amp for only $2,000.00, but couldn't sell it for anymore than $2,000.00... for me, this negates any credibility of the review...
I don't think reviewers should get any equipment that they review, unless they are paying the same prices that the consumer is paying.You need to put all the manufacturers on the same level playing field... look at all the reviews and publicity that Mobile Fidelity gets with "certain reviewers"... how can the smaller, companies compete for reviews if that is allowed?
Just my opinion...
Rick
> What would you think of a review, when the Manufacturer, by what has been said here... sold a component "to be reviewed" for pennies on the dollar... if you could get a $20,000.00 amp for only $2,000.00, but couldn't sell it for anymore than $2,000.00... for me, this negates any credibility of the review...>I agree, but I'm not aware of a situation like the one you describe.
Equipment is available to any reviewer, member of the audio press, manufacturer, retailer, distributor and anyone else in the 'audio industry' from any/every manufacturer at *industry accommodation pricing* - usually dealer cost.
If a manufacturer sells a piece under review for "pennies on the dollar", it is unethical for both the seller and the buyer.
If the manufacturer offers a 'longer loan', that seems to be an industry practice these days.
> I don't think reviewers should get any equipment that they review, unless they are paying the same prices that the consumer is paying.>
Sorry, I don't agree. It is one of the few perks that reviewers get to help subsidize their need for current reference equipment to work with.
And I agree with your post below that reviewers should own their reference system.
But, to do reviews right, you need additional components, speakers and wires - because listening to a component in only ONE system isn't enough. That's where the longer loans come in handy when you need 3 amps or several pair of speakers to use in your reviewing.
> You need to put all the manufacturers on the same level playing field...>
Uh, they are now.
> look at all the reviews and publicity that Mobile Fidelity gets with "certain reviewers"... how can the smaller, companies compete for reviews if that is allowed?>
If you're talking about their CDs (they also make speakers), the audiophile CD manufacturers, including Mobile Fidelity, Chesky, etc. are very generous about giving their CDs away to reviewers (music and equipment) in hopes of getting them mentioned in a review.
everyone in this list is part of the sales and marketing chain...as soon as a reviewer accepts these terms, he is included, as you've stated.....
I agree with your post. But it ain't gonna happen in this industry. All the editors and writers will whine about how they can't afford to purchase equipment to review, so it's loaned, and if it is purchased they can't afford it, so they get it at half price after they review it and if they want it.
I don't understand why reviewers are not required to be responsible for there own reference system... any other "business person" has to make their investment in their business... actually, a reviewer does not have that much of an investement to make... if I were to go into business for myself (electrician), the Service truck alone would cost $60,000.00.. and that is not including any tools, instruments, etc.
Reviews/reviewers equipment is the way it is for the benefit of the Companies selling their equipment.
Of course, only the companies that get "the best" reviews will have their equipment in the reference system...
Totally obvious to me that this is a huge confict of interest.Rick
I think you make a brilliant point with the following:"actually, a reviewer does not have that much of an investement to make... if I were to go into business for myself (electrician), the Service truck alone would cost $60,000.00.. and that is not including any tools, instruments, etc."
Well, with all the money I'm making from reviewing, I'll stop accommodation purchases, but only after I return from my three month around the world vacation, courtesy of the largesse from my reviewing gig.
BTW, please don't tell Dave and David that I'm spilling the beans, just a secret between you and me, okay? They'd be pissed if the world knew how much we were raking in.
Larry Cox
(nt)
Right...huge conflict of interest ...and even that's an understatement. Somebody is making pretty good money publishing mags that publish reviews...maybe it's just prime media that makes I profit, I don't know. But that the mags "can't afford" to buy equipment, especially the big one(s), is a sham. Cut the editor's salary... And if the reviewer is writing for a tiny mag or a ezine thing then it is so obvious to me that the only way they can get equipment to review is to write basically rave reviews. And so what good are the reviews (except to the reviewer, the company and the guilable)? Ive seen people here claim that reviews are supposed to be "entertainment". Insofar as that is their sole purpose, they shouldn't be called reviews. Compare the reviews of (non-audiophile) cds with the reviews of equipment. Few punches pulled in the cd reviews....
Yes.. and earlier when I mentioned "Mobile Fidelity" that was a typo (I just got done making an order for Mobile Fidelity SACD)I meant to type "Musical Fidelity" as in Stereophile magazine... I let my last subscription run out, as, I got sick of almost every issue either a review of one of their products, or Sam Tellig writting an article on it... they were being flooded with letters about the same thing, and Sam Tellig just shoved it in everyones face...Rick
...maybe Martin would sell you TAS. You could become rich...> Somebody is making pretty good money publishing mags that publish reviews...>
Word is TAS hasn't yet made a profit in the 7 or so years he's owned it.
Look at all the good magazines that failed - 'Sounds Like', 'Fi', 'Listener' and many others. The Audio Critic and IAR went web since they couldn't afford to publish.
> ...maybe it's just prime media that makes I profit, I don't know.>
Maybe.
> But that the mags "can't afford" to buy equipment, especially the big one(s), is a sham. Cut the editor's salary...>
LOL! How much equipment do you think a pay cut would buy?
I would certainly omit Fi from the list of "good magazines". If you don't think cutting JA's salary would buy much equipment, how is that a justification for the current system of mfg loan, accomodation price, buddies-in-audio? Plus if you did take the reported $1 million he made at the sale of SP, then that would buy a bunch of equipment. And the "somebody" making money that I was referring to, and mentioned in my post, was Primemedia. I guess I should add Sound and Vision because they are probably making money too. The little rags complain they have no money to buy equipment. The big rags complain about the same thing. The intrusion of loaned equipment into the review process cannot help but alter it. (I would say corrupt it). From the mag's point of view--no. From many rag defenders here--no. For the average reader, not looking for just entertainment, but for advice on stereo purchases--yes. And if reviews really are just entertainment, why not relable them as "Information on equipment that has been lent to us"? The claim to impartial reviewing is what sells many many mags. But such reviewing is simply not very often found. You can't have it both ways. Someone says, hey, I see a $300 phono preamp in Class B of Stereophile and I see a $2,500 phono preamp in the same Class. Why should I spend the extra money? Oh,,, well,,,,just because they are in the same class, doesn't mean they are comperable....
(nt)
money changes everything, if its not worth purchasing, its not worth purchasing.
| ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
