|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
216.196.176.121
In Reply to: Re: Give it a rest, Mr. Garvin posted by John Atkinson on May 2, 2007 at 13:50:49:
"So why are you _still_ bringing this issue up, in an unrelated thread?"Please refer above. I did not bring the issue of Gallo/Stereophile up in this thread. In addition, please note that I did not bring up the issue on the Stereophile cite either.
"It wasn't a cursory statement. It was a clear expression of the
_fact_ that Wes never received review samples of the Gallo speakers,
and _that_ was the reason Stereophile did not publish a review. Why
that wasn't the end of the matter when I first explained it you is
beyond my imagining"Then allow me to explain. I presume that people who make their livelihood using the written word use precisely the words they mean to use. Wes says that he WILL review the speakers. I presume that meant he either had them in house, or that he had a committment from Gallo. I initially object because you, and now Mr. Hansen, argue that this not a reasonable interpretation on my part. Be that as it may, you have explained that Wes never had the speakers in his possession. I accept that now, and did when you first wrote it. What I did not accept was that Wes Philips, which, based upon his writings, seems an honorable man who writes what he means, is honest, and would not intentionally mislead anyone to believe he would review the speakers, when, in fact, he had no such committment and authorization to do so. I earn a living in which people can take to the bank representations I make, and I presume Wes has the same principle.
I presume that Wes used precise terms for a reason. This naturally leads me to believe that someone informed Wes that he would have a pair to review. If he did not get a pair, then someone pulled the rug from under him, unfairly I'd say, in that he publically reported that he would review them. I've never met Mr. Philips, but he does not strike me at the type of person that would report he will do something, and then not. If Gallo initially told him they would supply him a sample, and then elected not to, fine. That is all I would like know. You claim that the review process is transparent. What I cannot figure out is why Wes would say it is coming, not I think it is coming, it may come, I am trying to get a review pair, nada. Therefore, I presume he was given some assurances.
If Gallo pulled a switcheroo, then I would think that they should be taken to task in light of the fact they use a floweringly positive quote from Mr. Philips on their website to sell their product. Maybe they got their quote, and decided not to risk a less than favorable full review. Who knows? But an explanation as to what happened, as opposed to a simple "he never got one", may shed some light here. Certainly, there are differences between "they got lost in transit", and "Gallo decided not to submit samples after they indicated they would" provides more information than simply "they never sent them."
"Why you continue to insist that you are right is rather sad, in my
opinion."Sorry to make you cry. I'll live. See above. I have no doubt that Gallo never sent samples. Why did Wes think he was getting them? Did Gallo tell him they would forward them? Did they then tell him, no dice?
"but Gallo felt a review in Stereophile would not be in their best
interest; why does it matter to you? Why does it matter enough, in
fact, that you keep bringing this matter up on multiple Internet
forums and implying that Stereophile has behaved in an underhanded
manner?"Underhanded manner? Hardly, and I apologize if I have given you that impression. I am asking for some wheat. I'll give you the chaff. Facts, with my supposition, and what I would tell a jury: Wes likes them at CES. Wes "invites" them to his residence. Someone from Gallo, maybe Anthony Gallo himself, tell Wes that they will accommodate his request for a review sample, having supplied, it seems, a sample to every reviewer under the sun. Wes, in May, 2006, tells an interested reader (not me, suprise) that he will be reviewing them when he gets time to do so, still under the impression that Gallo will accomodate his request. Time comes. Gallo, maybe Anthony himself, changes his mind, and decides not to send a sample to Wes. Wes, who has gone out on something of a limb by publically telling a reader that he will review them, now has the proverbial rug pulled from under his feet. Gallo does not send review samples.
Wes confirmed the first two sentences, you the third. Problem is, everything in the middle is the important stuff. Why does it matter to me? I don't know. Maybe as a long time subscriber, I give two shits what Wes thinks about the speakers. I presume that you think I should, since his reviews appear in your magazine. Maybe I think that if a company has misled a reviewer, I, the reader and consumer, should know about this, particularly if the company is using a great quote from the slighted reviewer in its advertising to sell its product.
I think there may be misunderstandings on both ends. For the record, I do not think you or the magazine did anything underhanded, lied, or any such thing. Based upon the cursory facts as I know them to be, it appears Wes was duped. All I want is some of the wheat.
Follow Ups:
> I initially object because you, and now Mr. Hansen, argue that this
> not a reasonable interpretation on my part.
I believe that part of your ongoing problem, Mr. Garvin, is that
you do not comprehend what others write. I did _not_ say that your
interpretation was unreasonable; instead, while I agreed that it was
reasonable, I repeatedly pointed out that it was wrong.
> Be that as it may, you have explained that Wes never had the
> speakers in his possession. I accept that now, and did when you
> first wrote it.
So has it been such a live issue for you since then? Why did you
write about the "mystery," with the negative connotations that
carries?
> What I did not accept was that Wes Philips, which, based upon his
> writings, seems an honorable man who writes what he means, is
> honest, and would not intentionally mislead anyone to believe he
> would review the speakers, when, in fact, he had no such committment
> and authorization to do so.
Because at the time he wrote, it seemed likely that review samples
would be forthcoming. For reasons unknown, that didn't happen. This
happens more often that you would think. As Charlie Hansen explained
to you, manufacturers can change their mind for any number of
reasons. Reviewers, too, change their mind, following new information.
It is riduculous for you to impugn people's integrity because not
everything they honestly believe is going to happen does happen.
> I earn a living in which people can take to the bank representations
> I make, and I presume Wes has the same principle.
Good for you. Magazine publishing is inevitably more untidy than
whatever field you work in, because of the large number of unrelated
things that all have to happen in a timely manner for an issue to be
published. As manufacturers with whom I deal will testify, they can't
be sure that a promised review will appear in the expected issue
until they see it in print. People get sick or get called on jury
duty. I have been sitting on a promised review of an Ayre
preamplifier for months now because we have been giving Ayre
significant coverage in recent issues and I want there to be some
space before the next Ayre review appears. I have been working on a
speaker review that was originally scheduled to appear in our June
issue. At the last minute I held it over to July so I could put the
product on that issue's cover because my original choice for the July
cover failed to materialize in time.
In addition, the fact that issue sizes must be quantized in
increments of 8 pages means that at least one review scheduled to
appear in a specific issue gets bounced back a month, which in turn
pushes back that writer's next review committment by a month.
As I said, "untidy." None of this means that we lack integrity, only
that in Donald Rumsfield's infamous phrase, "stuff happens."
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
"while I agreed that it was reasonable, I repeatedly pointed out that it was wrong."You wrote that Gallo never sent a sample. As I wrote below, that could be because Wes decided he did not want to review them, in which case they would not send a sample, or it could be because they themselves did not elect to send a sample. I simply attempting to determine the reason.
"So has it been such a live issue for you since then? Why did you
write about the "mystery," with the negative connotations that
carries?"The mystery was WHY, not WHAT. That Gallo did not send a review sample is clear. WHY that review sample was never sent was not. Had you first written that "Gallo informed Wes he would be forwarded a sample, and then, for whatever reason, they did not send the sample" instead of "They never sent one" would have avoided this.
The reason for my confusion was that Gallo seems to have provided review samples to every reviewer under the sun, uses a quote from Wes Philips on their cite, so I could not understand that they would not send a sample after they apparently informed Wes they would. I generally do not assume people break agreements. I usually like to be told that is the case before I jump to conclusions. Perhaps in your experience, and as Mr. Hansen itimated below, this is a common occurrence in the publishing world. In my world, it is common, but people usually pay the consequences. Realizing that I am not in the publishing world, a little more than "they did not send a review sample" would have been helpful.
"Because at the time he wrote, it seemed likely that review samples
would be forthcoming. For reasons unknown, that didn't happen. This
happens more often that you would think. As Charlie Hansen explained
to you, manufacturers can change their mind for any number of
reasons. Reviewers, too, change their mind, following new information.
It is riduculous for you to impugn people's integrity because not
everything they honestly believe is going to happen does happen."Up until the last sentence, had this been what you wrote, then this matter would have been resolved long ago. I did not "impugn" anyone's integrity. I simply asked for more information beyond "they did not send a review sample." Perhaps you interpreted my additional questions as a challenge, as though additional questions somehow demonstrates a questioning of you or Wes Philips. I never called you or Wes a liar. Had I thought so, I would have said so.
I think that you presumed I should be able to fill in the details. Well, I think when someone breaks an agreement, their integrity is questioned. I was not willing to presume it was Gallo's until I knew it was they that did not send the sample as opposed to Wes changing his mind, and why. Had I presumed it was yours, I would have stopped asking questions, and simply posted that you and Wes are liars, and cannot be trusted. Which I did not do.
There are many posters here who proclaim you are on the take because of advertising, etc., etc. They ask no questions, merely making declarative statements. You are rightfully indignant. I ask questions, make no statements and no accusations, and you apparently reserve for me the same indignation?
"Good for you. Magazine publishing is inevitably more untidy..."
I do not equate a manufacturer being called for jury duty, lightning striking their warehouse, or the printer dying, or the wicked witch hexing them as an issue. That may qualify as untidy. On the other hand, when a manufacturer, or a reviewer, makes a committment, then breaks that committment, and when it is physically possible for them to perform their obligation, then I do not call that "untidy."
> You wrote that Gallo never sent a sample. As I wrote below, that
> could be because Wes decided he did not want to review them, in
> which case they would not send a sample, or it could be because they
> themselves did not elect to send a sample. I simply attempting to
> determine the reason.
I don't know the reason, nor do I think it important enough to find
out. Things like this happen all the time. End of story, as far as
I am concerned.
> I think when someone breaks an agreement, their integrity is
> questioned.
There was no formal "agreement." Your point is moot. Again, end of
story as far as I am concerned.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
experience with disappointment. We need to lighten up.
Can anyone suggest why Gallo would not want their speakers reviewed in SF?
Try reading the post directly below yours.
......but for some strange reason I feel compelled to try and give you a meaningful reply. Maybe all those pain meds are going to my head...It sounds like you have finally realized that it was Gallo who changed their mind. You still seem to think that there is something evil here that needs to be exposed. As a manufacturer, let me give just a few examples of why Gallo may have changed their mind:
a) They are already back-ordered for three months and don't want to create any additional demand.
b) They are planning to make a change to the model in question sometime in the next year. Given the lead time to review a product, write the review, and publish the magazine, the review would be obsolete by the time it appeared.
c) They looked at all the reviews they have already and decided they had more to lose than to gain by having another review by Wes.
d) They have a policy of delivering the product in person and their travel budget for the year has already been used up.
e) They just had a large number of reviews in a short amount of time and want to wait a while before getting another one. In other words, spread out the good news.
f) Et cetera, et cetera. Use your imagination.
Nothing nefarious here. Like I said in another post, you could just call Gallo and ask them.
"It sounds like you have finally realized that it was Gallo who changed their mind."Finally. The initial response was a very cursory "They did not send a review sample", which, I think you would agree, does not provide much information. That statement could mean be they decided not to send one, or it could be that Wes decided he did not want to review them, in which case, they did not send a review sample. I guess you could flip a coin as to which one it was. But I wanted to know which it was, and, frankly, I did not think was too much to ask. When someone gives me a statement which is open to multiple interpretations, I generally ask additional questions to reduce the possible explanations. And, in my experience, if there is nothing to hide, the information generally flows.
"You still seem to think that there is something evil here that needs to be exposed. As a manufacturer, let me give just a few examples of why Gallo may have changed their mind:"
Something evil? You mean like Dr. Evil? No. But I have made committments to clients that I later wished I had not. What do I do? Do what I told the client was I would do, even though I may be able to avoid the committment. If Gallo, or any manufacturer, told Wes they would supply a sample, they should supply the sample if physically possible. While the reasons you gave why a manufacturer would change their minds may all be reasons, they do not excuse a company from breaking their word.
In another thread we read that generally when you purchase a high end audio component, you are also generally buying the one or two guys who own and run the company. If I, the consumer, would like to know that a company does not honor its committments to a reviewer, believing that such conduct may indicate its unwillingness to honor its committments to me, then I think I am within my rights to ask for that information, and to be provided that information, or at least a statement that the magazine will not provide me the full details.
I note, though, you did not answer the question as to whether you would tell a reviewer that a review sample is forthcoming, a representation that the reviewer relied upon in a public comment, and then tell the reviewer that you chose not to submit a sample, if the reason for not doing so was within your control. Would you?
Of course, this has nothing to do with a manufacturer deciding not to submit a sample in the first place. That is their prerogative. I am referring to the manufacturer that tells a reviewer a sample will be forthcoming.
"Nothing nefarious here."
I am not sure how you would describe not fulfilling an obligation you made, and for which another relied upon.
"Like I said in another post, you could just call Gallo and ask them."
I could. But they have an interest in not providing me all the facts -such as they may be afraid that such behavior may have me looking elsewhere. On the other hand, I am not sure the magazine's interest is in not providing me, the other other reader who initially asked the question, all the information, which it now has with Mr. Atkinson's latest post.
| ||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: