Reviewers resumes need to be like:

Status
Not open for further replies.
JackD201 said:
Mikey is cashing on on his book and appearance fees for lectures and seminars. Robert has been cashing in on his book too (for years). Jon maybe his non-audio books. Maybe we should be looking at these and not the reviews that come out periodically and get posted on line for free a few weeks later than print. :weird:

Maybe a certain self proclaimed savior of lost audio souls got hip to this and that's why he wrote his own book. Much better than getting banned practically everywhere!
Click to expand...

Don't forget Ken Kessler. Except he deals watches at shows to pay for trips. Well it's a luxury item. :)
 
Myles B. Astor said:
A

Dan what exactly do you think reviewers get paid per review and make in a year?

You do realize that legally you are only allowed to write off expenses for three years after which you need to show you are making money. Not to mention doing that is a red flag for IRS and you can just about guarantee getting audited. Let me tell you that outside of a few full time magazine writers like Valin, Harley and Fremer, nobody is getting rich. In fact, no one is quitting their day job.
Click to expand...

Myles.......Since I have never received a dime for the many reviews I have written in the past seven years I can honestly say I don't have a clue what print or web publications pay their contributors. From many of the comments by reviewers that elude to income I have to assume few are making a living from writing audio reviews. I certainly didn't mean to offend you or any other professional reviewer. None the less I have to ask, if the financial compensation, no matter how insufficient, ceased to be paid would you continue to contribute the same effort as now?

Publications are businesses first. You know that. Advertising revenue is the critical key since we all know subscriptions don't carry the water. In order to sell advertising you have to have readership and the value of said advertising is directly related to readership numbers. Would anyone purchase an audio magazine that only printed advertising with no other content? I know I wouldn't. So publications also must deliver interesting content, hopefully of such value that readers willingly return again and again. In order to get a steady stream of content to entice readership growth publishers have to compensate contributors. Whether that pay sustains a comfortable lifestyle or not isn't generally public knowledge but it seems safe to say there is some form of payment for services rendered. The publishing business model is not unique. I merely commented on how the formula that sustains monthly audio publications revolves around profitability. I have little doubt your contributions to the publishing machine are not compensated at the level you wish.

Yes, I understand expenses and write offs. And yes, I have been audited and survived. Legitimate business expenses can be written off, including travel expenses, lodging and meals. Whether you are able to do this under your particular circumstances I have no knowledge. Again, no offense intended. Your are a fine audio reviewer. Please keep up the good work.
 
Puroagave,

As I'm sure you already know, most Hi-Fi reviewers are volunteers. Those who DO get paid usually earn far less than $300 per article. Still, it's something - and something is a whole lot more than what most reviewers get.

Even A-list reviewers, like those who work for Stereophile or TAS, don't make that much. Sure, they get more than $300 a pop, but the earnings still wouldn't be enough to cover modest monthly living expenses. This holds especially true for the folks who live in the North East. Particularly during the winter months...

Anyway, the bottom line is that there are very few reviewers (not to be confused with publishers) who earn a living off of their reviews. Most of these people either hold real world jobs, are retired, or are independently wealthy and review gear just for fun.
 
To me, it seems more like a labor of love. I can certainly see benefits other than money, such as listening to something for free. A perfect job for gear swappers who are also articulate. I would love to be in the stereo technology area for a day job
 
Just put things in perspective.

Back in the late'90s, I paid my writers $500 per piece. That was third most behind Stereophile ($1200) and TAS (forget after all these years). So even if you wrote two pieces x four issues that was $4000.

Another thing has changed. Magazines no longer pay for the whole staff to attend shows. In fact, most writers pay their own way which can get expensive. Two years ago, I paid my way to five shows and the tab came out to near $10,000. What I got paid hardly compensated for the money laid out but I love the industry, equipment not to mention our readers really enjoy learning about all the new equipment. (Does anyone know what the biggest selling issue of TAS was in the 80s and 90s?)

Magazines bring the fewest possible to cover shows. And writers work their tails off putting together those reports everyone oh so enjoy. You don't just breeze into all the rooms and pen something. And for those-and I don't ask for any favors-who criticize exhibitors for sometimes giving writers preferential treatment. Writers are on a tight schedule to see all the rooms at a show-sometimes in the 100s at something like RMAF or Munich-or the equipment segment they are assigned to cover. And if you are someone like Soundstage or even as I have done and write a daily show blog you are up to sometimes three or four am in the morning uploading pictures and writing reports. Then getting up at 8 or 9am. So while I enjoy shows, they are a lot of work and writers earn every penny they are paid. For someone like Peter B., the end of the show is the beginning of a month's worth of work editing all the video audiophiles oh so much love watching and discussing.

Just to put a little perspective on things.
 
It's obvious to me that reviewers, such as Myles, do all of this because of their love of our hobby. Only a handful make anything worth mentioning.
 
MDP said:
It's obvious to me that reviewers, such as Myles, do all of this because of their love of our hobby. Only a handful make anything worth mentioning.
Click to expand...

Thanks Mark!

Most reviewers I know are in the the field because of their love of audio and music. :) But even more so to tell people--and we're not necessarily talking here about experienced audiophiles but people who have no idea what high-end audio is--that there's a whole amazing world out there other than receivers and Bose. Pretty much all of us--save maybe the few that had audiophile Dads--started out with pretty humble beginnings. And after all, we are all ambassadors of high-end audio; just that reviewers have a bigger pulpit to reach the world. (Too bad we can't establish audio ministries and we'd be set then!)
 
I think the point being made here is that the reality for reviewers is much different than some people's perceptions. With few exceptions, I'm pretty sure the majority of reviewers have full-time jobs. I know I do.
 
I have a friend who writes for a American Iron a bike mag he told me he gets 400 per article monthly column .

Tas has had a bumpy ride from day one to operate in the black and I have not heard of any mag in Audio making big profits.

Reviewers are doing the write ups mostly because they enjoy doing it, a very few are misguided and off base most are not .

Writing any review is an opinion on any product Years ago any review Harry Pearson wrote on rock records the more Harry hated it the more likely I was to buy it. (He was a big Classical Fan) he had a good ear and a good writer. Harry trashed about every record I really liked and I am still Glad I got to meet him.

Money is a motivator but few would look at Audio as a way to get rich unless they already liked the music or gear , no one on the outside is going to get in for the easy cash too many other things pay better.

What a reviewer should be is honest even if he is wrong IMO. I buy TAS , stereophile and UHF some times a import mag if I see one .

The only graf that counts is the one on your bank account. Now thats honest
 
Garth said:
I have a friend who writes for a American Iron a bike mag he told me he gets 400 per article monthly column .

Tas has had a bumpy ride from day one to operate in the black and I have not heard of any mag in Audio making big profits.

Reviewers are doing the write ups mostly because they enjoy doing it, a very few are misguided and off base most are not .

Writing any review is an opinion on any product Years ago any review Harry Pearson wrote on rock records the more Harry hated it the more likely I was to buy it. (He was a big Classical Fan) he had a good ear and a good writer. Harry trashed about every record I really liked and I am still Glad I got to meet him.

Money is a motivator but few would look at Audio as a way to get rich unless they already liked the music or gear , no one on the outside is going to get in for the easy cash too many other things pay better.

What a reviewer should be is honest even if he is wrong IMO. I buy TAS , stereophile and UHF some times a import mag if I see one .

The only graf that counts is the one on your bank account. Now thats honest
Click to expand...

To be honest, the whole magazine business operates on thin margins. I remember something like 12% bandied about years ago. That's also why magazines aren't necessarily great investments.

And while critics keep knocking magazines for accepting advertising and never, ever proven tit for tat, quid pro quo relationships (Atkinson has repeatedly presented the statistics but naysayers refuse to accept the facts), magazines can not live by subscriptions only. In fact if you look at the magazine industry as a whole, it COSTS them $75 for each subscription. But-the greater the number of subscribers, the more they can charge for advertising.

Although when I had skin in the game, my premise was quality over quantity. What good is it if a mag has 100k subscribers if only 10,000 are interested in buying? I'd rather have something with 20k subscribers and 20k targeted interested buyers instead of a lot of tire kickers. (Same you know goes for getting professional athletes to endorse your product; people like Tiger had a 30% sell though.)
 
I will start by calling myself an idiot for jumping back int this discussion, but this point has already been established. I realize some of the reviewers who read this will be offended, but my purpose is quite the opposite. Nonetheless, for that I apologize in advance. I return to the topic because as a guy who runs a for-profit business and has spent a good part of my life advising others that do so, I remain confused by these discussions.

First, if you go back to the "What happened at WBF" thread and carefully read my posts (#92 and up), I did not accuse any reviewer of any type of malfeasance. What I did was define the essence of the problem written about regularly by others and proposed a time tested solution. Simply disclose the financial aspects of your dealings to avoid credibility problems. I did not indicate mistrust on my part; I recognized it en-mass amongst audiophiles and stated a way of fixing things.

This advice was met largely with resistance, abuse, and deflection. In turn, reviewers proceed to somewhat defensively make arguments as to why they deserve credibility in a multitude of informal ways which all have merit (remember I am not the one saying I don't trust, I am telling you how I would fix things to your advantage). The problem is the current approach's informality has had little effect on the root problem and the circle goes around-and-around until the next thread starts.

So here is the part by which I am confused:

What I am proposing is just not that complicated and yet all hell breaks loose at the mere mention of enacting a solution. Is this because practitioners are offended by the request or because they want to perpetuate the status quo (i.e., it inures to their ultimate benefit)? I have little doubt as it relates to some of our members here (Mark, Myles and others) that it is the former and NOT the latter, but when one think of things in a Shakespearean world it makes one ponder--- "The lady doth protest too much, methinks". This simply serves to exacerbate the problem in the market place.

I fully understand the need to earn a return on capital. That is my life. What I am proposing is not that reviewers earn less, but rather they earn more by implementing a few basic changes to their business model and in turn greatly increase the size of the market and the price the customer will pay.

You are selling a product that to a large percent of the market is broken. When I read the reviewer threads on forums a couple of common themes are found that allow for the classification of your customer base.

Type 1 - Lost Customers: Those that categorically refuse to consider any and all reviews due to either questions of competency or more commonly questions of financial motivation. (For these purposes competency will not be discussed as that can not be addressed through business model.) These cancelled their subscriptions long ago.

Type 2 - The Entertainment Crowd: Those which are happy to read the work but will openly admit that they do not put stock in the articles as it relates to the SQ observations due to reviewer's motivational questions. The typical user is looking for whats new in equipment and how it is designed etc. They are willing to pay a little but not a lot. I see many of these posters in forums standing up for reviewers and endorsing the current lack of disclosure but at the same time making it clear they would never trust what is written. Suffice it to say I find this confusing.

Type 3 - Loyal Customers: Those that value review content with little or no concern about motivation.

Types 2 and 3 represent a large and growing share of the market at a time when the need for objective SQ reviews on new gear is growing due the loss of brick and mortar. Yet a primary content of reviews (which I define as SQ information not just design detail) is being ignored.

I see no reason why a large share of these customers could not be cultivated by taking a few basic steps. Picture a company whose reviewers all receive a Reviewer's Certification granted to those that sign a statement for each review which discloses all financial relations with parties benefitting from the review. These certificates could be certified and held by an independent authority with audit powers. I am not here to craft all the details of this arrangement, but my point is the market is craving (and would pay for) a product where all of the mystery about the motivation of a reviews has been cleansed.

Please understand even if a reviewers business practices are 100% squeaky clean this concept is still completely relevant and of significant value to reviewers. It is the fear NOT the existence of improper motivation that has hurt your product. And for most it is no fault of your own; it is simply an opportunity.

The big publishers constantly face this questions regarding advertising. This approach would also facilitate taking market share from the Bigs as it relates to the Type 3's. What's to lose unless...........


Ok, have at it. :hide:
 
I'm going to say something that may prove to be very unpopular, but in my minds eye, the only thing that a reviewer owes you or anybody else is the most honest and accurate assessment that they can muster. Their focus should be on telling you what a product can do, what it can't do, what it works well with, what it doesn't work well with, and... if possible.. to compare and contrast that product to other gear that occupy the same price tier.

That's it.

The folks who truly believe that all reviewers are 'on the take' in one way or another will never give credibility to something they inherently distrust. It doesn't matter what you do. That said, if you feel that reviewers should be obligated to disclose personal financial information as it relates their Hi-Fi transactions, then I'd encourage you to explore the proposition by firing up your own publication and giving it a shot. You could simply add this full disclosure requirement to your terms of employment.
 
Zero said:
I'm going to say something that may prove to be very unpopular, but in my minds eye, the only thing that a reviewer owes you or anybody else is the most honest and accurate assessment that they can muster. Their focus should be on telling you what a product can do, what it can't do, what it works well with, what it doesn't work well with, and... if possible.. to compare and contrast that product to other gear that occupy the same price tier.

That's it.

The folks who truly believe that all reviewers are 'on the take' in one way or another will never give credibility to something they inherently distrust. It doesn't matter what you do. That said, if you feel that reviewers should be obligated to disclose personal financial information as it relates their Hi-Fi transactions, then I'd encourage you to explore the proposition by firing up your own publication and giving it a shot. You could simply add this full disclosure requirement to your terms of employment.
Click to expand...

An area I could clearly improve upon is my writing skills. I am not in any way saying that I feel reviewers should be obligated to disclose personal financial information as it relates to their Hi-Fi transactions. That would be silly. Reviewers have zero obligation to anyone but themselves. What I am saying is that I believe reviewers could improve the economic characteristics of their business model if they provided such information to the market place. That is a very different thing. An additional attribute of adopting this model, beyond higher profits, would be the elimination of these types of discussions.

I also think your view that the integrity of information could not be validated and in turn improve credibility is extremely misguided. With a respected advisory board and a credible accounting firm you could do just that. Would 100% of the market believe and would 100% of possible conflict be resolved, of course not, but the size of your markets could be greatly increased.

As far as my personal endeavors, I do not consider audio to be remotely close to one of my core competencies, and I only invest in these arenas, but thanks for the advice.
 
Paul-I'm not trying to be obstinate, but exactly what financial dealings do you think go on when reviewers review a product? There are zero financial dealings going on unless a reviewer buys the gear at the end of the review. Myles previously explained how that process works. If a reviewer buys the gear after the review is over, that is disclosed. Other than that, there are no financial arrangements/dealings to talk about. Zero, zip, nada. Companies send reviewers products to review after the review has been approved by the senior editors. We review the gear and ship it back to the company. The company has to pay for shipping both ways because otherwise reviewers would lose money every time they reviewed a product. We do have to pack it up and drive it to the closest Fed Ex or UPS shipping location which in my case is 30 minutes away. Some reviewers (not me so far) that review large, heavy statement speakers or amplifiers are lucky to have the manufacture show up at their house and actually deliver the products in person, unpack them, and set them up. The process is reversed at the end of the review period. No manufacturer or representative has ever shown up at my house. I get to unpack everything and schlep it down into my room myself. That's it-end of story.

Does that answer your questions or do you have other suspicions based on internet rumors?
 
Paul - do you have any real examples of impropriety? For example, someone reviews Raidho c4.1's, then Raidho D5's and miraculously his C4.1's are gone replaced by shiny new D5's?

Are you suggesting perhaps that reviewers review a product in a magazine they are interested in buying just to get an accommodation?

Do you think a manufacturer says "hey give me a great review on our new greatest, blessed by virgins from the mountains of Peru amplifier and we will give you a deal?"

I highly doubt 99.9999% of what you may think goes on, actually goes on. Things like that will always come back to haunt the person. The industry is too small. The people far too ethical.

I think Paul there is far more that goes on above the surface than below. Reference the situation with Paul and Shindo as an example. What about Steve's thoughts/opinions/findings re: Shunyata?

I think the industry, as a whole, operates with an open Kimono. To be honest, you may actually be giving them too much credit for wits!!
 
Mark, To start I want to be clear, I have no issues myself; I am referring to the explanations in forums as to why reviews are not as valuable in the market place as they could be. Period.

In edition, your post is exactly relevant to my view. Since you fall into the category of having no conflicts just put in place a validation system and you will open up a much bigger market. For you and Myles it would be a no brainer. Instead, you provide one-off defenses that state your integrity but this approach does not have the influence that maximizes your value in the marketplace. As I said, the issue is not your specific business practices it is this vast paranoia of the market place that is a cold hard reality and it may be hurting your ability to sell your product even though a significant, growing demand exists. It is the fear not the reality regarding conflicts and it is easily addressed. That said, I do think the original cause of the paranoia is real and is predicated on the behavior of a small group of very bad actors that work in a very different manner than you and Myles.

Think of other real life business practices that are put in place to create trust.

When a commercial contractor bids a job, they are selling their execution skill and their financial wherewithal to get the job done. To sell the product they get a Bond from a Bonding Firm to guarantee performance. They don't stand around and argue they have a good balance sheet but don't show it to anyone.

When a Lawyer takes a case a complete conflicts check is done against all of the firms clients to ensure no financial interests exist with parties on the other side of the table. This practice gives potential clients great trust and the law business would be very troubled without such a practice.

I know you guys hate the Consumer Reports comparison but that is a pretty successful model that addresses the issue in a manner the market has accepted.

The list goes on and on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top