Reviewers resumes need to be like:

Status
Not open for further replies.
FlexibleAudio,

I get where you're coming from. Hell, I even appreciate the idea. But here's why it'll never fly:

- For starters, no manufacturer or distributor (with a lick of common sense) would EVER work with a publication that uses this business model. Already, the notion is dead in the water.

- But, for the sake of entertainment, let's pretend that the manufacturers and distributors agreed to work with this business model. Obviously, they will decide to cover their own butts - which will mean denying reviewers the opportunity to get a decent situation on a product. We already made it clear how little money (if any) reviewers make. Doing this would be like tagging them from behind without so much as giving them a reach around.

- The big question is though, who would pay for this 3rd party detective team? Do you really think there are enough cynics out there who would suddenly eat crow and say "Ya know what, maybe these reviewers aren't so bad after all"? I may not be as experienced as Myles, but I didn't fall off the bus yesterday. I've been dealing with these guys for over a decade, and I can all but guarantee you that there won't be enough 'converts' to make up for the enormous costs that would go along with contracting some 3rd party accounting team to make sure that all the kids in the sandbox are playing fairly.

There wouldn't be higher profits. The credibility of the people in the business, if anything, would become even MORE suspect. A few mega critics may be satisfied, but at the end of the day, that'll amount to diddly squat.

As for consumer reports. They only have credibility in the eyes of people who don't know any better - at least as it pertains to electronics. For all of their checks and balances, they often fail to get the primary part of their gig right - which is to provide accurate and reliable information.


 
Mike said:
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!!
Click to expand...


Mike you are doing the same thing I have already addressed above which I restate below.

"This advise 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."
Click to expand...

The reality is people fear a conflict. If you truly don't see peoples fears, I don't believe you are paying attention. You seem to always want to talk about peoples actual business practices, but that is not the root of the problem. It is the lack of validation of the practice that drives the problem. Rather than address the root cause, the standard protocol in these discussions seems to follow a pattern which deflects back into a litany about how angelic everyone in the business is rather than pursue a different business strategy. This behavior does nothing to address the real problem and does little except to wear out whomever the challenger of the day might be. I just see a lot of money on the table, but people can obviously do what they want as I have said from the beginning yesterday.
 
Zero said:
FlexibleAudio,

I get where you're coming from. Hell, I even appreciate the idea. But here's why it'll never fly:

- For starters, no manufacturer or distributor (with a lick of common sense) would EVER work with a publication that uses this business model. Already, the notion is dead in the water.

- But, for the sake of entertainment, let's pretend that the manufacturers and distributors agreed to work with this business model. Obviously, they will decide to cover their own butts - which will mean denying reviewers the opportunity to get a decent situation on a product. We already made it clear how little money (if any) reviewers make. Doing this would be like tagging them from behind without so much as giving them a reach around.

- The big question is though, who would pay for this 3rd party detective team? Do you really think there are enough cynics out there who would suddenly eat crow and say "Ya know what, maybe these reviewers aren't so bad after all"? I may not be as experienced as Myles, but I didn't fall off the bus yesterday. I've been dealing with these guys for over a decade, and I can all but guarantee you that there won't be enough 'converts' to make up for the enormous costs that would go along with contracting some 3rd party accounting team to make sure that all the kids in the sandbox are playing fairly.

There wouldn't be higher profits. The credibility of the people in the business, if anything, would become even MORE suspect. A few mega critics may be satisfied, but at the end of the day, that'll amount to diddly squat.

As for consumer reports. They only have credibility in the eyes of people who don't know any better - at least as it pertains to electronics. For all of their checks and balances, they often fail to get the primary part of their gig right - which is to provide accurate and reliable information.


Click to expand...

What I think you are missing is the dynamic nature of the market. You are thinking of a static condition where their is little change in the demand for your product once validated as completely arms length. I obviously completely disagree with your view and feel the market speaks for itself. I think you vastly underestimate the size of the problem and the size of the market. I see a subscription product with significant demand. You would be the ones calling the shots with the manufacturers not the other way around.

Every single time a buyer reads a review and buys the product and the product does't perform the conflict issue is front and center. Every time a reviewer has his "best product ever" epiphany the conflict issue is front and center. It does not need to be and someone is going to make some money when they straighten things out.
 
I'll say this much, while I think your proposition won't bear the fruit that you're thinking it will - I nonetheless appreciate your taking the time to participate in this thread. We may not agree on this particular subject, but I respect your candor all the same. Cheers.
 
If there was a Consumer Reports style magazine - as you suggest - then what exactly would they be evaluating? We aren't talking about which blender mixes best or which lawn mower cuts the best. Would we be subjected to JUST measurements since everything else remains subjective? As a CR subscriber, I can tell you, they look for VALUE not "absolute".
 
Mike said:
If there was a Consumer Reports style magazine - as you suggest - then what exactly would they be evaluating? We aren't talking about which blender mixes best or which lawn mower cuts the best. Would we be subjected to JUST measurements since everything else remains subjective? As a CR subscriber, I can tell you, they look for VALUE not "absolute".
Click to expand...

The CR reference relates only to the method of dealing with the conflicts inherent in the review business, not the review product being sold.

I would:

1) Write a business plan largely predicated on the above concepts (as it relates to financial conflict of interest).
2) Raise some private money for a start-up.
3) Hire a couple of respected guys like Myles, Mark and maybe one additional well regarded name.
4) Build a validation model that is disclosed front and center on a website for all to scrutinize and uses some form of the audit/certification concepts already discussed.
5) Perform equipment review services very similar to what the market does currently (no reason to change) focussing on subjective and objective measures as suits the author's preference and skill set but with a backdrop that validates the writers financial objectivity.
6) Charge subscription fees for the on-line only service (to start).
 
Paul-Are you looking for some sort of declaration that reviewers aren't accepting money from audio companies for reviews that we write or that we don't partially own an interest in an audio company? Quit beating around the bush and just come and out and say exactly what you are looking for. This is getting tiresome. I have zero financial interests in any audio company and no manufacturer that I'm aware of is paying reviewers to write positive reviews for them. If so, that would have come out long ago because as Mike said, this community is very small and the only way three people can keep a secret is if two of them are dead.
 
Mark, You made me laugh out loud. I can't make it any clearer and I think you fully understand what my posts say. In its simplest form, yes the concept could be manifest by a reviewer making a disclosure exactly as you reference at the end of a review. This simple concept not being able to get any traction here whatsoever answers the question I set out with and speaks for itself. I was warned by many how this would go down, but I refused to believe. Remarkably, its almost as predictable as a Swiss watch. I have accomplished what I set out to accomplish. I will move on now.

:disbelief:
 
I enjoy and appreciate the reviewers, hard work and time, and passion they put into reviewing gear.:congrats:


From reading thru the posts, most of these guys, make little or no money on their hard work. has anyone noticed many reviewers have very nice gear?


everybody remember about "JV" and Nordost and Audiogon story---makes you wonder!
 
PureVinyl said:
I enjoy and appreciate the reviewers, hard work and time, and passion they put into reviewing gear.:congrats:


From reading thru the posts, most of these guys, make little or no money on their hard work. has anyone noticed many reviewers have very nice gear?


everybody remember about "JV" and Nordost and Audiogon story---makes you wonder!
Click to expand...

You are kidding right? Writers do hold down full time jobs and speaking for myself, am very lucky to be well compensated for it. But I work my ass off and get up at 4:30 AM and finish at 9 PM at night. And there are lots of other reasons too without having to resort to insinuating things.

Perhaps you remember Michael Fremer writing about how he took out a loan to pay for his Wilsons?

That help explain things?
 
Yes, good point. I prefer a reviewer who has the following reference system:

c9113c7484c8ee0d4021663494eed015.jpg
 
Myles B. Astor said:
You are kidding right? Writers do hold down full time jobs and speaking for myself, am very lucky to be well compensated for it. But I work my ass off and get up at 4:30 AM and finish at 9 PM at night. And there are lots of other reasons too without having to resort to insinuating things.

Perhaps you remember Michael Fremer writing about how he took out a loan to pay for his Wilsons?

That help explain things?
Click to expand...

Myles, Then make a public, binding representation to the contrary and you can stop begging for sympathy from these people.
 
Myles B. Astor said:
You are kidding right? Writers do hold down full time jobs and speaking for myself, am very lucky to be well compensated for it. But I work my ass off and get up at 4:30 AM and finish at 9 PM at night. And there are lots of other reasons too without having to resort to insinuating things.

Perhaps you remember Michael Fremer writing about how he took out a loan to pay for his Wilsons?

That help explain things?
Click to expand...


my reply had nothing to do, with writers having full time jobs or attack against writers?

at axpona, i asked a manufacture, why don't you send in the gear for a review! (loved it)


he quote was (will not name manufacture) "i don't send in gear for reviews, because the writers want to keep it for free, or pay peanuts for it after the review"


 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top