Reviewers resumes need to be like:

[mep]

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:

So you do want want reviewers to state they aren't being paid by the manufacturer of the product they are reviewing and/or the reviewer has no financial interest in the company. Wow!! Do you have any proof this has ever happened?? I have read lots of reasons why people claim they don't trust reviews and don't pay any attention to them, but I have never once in my life read where people thought reviewers were being paid under the table by companies to write positive reviews. And I have been around this hobby a long time my friend. I'm bummed that you are this jaded. If you have any proof this has ever happened, I would love to see it.

The only thing I'm aware of is what Myles referred to the other day. There was a TAS reviewer many years ago who was caught accepting cheap gear for taking pictures of said cheap gear for the review he wrote and he was subsequently and publicly fired by HP. So if you and your internet friends think they have dirt on some reviewers, please bring it forward. Just make sure you have some facts and not some rumors. Frankly I'm disappointed you are so jaded and suspicious of reviewers to the point that you think we need to publicly declare with each review we write that we aren't on the take and we don't own an interest in the company.

 

[jdandy]

Hey, I still own and use the Model 88CD by Henry Kloss. It's one the night table next to my bed. The alarm wakes me up to a favorite CD and it has a subwoofer built in with separate level control on the rear. I like it a lot and hope it never breaks down. Sounds surprisingly good. I bought it without reading a review. Imagine that.

 

[Myles B. Astor]

Hey, I still own and use the Model 88CD by Henry Kloss. It's one the night table next to my bed. The alarm wakes me up to a favorite CD and it has a subwoofer built in with separate level control on the rear. I like it a lot and hope it never breaks down. Sounds surprisingly good. I bought it without reading a review. Imagine that.

I'm sure it measured perfectly too!:snicker:

 

[FlexibleAudio]

So you do want want reviewers to state they aren't being paid by the manufacturer of the product they are reviewing and/or the reviewer has no financial interest in the company. Wow!! Do you have any proof this has ever happened?? I have read lots of reasons why people claim they don't trust reviews and don't pay any attention to them, but I have never once in my life read where people thought reviewers were being paid under the table by companies to write positive reviews. And I have been around this hobby a long time my friend. I'm bummed that you are this jaded. If you have any proof this has ever happened, I would love to see it.

The only thing I'm aware of is what Myles referred to the other day. There was a TAS reviewer many years ago who was caught accepting cheap gear for taking pictures of said cheap gear for the review he wrote and he was subsequently and publicly fired by HP. So if you and your internet friends think they have dirt on some reviewers, please bring it forward. Just make sure you have some facts and not some rumors. Frankly I'm disappointed you are so jaded and suspicious of reviewers to the point that you think we need to publicly declare with each review we write that we aren't on the take and we don't own an interest in the company.

Mark, As I indicated before, I presume you are playing a game and I don't really want to play. I never said any such thing. READ MY POSTS. Your routine of jumping on fictitious straw men and riding them like a cowboy is painfully obvious.

I have said several times, I do not hold these views about reviewers and I have no demands. This is a simple, fixable problem faced by your profession and I have simply given the forum an obvious solution to a business problem. However, the systematic deflection of the issue and reluctance to embrace an obvious solution is quite interesting to me.

BTW Mark, if I had said "I am suspicious of reviewers and was demanding some sort of action on there part" trying to appeal to my sense of shame or emotion has no meaning. I am not wired that way.

 

[mep]

Mark, As I indicated before, I presume you are playing a game and I don't really want to play. I never said any such thing. READ MY POSTS. Your routine of jumping on fictitious straw men and riding them like a cowboy is painfully obvious.

I have said several times, I do not hold these views about reviewers and I have no demands. This is a simple, fixable problem faced by your profession and I have simply given the forum an obvious solution to a business problem. However, the systematic deflection of the issue and reluctance to embrace an obvious solution is quite interesting to me.

BTW Mark, if I had said "I am suspicious of reviewers and was demanding some sort of action on there part" trying to appeal to my sense of shame or emotion has no meaning. I am not wired that way.

Paul- Sure sounds like it to me. You can't have it both ways. You are making demands about financial disclosure. Go back and read what you said. I'm tired of you being cryptic in what you are asking for. I have asked you numerous times to come out and say what it is you are looking for. You have never made it clear other than to say you want reviewers to make financial disclosure. So do tell, what is it exactly that you are asking for? You keep telling me to go back and read what you said, but there is nothing I have read that you have written that clearly expresses what you are asking for. What is your "solution"? Please, lay it out Paul.

I welcome anyone else who is reading this thread to enlighten me if you understand what it is that Paul is asking for.

 

[FlexibleAudio]

Mark, I did not say you must do X because I believe Y about you. I said if you want to get rid of a problem that you have because others believe Y, then I think you should just do X and the problem goes away. If you still can't understand that I suppose I can go back and pull all the specific posts buts it is all there. If some how I have failed to make it clear then thats on me.

As simple as I can say it:

Many audiophiles believe reviewers have a credibility problem because of financial conflicts with third party's. I do not. However, I believe this problem would go away if reviewers disclose all third party financial relationships. I believe this action will increase the size of your market and your earnings. That said, you are of course free to do as you want. Just don't expect this never ending ritual to stop without taking such steps. I could care less what you do.

 

[Zero]

Blah blah blah. I'm still waiting to be knighted...

Sir Zero has a nice ring to it..

 

[mep]

Mark, I did not say you must do X because I believe Y about you. I said if you want to get rid of a problem that you have because others believe Y, then I think you should just do X and the problem goes away. If you still can't understand that I suppose I can go back and pull all the specific posts buts it is all there. If some how I have failed to make it clear then thats on me.

As simple as I can say it:

Many audiophiles believe reviewers have a credibility problem because of financial conflicts with third party's. I do not. However, I believe this problem would go away if reviewers disclose all third party financial relationships. I believe this action will increase the size of your market and your earnings. That said, you are of course free to do as you want. Just don't expect this never ending ritual to stop without taking such steps. I could care less what you do.

Paul-First of all, I don't believe that "I" or other reviewers have a "problem" we need to get rid of. I have not read any threads on the internet where people feel that reviewers somehow may have financial interests in the companies whose products they are reviewing. I have only read that from you. So when you say "Many audiophiles believe reviewers have a credibility problem because of financial conflicts with third party's" (sic), please provide links to where people are saying that.

I will say this once more for your sake: I have no financial interests in any audio company. I have never been offered or nor would I accept any compensation from a company for writing a review. I am not for sale. My integrity means everything to me. I would also be embarrassed if I had to make that statement at the end of all my reviews. So please point us in the direction where all of this internet chatter is taking place where people think that reviewers are on the take and accepting compensation from audio companies for favorable reviews or where reviewers hold a stake in an audio company.

 

[Garth]

The more rules and restrictions and disclosers will chance the reviews. Some may change it for the better but I am sure some changes will have effects no one will see coming. It will slow the whole thing down as well.

I feel pick the right guy for the job trust him to do it right if he screws up just hope the editor catches it if not print a correction . Any back ground on any reviewer is private if he or she wishes to share (thanks For sharing ) . Most reviewers are good at what they do, I may not agree with them but I may not be right all the time ether . What we are talking about is a form of over sight or censorship Lets say a reviewer is right 90% of the time and wrong 10% of the time. I feel a Censorship is right 10% of the time and wrong 90% of the time. Thats a long way of saying it's not broke don't fix it. It may not be perfect but nothing is. Read a review and think about it listen to the gear make up your own mind. The less rules the better.

 

[FlexibleAudio]

Mark,

Ok, that is a perfectly sound position. If you do not perceive any credibility problem in your industry then obviously nothing I have said has any relevance. The whole topic is predicated on that point and that point alone as a starting proposition.

But for the record Mark this whole issue began when I presented a solution to a problem others had already been discussing in the "What happened at WBF" thread. I was not the originator of the topic but was simply posing a solution as a simple business matter.

 

[mep]

Ok, that is a perfectly sound position. If you do not perceive any credibility problem in your industry then obviously nothing I have said has any relevance. The whole topic is predicated on that point and that point alone as a starting proposition.

I'm asking you to back up what you are saying with links to where people are discussing this. There are plenty of links to discussions where people say they hate reviewers and take everything they say with a grain of salt and therefore reviewers have no credibility in their eyes. What I'm looking for is where "many" people are discussing that reviewers need to disclose financial information that you are asking for.

 

[Mike]

 

[FlexibleAudio]

I'm asking you to back up what you are saying with links to where people are discussing this. There are plenty of links to discussions where people say they hate reviewers and take everything they say with a grain of salt and therefore reviewers have no credibility in their eyes. What I'm looking for is where "many" people are discussing that reviewers need to disclose financial information that you are asking for.

Mark,

To start, this whole issue began when I presented a solution to a problem others had already been discussing in the "What happened at WBF" thread. I was not the originator of the topic and made no negative comments about trusting reviewers. I simply posed a solution as a simple business matter. I never said people were calling for financial disclosure; I am proposing it as a solution to the problem you yourself recognize exists.

My whole purpose was to give a solution to shut up your critics. Your welcome.

 

[JackD201]

Some time back I was "accused" of shilling by a manufacturer at that because I crossposted how happy I was with field upgrades to MY personal pair of speakers because I was/am a distributor of the company that makes the speaker. It didn't matter that I'd always been open and candid about really liking stuff I don't carry. I guess this is par for the course in forum land where there will always be cynics and skeptics. Years later when when I posted the unboxing of my turntable and was accused by another guy of being partial because I'm in the industry, the very same manufacturer, who I guess at this point had noticed that I'd always been candid, stood up for me despite him having a competing product.

Credibility is earned over time and no matter what you do, you will never win everybody over. So reviewers, just keep on calling things as you see them. Be honest and humble, do not skimp on the qualifiers and lastly, being now in the public domain accept that no matter what you do or say you will always be questioned.

 

[CPP]

This whole "financial disclosure stuff, well is difficult at best to prove any accuracy if an audio reviewer did in fact provide that disclosure. First who's going to ensure the reviewer is in fact providing an accurate disclosure, the manufacturer, I say I don't see it happening. Lets take this further. Reviewer A is providing a review of a product for a publication and gets paid $$ for that review by someone lets say the manufacturer. Another reviewer B, is doing a review for another publication of that same product and read what A got paid in his publication. See the issue here.

It not going to happen.

All I ask of a reviewer is an honest review of the product. Their not reviewing some new cure for cancer here, its audio equipment and the music.

 

[the professor]

I agree, credibility is earned over time, not by disclosures.

If skeptics don't want to believe reviewers then they will just say the disclosures are are false. Skeptics ALWAYS have an excuse to put somebody down. Only their point is valid.

 

[mep]

Mark,

To start, this whole issue began when I presented a solution to a problem others had already been discussing in the "What happened at WBF" thread. I was not the originator of the topic and made no negative comments about trusting reviewers. I simply posed a solution as a simple business matter. I never said people were calling for financial disclosure; I am proposing it as a solution to the problem you yourself recognize exists.

My whole purpose was to give a solution to shut up your critics. Your welcome.

Paul-You are dead wrong my friend. I do not recognize there is a problem where people think reviewers lack credibility because of financial issues. There are a ton of reasons people express for why they don't feel reviewers have credibility, but money isn't one of them that I'm familiar with.

 

[Mike]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the reviewers I've reached out to for help: Myles, Mike Fremer, John Atkinson, Art Dudley, Robert Harley, Roy Gregory and numerous others, have given their time freely. They've always answered my questions and often given me some great ideas - all without asking for a penny - directly or indirectly.

I know others on this site have had similar experiences.

To think there is any sort of impropriety is just rude.

 

[FlexibleAudio]

Paul-You are dead wrong my friend. I do not recognize there is a problem where people think reviewers lack credibility because of financial issues. There are a ton of reasons people express for why they don't feel reviewers have credibility, but money isn't one of them that I'm familiar with.

Goodness Mark, I tried to let you slide but you are not at all being truthful.

1) The thread I made my original proposal in (What happened at WBF) had several comments about financial bias. That is why I made my proposal. You read them and you commented.

2) This thread has two posts that address financial bias (#54 and #60). You read it and have commented.

3) The recent thread at WBF titled "My views on Audio Reviewers" directly discussed financial bias among reviewers in posts #'s 8,24,45,46,79,80,86,87,91,92,94 in the first 10 pages alone. The thread goes on for 65 pages. I only listed direct references. Other posts reference the issue subtly and I did not include them. Who knows how many references you saw. It was started 6/13/15. You have read it and posted throughout.

That took 10 minutes. Do you really want me to look further?

Now knock it off Mark, you are embarrassing yourself.

 

[mep]

Mike-Obviously I agree with everything you say. What bothers me is that Paul thinks it's common knowledge that reviewers have a credibility issue due to money issues. I keep asking for links to these conversations, but so far I have seen zero. It's not hard to find people who trash reviewers and our credibility based on what we say about products we review. I 'get' that. If you want to insinuate that reviewers are thought to lack credibility due to some type of financial disclosure you want to see that isn't being offered, you need to bring some proof to the table. I'm not aware of any undercurrent on the net where people think reviewers are on the take or receive compensation from companies they review products for.