What happened at WBF

Status
Not open for further replies.
Paul, you would like a reviewer to say "I love these XYZ speakers so much, I bought the review pair and the manufacturer sold them to me at dealer cost."

What's the point? Can't you just assume that? They didn't get it for free!
 
still-one said:
And I thought I could always come here for a brief respite from threads such as this on other sites. I hope this doesn't become another +200 post thread on the topic.
Click to expand...

Well it's post 100. It's haltime with the score 24 -17 let's pause for a station identification.
 
BlueFox said:
Consumer Reports does that, and only looks at low-end stereo gear when they bother to look at stereo gear. Plus they do not take advertisements, so subscriptions is what pays their bills. I seriously doubt that model will work just for high-end stereo gear.

I don't have any problem at all with reviewers. It is just their opinion, and if they get gear at a discount, who cares? If one is corrupt then eventually they will be found out, and publicly humiliated.
Click to expand...

I think so much of this has been rehashed time and time again, year in and year out. iIRC CR buys the equipment, not the reviewer. Show me one high-end magazine that could afford to do that? :( To boot, let's give a product a negative review and then try to sell it. Besides, CR AIR only measures never listens.
 
Mike said:
Paul, you would like a reviewer to say "I love these XYZ speakers so much, I bought the review pair and the manufacturer sold them to me at dealer cost."

What's the point? Can't you just assume that? They didn't get it for free!
Click to expand...

Mike, I am trying to make a fairly simple point. Many people in high end audio tend to have this fear that people giving them advice may be enriched in some manner by a third party for giving such advice. This fear creates skepticism and in turn leads to these types of chats. I am making no specific personal observations in this regard. Rather, I am offering a simple way to alleviate this concern which is to follow practices used in business generally when such conditions arise. The most common being disclosure. I am sorry if I have made this too complicated.

If I where in this business and I wanted maximum credibility I would disclose all relations as a best practices protocol. If I wanted to maximize another variable I might do something else. I am not saying what's right or wrong; that's an individual thing. Obviously people are free to run their businesses as they see fit. But failing to disclose financial dealings and expecting people to not question motivations is either naivete or, as I indicated earlier, possibly part of the original modus operandi.
 
FlexibleAudio said:
Myles, My point is to disclose; not own Techniques. It is a piece of advice that IMO would improve credibility not a condemnation; nothing more, nothing less. Of course condemning all would be rediculous; at the same time, if a reviewer is on the right side of the fence I can't for the life of me see why they wouldn't fight for disclosure rather than run from it.
Click to expand...

What's not disclosed that you would like to see done? I know Atkinson has been pretty forthcoming. On PF, we list what in our reference system we own and what is on loan. Sometimes I might ask a manufacturer to keep an amp say longer because it would be helpful say in my next upcoming speaker review.

For the record, I own lock, stock and barrel everything in my system save for some cables. In the case of cables, it is usually to a reviewer's benefit for them to try different cables with the equipment being reviewed. That said, I've laid out a pretty penny for the cables I do own because some companies are new or small companies that can't afford to have a lot of inventory out in the field for review (that in fact is one of the biggest changes in the industry today and many other industries since the recession eg. Reducing inventory period) or that is not their policy. So if I like it, I must buy the cables.

As far as pricing. Standard is dealer cost is ergo most gear is 50% off MSRP. In fact, in the old days, reviewers got to keep cartridges they had reviewed; not any more. In my 30 years, two companies gave me 40 off and a long time ago got 60 off a cartridge. But that was still when analog was king.

Another thing to take into consideration is that most companies make reviewers sign a contract specifying they will not sell the piece for a year or two. So if something else comes along that one likes better--and in a span of two years that is not jphard to imagine-- the reviewer is stuck. And most reviewers that I know aren't exactly flush with money. Also magazines do no allow reviewers to make a profit on the sale of a review piece. That is ground for dismissal for any magazine I've written for. Nor is a reviewer allowed to barter work say to buy a component. We know the famous story of what happened to a TAS reviewer who reportedly did that.

I'd also add manufacturers like when reviewers buy equipment because of course, they can no longer sell the review gear as new. So it saves them the hassle of selling it themselves.

And for the record, I've never haggled over price with any manufacturer.

That's about as transparent as I think one can get?
 
Myles B. Astor said:
iIRC CR buys the equipment, not the reviewer.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what that means. They buy the review samples, and their staff in that speciality reviews it.

Show me one high-end magazine that could afford to do that?
Click to expand...

Hence my statement; I seriously doubt that model will work just for high-end stereo gear.

While CR has bought and reviewed a Tesla, I doubt if they would ever buy a Magico Q7. :)
 
Myles B. Astor said:
What's not disclosed that you would like to see done? I know Atkinson has been pretty forthcoming. On PF, we list what in our reference system we own and what is on loan. Sometimes I might ask a manufacturer to keep an amp say longer because it would be helpful say in my next upcoming speaker review.

For the record, I own lock, stock and barrel everything in my system save for some cables. In the case of cables, it is usually to a reviewer's benefit for them to try different cables with the equipment being reviewed. That said, I've laid out a pretty penny for the cables I do own because some companies are new or small companies that can't afford to have a lot of inventory out in the field for review (that in fact is one of the biggest changes in the industry today and many other industries since the recession eg. Reducing inventory period) or that is not their policy. So if I like it, I must buy the cables.

As far as pricing. Standard is dealer cost is ergo most gear is 50% off MSRP. In fact, in the old days, reviewers got to keep cartridges they had reviewed; not any more. In my 30 years, two companies gave me 40 off and a long time ago got 60 off a cartridge. But that was still when analog was king.

Another thing to take into consideration is that most companies make reviewers sign a contract specifying they will not sell the piece for a year or two. So if something else comes along that one likes better--and in a span of two years that is not jphard to imagine-- the reviewer is stuck. And most reviewers that I know aren't exactly flush with money. Also magazines do no allow reviewers to make a profit on the sale of a review piece. That is ground for dismissal for any magazine I've written for. Nor is a reviewer allowed to barter work say to buy a component. We know the famous story of what happened to a TAS reviewer who reportedly did that.

I'd also add manufacturers like when reviewers buy equipment because of course, they can no longer sell the review gear as new. So it saves them the hassle of selling it themselves.

And for the record, I've never haggled over price with any manufacturer.

That's about as transparent as I think one can get?
Click to expand...

Myles, You have extreme credibility in my eyes. I consider you one of the consummate pros in the business and this is one of the reasons I ask your opinion on my stuff. I, in fact, have less of a problem with reviewers than many; my whole effort here was just to offer a way to avoid the problem of credibility generally. I have said my peace.
 
Can we change the subject and make Peter feel like Home ?

PS.
I'm younger than Him

:P
IMG_0574.jpg

attachment.php
 
Last edited by a moderator:
FlexibleAudio said:
Mike, Respectfully I don't understand your post. By definition a conflict of interest exists if the party providing the opinion recieves any consideration of any kind whatsoever from a party directly or indirectly benefitting from the opinion. The mere act of lending equipment for review creates a conflict (not that this it itself is a troublesome practice as long as disclosures are made).
Click to expand...


Say what??? Are you proposing that reviewers should buy the gear they review before the review starts so there isn't a conflict of interest in your mind? Paul, I know you are an intelligent man, but that is the most Forest Gump statement I have ever read from you. If you seriously think reviewers should purchase all of the gear they review before they review it, there would be zero reviews.

I reviewed the Lampi Level 4 DAC before the Lampi craze went into full Beatlemania mode. I loved the way the Lampi Level 4 sounded with DSD and I stand by everything I said in my review. I didn't buy the Lampi and it was returned back to Lampi as soon as my review was over. I also took pictures of the Lampi Level 4 to show some of its funkiness so people could see what I was talking about in my review. Where is the conflict of interest Paul?
 
That's not what he implied , he said the "act of " creates a conflict and is not really an issue once full disclosure is made ...



Regards
 
FlexibleAudio said:
Myles, My point is to disclose; not own Techniques. It is a piece of advice that IMO would improve credibility not a condemnation; nothing more, nothing less. Of course condemning all would be rediculous; at the same time, if a reviewer is on the right side of the fence I can't for the life of me see why they wouldn't fight for disclosure rather than run from it.
Click to expand...


Disclose what Paul?? Everybody knows reviewers review gear that are sent to them by manufacturers who want their gear reviewed. When the review is over, the gear is packed up and sent back to the manufacturer unless the reviewer decides to purchase the gear. I've always seen those purchases disclosed in the review just as I disclosed that I bought the Viero speaker cables after I reviewed them. What else do you want disclosed?
 
mep said:
Say what??? Are you proposing that reviewers should buy the gear they review before the review starts so there isn't a conflict of interest in your mind? Paul, I know you are an intelligent man, but that is the most Forest Gump statement I have ever read from you. If you seriously think reviewers should purchase all of the gear they review before they review it, there would be zero reviews.

I reviewed the Lampi Level 4 DAC before the Lampi craze went into full Beatlemania mode. I loved the way the Lampi Level 4 sounded with DSD and I stand by everything I said in my review. I didn't buy the Lampi and it was returned back to Lampi as soon as my review was over. I also took pictures of the Lampi Level 4 to show some of its funkiness so people could see what I was talking about in my review. Where is the conflict of interest Paul?
Click to expand...

Mark,

This is not about the topic, Paul simply wants to debate. Nothing you say will stop this. He got you riled enough to post back.

I would like to know how Paul's Raidhos are sounding and what new tricks he has done with his system.
 
Peter Breuninger said:
Mark,

This is not about the topic, Paul simply wants to debate. Nothing you say will stop this. He got you riled enough to post back.
Click to expand...

Peter-Here's the thing: I know Paul and I know he is a good guy and I also know he is very intelligent. Paul is not a troll who likes to stir the pot to get a reaction. If he was, I wouldn't have bothered to comment. I consider Paul to be one of the good guys.
 
Mark, I encourage you to go back and read my posts (starting with #92) more carefully in their entirety. I am making an observation and recommending a possible solution to the issue being discussed. I fail to see how it can be controversial. => If my customer is afraid of X, simply show them X does not exist and the problem goes away. It is not more complicated than that. If you prefer letting the customer fear X so be it; that is your prerogative, but don't be surprised when discussions occur about the matter.

Frankly, I personally care little about the subject. I simply posited a well traveled solution to a well travelled predicament in business and life. That said, I do think the intense friction to the concept is intriguing, but that's just me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top