What counts as "money"?
I think the answer is "a lot of reviewers don’t take advertiser money." This is not a field to get rich in.
I think that reviewers have a spotty record for trustworthiness for a different reason -- they like to start trends and follow trends. That gets them attention. It’s an attention economy, not a bribe-taking scam.
But most audiophiles know that good sound does not come from trends but from patient, methodical, and often non-consumerist solutions to acoustic puzzles. The best speaker makers may not be the best advertised, expensive fuses may not be the way to correct a bad system, and used gear may be the fastest way to the mountaintop. None of that makes for trendy content.
One way around the trendy approach is the be the "maverick" dude who "tells it like it is." We all know that guy with his "truth to power schtick." Sometimes he IS telling the truth but the point is always hammered in, relentlessly: "Only I tell you the truth. Others are out to scam you. I’m on your side." (Sounds like a politician.) But then, guess what? He has his own gear to sell you, so now that you’ve realized he’s the only one you can trust, you have a supplier to whom you can pledge fealty. Now that’s some grade-A flimflammery.
There are a bunch of other reviewers who seem, to me, to really be doing honest work. Steve Stone, Hans Beekhuyzen, Tarun, and a few others.
|
Why is it such a difficult thing to believe?
If anything, a reviewer might get an " industry accommodation"
to purchase the gear after evaluation?
|
@carlsbad2 The whole audio hobby consists of two parts, IME. One is made up of folks who are there simply to try and make a buck ( most if not all reviewers and others). For example, on one of the many forums I am banned from, one of the owners without totally realizing his mistake, disclosed that they do take advertising as a means of being profitable. When pushed, the forum ’geniuses’ revoked the membership of a manufacturer who had started several posts simply to expose his gear more fully, and who saw an opportunity to do so at no cost to himself.
Then we have the other type of hobbyist, that is the one who usually comes here, and is more interested in bettering his system and his musical experience. Personally, I am only interested in the latter.
|
|
So are we saying we can't trust anyone who gets paid to do their job reviewing audio equipment? A rather jaded view IMHO.
|
"So are we saying we can't trust anyone who gets paid to do their job reviewing audio equipment? A rather jaded view IMHO"
Depends on who the reviewer is being paid by. Would you trust the review of a product if the reviewer is being paid by the manufacturer of said product?
|
Ok. I'm jaded.
But we've had discussions before of how we never see a negative review.
I just think people should realize if money is changing hands in retrun for a positive review.
Jerry
|
That's a forgone conclusion. We're all adults and know how the world works. I use reviews to educate myself. Technical specs for example. Or to bring into my focus, products I'm just not aware of. And there are plenty. Should anyone purchase based on a single review? The words buyer beware come to mind. Cheers.
|
My problem with professional reviewers is also about getting huge discounts or even free audio equipment for the reviews! I have heard from one Audio company that the large Audio magazines won’t even review his equipment unless he advertises with their magazine. The review system is largely corrupted IMHO! This isn’t to say there aren’t honest reviewers. It sometimes amazes me the over-the-top equipment that some of these magazine reviewers OWN based on their salaries. I’m not talking about the equipment they get in for review and have to return eventually. Also, these same reviewers know that if they ever give a company a bad review that company will never do cooperate with them again! Steve Guttenberg has even said in one of his videos that he will NEVER give a bad review.
|
One thing to consider is when reviewing HEA, there are rarely objectively "bad" products to review. It's a competition for preferences above a certain quality threshold. So regardless of the incentives, it's easy to say good things about good things. Individual reviewer credibility is in the eye of the viewer/reader.
The ones who are more suspect are the "high end for less" folks. They may have an incentive to hype lesser products for financial gain. Or they might have good tips. Buyer beware.
|
Everytime I get a new issue of an audio magazine, I look at the last paragraph and everyone of them has a glowing review of the piece, best sound ever, highly recommended, my system has never sounded better. Every issue, every month. I subscribe to keep current on new products.
I’m assuming magazines get paid from doing reviews, maybe not directly but in advertising. Reviewers on YouTube have had to confess that they got paid for a review. I’ve heard magazine reviewers get a hefty discount if they buy the product they are reviewing. There is 1 guy on YouTube that bashes every manufacturer and dealer about them being corrupt or this and that, but he wants you to believe that his products are the best there is, so IMO, he is no different than any of the other dealers.
Why do you think a company won’t advertise if they get a bad review? Do all the car magazines claim every car they review is the best? Never! Most car magazines do the best sports car, the best truck, or car of the year where they will rate 2, 3,5,20 vehicles and will rate each 1, the pros and cons, and eventually will call 1 a winner, runner up, 3rd place, and on down. These reviews are much better so if I’m looking at a sports car for $200k, I can look at a few magazines that will show which is the best and for what reasons. If I wanted to spend $100k on speakers, which magazine can you point me too that gives me an idea which is the best for my money over the 10 other speakers in the price range?
|
|
Excellent comparison rbstehno and fully agreed. Stereophile does a much better job than the Absolute Sound in this regard with John Atkinson’s testing of equipment at least for what test results are worth. The reviewers often try a few different speakers w/ an amp or a few amps w/ a reviewed speaker which can be somewhat informative but rarely if ever do they directly compare another similarly priced item to the one in question which of course could very useful & informative.
Obviously these magazines have significant operational expenses that I’m sure are predominately covered by the advertising dollars & not the $2 or so we pay for them w/ a subscription but the car mags probably have a similar scenario & manage to be much more honest in the low points of a reviewed car & in head to head comparisons. What’s up w/ that??
|
I don’t have an issue with a publication requiring a manufacturer advertise with them before agreeing to review a product. The "audio community" is essential for the survival of the industry and the manufacturer would be making a good faith commitment to sustain a viable means of communication -- the publication. The publication is, undoubtedly, providing a service that will have a financial impact (positive OR negative) on the manufacturer, and they should be willing to invest in that ":strategy" and not be a free-loader. That being said, the reviewer needs reveal to the manufacturer upfront that the reviewer’s personal and professional integrity is on the line, and they are not going to say good things about a company that just copied the Titanic, complete with hole already in it, and heading out to sea. There is a real risk to the manufacturer of stripping down in front of a reviewer and showing what they got. They should know that upfront.
One statement that really bugs me is: "non commissioned salespeople." The greatest level of service you’d expect from an establishment would be from the owner(s). This is the definition of "financial interests" in that no one in the company has a greater incentive to "make a sale that day" than the owners. The assumption here is that the owners have the highest level of knowledge, integrity and place customer service as a high priority. Yes, a commission salesperson certainly wants to "make a sale that day" because they have bills to pay. That’s a given. But a professional salesperson is also looking down the road for add ons, repeat business, referrals, etc. Customer loyalty is a strong motivator because their very existence as an individual compensated by the success of their company depends on it. As someone said: "a 5% increase in customer loyality doubles the lifetime return on investment." So, it MUST be a win, win, win. A win for the salesperson (they sell stuff). A win for the company they work for (they sell stuff -- preferably at a price above what the dealer paid for it), and a win for the customer (receives excellent service and a fair exchange for monies spent).
|
The problem with most reviewers is that they are just narcissistic salesman. Most of the Youtube reviewers are selling junk gear that would otherwise be overlooked for good reason. Palm sized power amps/rebranded amps/bass bloated budget speakers and maybe the worst offender the $30K graphic equalizer but being computer based makes it a revolutionary product(lol)!
|
Who trusts J Valin? Never have never will. The $$$ he has made off equipment he reviews and doesn't buy should be criminal IMO.
|
I know little about the industry, but if I were a reviewer I certainly wouldn’t want to spend a month+ listening to something I didn’t like...I think most of us have reviewers we generally like and trust..,.
|
curious carlsbad2 if you believed the statement of the Garmin reviewer ?
|
"As usual, this review is not sponsored (nor does any company get to preview anything I review), and I don’t take any advertiser money from any companies I review."
How many reviewers are required by the manufacturer to send back the equipment they reviewed? Basically the reviewer has it on loan, for ever. But surely that wouldn't influence a reviewer's review.
.
|
They certainly can and many of them I watch do just that.
|
Don't forget that reviewers who post unflattering opinions often end up being harassed and threatened with legal action.
For example, read about the dCS v. Goldensound train wreck.
|
It's not a "direct" payment, but there's the carrot of "accomodation" pricing, by which well-audienced reviewers have the option to buy the product at a price (sometimes) below used market value. Then they have the additional boon of being able to cap a review like: "I enjoyed the SonicNinja Gaiden Hyper Mk XVII.a SE so much, I purchased the review sample!"
Even if they DON'T like the component, a well-spun review keeps open the option for future Products review samples which they might actually want.
You can stick a component in almost any system and hear a dfference - and 99% of the time, that difference can be spun in a "positive" light, with varying degrees effort. And don't forget to tack on the old trope comparsion: "it sounded almost as good as {well known high end component} at 10x the price!". When reviewrs introduce multiple variables at once (multiple review products at the same time) this just adds to the chaos.
Professional reviews are for entertainment value only - they're not a reasonable guide for building your own system.
|
@jl35 yes I do because garmin is a much larger market and they pay for advertising rather than reviews. Reviewers make money by posting their reviews and getting clicks. Totally different business model.
Now I just spent 8 hours shopping for a watch. I read a lot of reviews more for features than opinions. I read a lot of garmin forums and figured out the Fenix 8 amoled that i thought I wanted has a problem with it’s screen in the dark so I switched to the Enduro 3.
Now if someone told me I was wrong and that indeed he does get paid, I wouldn’t be shocked.
|
I grew up in the UK with the Gramophone magazine. Its primary purpose is reviewing classical music, first on records, then on digital media. It has been going for over 100 years.
It devoted a couple of pages per issue to reviewing playback equipment. There was rarely a bad review, but this was dictated by space, not by money. The audio editors simply did not waste their valuable space on second rate equipment.
Good performances were usually compared with other good performances. When the same recording kept coming up as a comparison piece, you could expect it to be among the best. Same with audio. And when they disclosed what they provided their top reviewers with, in order to judge top recordings, you knew it was good.
This was helped by detailed technical discussion of the reasons why a piece of gear achieved its results.
Of course, the results do not translate well across the North Atlantic, primarily because relative prices are influenced by import duties and tariffs but also because room sizes tend to be very different.
|
|
|
OK, I have to step in here as there are a lot of cynical misconceptions stated. I once sold audio gear, non-commissioned, but always looked to build repeat business. I was the #2 salesperson in the shop (behind the manager) because I knew what I was talking about and could help the customer find a system that fit his/her needs and budget.
For the past 30 years, I've been a reviewer, for whom, I won't say. I can't speak for all reviewers but I work to specific standards. Have I received freebies? Yes - a few, but mostly minor things such as low-to-mid--range phono cartridges. Do I get to keep the review gear forever? No - I work on a roughly two-month schedule and the gear always goes back. Do the manufacturers/distributors pay me for the reviews? No - I'm paid by the publication only. Must they advertise? No - Selection of the gear to review is strictly up to me. Do I take advantage of "accommodation pricing"? Yes - but not all my system gear was acquired that way. There's a fair amount I bought retail or used. Do I play favorites? No - If I get a piece in for review that just doesn't cut it, you never see the review. I won't waste my time or yours with a bad review. I stick to gear worth reviewing.
Any questions/comment?
|
