Thin Line Between Critique and Courtrooms: A Dialogue on the Recent Audiophile Drama

I worked at place that got negative reviews and got sued also and lost. They are still in business. So I say that is not true. If you think this way, you should not be facing any customers, because your ego can’t deal with a bad reaction.

You are putting onus on the reviewer, not yourself. You blame the reviewer, not what is made. I worked in QC/QA for a long time so I know about commercial products.

Just because a review is negative, does not mean it isn't deserved.

@botrytis While I agree with most of this, your statement about what I'm doing or how I deal with customers isn't correct nor does it describe who I am.

Most of the negative reviews I've read that were undeserved were not about my products. For example (one I've already given), Gryphon: the reviewer wanted them to give him a very expensive set of amps. When they didn't, he published a negative review. I was there in the room at CES when he threatened them.

Again though, your last statement is not what I was talking about.

I have issues with you saying negative reviews are because someone has an axe to grind. Maybe, but how does one define that?

 

I can say too many positive reviews, such as the MQA fiasco in the main audio magazines tell me it is the EXACT OPPOSITE problem. Too many positive reviews and not enough HONEST REVIEWS.

@botrytis I defined how earlier. The problem is you don't know and the negative review can put someone out of business. Maybe its deserved, but it it isn't, someone experiences a lot of pain on that account...

I totally agree otherwise!

I must say, as someone who spent decades in the journalism business, for both big and small news organizations, this is pretty much 180-degree opposite to fundamental journalist ethics.

A journalist’s responsibility is first and foremost to provide true information to the readers, and in the case of the sort of consumer journalism that product reviewing is, where you’re helping readers make informed decisions, providing information about less than good product is crucial.

Of course, journalists have a responsibility to be fair with and about the subjects of their reviews. But their responsibility is not to protect the reputation of the manufacturer who delivers a subpar product by killing the negative review and returning the product to the manufacturer. That not only makes the journalist an agent of the manufacturer essentially but also erodes the publication’s credibility with readers, who are the customers you have responsibility to. It’s absolutely corrosive to journalism ethics and effectiveness.

Any of the reasons of competency offered as reasons to assume a bad review is being offered unethically or with ulterior motivation could equally apply to good reviews. There’s no reason to assume that one is any more competently or ethically delivered than the other.

Which is not to suggest that the audio press has ever been a bastion of journalistic standards -- there’s plenty that erodes reader confidence in the audio press: long term equipment loans, extremely cozy manufacturer and retailer relationships with journalists and editors -- but among those things, this unwillingness to publish bad reviews and the hermetic belief of where ones responsibility lies that suggests that the proper thing to do when encountering a bad product is not to inform the public but keep it from the public and inform the manufacturer instead, is a dozy.

The best answer to mediocre journalism, technical incompetence and the inevitable tensions between the editorial and business sides of the house (especially in enthusiast and trade publishing where your sources and your advertisers are often from the same community), isn’t just to throw one’s hand up and say, fine, let’s just publish puff pieces.

@chervokas You make an excellent point which does not address my prior comments. I don't have a problem if the review is honest. Quite often negative reviews aren't. I know of an honest review Art Dudley wrote about a multi-driver speaker using full range drivers, which he published in the Listener. Its one of the few rare exceptions I know of (to my knowledge I've not read any of yours); I can point to many more that were not honest.

Your reply is part of the issue. A good reviewer is there to give information to their audience, not stroke the egos of the manufacturers. That was the way IT USED to be. 

I will use a car review as an example. How would you deal with a review like this?

Her Name Is Rio… And She’s Crap | The Truth About Cars

I remember reading this after I had a Rio as a rental - I totally agreed with it.

How can products improve if no one is there to give honest opinions about them?

@botrytis My reply is simply borne out of experience. I agree with the sentence after that comment; its exactly what I said in my post prior.

Reviewers can get away with things like that in the car industry. Its not likely to bring down the company. A sour review in high end audio can and has. Now the issue isn't whether products will improve or not, its whether the negative review is honest. I listed a number of reasons that I've seen and/or experienced why they may not be.

So if a negative review that is not honest takes out a company that didn't deserve it, is that fair? Its an easy thing for a reviewer to avoid by simply never talking about that product. That way the public doesn't find out about it; problem solved.

@abnerjack You're forgiven as if I have anything to say about it and its all good. 

I agree, I am not nor are my products beyond reproach. A lot of manufacturers I know simply try to do the best they can, but none of us are perfect and there's always something new to learn about how we can do better.

I've been wrong plenty of times! Sometimes I feel like I spend most of my life being wrong... When I have doubts about a topic I usually keep my mouth shut. This isn't one of those topics- I've seen others experience unethical reviews and I've experienced them myself (in my case, it was because I couldn't afford a 6-month advertising contract with the magazine).

I have raised this issue of negative reviews being unethical in the past, and I always get some pushback. I think we all would like to think that a negative review is always honest and hard-hitting journalism at its best; that story died an ugly death for me. We are all human and prone to human imperfection; the best reviewers I know all just don't say anything when they encounter what they think is a bad product. Fortunately they are the majority out there IME.  

@botrytis 'Bone to pick' can cover a wide range of issues. For example, the manufacturer could have said something online with which the reviewer disagrees. I agree this might look like condescension but I have seen this happen more than once. It might simply be the reviewer got in a bad mood having nothing to do with the equipment at all, maybe his car got towed. There's no way to know. 

A good reviewer isn't there to stroke eqos. His/her job is to inform the public of something in which the public for whom he/she writes might be interested, like high end audio or fine watches. There's plenty of good stuff out there, no need to waste everyone's time with that which doesn't cut the mustard.

- Where do we draw the line between constructive criticism and damaging feedback?

@rowlocktrysail Generally speaking, a negative review (not one that is positive with a few minor beefs) should be looked upon as unethical.

Here’s a list of why:

1) the reviewer might have a bone to pick that has nothing to do with the equipment; IOW its political.

2) the reviewer may not know what he’s doing.

3) the equipment under review might have a malfunction which might be caused by shipping, abuse, inability to follow instructions (see 2 above) etc.

4) there may be a conflict of interest between the advertising vs editorial staff. I’ve seen this one first hand; no advertising=bad review.

5) the reviewer feels a need to prove something (usually that they are some kind of ’expert’; if they really are they don’t need to prove this); whereas if they have any moxy at all this simply isn’t necessary. This is a very powerful motivator!

6) When a reviewer or magazine purports to have ’hard hitting’ journalism, at least in the case of high end audio its usually not the case- more likely, its to cover up problems like 4 above.

If a magazine or reviewer is on the up and up, if a product falls well short of a good review, the ethical thing to do is to send it back to the manufacturer without any mention in print (or in this case, online). Out of sight out of mind, quite simply. Put another way, a rising tide raises all boats.

When you see a bad review, keep these things in mind. I’ve seen them all play out many times in the past, often hurting legitimately good companies, sometimes even putting them out of business. For example Quicksilver got a bad review (undeserved, as most people here already know) simply because they had a policy of not advertising at the time. This happened with a fairly well-known magazine. Gryphon got trashed about 30 years ago, which ended their US distribution for years afterward, because they refused to simply give the review sample to the reviewer (see 1 above). I happened to be in the Gryphon room at CES when the reviewer made this threat- and a few months later, saw his comments in print. 

I know many of you out there will not understand this right away, because you might think the reviewer is helping by steering you away from a "bad" product. That idea is false- the ethical way to handle it is the reviewer doesn’t mention a product that falls short- its shunned.