Poor value vs snake oil...


John Darko has done a good podcast with Jeff Dorgay of TONEaudio on snake oil. This prompts my post, as I think he is onto something.

See:
https://darko.audio/2020/03/podcast-20-snake-oil/

To try and summarise where his head is, he seems to be saying that 
  • Snake oil, (the selling of something worthless as a remedy) is not about price. A $1 rip off is still a rip off. 
  • For something to be snake oil, it must be a confidence trick, e.g. the selling of sugar water as medicine. This is not about value judgements, its about fraud.
  • That selling something that makes a tiny improvement for a lot of money is not snake oil, as there is an improvement, there is an actual product doing something, it is just that it is not worth it. 

I was interested in this topic as a lot of us seem to throw about the "snake oil" insult freely. Those $10k speaker cables are snake oil to someone who only has a $2k system. I think it is worth unpicking this a bit, so we can better insult each other.

So thanks to Mr Darko's musings, here is where my head is:

Snake Oil: this only makes sense from the perspective of the seller. If they know that they are selling lies, selling sugar water as medicine, selling an empty box that does nothing, then they are perpetrating a fraud, and can be called snake oil salespeople. 

So my definition of snake oil is where the seller has no legitimate reason to claim their product brings any benefit. If they can't show that some people get benefit, or can point to measurable change, then they are knowingly selling a lie. 

Now I totally accept that there are many many products out there that are not worth their sticker price, but this is an entirely different concept to snake oil. Snake oil is about the mind of the seller, where as "worth" is in the mind of the buyer. We, the buyers are the judge of value (worth), we all have different opinions, and who is to say who is right. 

So if my neighbour spends the cost of a good car on some speaker cables, I can moan about her wasting money, but it would be incorrect to say she has bought snake oil. Her cables are demonstrably physically different from my bell wire, so she has got something for her cash. I just don't think she got enough value for her money, which is a judgement call, and hey, she just might be a heck of a lot richer than me. 

I will end with an example:

Say I sell hair conditioner which I make at home by filling nice looking bottles with water from my faucet. I sell each bottle for $100 and make up lots of quotes from satisfied customers saying how it changed their lives. Well, if I did that I would say I am a snake oil salesman.

But say that instead of filling with water, I fill my bottles with conditioner I bought down at the drug store for $2 a bottle. I sell my bottles in nice store, or at an artisanal market, and a few people tweet that it works really well, and I use their quotes in my ads...  then I think I am not a snake oil salesman, but a businessman. It would not be my problem that my customers are getting poor value. Hey, that is their problem. Maybe they really like my bottle. 
 
128x128rols
The distinction the OP referred to between the type of snake oil products that should be seen as fraudulent and snake oil products that are just poor value products is only possible if a manufacturer is the type to examine his motivations. And only if said manufacturer is honest with himself, or willing at least to commit to accepting an evaluation of his products via 3rd party measurements.

Good luck with any of that.
Too simplistic...

How do you evaluate a product that has a poor value in a poorly embedded mechanical system and room, in a poorly controlled electrical house grid, and in a badly controlled acoustical room, but a great value otherwise in an another optimally controlled house?

And dont speak about measurements.... The S.Q. of a greek theater is measured immediately and easily by any ears, but way less easily so with any device....

Audio quality is NOT reducible to electronical design and measurements at all....Except for too simple mind marketers...
This is a dud thread.
It is just a regurgitation of the measurements vs. ears story.

So one man's snake oil is another man's value purchase.
There can be no universally true definition.

END OF THREAD please.
This is a dud thread.
It is just a regurgitation of the measurements vs. ears story.
It is a bit too premature to ask for the end of something without even knowing what we speak about...

This is not a measurement versus ears theory thread....

The Essential point in audio is precisely that this division and separation makes NO sense at all , between ears or measures...

A correlation between ears and measures is mandatory for creation of sound electronic design...

A subordination of all electronic audio system measurements to the listening ears to embed it rightfully in the house, mechanically, electrically and acoustically, is the way to go....

All discussion of snake oil, placebos, etc are only red herrings most of the times for a simplistic arguing that will not adress the fundamental task in audio experience: how to embed an audio system the way it can reach his optimal S.Q. ?


So one man’s snake oil is another man’s value purchase.
In different and "specific" environments or houses, the same "generic" electronic components or the same electronic tweaks will reveal different impact in S.Q. and will reveal itselves different value from high to low value and even to snake oils value, relatively to the degree of rightful or wrongful embeddings in this particular house....

We cannot evaluate a product in theory or just with his measures numbers, we must evaluate it listening to it in a precise environment with different experiences from house to house.... Then which products is a high value and which is not is relative to the embeddings history of a particular house where we try the new products and also to the way we link it to the other products in the system....

Is it so difficult to understand?

Then you are right snake oil for one is a high value product for another dude, but this is not a proof that all is relative and indecidable in the absolute, but all is relative to a particular environment and a particular history with REAL ears listenings experiments to choose what is right for the moment for us...