6Moons New Policy: Support us, with ad revenue, and we will review your product.
- Thread starter Andre Marc
- Start date
Yes, but again, try that with a specialist hobby. It has failed numerous times in the audiophile market.
And take a look at CR. No one in an esoteric hobby would accept a magazine in the condition they publish it. Cheap paper,
lousy graphics, etc
it costs 15 bucks to subscribe to CR. That is what TAS and Stereophile charge, WITH ads, and they still make ZERO
on the subscriptions. Nada. Does not even cover basic costs.
Steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
We added a "donate"button at the top of the home page for members' donations. No one gets paid here. Amir and I have been doing this for the good of our health trying to bring an informative forum to the internet. This has created enormous expense for the 2 of us over the past 4 years since site launch. Yes we actively moderate full time. We allow member to post their own reviews. No one is compensated here. The small amounts we have received so far although helpful has not even come close to the full expense we have incurred. Yes we do it all for fun although moderation duties frequently negates that fun. Our situation although similar is still very different than yours.
I don't think there is anything wrong with the ad-based revenue model. It worked for newspapers, magazines, radio and TV for decades. But when there is editorial that could involve sponsors; especially when there are reviews of sponsors' products, the model requires strict separation of editorial and advertising staffs and strict adherence to journalistic ethics. There are plenty of cynics who believe it doesn't work, and i'm sure there are times when it doesn't, but for the most part, I think the model has served the journalism profession pretty well. What 6Moons is proposing is very different. They are proposing a very direct connection of editorial and advertising. They are establishing an open system of quid pro quo -- buy an ad, get a review. And they are promising that their ethics are so strong that the connection will never effect the content. It will inspire a lot of skepticism and demand a substantial share of negative reviews.
Imagine the Washington Post asking for campaign ads to compensate for campaign coverage. Candidate X places a full-page, full-color ad in the Sunday edition and gets a rave endorsement on Monday.
Imagine how credible the Post would be on Tuesday. Again, I admire the honesty, but this is going to be a rough road.
Tim
Imagine the Washington Post asking for campaign ads to compensate for campaign coverage. Candidate X places a full-page, full-color ad in the Sunday edition and gets a rave endorsement on Monday.
Imagine how credible the Post would be on Tuesday. Again, I admire the honesty, but this is going to be a rough road.
Tim
When you say rough road...I dunno..are you aware that there are numerous e-zines that have this policy, they just don't publish it for the world to see?
Let's not even get into TAS policies.
Steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
See my post above. Srajan just made the decision to go public. Maybe he will regret it. The announcement that is, not the change.
Let manufacturers support his efforts. They have no problem handing out reprints of his reviews at shows and copying and pasting the reviews
on their web sites. All at no cost.
imo its happening everywhere since ages with any business whether its carmags motorbike mags boatingmags ......etc , 6 moons decides to speak openly about it which is fine with me , they dont need to but its a way to distinguish themselves .
In holland there is a saying : only the sun rises for free
In holland there is a saying : only the sun rises for free
Audiophiles want professionally produced content, on an easy to navigate web site, with nice graphics unbiased, and pure, untainted by ad revenue, by reviewers with high quality reference systems, who have sussed out all the hot new gear by travelling to audio shows.
And they want it FREE.
Get a group of trust fund babies together to start a review site and you have something.
And they want it FREE.
Get a group of trust fund babies together to start a review site and you have something.
Last edited:
Steve Williams: Thx. So if I may recapitulate to be sure I understood - four years, two main people involved, full-time involvement, not even close to recuperating your financial investment. I salute your passion for this hobby. Truly! And, as a self-sustaining model without savings to subsidize the losses, your pledge drive donation scheme wouldn't seem to work for my situation unless readers reacted far more generously than they have with you. Does that about capture it?
Phelonious: "I don't think there is anything wrong with the ad-based revenue model. It worked for newspapers, magazines, radio and TV for decades." On one hand, I agree. As it applies to us, we could carry on as usual. On that front, the model is working. Perhaps I'm being too idealistic to think it needs improving? There's no reason to recount why I'm trying to do it anyways. And trying is the operative word. There's no guarantee of success, no pre-polled master plan with foregone guarantees in place.
Here's another little wrinkle. If, as people claim, there is no connection between the ad department and editorial (both run entirely independent), reviews happen first, ads follow. Because if ads come first, there's the unholy connection. Money has already exchanged hands. Now any subsequent opinion is tainted. So reviews come first. What prevents the reviewer or his publisher from 'fishing' for the hoped-for ad by letting it influence the writing? If payment happens first, that issue is off the table. Now it's solely about doing the job. Do you find that argument hollow? Just curious since this is a discussion about all the various ways people say and imagine that money and opinion are intertwined
Phelonious: "I don't think there is anything wrong with the ad-based revenue model. It worked for newspapers, magazines, radio and TV for decades." On one hand, I agree. As it applies to us, we could carry on as usual. On that front, the model is working. Perhaps I'm being too idealistic to think it needs improving? There's no reason to recount why I'm trying to do it anyways. And trying is the operative word. There's no guarantee of success, no pre-polled master plan with foregone guarantees in place.
Here's another little wrinkle. If, as people claim, there is no connection between the ad department and editorial (both run entirely independent), reviews happen first, ads follow. Because if ads come first, there's the unholy connection. Money has already exchanged hands. Now any subsequent opinion is tainted. So reviews come first. What prevents the reviewer or his publisher from 'fishing' for the hoped-for ad by letting it influence the writing? If payment happens first, that issue is off the table. Now it's solely about doing the job. Do you find that argument hollow? Just curious since this is a discussion about all the various ways people say and imagine that money and opinion are intertwined
Unless you're getting a lifetime payment, I'm not sure this flies. Theoretically you're going to want subsequent payments from them and they'll have future products to be reviewed.
Audiophiles want professionally produced content, on an easy to navigate web site, with nice graphics unbiased, and pure, untainted by ad revenue, by reviewers with high quality reference systems, who have sussed out all the hot new gear by travelling to audio shows.
And they want it FREE.
+1
I think the key observation regarding printed newpapers and magazines is "[it worked] for decades". The internet completely upended that model. Even the Graham family has sold the Washington Post and the gentleman who bought Newsweek for $1 way overpaid. The internet has fractionated the mass market media. Look at the ads that run on left vs right political websites (and legacy media); its more akin to your Washington Post analogy of selling political ads for endorsements.
Our hobby is too small to be balkinized and given Andre's pithy observation above, I believe that this model may be the only potentially viable solution going forward. Good luck Srajan. I'm sure your competition will be watching with great interest.
MadFloyd: Do you believe that most manufacturers expect more than a fair balanced review? Especially when it's known that they paid for the time spent in producing it? I would propose that my idea cuts both ways. Paid-for reviews that come out overly enthusiastic could seem unbelievable. Many don't believe them now under the existing system. "Another rave. Blip." Wouldn't that compound under the other approach? In my experience, all (most) manufacturers want is a well-balanced comprehensive assessment of their product. There really are very few outright 'turds' that deserve to be trashed. User experiences of outright lemons very quickly flood the forums. Lemon growers would quickly go out of business or stop selling a particular model. Today's Internet and social media react amazingly quick. If a reviewer no matter under what system reports on such product in complete contradiction of such feedback, he's quickly outed as either incompetent, deaf, on the take or all three combined. Perhaps there'd be a time lag (glorious review followed a few months later by scathing reports from first owners) but things would catch up quickly.
In my experience, most product coming through (which tends to have been pre-vetted by prior exposure at shows, recommendations from trusted associates and such) is at least competent. It may be overpriced, lack certain features and not be positioned very competitively - but most the times it performs credibly. Whether it pleases a reviewer's bias is another matter. That's where better writer distinguish between personal taste and describing a sonic flavour. If a reviewer whose credibility under 'the new system' hinges even more on perceived impartiality than before fails to point out obvious shortcomings on features, price competitiveness and all the rest of it, he or she would very quickly become irrelevant. If he played games of any sort, manufacturers would go elsewhere. And what if he lost a manufacturer who didn't like the outcome and promised never to come back? Wouldn't such a review confirm the writer's say-it-as-he-hears-it reputation? Is it really any different to what's going on now? Fundamentally I fail to see it. All the same arguments apply.
It seems to me the issue where perception for most people hangs up is direct vs. indirect payment. People in general have little or fewer issues if a magazine's revenues all pool into one 'off-site' pot somewhere in the cloud. The pot's overall size and how much individual companies contribute is only known to the ad department. Out of those anonymous funds, the billing department distributes the monthly salaries to the full-timers and the per-job fees to the freelancers. Perfect separation of church and state. Except that once the ads go up, everyone knows just who the contributors are. What they don't know is the size of their contributions. But that little bit of ignorance already seems to make most people comfortable as the way things should be. Should visible ad supporter get too many reviews of course, everyone notices and comments. If it's the same brands that get all the distinction and advertise the most and biggest, it's open season as well.
Even so, everyone seems to get positively bent out of shape the moment this indirect connection becomes more and transparently direct. Now it's all collusion, corruption, tainted opinion and the rest of it. Of course just how indirect the indirect scheme really is is another question entirely.
My already stated position is that if you're crooked, you're crooked no matter how the financial disbursement occurs; and if you're not, it doesn't matter either. Crooked here obviously means that your opinion is for sale. In the end, a reviewer's credibility is his only relevant qualification. And that rests nearly exclusively on the actual work which is out there for everyone to see, poke holes in, compare to personal experience and what other reviewers say elsewhere and owners on the forums. Today everything is so interconnected. Nobody works in isolation. In short, if your work is perceived to be for sale, manufacturers pursuing you do themselves quite a disservice. "Can't believe a word in that review" would be the response and the manufacturer's investment would be worthless. "That manufacturer is in bed with XYZ" is a common comment already under the existing system. That same danger would seem to be even more prevalent in the new system unless its reviewers stayed assiduously clear of it
So again and in the final analysis: what really is the difference? Not trying to be argumentative or repetitive... just waiting for the lightning-strike comment that shows me aspects I've not considered or chewed around in my mind already -
In my experience, most product coming through (which tends to have been pre-vetted by prior exposure at shows, recommendations from trusted associates and such) is at least competent. It may be overpriced, lack certain features and not be positioned very competitively - but most the times it performs credibly. Whether it pleases a reviewer's bias is another matter. That's where better writer distinguish between personal taste and describing a sonic flavour. If a reviewer whose credibility under 'the new system' hinges even more on perceived impartiality than before fails to point out obvious shortcomings on features, price competitiveness and all the rest of it, he or she would very quickly become irrelevant. If he played games of any sort, manufacturers would go elsewhere. And what if he lost a manufacturer who didn't like the outcome and promised never to come back? Wouldn't such a review confirm the writer's say-it-as-he-hears-it reputation? Is it really any different to what's going on now? Fundamentally I fail to see it. All the same arguments apply.
It seems to me the issue where perception for most people hangs up is direct vs. indirect payment. People in general have little or fewer issues if a magazine's revenues all pool into one 'off-site' pot somewhere in the cloud. The pot's overall size and how much individual companies contribute is only known to the ad department. Out of those anonymous funds, the billing department distributes the monthly salaries to the full-timers and the per-job fees to the freelancers. Perfect separation of church and state. Except that once the ads go up, everyone knows just who the contributors are. What they don't know is the size of their contributions. But that little bit of ignorance already seems to make most people comfortable as the way things should be. Should visible ad supporter get too many reviews of course, everyone notices and comments. If it's the same brands that get all the distinction and advertise the most and biggest, it's open season as well.
Even so, everyone seems to get positively bent out of shape the moment this indirect connection becomes more and transparently direct. Now it's all collusion, corruption, tainted opinion and the rest of it. Of course just how indirect the indirect scheme really is is another question entirely.
My already stated position is that if you're crooked, you're crooked no matter how the financial disbursement occurs; and if you're not, it doesn't matter either. Crooked here obviously means that your opinion is for sale. In the end, a reviewer's credibility is his only relevant qualification. And that rests nearly exclusively on the actual work which is out there for everyone to see, poke holes in, compare to personal experience and what other reviewers say elsewhere and owners on the forums. Today everything is so interconnected. Nobody works in isolation. In short, if your work is perceived to be for sale, manufacturers pursuing you do themselves quite a disservice. "Can't believe a word in that review" would be the response and the manufacturer's investment would be worthless. "That manufacturer is in bed with XYZ" is a common comment already under the existing system. That same danger would seem to be even more prevalent in the new system unless its reviewers stayed assiduously clear of it
So again and in the final analysis: what really is the difference? Not trying to be argumentative or repetitive... just waiting for the lightning-strike comment that shows me aspects I've not considered or chewed around in my mind already -