6Moons New Policy: Support us, with ad revenue, and we will review your product.

[Andre Marc]

Andre, you contribute to three different publications. I'm curious what your thoughts are about the business models of each. I'm assuming they must differ in one way or another.

Hi Jack. Excellent question. Since I am not the publisher of any of them, as Srajan is with 6moons, I have absolutely no connection to advertising, have never discussed it with a single manufacturer, distributor, or
importer, and have actually know of no policies regarding to ads. I know at Tone, Jeff Dorgay prefers manufacturers advertise to support the magazine, but he also reviews tons of gear from small shops, especially
local ones in the pacific northwest, that do not advertise. That is the extent of what I can tell you.

As matter of fact, I have been often surprised when I see an ad from a company whose product I reviewed on avrev.com, which has happened recently,
and it has turned out the manufacturer or distributor them selves initiated contact with our ad dept.

 

[Srajan Ebaen]

Ralph: No. I merely took your argument to its (il)logical conclusion -

And I should have made a paragraph graph after 'B-stock losses'. The 'if everyone took that position' wasn't meant to relate to the proceeding sentence. It was meant to relate to your position - of a manufacturer who, by virtue of his mere active status, supports the press plenty even when benefiting from review services without participating in the necessarily evil of ads. Obviously if everyone took that position, the system would collapse. It's a system of mutual dependencies which must find the proper balance to coexist and satisfy everyone'e needs.

What *has* happened quite routinely is that manufacturers don't want their stuff back. And this isn't because they want to exploit a permanent visibility endorsement but because they're too cheap to pay for return shipping. This is common with product whose manufacturing cost is quite low. By the time you factor in two-way shipping from, say Asia to Europe and back, add the VAT fees both way (import and re-export) and that you can no longer sell the thing as new... they figure that return shipping expenses aren't worth it. By implication I'm expected to either play indefinite warehouse; or pay for return shipping myself. Needless to say, I don't do either. I can't sell the stuff since it isn't mine to do so. Hence I give it away. A lot of the things I make available via my site once a year or so are accumulated that way.


Of course manufacturers do incur 2-way shipping and B-stock losses with reviews. Those costs of doing business are real and I've never contested them. But any manufacturer who elects to pursue reviews as part of his marketing strategy rolls them over into the sell price of his gear. In the end it's always the buyer of gear who pays.

To conclude my necessary evil bit... today manufacturers no longer necessarily need the press at all if they pursue social media and crowd funding. This may not work for a company launch; but it could very well once a manufacturer is somewhat established. PS Audio and Da Vinci Labs didn't start out that way but both now pursue crowd funding, the latter very aggressively. And very few companies today don't have a facebook or twitter page. Much customer interaction can happen there if such pages are actively run. Add forums like Audio Circle where manufacturers host interactive forums to answer questions, propose new models, solicit feature sets and so on... and things are shifting. One reason could be growing dissatisfaction with the press. If so, I'd lay a lot of that at the feet of the ad-based model and its many curious side effects. It's often not that members of the press themselves are too blame. They must work in a quite dysfunctional system and are handicapped by it despite their best intentions.

 

[KeithR]

with TAS i'm very selective about who is worth reading. there is value there but lots of fluff and useless lists of things and attempts at system examples and such which has little value. i'm not so sensitive about the reviewer manufacturers relationship that i mind what i see from TAS, however to me the requirement of ads for reviews is over the line and off-putting.

not saying that the morality of either way is above reproach, just my own views of how it is.

i'd get HiFi+ instead of TAS (or in addition) if the delivery and subscription wasn't such a cluster (or at least it was a cluster last time i looked). i'm not an on-line PDF kinda guy.

I stopped subscribing to TAS two years ago on the same basis- to be honest, don't miss it one iota. To much fluff.

 

[Andre Marc]

Ralph: No. I merely took your argument to its (il)logical conclusion -

And I should have made a paragraph graph after 'B-stock losses'. The 'if everyone took that position' wasn't meant to relate to the proceeding sentence. It was meant to relate to your position - of a manufacturer who, by virtue of his mere active status, supports the press plenty even when benefiting from review services without participating in the necessarily evil of ads. Obviously if everyone took that position, the system would collapse. It's a system of mutual dependencies which must find the proper balance to coexist and satisfy everyone'e needs.

What *has* happened quite routinely is that manufacturers don't want their stuff back. And this isn't because they want to exploit a permanent visibility endorsement but because they're too cheap to pay for return shipping. This is common with product whose manufacturing cost is quite low. By the time you factor in two-way shipping from, say Asia to Europe and back, add the VAT fees both way (import and re-export) and that you can no longer sell the thing as new... they figure that return shipping expenses aren't worth it. By implication I'm expected to either play indefinite warehouse; or pay for return shipping myself. Needless to say, I don't do either. I can't sell the stuff since it isn't mine to do so. Hence I give it away. A lot of the things I make available via my site once a year or so are accumulated that way.


Of course manufacturers do incur 2-way shipping and B-stock losses with reviews. Those costs of doing business are real and I've never contested them. But any manufacturer who elects to pursue reviews as part of his marketing strategy rolls them over into the sell price of his gear. In the end it's always the buyer of gear who pays.

To conclude my necessary evil bit... today manufacturers no longer necessarily need the press at all if they pursue social media and crowd funding. This may not work for a company launch; but it could very well once a manufacturer is somewhat established. PS Audio and Da Vinci Labs didn't start out that way but both now pursue crowd funding, the latter very aggressively. And very few companies today don't have a facebook or twitter page. Much customer interaction can happen there if such pages are actively run. Add forums like Audio Circle where manufacturers host interactive forums to answer questions, propose new models, solicit feature sets and so on... and things are shifting. One reason could be growing dissatisfaction with the press. If so, I'd lay a lot of that at the feet of the ad-based model and its many curious side effects. It's often not that members of the press themselves are too blame. They must work in a quite dysfunctional system and are handicapped by it despite their best intentions.

Srajan, I might disagree on two points.

First, my experience tells me manufacturers and distributors very much want their stuff back, shipped to dealers, other reviewers, or shows when the review period is over. Things may be different for you
since you are in Switzerland, and the costs are artificially high. Even stuff I get shipped here from Asia does not cost the shipper a fortune. A

Secondly, even though Da Vinci/LH crowd funded their their new stuff, they still aggressively pursued reviews..I counted over a dozen prototype write ups, including, I believe with John Darko and Scott Hull.
Social Media and forums are very useful too, but are almost never enough IMO.

 

[Atmasphere]

. It was meant to relate to your position - of a manufacturer who, by virtue of his mere active status, supports the press plenty even when benefiting from review services without participating in the necessarily evil of ads. Obviously if everyone took that position, the system would collapse. It's a system of mutual dependencies which must find the proper balance to coexist and satisfy everyone'e needs.

Just a FWIW: We do take out ads. So this paragraph really does not apply to us.

Anyway, it appears that we will agree to disagree. I do wish you the best with your endeavors.

 

[JackD201]

Hi Jack. Excellent question. Since I am not the publisher of any of them, as Srajan is with 6moons, I have absolutely no connection to advertising, have never discussed it with a single manufacturer, distributor, or
importer, and have actually know of no policies regarding to ads. I know at Tone, Jeff Dorgay prefers manufacturers advertise to support the magazine, but he also reviews tons of gear from small shops, especially
local ones in the pacific northwest, that do not advertise. That is the extent of what I can tell you.

As matter of fact, I have been often surprised when I see an ad from a company whose product I reviewed on avrev.com, which has happened recently,
and it has turned out the manufacturer or distributor them selves initiated contact with our ad dept.

Ok thanks. How about review assignments? Do you get to choose or are the assignments usually assigned by somebody?

 

[Andre Marc]

Ok thanks. How about review assignments? Do you get to choose or are the assignments usually assigned by somebody?

For avrev.com I both solicit and am solicited with respect to review samples. No one else involved. For Tone, all review assignments come to me from the publisher.

For the occasional PFO write up, it is a mix of both being offered assignments and manufacturers approaching me. I generally don't actively seek PFO assignments due to my work load but welcome them when they come.

 

[Nevillekapadia]

Great thread.

Though I did wish more manufacturers would pipe in. Especially the ones that are starting off, and the difficulties they face.

It is a circle - manufacturers, dealers, reviewers and buyers; which are required to complete the full transaction. Clearly one of these segments (in this case -Reviewer) is honestly disclosing his point of commercial requirements. Which I appreciate at least knowing about.

Whether its a high circulation magazine or website, I generally read on products that would be of interest to me (cutting edge/new technology) or something that I may clearly have an interest in due to wanting an upgrade followed by a purchase.

I do not see the major independents (Wilson, MSB,etc) or cluster manufacturers (Audio Research, Sonus Faber, Classe, B&W) who are now owned by Private Equity companies advertising with the likes of 6moons, nor am I expecting them too.

6moons to me clearly services a different level of more 'boutique' manufacturers which we are privy to see and read about. So I will still visit their website to glance over and keep myself updated in this hobby.

At the end of the day Srajan Eben is going to live by his declaration, and the effect it will have on the website's 'credibility'. He is looking for a solution from the industry and will tweak it as it goes along.

I don't see it as an issue now, not wanting to visit his website or reading any of the different reviewers articles.

I wish him all the best and hope that a valid solution can be found where the entire industry and purchasers find it just.

Neville

 

[Andre Marc]

Great thread.

Though I did wish more manufacturers would pipe in. Especially the ones that are starting off, and the difficulties they face.

It is a circle - manufacturers, dealers, reviewers and buyers; which are required to complete the full transaction. Clearly one of these segments (in this case -Reviewer) is honestly disclosing his point of commercial requirements. Which I appreciate at least knowing about.

Whether its a high circulation magazine or website, I generally read on products that would be of interest to me (cutting edge/new technology) or something that I may clearly have and interest in due to wanting an upgrade followed by a purchase.

I do not see the major independents (Wilson, MSB,etc) or cluster manufacturers (Audio Research, Sonus Faber, Classe, B&W) who are now owned by Private Equity companies advertising with the likes of 6moons, nor am I expecting them too.

6moons to me clearly services a different level of more 'boutique' manufacturers which we are privy to see and read about. So I will still visit their website to glance over and keep myself updated in this hobby.

At the end of the day Srajan Eben is going to live by his declaration, and the effect it will have on the website's 'credibility'. He is looking for a solution from the industry and will tweak it as it goes along.

I don't see it as an issue now, not wanting to visit his website or reading any of the different reviewers articles.

I wish him all the best and hope that a valid solution can be found where the entire industry and purchasers find it just.

Neville

Good post.

 

[Srajan Ebaen]

Andre Marc: Relative to manufacturers not wanting their stuff back... it's exactly as I've written it. It wasn't a theoretical argument but an account of practical experience. It began in Cyprus and now continues in Switzerland to cover about 8 years. As I said, it's mostly with affordable stuff and it's the type of stuff I give away once a year. Cyprus being an island, the regular shippers (UPS, FedEx & Co.) didn't have infrastructure beyond the Larnaka airport. They had to hire domestic "one guy with a truck" firms to get their shipments from the airport to the final destination. And those rates were completely arbitrary, hence shipping to and from Cyprus was a costly business. Switzerland isn't part of the EU which means, shipments originating from EU countries are assessed VAT as import items. The only way around that are temporary importation carnets - a stack of papers so complicated to fill out that only 5 companies so far have managed, ever. Even shipments from the US to Canada and back have many manufacturers hesitate when it comes to our Canadian reviewers. And it's occurred more than once that manufacturers shipping to Canada couldn't figure out how to prepay border-crossing feeds so my guys had to, upon receipt, pay out of pocket to even release the shipment. Obviously those charges the manufacturers reimbursed by PayPal or wire transfer.

More expensive stuff manufacturers nearly always want back. And they should. It's their property, we take care of it so it can be re-sold or re-used for the next review or a trade show. But even here certain exceptions occur where I have to struggle with the shipper to issue a call-tag and take his stuff off my hands.

On crowd funding: absolutely, the makers want us in the press to post such news announcements to drive further traffic to their fund raiser. But that bit isn't about reviews. That stuff doesn't even exist yet. It's vapor ware when the pledge drive is ongoing. It's just a free news service the press provides - which *directy* supports a manufacturer's revenue stream (unless his crowdfunding campaign can't raise enough to meet the limit and the project fails). I merely pointed at these 'newer' solutions (crowd funding, social media) which manufacturers today can and do pursue who may want to limit marketing costs via the usual review press media.

And another point I didn't yet make in my necessary evil post: reviews are advertising nearly regardless of content. Unless it's a complete bomb (which nearly everyone agrees is very rare) to become an actual sales preventation item that kills the product, the bog-standard review (not a rave, just fair and to the point) is free advertisement. It let's readers know this company and its product exists, particularly so if it's that company's maiden review or the first review for that product. As posters admit who browse through magazines they no longer read cover to cover because they've given up believing them; or where they don't like the writing... they still use them as a quick tool to find out what's new, then do whateverfurther research they want elsewhere (other magazine, Google, the maker's own website, social media, blogs, forums, etc). Or they come solely "for the pretty pictures", especially if, as we do at 6moons, they're mostly original photos; and hood-off pix of the innards.

So when people claim that magazines in general or particular ones have 'become useless' because they're in bed with the manufacturers; that the writing sucks; that the navigation sucks; that the main man needs a haircut; or whatever other legitimate or completely petty complaints they may level... they still tend to use those magazines for a useful purpose even if it's no longer about reading every word or every review. Some people may just come for the news page. Others only follow a particular writer. Others only come for the photos. Or the classified section.And so on. What I mean to say is simple. No matter the complaints about the press which stretch from rational and legitimate to bogus for just the sake of an argument to everything in-between... nearly everyone gets at least something out of it.

As far as blogs and forums are concerned, a certain amount of activity and amusement is to be had from criticizing reviewers or their findings. So even there, in a direct if perhaps not very flattering way, the press provides... material. -

 

[hifikontoen]

This review is written by Srajaen Ebean for 6moons:
http://www.6moons.com/industryfeatures/fringes/fringes.html

A quote by Srajan in the review (see the bottom text part of the link):
"These conclusions need no scientific base, proof or validation to reap personal benefits or at the very least, simple enjoyment."

Srajaen, can you tell us:
Do you think physicists will approve your review ? Why or why not ?

Here is a video touching the product:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ

Go to approximately 14:30 (product appears at 15:00).

 

[Srajan Ebaen]

On review selection/solicitation: What Andre described perfectly tracks with how we operate or how it was for me prior to 6moons. Reviews come about two ways. 1/ the manufacturer (or his agent, say the domestic importer or a store keep) ask us; 2/ we ask them. It's quite intuitive to expect (and it tracks with my experience) that when a magazine first launches, it'll have to ask more often than being asked. As magazines become established enough to be an attractive destination, it tends to shift. In our case, it depends on the writer. Since until now my writers worked pro bono, they would select what interested them. A new writer would have to express his interest with me, I'd ask the manufacturer on his behalf and if things were a go, they progressed. Writers with sufficient seniority are allowed to make these overtures directly. I'm personally nearly too busy to just process solicitations that personal requests are far rarer. But they do happen - either because I have a personal interest in a product; or because readers ask. If I can't or don't want to handle a solicitation (I may not have time, I may not have appropriate ancillaries or experience, I don't do phono at all), it's put out to the team. If nobody is available or interested, it gets turned down. The team aren't involved in any of the admin affairs and, like Andre said about himself, know nothing about them.


For my Canadian reviewers, the pickings are slimmer. Their market is smaller and variety is narrower. Plus, many US makers or importers don't want to ship across the border and back. So my Canadian contributors had to develop relations with local stores. Some of those even act as importers for certain brands. My guys can pick up store demonstrators and return them. And of course there are quite a number of Canadian makers too. But to reiterate what Andre said (and it is my assumption that most print reviewers operate similarly but I don't know from experience) - unless you're the publisher, editor or designated equipment coordinator... reviewers really are detached from admin. They just process loaners they were assigned or which they requested; and upon handing in their review copy and photos get paid a fee; or not.

In our case, the review the writer sees published squares completely with the word doc they sent me save for minor grammatical corrections; or other error adjustments. Contributors for whom English isn't their first language routinely thanked me for fixing certain inelegant turns of phrase and making them look better when they started out. Now they expect it as standard protocol, part of my job and rely on me to do it. It's very rare that I challenge them on certain findings which, from my perspective, look odd or unlikely. They'll then have a perfectly legitimate explanation that perhaps might merely need a small rewrite to make more clear. That's the extent of 'interference' from Editorial. Andre might want to chime in here about his experience but I'd be surprised if it wasn't exactly the same. Either his review copy is published verbatim and 100% unaltered as a perfect cut'n'paste; or at best it shows certain grammatical, punctuation or misspell corrections here and there which I'd then expect he is pleased about -

 

[Srajan Ebaen]

hifikontoen: This is completely off-topic for this thread. I'm making myself available here specifically to answer questions or comment on Andre Marc's subject - not to 'shoot the ****' on assorted hifi subjects.

And, you're confusing a review with an industry features editorial. The URL alone (industryfeatures/fringes.html) says so, never mind the header of the actual link.

I completely stand by the quote you culled from it. If turning the WiFi off in your house makes the sound better (or you feel better which could amount to the same thing), you don't need scientific proof to benefit from such a simple empirical personal experiment. Ditto for acoustic resonators, Schumann resonators and assorted 'tweaks'. Whether science will approve of my Editorial or not I don't know or care one wit about. Telecom for example can claim all they want and supply me with assorted graphs and tests that Wifi is harmless. I still have it turned off in my house because I feel toxic with it on. My wife gets headaches from it. Both disappear when we turn it off. That's all the proof we require.

I also married her without approval from any scientific laboratory that our genes were well matched or anything else that science might be able to document. All I can tell you is - don't worry about science when it comes to personal pleasure and satisfaction and you've got your own physical, mental and emotional faculties as feedback.

 

[hifikontoen]

Srajan,
I do not think it is unfair to comment on the quality of your reviews.
Confer also the comment by dallasjustice on page 2 in this thread:
"At least Srajan will post a photo of his entire room. I respect him for that much. Low quality acoustical environment seems to be the rule and not the exception. I agree that he has no idea what he's reviewing in a bad room."

 

[Alan Sircom]

This review is written by Srajaen Ebean for 6moons:
http://www.6moons.com/industryfeatures/fringes/fringes.html

A quote by Srajan in the review (see the bottom text part of the link):
"These conclusions need no scientific base, proof or validation to reap personal benefits or at the very least, simple enjoyment."

Srajaen, can you tell us:
Do you think physicists will approve your review ? Why or why not ?

Here is a video touching the product:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ

Go to approximately 14:30 (product appears at 15:00).

I don't think that's relevant, and the concept is very definitely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

A lot of end-user experience is unrelated to the science underlying the subject. Science can tell us the chemistry behind the sweetness of sugar, it can determine with a high degree of certainty whether a sugar substitute is or is not functionally identical to sugar, it can tell us the calorific content of sugar, its effect on the human body in high, low and sustained dosage, and how our own receptors and neurotransmitters react to sugar.

What science has no tenure over is how I like to take my coffee. It has no diktat over whether I take my morning espresso with no sugar, a spoonful for an extra kick, or a sickly sweet syrup. It cannot say why a given individual might choose demerara, muscovado, or turbinado in their cappuccino or even how - despite double-blind triangle taste tests confirming it's impossible to tell the difference - someone might be able to recognise and reject a cup of joe with artificial sweetener in place of the real deal.

You could say the same about everything from kitchen cabinets to suit styles, from camera lenses to zippers, and from paint colours to hi-fi selection. It's science in the serve of art, and the part that separates one from the other is a grey area where neither wholly hold domain.

What would a physicist think of this review? It depends on the physicist. If he or she defines their every waking step by their scientific discipline, they probably wouldn't approve. But they probably wouldn't have that many waking steps because they would be unable to determine what were the most scientifically accurate shoes to wear for the day. If, on the other hand, we were dealing with a Richard Feynman, they might very well give it a go because it's the kind of crazy stuff that upsets stuffy fellow physicists.

 

[FrantzM]

I don't think that's relevant, and the concept is very definitely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

A lot of end-user experience is unrelated to the science underlying the subject. Science can tell us the chemistry behind the sweetness of sugar, it can determine with a high degree of certainty whether a sugar substitute is or is not functionally identical to sugar, it can tell us the calorific content of sugar, its effect on the human body in high, low and sustained dosage, and how our own receptors and neurotransmitters react to sugar.

What science has no tenure over is how I like to take my coffee. It has no diktat over whether I take my morning espresso with no sugar, a spoonful for an extra kick, or a sickly sweet syrup. It cannot say why a given individual might choose demerara, muscovado, or turbinado in their cappuccino or even how - despite double-blind triangle taste tests confirming it's impossible to tell the difference - someone might be able to recognise and reject a cup of joe with artificial sweetener in place of the real deal.

You could say the same about everything from kitchen cabinets to suit styles, from camera lenses to zippers, and from paint colours to hi-fi selection. It's science in the serve of art, and the part that separates one from the other is a grey area where neither wholly hold domain.

What would a physicist think of this review? It depends on the physicist. If he or she defines their every waking step by their scientific discipline, they probably wouldn't approve. But they probably wouldn't have that many waking steps because they would be unable to determine what were the most scientifically accurate shoes to wear for the day. If, on the other hand, we were dealing with a Richard Feynman, they might very well give it a go because it's the kind of crazy stuff that upsets stuffy fellow physicists.

I agree and honestly don;t think the topic raised by hifikontoen relevant.


A direct question: What separates reviews from infomercials in this way of operation?

 

[redsquare]

In line with this conversation "Horerlebnis" a German online audio magazine, does not have any advertising; they just review and tell it like it is. http://www.hoererlebnis.de/
But for an ad revenue magazine, I do like Alan Sircon's writing and Hi-Fi+.
So after reading Srajen's comments I now understand why 6moons looks like a disingenuous marketing platform for smoke & mirrors Goldmund...

 

[cpp]

As they say, if you don't like the content, don't view it.

 

[dallasjustice]

As they say, if you don't like the content, don't view it.

Well said. I think the disconnect is that sometimes magazines think their customers are their advertisers. The first step to running a successful business is to determine who you are serving and what that person wants.

 

[esldude]

hifikontoen:

All I can tell you is - don't worry about science when it comes to personal pleasure and satisfaction and you've got your own physical, mental and emotional faculties as feedback.

Yes don't worry about science. Since when did any science provide any pleasure or satisfaction? Especially inappropriate for high end audio. It would be too destructive of the industry. Just let science provide the means while ignoring it as much as possible. It would only be relevant to the topic if one thought advertising might end up being more important than whether something really works in relation to getting mention.