Accommodation pricing for the industry reviewer's ...your opinion?
- Thread starter DaveyF
- Start date
- Status
Yes but I don't find musicians necessary the best at id'ing good sound either. 1) they have a much different perspetive on the sound eg. sitting on stage is much different than sitting in the hall; 2) their minds fill in the missing pieces more than an audiophile; 3) I think audiophiles, recording engineers and musicians all value very different qualities when it comes to musical reproduction. For instance, I find engineers want dynamics to the exclusion of almost anything else.
Ok Steve, after much research into the question of credentials for reviewer's, I have finally found the answer......
.......
.......
..
The reviewer must have a Russian wife, must like wine, must be open to having various trips 'perked' and lastly and perhaps most importantly-- must adore all Musical Fidelity gear.
.......
.......
..
The reviewer must have a Russian wife, must like wine, must be open to having various trips 'perked' and lastly and perhaps most importantly-- must adore all Musical Fidelity gear.
In my past life, we tested many musicians and they showed no better ability to detect distortion than the general public. There have been formal studies showing the same.
No musician is taught (in the process of learning to play music) what small amounts of distortion sounds like. We are not talking about WoW and Flutter and things that tonally impact the sound that would fall in their area of expertise.
No musician is taught (in the process of learning to play music) what small amounts of distortion sounds like. We are not talking about WoW and Flutter and things that tonally impact the sound that would fall in their area of expertise.
Sean commented on this in another forum:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=16558769#post16558769
Bruce B
WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
Well that was my whole point in bringing up musicians. I was talking about tonality, coloring and sonority. You're right... most musicians wouldn't detect edits.
Back on topic: my solution to this is not going to be a popular one here. I feel reviewers should not be allowed to own any of the products in their reference system, for comparisons or for system synergy. Everything they use for reviewing should be on semi-permanent loan, up to a three-year maximum term. The loan agreement should be between the manufacturer and the magazine the reviewer works for. A reviewer can, of course, choose to buy any equipment they wish to use for their own use, at the same rates as anyone else in the industry, but they would not - under any circumstances - be allowed to use or mention those products for review.
Naturally, this only works if every manufacturer agrees to the loan system. It should also be made clear and public why a reviewer, magazine or manufacturer should decide to stop using the product on loan. In addition if, at the end of the three-year term, the reviewer or magazine decides to extend the loan term, that too needs to be explained in the public domain. These rules would apply across the board, whether the product was worth $100 or $100,000.
That the magazine effectively holds the keys to the loan cupboard eliminates the whole argument about the reviewer benefitting from their position on an ad hoc basis, and would prevent the scenario where the person who is best suited to reviewing the top end equipment, but is unable to do so because of the nature of their own finances. Or vice versa; if the best budget review guy owns a $500,000 system (however they came to own that) they might insist on reviewing equipment for which they are unsuitable. It also stops the queries about whether a reviewer owns their equipment, and what percentage of the full retail price they paid for their equipment. Finally, it prevents one of the biggest problems inherent to reviewers who own all their own equipment; their almost universal refusal to use other equipment for system building when reviewing a product. The only potential issue would be to ensure that the equipment purchased 'behind the scenes' did not influence the reviewer, and once again it would have to go through the magazine for approval. Essentially, if a reviewer proved to have too snug a relationship with a manufacturer, he or she would risk losing their loan facility and therefor their ability to continue as reviewer.
This is a model largely adopted by the automotive industry and because the prices of top-end equipment apply in audio as they do in cars, the same applies. The Luminous Landscape integrity statement doesn't really apply because the price of photographic equipment tops out at a slightly lower level, and a professional landscape photographer can always use their photographic equipment to make them money independent of the review process; in lectures and in making photographs for profit.
As to the notion that reviewers should only cover products that fall within their own price level, this poses massive problems for the magazine. We increasingly have to cater for readers who earn more than the combined earnings potential of the whole magazine, as well as readers with more down-to-earth salaries (as we are finding the magazines becoming more well read in emerging markets - such as the BRIC economies - we are being called upon to review products that are considered too expensive in the home market). To limit the reviews to products our reviewers can afford instead of what appeals to an increasingly important part of our audience is not commercially sensible for a publication.
Naturally, this only works if every manufacturer agrees to the loan system. It should also be made clear and public why a reviewer, magazine or manufacturer should decide to stop using the product on loan. In addition if, at the end of the three-year term, the reviewer or magazine decides to extend the loan term, that too needs to be explained in the public domain. These rules would apply across the board, whether the product was worth $100 or $100,000.
That the magazine effectively holds the keys to the loan cupboard eliminates the whole argument about the reviewer benefitting from their position on an ad hoc basis, and would prevent the scenario where the person who is best suited to reviewing the top end equipment, but is unable to do so because of the nature of their own finances. Or vice versa; if the best budget review guy owns a $500,000 system (however they came to own that) they might insist on reviewing equipment for which they are unsuitable. It also stops the queries about whether a reviewer owns their equipment, and what percentage of the full retail price they paid for their equipment. Finally, it prevents one of the biggest problems inherent to reviewers who own all their own equipment; their almost universal refusal to use other equipment for system building when reviewing a product. The only potential issue would be to ensure that the equipment purchased 'behind the scenes' did not influence the reviewer, and once again it would have to go through the magazine for approval. Essentially, if a reviewer proved to have too snug a relationship with a manufacturer, he or she would risk losing their loan facility and therefor their ability to continue as reviewer.
This is a model largely adopted by the automotive industry and because the prices of top-end equipment apply in audio as they do in cars, the same applies. The Luminous Landscape integrity statement doesn't really apply because the price of photographic equipment tops out at a slightly lower level, and a professional landscape photographer can always use their photographic equipment to make them money independent of the review process; in lectures and in making photographs for profit.
As to the notion that reviewers should only cover products that fall within their own price level, this poses massive problems for the magazine. We increasingly have to cater for readers who earn more than the combined earnings potential of the whole magazine, as well as readers with more down-to-earth salaries (as we are finding the magazines becoming more well read in emerging markets - such as the BRIC economies - we are being called upon to review products that are considered too expensive in the home market). To limit the reviews to products our reviewers can afford instead of what appeals to an increasingly important part of our audience is not commercially sensible for a publication.
Steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
Unfortunately not. The manufacturers and distributors here are not willing to accept such a scheme. So everything remains ad hoc. In some respects, strangely this works too. It shifts the locus of responsibility on to the editor to police his or her reviewers, to ensure that if they buy products, they pay a fair price based on something close to the dealer's trade price - or the price paid by the dealer for demonstration or their own system components. If they loan, they loan through me.
The other big problem with this scheme that will not work itself out is the sheer inability of manufacturers to pick things up after reviews. This sounds like a wonderful place to be in, but I pay hundreds of pounds per month in storage and insurance fees to stock a bunch of products that the manufacturers seem to have forgotten about. It's very difficult to say whether these products are just left in storage or whether they are potentially loan stock from the outside (if you are doing a synergy check, having those boxes lying round are hard to ignore). I used to give manufacturers a two-year cut-off and then the products were sold off and the money raised was given to charity. I also used to inform them of this repeatedly up to the two-year point. That stopped when someone decided a year after I had written them their final warning that they tried to obtain cash for their product... with menaces.
One magazine in the UK - What Hi-Fi - does deploy a similar strategy to the one I mentioned, but with a twist. It suggest there should be no loan stock and reviews be conducted in dedicated listening rooms in the office. There are reference systems in the office that the reviewers can call upon, but they are not to be used at the reviewer's own homes, and review stock is not allowed to be used for personal use. This tends to impose a strict price ceiling on its reviews, and its high-end coverage is somewhat perfunctory as a result.
Steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
Interesting thought but I just can't see it ever happening on this side of the pond
Alan as Editor of your magazine can you enlighten me as to what prerequisites you insist on for a reviewer to possess. I have asked this question here of all of our reviewers but seem to only get a response from we lay people
Bruce B
WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
The biggest prerequisite is that they can write entertaining, educative and informative copy that doesn't need a heavy rewrite, and that arrives on time and to word-count. That's hard enough to get at the rates we pay these days. Because I inherited a magazine has a no-measure policy, I don't need to concern myself with tech guy requirements. The last time I tried to find reviewers with a more tech slant... no joy. I went looking for tonmeisters and recording engineers and people with experience in the manufacture and design of audio equipment. We either got people we could afford, but thought a soldering iron was a magic heaty stick, or we got people who laughed at the rates we could charge. That was a dozen years ago, and those rates are even worse today. There's a possibility of getting people to fill the requirements today, as the music biz and audio industry shake off extra staff, but the magazines generally don't have the budget to pay for them now.
Steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
is it commonplace in the UK for any and all reviewers to receive a 50% accommodation on gear and not even need to write a review as it is here
Unfortunately, although the infrastructure is admirable, the review process itself is reputed to be very random indeed.
No. I've been quoted an 'accommodation' price on a product that was 5% below the retail price. A civilian going to a shop could get 20% off the same price without too much haggling.
That's pretty rare, and I can usually get somewhere between ex-VAT retail and demonstrator-stock trade price. Half price would be pretty rare, although I got something close to that on an ex-demonstrator product, which was discontinued a couple of months later. I don't think I could sell that on and sleep at night; it looks like it fell out of an aircraft without a parachute.
My better judgement tells me not to respond to this after the tone of some of these messages, but . . .
The truth is, there is simply so much you don't know. I could tell you at least five cases RIGHT NOW where there are permanent loans at reviewers' houses that will never leave . . . until the replacement model is released, then the reviewer gets the new model for free. These products are regularly given POTY awards, over and over. This is commonplace. I also know of reviewers that actually work for companies and reviews their products. Yep, it's true.
I also was sitting at a dinner when a well-known UK reviewer was offered a free pair of speakers right over the meal -- the only question posed was "What color do you want them in?" This reviewer later reviewed the company's next speaker very positively.
And lest you think that long-term loans for everyone is the answer, I've talked to many manufacturers that simply can't afford the practice, so they don't play the game. I don't see that as fair to anyone.
So although I do admit that industry purchases aren't the perfect way, being above board about it and having it controlled by the magazine the way we do is accpetable to me (I know not to some of you . . . I get it).
Lastly, as to qualifications, I echo what Alan said. Although I will add that having credible measurements makes for a far more "qualified magazine" IMO. They are a good way to have checks and balances, and they present more "unbiased" info than any reviewer I know.
Jeff, I find it a little hard to believe that there are manufacturers who cannot afford to lend gear for the time that it would take to construct a review
Why said piece of gear has to stay in the reviewer's system for many months is a little baffling. I do know this is fairly common practice, as one of my reviewer friends has had an amp on loan for the better part of a year. However, when I push him hard as to why that is the case, he tells me he hasn't gotten around to returning the piece and in truth hasn't really needed it for more than the time it took him to do the review. Your example of the UK reviewer is interesting, I am sure that there are unscrupulous people all over the globe that are "reviewers". IMHO, giving them an another enticement ( an 'accommodation') to act unethically isn't really a good solution.
IMHO, Alan's thinking and ideas on this issue are much more in-line with what i think should be occurring in the industry.
Why said piece of gear has to stay in the reviewer's system for many months is a little baffling. I do know this is fairly common practice, as one of my reviewer friends has had an amp on loan for the better part of a year
. However, when I push him hard as to why that is the case, he tells me he hasn't gotten around to returning the piece and in truth hasn't really needed it for more than the time it took him to do the review. Your example of the UK reviewer is interesting, I am sure that there are unscrupulous people all over the globe that are "reviewers". IMHO, giving them an another enticement ( an 'accommodation') to act unethically isn't really a good solution.IMHO, Alan's thinking and ideas on this issue are much more in-line with what i think should be occurring in the industry.
Jeff, I find it a little hard to believe that there are manufacturers who cannot afford to lend gear for the time that it would take to construct a review
Why said piece of gear has to stay in the reviewer's system for many months is a little baffling. I do know this is fairly common practice, as one of my reviewer friends has had an amp on loan for the better part of a year
IMHO, Alan's thinking and ideas on this issue are much more in-line with what i think should be occurring in the industry.
I am talking about long-term loans, as in used to permanently build a reviewer's reference system. These products are written off the books. After all, when they come back (if ever), they aren't even current.
And that is why the magazine has to control it. The management should control review samples and all purchases should go through them. If you don't act ethically, it gets around. There are a number of publications that only review obscure products. There is a reason you don't see mainstream companies sending them gear. They just won't. Word of mouth is a great resource in a small industry.
Very interesting post, Jeff. Some of what I might call horror stories to which you made reference, without knowing the particulars of course, are worthy of pause for thought.
I also particularly like that part of your post which I emphasized below.
I also particularly like that part of your post which I emphasized below.
IMHO, giving them an another enticement ( an 'accommodation') to act unethically isn't really a good solution.
But this is exactly my point. Whether there is accommodation or not, it doesn't matter. It all comes down to whether the person is honest and/or there is an entity there to police it. It's kind of like having a law on the books that is never enforced. What difference does it make?
What I am saying is that there is a whole bunch of s__t in this industry and it exists because there are reviewers that want free stuff and manufacturers that will play that game for good press. Happens more than you'd want to know. So I get a little frustrated when there is all this outrage because a reviewer gets a discount going through the proper channels set up by the magazine and abides by the rules of an agreement.
- Status
Similar threads
