C'mon Steve, the indirect insults don't befit you. You have my phone number. If not, PM me and I'll send it over.
Accommodation pricing for the industry reviewer's ...your opinion?
- Thread starter DaveyF
- Start date
- Status
C'mon Steve, the indirect insults don't befit you. You have my phone number. If not, PM me and I'll send it over.
Steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
what indirect insults Jeff.
Perhaps you haven't figured it out how the concept of accommodation prices sit with the membership here.
Perhaps you haven't figured it out how the concept of accommodation prices sit with the membership here.
Oh no I'm quite clear about you and Davey F.
Is this like politics? We're on different sides of an issue and therefore it's OK to take shots? I sent my phone number, so call. Or is this about public gamesmanship for your site?
How does industry accommodation differ from becoming a "dealer" so you can buy amps at half off?
I don't speak for other people, and have no intention of doing so. However, I would imagine most view idealistic notions of being seen to be doing the right thing for the disgruntled are thoroughly trumped by the very real world issue of getting words on a page for the gruntled. That's ultimately my take on this whole matter.
However, I do strongly agree with Jeff that the only practical path to integrity is to let the magazines police the reviewers. This inevitably leads to 'who polices the policemen?' questions especially when it comes to publications like mine where I am the majority writer. There is a 'slips through the cracks' problem with reviewers who work for more than one title (this is more common in the UK than the US); a questionable reviewer can potentially tell both magazines that the other arranged the loan. Fortunately, we don't work in isolation and such off-colour practices would be exposed, as they have in the past.
Last edited:
The problem with accommodating pricing is that there have been instances in the industry where manufacturers have claimed foul after a reviewer gave them a poor review because the former were unwilling to sufficiently accommodate the reviewer (see Stereophile and a certain Australian amp manufacturer). But far more insidious is the practice of long term loans. I find HP to be an entertaining reviewer that knows his recordings quite well, is an eloquent writer, but when it comes to audio...I'll just refrain from commenting. However, how can he have any credibility when one considers all the long term loans (assuming that is how he still operates). Can one truly assume a lack of bias when one manufacturer is willing to "loan" (he is actually being given a form of property right that has a life time equivalent to many audio enthusiasts purchases) him equipment priced in the high 5 low six figures and another is not? Does HP's reviewing "prowess" not gain some credibility from some of his readers because of the "test" equipment he relies on? Does he not gain value from these long term loans and does it not create potential sources of bias, if not conflict of interests? In fact, there was a disagreement with one of his writers a little more than a decade ago because the reviewer wanted to trade some of his skill set (can't remember if it was photography or writing) for a product he had positively reviewed. To me, there was less of a conflict of interest from the staff writer (he was willing to pay with work) proposal, than there was from HP's practice of long term loans (he paid nothing and gained everything from a use perspective).
jazoc,
Regrettably, I would extend this sentiment to mass market "journalism" -- regardless, whether it be the "nightly news" or an audio vehicle.
I was busy so I could not post yesterday but I was going to give a slightly expanded question on this to Steve,
if he ends up employing full or part time staff should these then not have trade price (which is usually an entitlement to staff in any industy and company they work for)?
If you give them trade price who is to say they only work for the dealershiip with the more expensive gear to buy and sell but do not necessarily interested or even care about the industry, they sell it because it is expensive on agon, and this can lead to them selling the gear to a customer even if it probably is not the right gear for them whether directly as a sales person or indirectly as 2nd hand.
This is not a dig at you, but the potential what happens when others are needed in the business or for some dealers who are financially stressed and then break customer trust by pushing the most expensive they can sell that person (again eventually creating distrust that you mentioned as a cause earlier relating to reviewers).
If you do not give your employees the benefits of trade price, then this has the effect of making you out as the bad person as your depriving someone an entitlement that applies generally in manufacturing industry, in a way its a no-win situation for you as the boss, that could also apply to the bosses of audio publications as well.
And as Alan/Jeff mention police this to provide results in a similar way how other manufacturers sectors use employee contracts to restrict the issue of abusing the trade price purchase.
But I do understand that for some this is about fairness, and they may feel that it is not right for those in any industry to be able to purchase at trade price, where in some cases this means a very low price in relative terms for some of the very high end gear (as Steve mentioned before with 40k accomodation-trade price turntable with rrp of over 100k).
As an example how much do you think Jeremy Clarkson paid for his very expensive Mercedez?
Or is it fair that James May was able to go up to very high altitude in a U2 spy plane (very privileged taken to their ceiling operational height just over 70,000ft with a very narrow coffin corner-corridor ) when really he is more known as a motor journalist.
Thanks
Orb
Last edited:
Alan,I think you, yourself, answered that question in one of your earlier posts....Short term loans that are fully controlled and under the magazines auspices.
I fail to see why any reviewer absolutely needs to own the equipment that they are either a) using as a reference or b) reviewing for any particular publication/periodical.
If they wish to own said equipment, and they can afford to buy it like any other end-user consumer, obviously there is no problem with that. Nonetheless, I would think that a disclosure about said ownership would be appropriate at that point.
BTW, Randall Smith, care to elucidate on your point
Alan,I think you, yourself, answered that question in one of your earlier posts....Short term loans that are fully controlled and under the magazines auspices.
I fail to see why any reviewer absolutely needs to own the equipment that they are either a) using as a reference or b) reviewing for any particular publication/periodical.
If they wish to own said equipment, and they can afford to buy it like any other end-user consumer, obviously there is no problem with that. Nonetheless, I would think that a disclosure about said ownership would be appropriate at that point.
BTW, Randall Smith, care to elucidate on your point
Several problems spring to mind, here:
1. What happens when a manufacture either refuses - or cannot afford - to engage in a loan scheme? There is no way to enforce such a scheme, and if a company opts out of this plan for whatever reason, that company cannot be a part of any reviewer's reference system. This doesn't seem particularly fair, either.
2. Loan management. Let's assume a magazine has 10 freelance reviewers. Each one has just one system, because each one has an area of specialism. So, each reviewer could potentially require loan agreements for source component, integrated amp, preamp, power amp, loudspeaker, cables, tables and any acoustic treatments and ancillaries they use in their system. They may also need several examples of some (or all) of these components if they are to do comparison and system matching with due diligence. Let's say each reviewer needs at least 25 loan agreements to prosecute their job correctly. That means a minimum of 250 loan agreements to manage, which are prone to change on an alarming rate. That's pretty close to an additional role of fleet manager in businesses that are usually streamlining staff levels.
3. Loan term. This is in part connected to loan management. There are three sides to this; the length of time for a DUT loan, the loan term for a reference product, and the transfer of product from DUT to reference product status. A formal period for DUT loans can be problematic. A review might get 'bumped' by the editorial team for an extra month, reviews might end up taking more time than expected (for whatever reason... system matching, tracking down the designer for interviews, moving from review to measurement to photography), and given manufacturers are remarkably poor at delivering and collecting the products, this would be yet another role for a fleet manager.
Reference product loans to reviewers cannot realistically be covered in a three-month period. I know reviewers who have used the same product as a reference point for years (decades, even), because they need a consistent system. So, those reference products need to be considered in terms of multi-year loans. And that leads to...
4. Public perception. Those who see corruption in the process of reviewing wouldn't view this as an industry attempting to get its house in order. They would see this as a free rewards scheme for reviewers. Even if every company agreed to a loan scheme, reviews would be viewed with just as much suspicion by those who view the process with suspicion. Instigating a difficult to manage and enforce scheme that ultimately does nothing positive for the public perception of the review process strikes me as at best a zero-sum (and more likely a lose-lose) project. You aren't going to get many companies signing up for such a scheme in reality.
As you can see, I have given this a lot of consideration. My solution is an effective one, but just as unmanageable and just as impractical as insisting we only hire multi-millionaires to review the really high-end equipment.
Alan, I do agree that there is probably no perfect solution to all. However, I do think that the current
'accommodation' practice in the US is something that needs to cease.
With regards to your points, I think that if a manufacturer doesn't want to engage in a 'short term' loan scheme, well then they simply do not get a review. If I remember, in the past there have been Co's that have refused to give reviewers gear... I think Jeff Rowland was one example of this. I do not see that this needs to adversely effect any manufacturer who deems this necessary. I also still fail to see why a reviewer cannot be done with a review in a short period of time, say three months (frankly I don't really see why a review cannot be completed in a few days at most, I mean does one really need to listen for hundreds of hours to form an informed opinion). In the event that something was amiss later, then simply putting the necessary systems into place to deal with these contingencies is really all that should be required, just IMHO.
BTW, I have a hard time believing that every reviewer cannot afford to pay for at least some good gear at retail.... I mean that is part of their cost of being in the business. Just like any other business, there are costs of transacting the every day mechanisms of one's business. I hate to say it, BUT if a reviewer cannot justify the cost of the basic gear for a general reference system then maybe they should be in a different line of work. Now I know this will probably not sit well with many on this forum, however, as Jtinn eloquently pointed out, it seems that these days everybody and his uncle is a 'reviewer'.
Lastly, regarding public perception, do you not think that the public would be more trusting of a fully transparent reviewing system without 'accommodations' than what is prevalent today
'accommodation' practice in the US is something that needs to cease.
With regards to your points, I think that if a manufacturer doesn't want to engage in a 'short term' loan scheme, well then they simply do not get a review.
If I remember, in the past there have been Co's that have refused to give reviewers gear... I think Jeff Rowland was one example of this. I do not see that this needs to adversely effect any manufacturer who deems this necessary. I also still fail to see why a reviewer cannot be done with a review in a short period of time, say three months (frankly I don't really see why a review cannot be completed in a few days at most, I mean does one really need to listen for hundreds of hours to form an informed opinion). In the event that something was amiss later, then simply putting the necessary systems into place to deal with these contingencies is really all that should be required, just IMHO.BTW, I have a hard time believing that every reviewer cannot afford to pay for at least some good gear at retail.... I mean that is part of their cost of being in the business. Just like any other business, there are costs of transacting the every day mechanisms of one's business. I hate to say it, BUT if a reviewer cannot justify the cost of the basic gear for a general reference system then maybe they should be in a different line of work. Now I know this will probably not sit well with many on this forum, however, as Jtinn eloquently pointed out, it seems that these days everybody and his uncle is a 'reviewer'.
Lastly, regarding public perception, do you not think that the public would be more trusting of a fully transparent reviewing system without 'accommodations' than what is prevalent today
Last edited:
Personally, I don't think many people have thought about accommodation purchases for reviewers 1/10th as much as you have. At some point one has to ask why are really you so concerned with it? It sounds like each publication does things differently. Whether they are given gear on long term loan or they buy gear at accommodation prices. Either you can decide which publication you believe provides you with a situation that best suits either your personal ethics or gives the gear you love the best reviews. Other than that, it is what it is. I doubt anyone is taking notes on your suggestions and writing them into the Audio Bill of Rights. Regardless of what is done, you will still find a problem and complain about it. Thats what people do on audio forums.
My impression of MSRP there in the States is that anyone who walks into an audio dealer like Lyric Hifi or Sound by Singer for example do not get any cent off the MSRP. I learned that too in the late 80s when I bought a pair of Thiel CS3.5 speakers from Audio Excellence in SF. The guy told me even if I purchased 2 pairs I still would not get a cent less. I heard from friends too that Acoustic Sounds do not give any discount on any of their audio gears as well. So, I wonder if presently, audio dealers do give discount and if so, how much would the going rate be? Over here in the P.I., we get 10-30% off MSRP, and the goods travel 5000 miles over the Pacific Ocean.
Alan, I do agree that there is probably no perfect solution to all. However, I do think that the current
'accommodation' practice in the US is something that needs to cease.
With regards to your points, I think that if a manufacturer doesn't want to engage in a 'short term' loan scheme, well then they simply do not get a review.
BTW, I have a hard time believing that every reviewer cannot afford to pay for at least some good gear at retail.... I mean that is part of their cost of being in the business. Just like any other business, there are costs of transacting the every day mechanisms of one's business. I hate to say it, BUT if a reviewer cannot justify the cost of the basic gear for a general reference system then maybe they should be in a different line of work. Now I know this will probably not sit well with many on this forum, however, as Jtinn eloquently pointed out, it seems that these days everybody and his uncle is a 'reviewer'.
Lastly, regarding public perception, do you not think that the public would be more trusting of a fully transparent reviewing system without 'accommodations' than what is prevalent today
Is it really fair to punish a start-up company (by not reviewing its products) because it will not engage in a loan scheme that it might not be able to afford to join for two or three years?
A fixed term review will not sit with those who feel that their products require an extraordinarily long run-in period. And I disagree that a review can be completed in a few days; the first flush of a review is rather like the top notes of a perfume. The middle and base notes of a perfume take time to uncover themselves. The difference here is getting through your initial perceptions rather than chemical changes, but both occur with respect to time. But this is getting OT. There are also logistic problems that can and do hold up reviews significantly. I'd say the majority of my reviews are turned around in three months; some are a lot quicker, some are a lot slower. Often this has nothing whatsoever to do with the performance of the product, but unrelated events that conspire to hold up the review.
But this has nothing to do with longer-term loan of a reference system. I simply don't see how a three-month loan of such equipment would benefit the readers. They want some kind of consistency in the reviewer's systems and a three-month loan would provide precisely no consistency at all. You seem very reluctant to be drawn on this, always discussing short-term or three-month loans. Are you suggesting the reviewers should not be allowed to set their own benchmarks?
Most reviewers enter into the business with most of their system paid for, whether at retail or at the sort of accommodation prices people in the industry get for being in the industry. And it's rare to find a reviewer that doesn't own at least some of the products they use in their work. But the demands of the audio industry quickly swamp up costs. When I used to review budget equipment, I needed to have a consistent set of components that allowed me to assess products of £500 and under. This meant three CD players, two turntables, four different amps and six pairs of loudspeakers, not forgetting the Gordian Knot of cables and oil-rig of speaker stands needed to make this happen. In short, to effectively review a £500 amp in the context of a £1,500 system I would need something in the region of £8,000 worth of products in order to to accurately discharge my responsibilities. These products would frequently change and better products might push the worse ones out, so I might need to have to spend as much as £2,000 per year buying in new products. Because my equipment has been bumped around more than a system that might sit on an equipment table for its life, it loses a lot of resale value, so the £2,000 worth of products I get to sell might only raise £500 in resale value. If I got into this because I could afford a £1,500 system, I would quickly get out of it again when I discovered I needed to spend £1,500 per year simply to stay in the game. When you take those prices and push them up to the high-end, they quickly become untenable no matter how well-off you are.
Frankly, I am more concerned with getting the right person to do the job, rather the right-shaped wallet. I'm sure that most people who review Ferraris couldn't afford a Ferrari, even at the most accommodating trade price possible. And yet, we don't consider their earnings potential, just their competence in writing an accurate review. We don't even think their lack of being able to afford such a car undermines their ability to make value judgments on price; it doesn't need to be your money to know if spending it on a thing is or is not a good idea. Why does the same not hold for audio reviewers?
And finally no, I think a fully transparent reviewing system would not engender trust, because people who distrust a system are apt to 'read into' things and draw their own conclusions that continue to support their distrust. If we adopted a fully-transparent three-year loan scheme (as I suggested) as opposed to a three-month loan scheme (as you suggest), I suspect you would continue to call this out as being unjust. Even if you accepted this as an equitable scheme, those who demand reviewers pay full retail would pull such a scheme apart and the distrust would only start up again.
Randall, it is pretty clear to me that you have not thought about 'accommodation' prices to reviewer's at all, nor do you care to
DaveyF, of course I have thought about it. My point is, it is an accepted practice that all reviewers have access to. Reviewers can purchase review samples or new product that they haven't reviewed. If this is the case, that reviewers can purchase any almost any gear they want, (review sample or new) then what makes you think that it affects the review? Is this your main concern or are you upset that you cannot also purchase gear at 50%? Really, which is your main point of contention? At some point, saying the same thing, over and over again gets old. You have stated your point of view, but what really are your reasons? Reviewers are bad?
Reviewers are biased? Reviewers are not perfect. Throwing a blanket over the audio press and claiming that things need to be changed in order to control it sounds a bit extreme. You realize that your opinion is just that, your opinion, and that nothing will change as a result of it. I guess you are fighting the good fight, at least as far as you are concerned, but really... is this the biggest issue out there?
Reviewers are biased? Reviewers are not perfect. Throwing a blanket over the audio press and claiming that things need to be changed in order to control it sounds a bit extreme. You realize that your opinion is just that, your opinion, and that nothing will change as a result of it. I guess you are fighting the good fight, at least as far as you are concerned, but really... is this the biggest issue out there?
- Status
Similar threads
