Yes, there is enforcement. Reviewers have been canned from PFO and other publications for far less.
hpsoundings II
- Thread starter Gregadd
- Start date
Yes, there is enforcement. Reviewers have been canned from PFO and other publications for far less.
Ask your self this..do you prefer the OTHER scenario, where reviewers have their entire reference system on loan like Robert Harley and Jon Valin?
I am not passing judgement either way (I'm really not)..but there you have a situation where they are taking long term "loans" from advertisers.
How about a straight out barter for equipment and ad space?
Is that a better deal?
There is no doubt that is a substantial discount. But remember, again, ALL industry members in OTHER industries get discounts on the tools used in
their profession.
I think we should focus our outrage elsewhere.
It's a given that no one purchases a piece of high-end audio gear at the MSRP. Retail is a starting point for negotiation. Manufacturers providing reviewers equipment at prices below what they are willing to sell to consumers, i.e. accommodation pricing provides an obvious relative economic benefit to the recipient. Take for example, for a speaker with an MSRP of $20,000 that generally sells for $16,000. If the reviewer pays an accommodation price of $12,000, they have received a substantial benefit. (At a 33% tax rate, the reviewer would have received the equivalent of an extra $6,000 of income.)
I'll assume that a) all reviewers are upstanding, ethical individuals of the highest moral caliber and b) manufacturers don't care about (a) and are giving an accommodation discount for other reasons.
As consumers, we can debate and bemoan the practice of industry accommodation pricing, but practically we should accept the reality that the practice is long-standing, widespread, and unlikely to change. Reviewers should try to see things through the eyes of the consumer and understand that despite your upstanding character and unimpeachable integrity, the optics of accepting an industry accommodation look bad and looks even worse if it's not disclosed.
Personally, I have no problem with the practice of accommodation pricing. I rationalize it as a form of indirect compensation for otherwise underpaid reviewers. However, IMO, any accommodation pricing should be disclosed as part of any review.
I'll assume that a) all reviewers are upstanding, ethical individuals of the highest moral caliber and b) manufacturers don't care about (a) and are giving an accommodation discount for other reasons.
As consumers, we can debate and bemoan the practice of industry accommodation pricing, but practically we should accept the reality that the practice is long-standing, widespread, and unlikely to change. Reviewers should try to see things through the eyes of the consumer and understand that despite your upstanding character and unimpeachable integrity, the optics of accepting an industry accommodation look bad and looks even worse if it's not disclosed.
Personally, I have no problem with the practice of accommodation pricing. I rationalize it as a form of indirect compensation for otherwise underpaid reviewers. However, IMO, any accommodation pricing should be disclosed as part of any review.
Last edited:
I think any evident churning of review equipment is pretty easily discovered if the stuff is offered for sale on places like the Gon. And since the reviewer still has to ante up the cash, even at a substantial discount, for an expensive piece of gear, it doesn't seem to me like it's a good 'business model' to make money, particularly if the reviewer keeps the gear for several years. I'm sure there's the opportunity for abuse, but I don't see this as a looming threat to the integrity of reviewers.
Doc, you are really addressing a different point, that is, not the resale for 'profit' by the reviewer of an accommodation piece but the very existence of accommodations as they may affect a reviewer's integrity. I would assume that any reviewer willing to lay out their own cash, even at a discount, actually believes the piece is good if they are willing to buy it for themselves, using their own money.
Is their a doc in the house ...! Hoof and mouth specialist Needed ...!..
So this is nothing new, common practice, it's everywhere , hence the arrogance of which this is being thrown around , like it doesnt matter, no biggie, part of the game, ahhhh, it's like fishing , enuff bait , lots of line ......
Ahhh , To kill a mocking Bird ..... great Book ....!!!!
I guess there's more....
So this is nothing new, common practice, it's everywhere , hence the arrogance of which this is being thrown around , like it doesnt matter, no biggie, part of the game, ahhhh, it's like fishing , enuff bait , lots of line ......
Ahhh , To kill a mocking Bird ..... great Book ....!!!!
I guess there's more....
Do you see this as a conflict of interest ? and after purchasing what are the odds of said reviewer rating something over his "big " purchase, one that's cheaper ..?
Just saying ...
Who said I was outraged? It's one factor among many. The consumer should decide what is important
Interesting point, Wayne. I guess once 'invested' that person is less likely to view something else as better. But, I guess that bias -which would exist even if the reviewer didn't buy it at a discount- has to be taken into account, in part by disclosure of the reviewer's reference system, and partly by the reviewer acknowledging his/her biases expressly in some form. Say I'm wedded to electostats for preferred listening. How am I going to evaluate a dynamic speaker fairly? This seems to have less to do with the 'accomodation' issue than with personal biases, but maybe I'm missing something (and I'm not being facetious).
Being a reviewer is not that remunerative to begin with. Former reviewers tend to say they quit because of the conflicts and because reviewing was extremely disruptive of their own listening.
To me, there are different ethical levels associated with different tasks and occupations. The ethics level required of a reviewer is moderate at best. However, reputation is also a consideration, but I don't see accommodation purchasing as indicative of dishonesty.
I have no problem with dealer accommodations as long as the reviewer pays his own money and has some skin in the "investment." Even with high price components, I would imagine time at a normal job would bring in greater revenues than any differences.
To me, there are different ethical levels associated with different tasks and occupations. The ethics level required of a reviewer is moderate at best. However, reputation is also a consideration, but I don't see accommodation purchasing as indicative of dishonesty.
I have no problem with dealer accommodations as long as the reviewer pays his own money and has some skin in the "investment." Even with high price components, I would imagine time at a normal job would bring in greater revenues than any differences.
Not really ,
I review Product X give it a good review , send it back and then product -B comes along , better in every respect, I have no reason not to say so, now if i have 20K invested in product -X and product-B is cheaper guess what ... ?
Conflict of interest and it is understandable that reviewers have to or want to own gear, disclosure is necessary.....
I review Product X give it a good review , send it back and then product -B comes along , better in every respect, I have no reason not to say so, now if i have 20K invested in product -X and product-B is cheaper guess what ... ?
Conflict of interest and it is understandable that reviewers have to or want to own gear, disclosure is necessary.....
Point taken. I suppose it comes down to personal integrity, doesn't it? And in that instance, I guess the scenario is that the reviewer won't give the better product its due, or will unload his now marginalized piece before writing the review of the 'better piece,' or, possibly more likely, will write a review without making a direct comparison to the piece his owns. I don't know Wayne, it is a legitimate point, not sure how often it arises or how reviewers deal with it. We can all assume what the ethical approach would be....
Last edited:
I was working on the assumption that everyone considers it unethical for a reviewer to try and profit by flipping equipment obtained at accommodation pricing. Again, I'll assume the integrity of any reviewer and understand that even at accommodation pricing, a reviewer is spending a lot of money to purchase equipment. My point was that disclosure of any such potential conflicts of interest would be best to reduce any appearance of a conflict of interest.
In the medical profession, there has been a sea-change of opinion with regards to conflicts of interest over the past 20 years. It's to the point where drug companies can no longer give donuts to physicians and it's illegal for physicians to provide professional courtesy to their fellow practitioners. It seems every journal article is prefaced with disclosures of potential conflicts of interest such as research funding.
Reviewers are buying retail. They are just not paying the store markup -- but exactly or maybe more than what the store does. Not only that, reviewers are paying close to the prices that a manufacturer would charge for a piece of used equipment since by law they can't sell a review sample as new (so what you're asking companied to do is charge the price of a new component for a used component.) Oh, and BTW, many of these same deals can be had by audiophiles. I regularly see review samples being offered by manufacturers and distributors on Audiogon. One is there right now that I recently reviewed.
And yes, it's highly unethical for reviewers to flip equipment for a higher price. And if anyone thinks that high-end manufacturers don't keep an eye out for their equipment and what it's selling for on Audiogon, you're sadly deluded.
This topic has been beaten to death already here and other places and is rather long in the tooth.
And yes, it's highly unethical for reviewers to flip equipment for a higher price. And if anyone thinks that high-end manufacturers don't keep an eye out for their equipment and what it's selling for on Audiogon, you're sadly deluded.
This topic has been beaten to death already here and other places and is rather long in the tooth.
Especially considering far too many reviews today read like extended advertisements ...
tb1
Similar threads
