"Long-Term Equipment Loans: A Win-Win for Everyone" by Robert Harley, The Absolute Sound

[MylesBAstor]

I concur and suggested one year earlier in the thread.

with the additional caveat that all loans be disclosed on each magazines website for full transparency.

This is a requirement for all Positive-Feedback writers.

All you need to do is click on the author’s name and a box should pop up with the reviewer’s reference system and which pieces are on loan and which pieces the reviewer owns.

An example is included.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

This is a requirement for all Positive-Feedback writers.

All you need to do is click on the author’s name and a box should pop up with the reviewer’s reference system and which pieces are on loan and which pieces the reviewer owns.

An example is included. View attachment 113799

Is this a joke or are you saying that the reviewer owns everything? (All categories are in BOLD and all the components are in standard font.)

 

[Elliot G.]

I looked at Davisd's list its almost 100 percent opposite of that one!
How long are the extended loans?
I don't mean to be combative but most of the staff on many magazines are not worth the effort
Loaning gear to a reviwer with no status is IMO just a waste of time. This case the juice is not worth the squeeze.
This is an investment by a manufacturer they ALL want a return.
Let's not be naive. These loans are for a purpose. The purpose is for increased business. Its not for an ATTA BOY.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Is this a joke or are you saying that the reviewer owns everything? (All categories are in BOLD and all the components are in standard font.)

What's not clear here?

I own everything in my system except for one set of cables.

 

[Joe Whip]

it appears the bold needs to be the actual piece not the category.

 

[Salectric]

It looks like Positive-Feedback is doing it right. The equipment listings are transparent as far as loaned gear is concerned. I suppose it would be nice to show how long each item was in the reviewer’s hands but I am comfortable with the present level of disclosure.

 

[facten]

Listing it but not providing for how long it has been on loan is a cup 1/2 empty

 

[Audio Addict]

Can you own something if the manufacturer told you not to send it back due to shipping costs and the effort to resale it? If you bought it at something other than Fair Market Value, how is that identified?

 

[Audire]

Can you own something if the manufacturer told you not to send it back due to shipping costs and the effort to resale it? If you bought it at something other than Fair Market Value, how is that identified?

Excellent points that both you and Facten make. So, what does absolute disclosure include?

 

[Kal Rubinson]

What's not clear here?

OK. I was only questioning the use of that listing as an example. I was looking for items to be listed in BOLD (on loan) and others in standard font (owned). It shows everything as owned by the reviewer and that, of course, could be expressed in a simpler statement.

I own everything in my system except for one set of cables.

Same here.

 

[Lee]

I own everything in my system except for one set of cables.

Same here.

 

[Audio Addict]

If they own the equipment and paid FMV value, then the IRS would not consider there was any accretion of wealth which any is considered taxable income. All accretions of wealth are taxable unless excluded by another code section.

If it was treated as a gift there are still a lot of issues to deal with. To be a gift, it would have to be from detached generosity which would be difficult in the case of a reviewer and the company. The company would have to report the gift as income to the reviewer if they wanted to take a deduction as a cost of doing business. Even if they decided not to take the deduction, it doesn't mean it still isn't income to the receipent. The company is exposed to penalties for not following the reporting requirements.

 

[tima]

OK. I was only questioning the use of that listing as an example. I was looking for items to be listed in BOLD (on loan) and others in standard font (owned). It shows everything as owned by the reviewer and that, of course, could be expressed in a simpler statement.

Yes, at PF the categories can be in bold. It is components in bold that are on loan. I see your point; maybe it could be done differently, for example, with categories in italics or underlined.

I don't know if the example below is an anomaly - took me a few tries to find one. Here the categories are not in bold while loaned components are in bold. Maybe there is a switch that turns the category bolding off when there are loaned components. Maybe there are old and new formats. I don't know. Imo, better to have all system listings consistent. But the intent is there to differentiate loaned from owned.


(partial listing)

Fwiw, I own everything in my system.

 

[Elliot G.]

I guess its great that the few of you have purchased all your gear but this is sort of missing the big picture.
All the major players, at least here in the US, I dont know about overseas, have HUGE amounts of gear on long term loan, with no end in site.
That is the point that Ron was making and that the thread was about.
We are not talking about minor amounts. These are 7 figure plus loans. in some cases.
These are the main players at PF and TAS. I looked at Stereophile and for example JVS has a lot of stuff but I have no idea if he owns it. ( I doubt it) but I dont know.

THe point remains IMO that that much outstanding gear for that term can influence both indirectly and directly.

Can one bite the hand that feeds them?

 

[Ron Resnick]

Can one bite the hand that feeds them?

This is a fair question. The whole point of ethical rules targeting conflicts of interest in any industry is precisely to obviate the need even to think about or to ask this kind of question.

 

[Lee]

Can one bite the hand that feeds them?

Amazingly, the answer is a resounding YES. Here are some examples from my days running TAS and hifi+:

1. We had a cable manufacturer demand edits on a rave review. We made some of the edits since they did not compromise the independence of the review. They then told us they were very happy with the review. Later on, they complained about the review to the industry.

2. We had one manufacturer complain about a factory visit we did even though we made it clear we could not do a video at the time due to lack of proper gear. We offered to do a product introduction video but were declined by the marketing department.

3. We had several manufacturers complain about how expensive TAS advertising is for small firms. We then decided to create a new advertising tier so smaller firms could advertise for $1,000. We had very few takers.

4. We were told by several dealers that TAS and hifi+ were doing a poor job of building awareness for dealers. I built out the strategy and plan and launched our Global Dealer Directory and kept the costs low with one page for $700 and two pages for $1,200. Many dealers balked at paying for the service. It’s a shame because the number of downloads (we did a pdf to keep costs down) were tremendous on this product.

5. A common occurrence is for manufacturers to decline a review until a preferred reviewer is attached to the review. This creates scheduling problems for the editor and threatens the independence of the review.

So going through this, and there are much worse examples I shall remain quiet on, some big themes emerge:

1. Most manufacturers are thinly capitalized and have tiny marketing budgets.

2. Many owner operators (the bulk of the business) are designer engineers and marketing is not a forte. That makes it very hard to sell more sophisticated approaches.

3. Many don’t see the necessity of reaching customers across multiple channels and exactly how important online reach is.

 

[Elliot G.]

Well after another Lee Scoggins commercial we can get back to the topic of the thread.
I dont see how any of this has anything to do with Long term loans of gear.
The ethical conundrum that is created by this has nothing at all to do with marketing and advertising but rather on contol or the illusion of control over the outcome of a product/line and the review or the treatment of such brands.
Much of your thought may hold water but THEY DO NOT address the topic nor the issue that the topic created.

Can one bite the hand that feeds it? What would the effect of some not so terrific comments do with the relationship of brand A? Can they be at a show with a terrible performance and like the KIngs new clothes no one say a word?
Is there more to this relationship than meets the eye? Are all products able to be reviewed by the top guys? all have the same level of access?

What would happen if the companies pulled these products? Would their influence change?
Why is all this so secretive? Why isnt the process transparent?

Oh one more thing TAS and Stereophile etc. are FOR PROFIT companies.

I say there are many questions that should be addressed and running a commercial over and over in every thread does not change the subject.
When you are having a debate it is good to remain on topic and its a well known strategy to try to change the subject to dilute the conversation.

Original topic are long term loans of gear a win for everyone.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Amazingly, the answer is a resounding YES. Here are some examples from my days running TAS and hifi+:

1. We had a cable manufacturer demand edits on a rave review. We made some of the edits since they did not compromise the independence of the review. They then told us they were very happy with the review. Later on, they complained about the review to the industry.

2. We had one manufacturer complain about a factory visit we did even though we made it clear we could not do a video at the time due to lack of proper gear. We offered to do a product introduction video but were declined by the marketing department.

3. We had several manufacturers complain about how expensive TAS advertising is for small firms. We then decided to create a new advertising tier so smaller firms could advertise for $1,000. We had very few takers.

4. We were told by several dealers that TAS and hifi+ were doing a poor job of building awareness for dealers. I built out the strategy and plan and launched our Global Dealer Directory and kept the costs low with one page for $700 and two pages for $1,200. Many dealers balked at paying for the service. It’s a shame because the number of downloads (we did a pdf to keep costs down) were tremendous on this product.

5. A common occurrence is for manufacturers to decline a review until a preferred reviewer is attached to the review. This creates scheduling problems for the editor and threatens the independence of the review.

So going through this, and there are much worse examples I shall remain quiet on, some big themes emerge:

1. Most manufacturers are thinly capitalized and have tiny marketing budgets.

2. Many owner operators (the bulk of the business) are designer engineers and marketing is not a forte. That makes it very hard to sell more sophisticated approaches.

3. Many don’t see the necessity of reaching customers across multiple channels and exactly how important online reach is.

I am not sure how these are examples of "biting the hand that feeds you."

I'd like to see if an advertising manufacturer continues to advertise after TAS publishes a resoundingly negative review of its product.

 

[Another Johnson]

I am not sure how these are examples of "biting the hand that feeds you."

I'd like to see if an advertising manufacturer continues to advertise after TAS publishes a resoundingly negative review of its product.

What is far more likely is that a review of a terrible product will not be published. The magazines are not to destroy companies. There are lots of good products. Why waste space on bad ones?

 

[Another Johnson]

This whole thread is based on the idea that there is a cohesive industry and that standards can evolve to give “Consumer Reports” style product reviews.

Not gonna happen. Even if the post count goes to 1000.

If you guys who think CR style would sell, form an editorial board, buy the products, do your testing, and solicit subscribers.

Then the complaint would be that people who own their equipment are biased in order to maintain the residual value of their investment.