There’s a sort of catch 22 here as well. If you eliminate the perks of accommodation pricing, who will review for $200-300 per article on average?
Can the magazines afford to pay $1,000 per review? $700 per review? Not based on what I have seen.
Can the magazines afford to offer salaries to all review staff? No.
One of my friends liked Tony Cordesman. He liked him because he read a lot of his reviews over many years and found him to make some great points and his sound experience matched my friend’s.
This is the way. Find a set of reviewers you like (or even just one) and use them to narrow the field. Then audition the products and decide for yourself.
I honestly don’t believe accommodation pricing is influencing most reviewers. Sure they get a price break but ultimately they spend their money on something they genuinely like. Reviewers are exposed to a lot of gear at trade shows and in their review pipeline. Most are not wealthy and want to get as much sound quality per dollar as possible.
If the reviewer can get 50% off from both Manufacturer A and Manufacturer B (as well as C to Z), how is the accommodation price influencing the reviwer’s pick?
The guard rail here is reputation. Most reviewers are concerned about their integrity and reputation. Why kill it with a pay for play allegation?
Tima gave a great background on some of the issues of audio reviewer payment circumstances here earlier.
It’d be great to have more clear separation of payment and price accommodation for reviews but if subscribers won’t pay for audio reviews upfront then we’ll probably end up paying for it in other ways in terms of issues in an unmanaged less transparent industry overall.
Maybe a bigger issue is how does this mixed financial gain and open to all trained or untrained reviewer model impact on quality and professionalism within the industry?
Obviously there are some highly experienced reviewers out there who bring their own standards and skills to it but ultimately without industry standards or industry setting requirements for themselves quality is highly variable and the overall direction of the audio reviewing industry remains largely unmanaged.
Not sure what you are getting at wrt separation payment and price accommodation. A publisher will pay for a review so that he can own it. Accommodation is up to the publisher to grant to the reviewer although it is typically done. The cost of selling to a reviewer at less than msrp is born by the manufacturer or importer, but no one loses money. The reader bears no financial cost, but there is the price of looking at flashing advertisements.
I've not heard of a 'trained reviewer'. The publisher and editor determine if they want to publish your work. A better phrase might be a "competent review". The quality of the review is yours to judge.
Quality is variable everywhere, yes. I've given examples of rules or guidelines that a publisher requires of a reviewer. That is where your standards will come from.
What is missing or wrong that you believe needs correction via standards brought about by rules applied for all audio publications
Just catching up on this thread. I was wondering if someone was going to challenge some of the accusations made, thank you Elliot! I don't know if some of the harmful comments about reviewers are true or are just personal speculation. If what has been stated as fact is indeed true if would be nice to have it substantiated by other sources.
,
Sorry I am not familiar at all with who you are. I guess for now I will just treat you as I would a reviewer; if you are entertaining and informative enough I will read and consider what you have to say. Whether or not I take your opinions as gospel or at least true is up to me.
This is unrealistic. The industry is too small to have the economics to train reviewers. Profit margins are small. Maybe you could form an industry pool with contributions to pay for overhead. But the industry has failed at least twice that I know of to work together on industry initiatives.
I could argue that the current system works. The reader can judge through writing what reviewers they trust. One can tell by their experience and content.
I was saying that the economics for a traditional paying model just wasn’t there so that there’d be no money for paid training is a given.
It’s a pity though that the initiatives to set up a voluntary code didn’t get traction… having a good proactive industry body is a great way to develop better practices and encourage mentoring and shared resources for growth and development of the members.
some (probably one) view(s) MQA and it's relevance/credibility as the World War II of Audiophilia/High End Audio. others hardly view it as a speed bump or a ripple in the pavement. most here on WBF hardly noticed it (MQA and it's fate) at all. the poster views his involvement in exposing it as a watershed moment. and maybe someone somewhere agrees with him. i can respect that.
OTOH why that has anything at all to do with any subject here now, or adds to the weight/credence of his current postings, is beyond my caring or understanding.
Sorry I am not familiar at all with who you are. I guess for now I will just treat you as I would a reviewer; if you are entertaining and informative enough I will read and consider what you have to say. Whether or not I take your opinions as gospel or at least true is up to me.
Not sure what you are getting at wrt separation payment and price accommodation. A publisher will pay for a review so that he can own it. Accommodation is up to the publisher to grant to the reviewer although it is typically done. The cost of selling to a reviewer at less than msrp is born by the manufacturer or importer, but no one loses money. The reader bears no financial cost, but there is the price of looking at flashing advertisements.
I don’t have an issue with how the system works from a payment perspective if that’s the way it works because as I keep saying I understand why it is from the realities of the economics of modern publishing… your post I quoted outlined the reasoning really well. I was just saying that a more straightforward payment from the publisher would just be more transparent but I understand that’s just not possible because of the way media has gone since the late 20th century. I don’t knock the system because I do appreciate that.
With the training of audio reviewers while there’s no specific qualification there are always opportunities for training in any job. There would be reviewers out there who could benefit with development and some that might even value it in terms of professional development.
The baseline quality and general level of standards in an industry can usually be lifted through ongoing professional practice… many industries and most professions tend to have industry or professional bodies and develop codes of practice and professional development… it’s not unusual and I’d suggest often really valuable.
some (probably one) view(s) MQA and it's relevance/credibility as the World War II of Audiophilia/High End Audio. others hardly view it as a speed bump or a ripple in the pavement. most here on WBF hardly noticed it at all. the poster views his involvement in exposing it as a watershed moment. and maybe someone somewhere agrees with him. i can respect that.
OTOH why that has anything at all to do with any subject here now, or adds to the weight/credence of his current postings, is beyond my caring or understanding.
Thanks for the clarification Mike. I gathered from another post that it had to do with something about MQA. Like many I would classify MQA and its relevance a speed bump.
As far as my later comment, I think many on this forum build credibility by what they say and how they say it, much the same as a good reviewer if you like. Others, although often knowledgeable seem to get hung up on an agenda/belief and when challenged become overly aggressive . In my opinion it's hard to build credibility when you don't have an open and questioning mind. So I will give the MQA poster some runway to try and understand his views. It may not be a long runway?
It’s a pity though that the initiatives to set up a voluntary code didn’t get traction… having a good proactive industry body is a great way to develop better practices and encourage mentoring and shared resources for growth and development of the members.
Perhaps not four-wheel drive traction, but there is traction. We discussed this topic in 2022 in a thread about the AIAP - Audio Industry Publications Association. The below cited post covers why not every publication participates:
No, of course not. How could an outsider be sure of such a thing? As a reviewer and member of the industry, I thought you knew something based on your earlier comment that they would share their perspective and that you were looking forward to learning what it is. I’m sorry if I...
The baseline quality and general level of standards in an industry can usually be lifted through ongoing professional practice… many industries and most professions tend to have industry or professional bodies and develop codes of practice and professional development… it’s not unusual and I’d suggest often really valuable.
(Happy Valley, OR, June 4, 2022) The founding members wish to announce the launch of the Association of International Audiophile Publications (AIAP). The AIAP is composed initially of ten audiophile publications from around the world, all dedicated to a set of ethical and professional standards...
