Why are Reviewers Paid So Poorly????

[Gregadd]

Gary let's be honest. Reviews have a powerful effect. My friend was a dealer. He is now out of business. He tried to do the right thing and sell what he thought was the best. He had limited inventory. Not far from himwas another store run by a guy who tried to do the same but almost went out of business. He took on a partner with lots of money and little character. This guy used his money to get whatever line that had been blessed by the monthly issue of Sterophile. As soon as the effect of the review wore off he would dump the line. Manufacturers could not resist someone who could pay cash and actually keep his product "in stock.." Needles to say they are not very well liked but they are still n business and have a huge store.

Gary maybe you should play the review game.

 

[garylkoh]

Gary let's be honest. Reviews have a powerful effect. My friend was a dealer. He is now out of business. He tried to do the right thing and sell what he thought was the best. He had limited inventory. Not far from himwas another store run by a guy who tried to do the same but almost went out of business. He took on a partner with lots of money and little character. This guy used his money to get whatever line that had been blessed by the monthly issue of Sterophile. As soon as the effect of the review wore off he would dump the line. Manufacturers could not resist someone who could pay cash and actually keep his product "in stock.." Needles to say they are not very well liked but they are still n business and have a huge store.

Gary maybe you should play the review game.

Now, I never, ever, want that to be said of me even in jest!!

We had the cover of Stereophile and the cover of Stereophile Guide to Home Theater years and years ago. When the old crew ran the company, they kowtowed to the reviewers - to the extent of throwing customers and dealers out of the demo room during CES when a "famous reviewer" came in and wanted to listen to his music in quiet. We had dealers like your other store. When the "flavor of the month" wore off, they dumped the line cheap on Audiogon.

Nobody is served when that happens. The customers who still own the speakers and love them are dismayed because they see their beloved speakers selling for cheap. The dealers who have demos and inventory can no longer sell at full price and close down.

Now, as one happy owner put it - Genesis is a secret that has to be earned, and they keep their speakers for years and years.

 

[DaveyF]

John and Davey-You have to open your eyes a bit and look at both sides of this story. The thread here was started by Myles because of the other thread where Steve was questioning why reviewers should receive accommodation prices. I'm sure that Myles as a reviewer felt like he was under attack (and I can see that side of the story) and felt compelled to air out another bit of dirty laundry or "bitchfest" as John put it asking why reviewers are paid very poorly for their work.

And all of this opens up a whole can of worms about the entire business model of manufacturing, selling, purchasing, and reviewing audio equipment. I don't know the numbers, but I bet there are only a handful of professional reviewers in this country who derive 100% of their income from audio reviewing. And those are the guys at the top of the food chain. The vast majority of reviewers all have full-time jobs in order to put food on the table and review gear in their spare time. The real perk they receive is the ability to subsidize their stereo purchases.

We as a society like to bemoan the quality of education in this country and point the finger at our teachers. Since we don't want to pay them a decent salary, you get what you paid for. Same for the majority of "reviewers" now days in audio. As Jtinn said, everybody is a reviewer now. It's almost gotten to the point where it is just a cacophony of noise out there. We would all be better served in the audiophile community (I think) if we had a constant stable of great reviewers who are well known and have paid their dues that could earn a good living from just writing their reviews. However, that is never going to happen.


What we are stuck with is a distribution model where manufacturers sell their products to a dealer at "X" price and the dealers try to sell them for "2X" to us. We buy the products at somewhere close to "2X" and are lucky if we recoup half of our money when we sell. Meanwhile back at the ranch, manufacturers need to move product and reviews certainly can help them do that. Manufacturers advertise in magazines and zines and want their products favorably reviewed in order to increase sales. Reviewers want to write and they get to buy products for the most part at the same price as dealers pay (and we did hear some stories yesterday about some reviewers just paying a fraction of what the product cost). I think the field should be leveled. I don't think that dealers add enough value to increase the cost of a product by a factor of 2. When I order something from a dealer in another state, they are just an order taker who ships a product to my door. I know some dealers add value by providing loaners and maybe some set-up help. I just question whether that justifies a 2X cost increase to us the consumers. To me, the intrinsic worth of a product is what it costs for the manufacturer to make it including all of his costs and profit margin. The dealer is not making the product any more valuable after it leaves the factory, and yet the dealer doubles the cost to us without increasing the value of the product.

I think if given a choice, most of us would rather buy straight from the manufacturer at the same price he is happy to sell to the dealer plus shipping. I realize that I have taken a very complex set of issues and simplified them so the end solution makes me happy and it won't work in the real world. But at some point it might have to if dealers keep going out of business. The bottom line to my thinking is the products shouldn't cost 2x what the manufacturer is selling them to the dealer for. They are simply not worth that cost and we are all taking it in the shorts as a result. There should be a better distribution model that keeps the manufacturers happy and reduces the price to the consumers.

mep,
I think there is a disconnect that maybe needs to be pointed out here...John and I wander why Myles complains about the reviewer's income, and John points out that if Myles doesn't like the return on his time investment then why not discontinue this activity, since no-one is forcing Myles to do this work. Then we hear about the fact that a reviewer cannot get sufficiently good gear to review if he doesn't have an 'accommodation'......So here's the disconnect..... What has the ability of a reviewer to pay for a piece of gear have anything to do with his ability to get the piece from a manufacturer to listen to and review. I don't see why he needs to able to Buy this gear?? He needs to be able to listen to it, review it to his best ability and then GIVE IT BACK to the manufacturer....No???
So, the arguments that I think I am reading about, wherein a reviewer cannot continue to review the best gear unless he gets an 'accommodation' price option, are at the very least dubious, IMHO.
Also, IMHO,the discussion of manufacturer's 'profit models' also should be moved to another thread, because I fail to see the relevance of how that impacts the original question posed by Myles

 

[MylesBAstor]

mep,
I think there is a disconnect that maybe needs to be pointed out here...John and I wander why Myles complains about the reviewer's income, and John points out that if Myles doesn't like the return on his time investment then why not discontinue this activity, since no-one is forcing Myles to do this work. Then we hear about the fact that a reviewer cannot get sufficiently good gear to review if he doesn't have an 'accommodation'......So here's the disconnect..... What has the ability of a reviewer to pay for a piece of gear have anything to do with his ability to get the piece from a manufacturer to listen to and review. I don't see why he needs to able to Buy this gear?? He needs to be able to listen to it, review it to his best ability and then GIVE IT BACK to the manufacturer....No???

But the reviewer needs a stable REFERENCE system. Would you read a review where a reviewer used some Sony gear and unknown speakers to review a ARC preamp? Would that have any credibility? Certainly not.

So, the arguments that I think I am reading about, wherein a reviewer cannot continue to review the best gear unless he gets an 'accommodation' price option, are at the very least dubious, IMHO.
Also, IMHO,the discussion of manufacturer's 'profit models' also should be moved to another thread, because I fail to see the relevance of how that impacts the original question posed by Myles

DF:

I'm not speaking for myself. But I am speaking for those reviewers who really need the money. When I had my magazine, I paid my writers as well as possible. My writers received at that time $500/article (SP at that time was paying $1000/article). Even then it wasn't huge, but it made it worth their while. If my writers did 2 (or three pieces, they could make $1500. And it cost me between $6 to 8000/issue for writing fees.

Plus how many good writers are put off writing about audio gear because their writing is their entire, sole source of income. So these writers writer for magazines, not necessarily in audio, where they can make a living. You know there are professional writers out there. They hustle their asses off writing as many pieces as they can to pay the bills. Do you think that there's possibly a tradeoff between quality and quantity.

 

[Bruce B]

Would you read a review where a reviewer used some Sony gear and unknown speakers to review a ARC preamp? Would that have any credibility? Certainly not.

Teresa? Oops!! did I say that?

 

[MylesBAstor]

Teresa? Oops!! did I say that?

Well you have to say that it doesn't do the readers any good nor does it do any good for the manufacturer.

Even take for instance an audio show. If I'm a new manufacturer and want to fully demonstrate the capabilities of say of my amplifier, I'd be better off choosing associated gear that's well known for it's sound quality. If I picked unknown speakers, unknown front-end etc. who would know what the hell is responsible for what

 

[DaveyF]

Myles, I guess that depends on what your reference is... as HP said, the 'Absolute Sound' meaning-- live 'un-amplified'music, is what I personally try and use as my 'Reference'
However, i might agree that a 'reference' system is an important part of a reviewer's arsenal..Several of my reviewer friends certainly think so (although i doubt very much that a reviewer for any of the Car Mags has to own a Ferrari in order to to be able to compare various models that they get to drive) . So, how do these friends acquire these systems, well according to them, most of the pieces are on a manufacturer loan to them. They are expected to give them back to the manufacturer within a certain period of time. If they want to own a particular piece do they get 'accommodation' prices, I suppose they do...However, this is where I have a problem; IMHO, instead of an 'accommodation price' that piece needs to be paid for at market value , just like it would be by any other consumer. If my reviewer friend cannot afford to keep the piece in question at the market value, well that's just too bad...it goes back to the manufacturer. As I stated in another thread, I gave up a friendship with a well known reviewer because he decided that this was a good way to make a quick profit, along with giving up all credibility with me. I'm NOT saying that you do this, just that the temptation for many less ethical reviewers is definitely there.

 

[naturephoto1]

I would like to make a comment regarding the question of equipment sent in for review. If the piece is used in a review, it is no longer new. It could be considered the equivalent to a store demo. So, if the piece is then considered a demo, would it not make sense that the reviewer be granted the opportunity to purchase the piece from the manufacturer at a demo price? If it is not purchased by the reviewer, it would have to either be sent for review elsewhere or sent out for sale as used or a demo piece.

Rich

 

[DaveyF]

Rich, That's an interesting point. I do agree that the piece under review cannot be considered as 'Brand New'. So, if it is now a demo piece, then what value is assigned to that..I personally wouldn't have thought anywhere near what we are hearing are the 'accommodation' prices that are being banded around. ( So far, 15% of retail to 50% of retail). This issue (the piece no longer being able to be sold as new) sure didn't seem to deter the unscrupulous reviewer and ex-friend of mine; who as I stated before, gave a glowingly positive review to an amp, all the while telling me that he really thought it was a POS and then after he was able to Buy the piece at a VERY low accommodation price, selling it for a substantial profit in a very short period of time.

 

[DaveyF]

Rich, reflecting a little more on your point, I don't really see why any reviewer should get "first dibs" on any piece of equipment, just because they happen to have reviewed it. Sure, they can attempt to Buy it at market value once it goes back to the manufacturer,just like anyone else.

 

[Orb]

Rich, That's an interesting point. I do agree that the piece under review cannot be considered as 'Brand New'. So, if it is now a demo piece, then what value is assigned to that..I personally wouldn't have thought anywhere near what we are hearing are the 'accommodation' prices that are being banded around. ( So far, 15% of retail to 50% of retail). This issue (the piece no longer being able to be sold as new) sure didn't seem to deter the unscrupulous reviewer and ex-friend of mine; who as I stated before, gave a glowingly positive review to an amp, all the while telling me that he really thought it was a POS and then after he was able to Buy the piece at a VERY low accommodation price, selling it for a substantial profit in a very short period of time.

Although in reality it is trade price rather than accomodation, so IMO the 15% is nowhere close to the actual figure for a good business.
Out of interest car manufacturers who several years ago went through dire debt-financial problems (before even the current crisis) usually only manage gross profit margin of around 18% to 25% if lucky for certain products, now when you also consider the operating costs/etc think how many car manufacturers have gone out of business or if lucky purchased by one of the very super groups (such as VW).
If I had a business or intend to invest in one I would want it to be closer to the 40% or higher mark.

Cheers
Orb

 

[MylesBAstor]

Who the hell ever knows whats responsible for what......I take reviewers comments as entertainment......now, if you swap, in the same system, various amps out in sucession, then perhaps one can get a little closer to whatever each amp "adds" or "takes away"......in the given system.

There are constraints that really limit actual hard facts from reviewers ears in well designed gear. Yes, you can hear a SET amp compared to some super low distortion ss amp, and I think we all recognize that there are tonal flavors out there, but even those differences can virtually converge if designers want to do it.

I am not sure how much value an audio reviewer brings to the table given they are always listening to a "system".

I suppose reviewers are paid for the value they bring to the publisher. And lets not even go down the road of actual hearing acuity/response.

Reviewing system A against B would provide some value, but popping a component into a chain of components and waxing poetically is just that. Now, talk about accomadation, that would be a lot of gear, and you could insult a whole lot of manufacturers in one go by having their gear in the "lesser system" yikes...



Tom

Kind of like these.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Rich, That's an interesting point. I do agree that the piece under review cannot be considered as 'Brand New'. So, if it is now a demo piece, then what value is assigned to that..I personally wouldn't have thought anywhere near what we are hearing are the 'accommodation' prices that are being banded around. ( So far, 15% of retail to 50% of retail). This issue (the piece no longer being able to be sold as new) sure didn't seem to deter the unscrupulous reviewer and ex-friend of mine; who as I stated before, gave a glowingly positive review to an amp, all the while telling me that he really thought it was a POS and then after he was able to Buy the piece at a VERY low accommodation price, selling it for a substantial profit in a very short period of time.

I raised the very same point in the other thread. Legally, a manufacturer can not sell it as used. And as Rich indicated, often this piece of gear has been to several systems already. Sometime the unit might even be a "B" stock with a minor blemish that 99.9999% of the people wouldn't notice. Manufacturers often put aside (except say in the case of a limited edition piece), several units for review.

Don't know if Gary brought this out, but a manufacturer can have a lot of money tied up in review pieces. Nowadays, most limit the number of pieces out for review but knew one leading manufacturer who at one time must have had $500,000 in review units out there.

 

[Steve Williams]

Davey, I agree 100%. I don't care if it's Stereophile, TAS, or even Soundstage who try to tell us how noble they are for admitting they buy at 50% off and then sell one year later and if lucky break even but hastily state that they purchase with their own money. Wheew, thank goodness for that as I guess we wouldn't want to spend some one else's money

I don't give a rat's ass about the proclamations of these reviewers that they are so upfront with us by admitting they get an accommodation pricing of 50% and because they have so admitted and that they take nothing in on permanent loan that this makes everything right. I say "give me a break"

This is what is destroying the highend industry and IMO it is nothing more than pandering between the reviewers and the manufacturers.

I still want to know what the requirements are to be a reviewer because as jtinn so eloquently stated, "everyone is a reviewer" nowadays.

No brownie points are logged in my book by reviewers coming forward and wowing us with them baring their souls and admit proudly that they get 50% off BUT never take anything in on permanent loan and then try to gain readers' acceptance by claiming how virtuous they are by so writing this over and over. It seems as if they are trying to convince themselves that this makes it right rather than convincing us with their exultations

Sorry, but this is what is killing the industry and if some of you proud gentleman who are reviewers and post incessantly as to how right it is, I say think again. It is nothing more than a blatant abuse of the system. Writing about it doesn't make it right.

 

[Orb]

Steve,
how do you feel reviewers purchasing equipment is destroying high end?
I would say its a combination of market-trends with the business behaviour and business practice of various manufacturers/distributors/dealers.

If high end is to survive, it needs to convince general public to visit the shows and not just the regular committed audio fan.
Interestingly Ken Kessler pointed out recently the worrying trend that shows revolve around the same faces; that being manufacturers and the same public visitors.
So because of this trend, manufacturers feel obliged to release new products as a story to continue the cycle of the same existing audio fans-visitors to go to the shows.

There is no new blood or it is very limited with regards to getting new people to shows.
Also what does not help is having new businesses popping up charging 100,000+ for an audio product and not know who their competition is, this happened to Ken Kessler at a recent show when he asked one manufacturer of a very expensive turntable whether they felt they could compete with Continium or were they wary....
And they had no idea who Continium were, to say he was unimpressed is an understatement when if in business you should understand the market and who is in it.

Cheers
Orb

 

[Steve Williams]

Simply put, how do you spell D-I-S-T-R-U-S-T

 

[Orb]

Simply put, how do you spell D-I-S-T-R-U-S-T

Yeah true there is a reasonable % who do not trust reviewers.

But still it is not this that is causing the trend of the same old people visiting audio shows with very limited new blood visitors.
Also I find that a manufacturer producing a 100k turntable not knowing one of the leading manufacturers at that price is IMO even worse, makes me wonder what experience they also have for creating a manufacturing business model with sales channel/logistics/support.
Their experience in this field (which is limited as they should know the primary movers such as Continuim) creates even more distrust, especially when one looks at the price as well.

Anyway I think Ken Kessler is onto something about the trends relating to audio shows and the decline of audio hardware popularity/enthusiasm, but distrust for some-many is more salt in the wounds of what is afflicting high end I agree.

Thanks
Orb

 

[Steve Williams]

I guess I have a very basic problem trying to understand why one should receive vindication and validation for saying , "Yup, I pay 50% but we never take things on permanent loan" where the "poor" shmucks like John Q Public smile as they pay the 100% (or perhaps 10 points back of list) and the reviewer is happy because he has the gear and the review is written and the manufacturer sells to his dealers and life goes on.

The way the industry is going and the internet is ubiquitous, IMO the almost comes a thought that the steel and stone store fronts are unnecessary and as several here have stated this would certainly bring down the prices.
Why not follow the mfrs follow a model such as Apple, Sony, Microsoft etc where storefronts in larger cities are there with all of their gear on display

It is as if the only ones now who can afford high end are the reviewers for said reasons

 

[vinylphilemag]

However, i might agree that a 'reference' system is an important part of a reviewer's arsenal..Several of my reviewer friends certainly think so (although i doubt very much that a reviewer for any of the Car Mags has to own a Ferrari in order to to be able to compare various models that they get to drive) .

One flaw with your analogy is that cars are reviewed as singular standalone entities, whereas an audio system is made up from several different parts: a source, preamp, power amps, and speakers (and that doesn't even include the accessories one needs in order to complete a system). So yes, I think it's important for a reviewer to have as good a reference system on hand as they can afford, so that when the unit under review is placed into that system, it has the best chance to shine.

Most reviewers aren't independantly wealthy, so long term loans or accommodation pricing really help with the acquisition of a reference caliber system (and there are pros and cons to both).

 

[DaveyF]

One flaw with your analogy is that cars are reviewed as singular standalone entities, whereas an audio system is made up from several different parts: a source, preamp, power amps, and speakers (and that doesn't even include the accessories one needs in order to complete a system). So yes, I think it's important for a reviewer to have as good a reference system on hand as they can afford, so that when the unit under review is placed into that system, it has the best chance to shine.

Most reviewers aren't independantly wealthy, so long term loans or accommodation pricing really help with the acquisition of a reference caliber system (and there are pros and cons to both).

Rich, That is why I stated 'might' agree about a reference system. Nonetheless, your thought isn't 100% accurate ,as once any given piece of gear is inserted into a system, the audio reviewer is now hearing the system as a 'sum of its parts' which in many ways is what one experiences upon driving a car.
I am sorry BUT the ability of a reviewer to afford equipment should, IMHO, be irrelevant. He or she does NOT have to BUY the piece of gear under review. As I said before, the reviewer only needs to listen to the piece under review, formulate an opinion and then elucidate that to the audience. Upon completing that, I see no reason why the reviewer needs to/ or should have,the option to acquire the desired piece at an 'accommodated' price.