Why negative reviews can be unethical and misleading: 10audio.com

[agisthos]

Many years ago a new amplifier manufacturer I was involved with had a review in progress at Positive Feedback. The reviewer liked the amp so much he wanted to be Canadian distributor.

When he was denied distributorship he then did a negative review. He did this cleverly by changing the review to use a tube preamp which he knew that particular tube preamp did not match well with the amp. So I guess he did not lie eh?

Another company I worked with had a review going in Hi-Fi Plus through their UK distributor Lotus Hifi. I think an advert was supposed to be paid for but didn’t happen. So Hi-Fi Plus retaliated by doing the ‘review’ by just listing technical specs for a few paragraphs. That’s it. Not a line, not one word on how it sounded, whether it was good, bad, mid, absolutely nothing. It’s the most bizarre review they have ever published and I have read that magazine since issue 8.

 

[24bit]

My god... some people...so sad ...how can they look themselves in the mirror?

 

[twitch]

Does anyone of sound mind actually take stock in some half assed subjective review ? Good or bad ? Why waste your time, suffice it to say all on this forum have superb audio systems, spend your valuable time listening to them !!

 

[DaveC]

Does anyone of sound mind actually take stock in some half assed subjective review ? Good or bad ? Why waste your time, suffice it to say all on this forum have superb audio systems, spend your valuable time listening to them !!

Yeah, people should also know that many reviews are paid or buying ads is a requirement.

For a neg review to be valid it would need to be tested by many people in different systems, nobody does that.

 

[adrianywu]

I had dinner with one of the founders of a very well respected, pioneering loudspeaker company many years ago, and he recounted his experience with reviewers to me. By then already retired, he told me when delivering his products for review, one very well known and well respected magazine editor would always take him to a favorite high end restaurant, order expensive wines and expect him to pay the bill. Knowing that this might mean the life or death of the said product, would he dare turn down the request ?
There are reviewers who have shown the utmost integrity and professionalism throughout their career, such as John Atkinson and Martin Colloms, just to name two. But some others like the perks more, and most of those self-declared "reviewers" have ulterior motives and are really only good for a laugh.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I had dinner with one of the founders of a very well respected, pioneering loudspeaker company many years ago, and he recounted his experience with reviewers to me. By then already retired, he told me when delivering his products for review, one very well known and well respected magazine editor would always take him to a favorite high end restaurant, order expensive wines and expect him to pay the bill.

I have heard reports like this as well. They were told to me in confidence. So, unfortunately, I cannot reveal the offenders.

 

[Synaxis]

I had dinner with one of the founders of a very well respected, pioneering loudspeaker company many years ago, and he recounted his experience with reviewers to me. By then already retired, he told me when delivering his products for review, one very well known and well respected magazine editor would always take him to a favorite high end restaurant, order expensive wines and expect him to pay the bill. Knowing that this might mean the life or death of the said product, would he dare turn down the request ?
There are reviewers who have shown the utmost integrity and professionalism throughout their career, such as John Atkinson and Martin Colloms, just to name two. But some others like the perks more, and most of those self-declared "reviewers" have ulterior motives and are really only good for a laugh.

He's still doing it as he gets stuff currently.

 

[hopkins]

Some online audio websites will review a product provided the manufacturer buys advertising space. Confirmed by an insider as well...

 

[JiminGa]

He's still doing it as he gets stuff currently.

Care to elaborate who?

 

[Synaxis]

Care to elaborate who?

Come on Jim - you've been in this industry along time. You know exactly who it is. It's the worst kept secret in the industry.

 

[Tangram]

Generalizations are dangerous. Some people want us to believe ALL reviewers are on the take, a ridiculous assertion. Although it’s considered sacrilege by the high priests of audiophilia, I’ve purchased equipment many times blind, based largely on a mosaic of opinions expressed by reviewers and owners I trust, and they’ve worked out 90% of the time. A big part of my career was spent parsing the written word and assessing whether I was being lied to, so I have no problem with reading between the lines of audio reviews. I honestly can’t understand the ongoing vitriol towards reviewers. The bad ones stick out like sore thumbs so they shouldn’t be tough to avoid if you have high school level reading comprehension.

 

[agisthos]

Most reviewers are not on the take, they do the opposite, they try to be nice and not knife a manufacturer. This means they say everything is great.
The trick then is to read between the lines and see what they are REALLY enthusiastic about. Its easy enough once you read a reviewer regularly.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Come on Jim - you've been in this industry along time. You know exactly who it is. It's the worst kept secret in the industry.

What I do not understand is why the dishonesty and the non-disclosure of the operators of such sites and of such YouTube channels does not turn off their respective members and subscribers. Are such members and subscribers simply unaware of such dishonesty, non-disclosure and actual conflicts of interests? Are these unaware members and subscribers simply "useful idiots" to the operators of such sites and of such YouTube channels?

 

[Ron Resnick]

The trick then is to read between the lines and see what they are REALLY enthusiastic about. Its easy enough once you read a reviewer regularly.

+1

 

[Ron Resnick]

Generalizations are dangerous.

I agree.

I honestly can’t understand the ongoing vitriol towards reviewers.

I am not understanding this comment. I personally am a huge fan of the reviewers whom I respect -- which is most of them.

It seems to me that this thread is talking explicitly about apparent conflicts of interest, actual conflicts of interest and non-disclosure, and obliquely about certain specific instances of unethical behavior about which some of us have heard reports.

 

[Synaxis]

What I do not understand is why the dishonesty and the non-disclosure of the operators of such sites and of such YouTube channels does not turn off their respective members and subscribers. Are such members and subscribers simply unaware of such dishonesty, non-disclosure and actual conflicts of interests? Are these unaware members and subscribers simply "useful idiots" to the operators of such sites and of such YouTube channels?

That's a great question, Ron.

I think it's like we see played out in all aspects of life every day - some people prefer to ignore the obvious.

If I put on my fake-doctor's hat I assume it's a combination of them not wanting to feel like they were gullible in liking the reviewer found out to be dishonest, or they feel a bond to that reviewer, and or there is always the crowd that just likes to be argumentative and go against anything said just for the sake of it.

Even when we see different topics here about brands that went out of business or whether it's "ethical" to give a poor review: some people just prefer to keep their head in the sand.

 

[Atmasphere]

The actions of 10audio stand on their own as bad enough, but then calls for no bad reviews is ridiculous and takes away from your argument.

Its not so much a 'call' as it is a red flag. I listed the reasons why above. I've got plenty of other examples. For example Quicksilver for many years didn't advertise anywhere. So when he was asked to advertise in a magazine with whom he had a review sample and said no, that magazine gave Mike a bad review. He survived it because he made good stuff but I'd be surprised if it didn't hurt his business.

I don't think this takes anything away from my argument. One should simply be suspicious of bad reviews:

Many years ago a new amplifier manufacturer I was involved with had a review in progress at Positive Feedback. The reviewer liked the amp so much he wanted to be Canadian distributor.

When he was denied distributorship he then did a negative review. He did this cleverly by changing the review to use a tube preamp which he knew that particular tube preamp did not match well with the amp. So I guess he did not lie eh?

Another company I worked with had a review going in Hi-Fi Plus through their UK distributor Lotus Hifi. I think an advert was supposed to be paid for but didn’t happen. So Hi-Fi Plus retaliated by doing the ‘review’ by just listing technical specs for a few paragraphs. That’s it. Not a line, not one word on how it sounded, whether it was good, bad, mid, absolutely nothing. It’s the most bizarre review they have ever published and I have read that magazine since issue 8.

To be clear, the vast majority of reviewers I've met have been a pleasure to meet and are on the up and up.

I get the thing about good reviews being seen as rubber stamped. I'll put it this way- nothing is perfect and you can usually find some sort of quibble in any good review. That means they actually opened the box and tried the equipment out. I don't have a problem with that sort of thing. Its when things are misleading or outright false that I have a problem. And its not like there aren't products out there that are actually bad- I've encountered them. But like I said in my opening post, the best way to handle a 'bad' product is to send it back and no mention of it in the press; out of sight out of mind.

You may not think that's enough, but having been in this business for over 47 years one thing I've seen over and over again is how really difficult it is for an unknown product to get any traction at all. So if a 'bad product' can't seem to get mentioned, very few people will be harmed by it.

 

[PeterA]

I would like to see comparative reviews. I had Pass Labs XA 160.5 in an all Pass Labs chain driving my magical speakers. I compared that amplifier to a Lamm M1.1 in an all Lamm chain on the same speakers in the same system in the same room. I compared each amplifier with the other companies preamplifier and I heard very clear differences.

I preferred the Lamm and it was clearly better in certain areas. I would like to see a reviewer describe the differences and then state his preference.

I have no expectations that the reviewing industry will do something like this, so I read very few reviews now and why I prefer to read hobbyists’ opinions.

I’m sure there are all sorts of examples of why we should be cautious about good reviews and bad reviews. I would like to see some bad reviews though. Some kind of balance. Right now there is no balance and so I have stopped reading the magazines.

 

[RnRmf]

I'm reading that most everyone feels that majority of reviewers are on the up & up. I'm reading they're respected and fair in their dealings.

So why on earth would anyone (reviewers & those on the inside) let the handful of others taint the reputation of the whole group?

Is it to keep the paid-advertising-for-review system out of the spotlight?

 

[Run-RMC]

I had dinner with one of the founders of a very well respected, pioneering loudspeaker company many years ago, and he recounted his experience with reviewers to me. By then already retired, he told me when delivering his products for review, one very well known and well respected magazine editor would always take him to a favorite high end restaurant, order expensive wines and expect him to pay the bill. Knowing that this might mean the life or death of the said product, would he dare turn down the request ?
There are reviewers who have shown the utmost integrity and professionalism throughout their career, such as John Atkinson and Martin Colloms, just to name two. But some others like the perks more, and most of those self-declared "reviewers" have ulterior motives and are really only good for a laugh.

You mention names as examples of integrity but how would anyone really know unless (s)he has had direct experience submitting product for review? I have direct experience. Now, I won't share any stories but will say that some are more adept at hiding their perks better than others.