Guidelines for this forum

[FWP]

Guidelines for this forum

We can’t comment on this particular post therefore the “new” one.
I have read your guidelines and most makes sense. One statement that I do have a problem with, have had this problem for years now, is the fact that when we give AVSA feedback on what we would like to see, like comparative reviews, we get all sorts of replies with the most common one being that you aren’t able to have the equipment at the same time to compare.
Andrew answered the request truthfully for the first time with his statement he made!

“But please understand that there are limitations to what we can discuss here. It is not our choice, but dictated by virtue of the fact that we are, at the end of the day, a business, and so cannot acknowledge or claim to have preferences in personal taste of one product over another, without losing our credibility as an impartial reviewer of equipment.”

Now the question is who is AVSA catering for? The advertiser or the reader? Or it seems you want your bread buttered on both sides.
From Andrew’s statement we can be sure of one thing and that is that we will never get comparative reviews. You will loose your credibility as an impartial reviewer!
It would have been nice if years ago someone in AVSA’s organisation had the backbone to have answered the numerous requests truthfully!
The sad part is that AVSA will remain a magazine full of advertisements and every review needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. You don’t dare saying anything negative as you might just loose the business from that particular distributor. This is a very sad scenario for all the loyal readers.
Thank you Andrew for clarifying your stance on the “reviews”. All for the sake of “impartiality”. Please don’t try and convince me that this opinion is only true for the forum as in many years now you have not been able to publish even one comparative review. Not one of your reviews has been negative. It is not possible for any manufacturer to continuously provide us with flawless products.
Read “What Hi-Fi” for confirmation of my statement.

[chris]

 

[...]

FWP

Very, very well put, I know a fair number of people who won't touch the magazine with a barge pole, for different reasons all round.
I for one feel that we need more honest reviews and I also feel that the reader is more important than the advertiser, I do understand that it's advertising that makes the money but I am getting quite annoyed with all the junk printed on those pages.
As you said, most reviews are positive and not just mildly positive but almost to the point of being biased.
Thankfully we have the good old WWW.

[Mervin]

The only time I 'subscribe' is at the AV Expos (or similar) with a value add CD... This year I subscribed and there was a 'free' CD that never materialised. 

[joel]

As a reviewer for AVSA I should perhaps feel irked at being called a no backbone sycophant who only cares about advertisers.
I'm not in the least (OK maybe just a little). All people are allowed their own opinion, even if it is based on nothing more than hypothesis.

In my chats with numerous representatives I have learned that AVSA is one of the least biased magazines in the world.
I couldn't care if anyone advertises with the magazine or not, in fact whenever I'm asked about this i send the person to the relevant person.
AVSA has also never refused to review a piece of equipment as no ad was placed.
It's pretty common knowledge that some magazines give certain products better reviews than others, and that these better reviews are usually due to ad spend and where they come from. The Brits are really good at the latter. (yes I know I'm a local fan but I make this known up front)

Some examples.
A few year ago I used to import some ultra high end car audio products. Said brand got a bad review in a big mag. I happened to be in the States at the time and spoke to the owner of the company and his comment was that as they had subsequently started advertising with the magazine he doubted if they would get another bad review. They Didn't.

Had a chat with an engineer from a highly regarded speaker manufacturer, he told me of a time when he worked in the media and one of his colleagues was working on a speaker review. Not so surprising apart from the fact that the speaker designer was with the reviewer tweaking the crossover until the reviewer liked what he heard.

Have spoken to other well known and respected industry giants who have confirmed what goes on.

Off course everything is off the record as they cant afford to upset too many magazines.

Back to AVSA, and I have only ever once had a veiled offer of a bribe. I handed the product over to Deon to review.
We typically don't do comparative reviews for the reasons mentioned, but have done a few group tests. Usually there is an intro, the main body of reviews , and a conclusion where the reviewers rate their favourites.

I'm often here, and have always been willing to give a little more info on any product I've reviewed, and just in case you don't have it, here is my cell no 082 772 6223. If you loose this thread call the office they will give my number to you.
Anyone is welcome to PM me too.

I have on numerous occasions invited reader to the AVSA office to have a look at our studio too.

OK now how about a little bit of fair play?
Would FWP, Analogos and the like please tell me who you are, and what you do for a living as I would like to check if you are always as above board and honest in all your daily dealings as you should be (stirring I know)

Mervin, every show I've been at we've given the freebie away with the sub purchase. If we run out of freebies we tell the reader that we ran out.
If this really has upset you I'm sure I can find a CD at the office that I can get to you.

Have a nice day everybody.

[Andrew]

Guidelines for this forum

We can’t comment on this particular post therefore the “new” one.
I have read your guidelines and most makes sense. One statement that I do have a problem with, have had this problem for years now, is the fact that when we give AVSA feedback on what we would like to see, like comparative reviews, we get all sorts of replies with the most common one being that you aren’t able to have the equipment at the same time to compare.
Andrew answered the request truthfully for the first time with his statement he made!

“But please understand that there are limitations to what we can discuss here. It is not our choice, but dictated by virtue of the fact that we are, at the end of the day, a business, and so cannot acknowledge or claim to have preferences in personal taste of one product over another, without losing our credibility as an impartial reviewer of equipment.”

Now the question is who is AVSA catering for? The advertiser or the reader? Or it seems you want your bread buttered on both sides.
From Andrew’s statement we can be sure of one thing and that is that we will never get comparative reviews. You will loose your credibility as an impartial reviewer!
It would have been nice if years ago someone in AVSA’s organisation had the backbone to have answered the numerous requests truthfully!
The sad part is that AVSA will remain a magazine full of advertisements and every review needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. You don’t dare saying anything negative as you might just loose the business from that particular distributor. This is a very sad scenario for all the loyal readers.
Thank you Andrew for clarifying your stance on the “reviews”. All for the sake of “impartiality”. Please don’t try and convince me that this opinion is only true for the forum as in many years now you have not been able to publish even one comparative review. Not one of your reviews has been negative. It is not possible for any manufacturer to continuously provide us with flawless products.
Read “What Hi-Fi” for confirmation of my statement.

Hi FWP,

Sorry, but you have read a bit too much into that comment. I thought it was pretty clear in referring to questions being posed here on this forum, asking for personal recommendations by individual reviewers as to what brands, for example, they would suggest readers buy, or if they like B&W more than Marantz.

If I, for example, make it known here that I am a huge Yamaha fan, it immediately calls into question my level of bias (real or imagined) when writing a review in the magazine for a Yamaha product. Or for that matter any other brand.

That statement has nothing whatsoever to do with the reviews in the magazine, which are impartial, and always have been. Your claim that I have made some sort of 'clarification' on AVSA reviews is incorrect.

[Byrd]

I do understand that it's advertising that makes the money

Advertising makes money if consumers buy AVSA. If consumers dont have confidence in AVSA to provide unbiased reviews and therefore dont buy it there will be no advertising revenue and then what? No AVSA?

The question is - What motivation is there behind buying a magazine that purports to offer reviews, when in fact it is simply a magazine with disguised advertisments? If that is the view readers have of the reviews, the readers are paying for a magazine full of advertising. In the standard sales model that cost is bourne alone by the advertiser, wheras in this one it is bourne by both seller and customer (even if the buyer doesnt buy).

My own view, and problem with all of this, is that the advertisments are DISGUISED as reviews. Rather call them all advertorials.

I can equate it to some of these expo's where you pay, IMO, quite a large entrance fee (as do the exhibitors) and then you often get very little back for it other than a central place for exhibitors to advertise their wares. The organisers are making money by providing a medium to facilitate sales.

Having said all this there are some who find value in this kind of sales model as can be seen by the numbers that buy AVSA and the numbers of people visiting these expos.

Goneten - maybe you guys should start charging entrance fees to Lifestyle audio?

I dont quite see why the advertisers should have the sway at AVSA. If AVSA were to take the stance - this is the premium place for you to advertise your product (because we provide unbiased reviews) then the advertisers should flock to it. Bad publicity is still publicity as can be seen on the likes of Top Gear.

No disrespect intended toward anybody here

[Andrew]

The only time I 'subscribe' is at the AV Expos (or similar) with a value add CD... This year I subscribed and there was a 'free' CD that never materialised. 

Hi Mervin,

You should have been given the CD when you subscribed. Did you not query at the time? Feel free to contact me and I'm certain I can organise something for you.

Regards,
Andrew

[Byrd]

If I, for example, make it known here that I am a huge Yamaha fan, it immediately calls into question my level of bias (real or imagined) when writing a review in the magazine for a Yamaha product. Or for that matter any other brand.

Perhaps if we knew what the reviewers preferences were it would allow us to align ourselves with them a little more closely. Simply hiding the preferences does not mean that they are not there.

It is highly improbable that reviews are ever impartial (in AVSA or any other magazine). If you want an impartial review get a computer to do it. Audio does not only deal with the technical but also with the soul and therefore cannot by definition be impartial. If I have a good experience with a particular model from a manufacturer, I am more likely to have positive feeling for other models from that manufacturer. Nothing wrong with that, we are humans. Trying to hide that though is not a good thing

[joel]

Generally I do mention my particular preferences, as I believe that this is important to know.
Audio is a personal thing with many variables, one of them being the review environment.
What other magazine has invited readers to view theirs?
Video is also sometime personal, and a free noddy badge to anyone who can answer why I spent my own money (not the magazines) on calibration equipment. I also have two RTA's.
To repeat myself again, I will talk to anyone regarding any review I've done and explain the reasons for my particular biases.

I believe that most of the magazines reviewers would be willing to talk to readers.

Last question, who actually writes the reviews in the other publication mentioned?
AVSA lists the name of the reviewer so you know who to compliment/complain to.   

[Andrew]

Perhaps if we knew what the reviewers preferences were it would allow us to align ourselves with them a little more closely. Simply hiding the preferences does not mean that they are not there.

It is highly improbable that reviews are ever impartial (in AVSA or any other magazine). If you want an impartial review get a computer to do it. Audio does not only deal with the technical but also with the soul and therefore cannot by definition be impartial. If I have a good experience with a particular model from a manufacturer, I am more likely to have positive feeling for other models from that manufacturer. Nothing wrong with that, we are humans. Trying to hide that though is not a good thing

Hi Byrd,

I agree and disagree. I agree that if you know Deon is a huge fan of turntables, that you will trust his opinion, in particular, on that type of equipment when he reviews one. But when it comes to openly stating preferences for particular brands, then it can become problematic. Again, using my previous example of me saying here that I love Yamaha equipment - would you then completely accept my verdict on another brand if I made one or two negative comments about it? Would those comments be seen as justifiable, or simply because I felt that my favourite brand was better?

Also, when you refer to impartiality, you are referring, I believe, to the reviewer's personal reaction to a specific product he is reviewing, and I agree with that statement. However, the 'impartiality' being questioned by others in this post appears to be more of an accusation of bias towards the highest paying advertiser, which is terribly insulting towards the reviewers who spend hours unpacking, connecting everything up, reviewing, writing up their notes, then disconnecting and packing it all up again. And bear in mind that much of the reviewing is done in their personal time.

[Mervin]

Mervin, every show I've been at we've given the freebie away with the sub purchase. If we run out of freebies we tell the reader that we ran out.
If this really has upset you I'm sure I can find a CD at the office that I can get to you.

Oops... not even my ex-wife has that tone with me 

[Prince]

 

Once again this "ugly subject" rears its head. I thought we put this baby to bed on this forum and in the AVSA, but it seems not. Let me give my humble opinion - I read AVSA for enjoyment, as well as picking up preference as to what is a good product out there. I don't really take the reviews to heart, because AVSA has always promoted the idea of listen or demo for yourself, which is very good advice in my book. No reviewer is or can convince you that a product is good or not. You have to experience it for yourself!!
And I do believe that AVSA is doing a fairly good job of trying to stay unbiased in their reviews.

-my 2 cents..

 

[Hi-Phibian]

These threads are really quite sad to me. I think it is often an indication of how some of the industry and its clients have completely lost each others plot.
It has been said the main revenue comes form adverts, so if the mag depended less on adverts, would the reader be prepared to pay in the difference in revenue, or at least a portion and how big a portion? Probably not if the "dealers are rip offs" threads are anything to go by.
Yes, one can turn to the WWW but ever noticed how many cottage industry, nah, lets call 'em, kitchen table manufacturers get reviewed on those pages? Why? Check who advertises with the online mags… Independent, unbiased or just different?

[Shonver]

And I do believe that AVSA is doing a fairly good job of trying to stay unbiased in their reviews.

Unbiased and unoffensive... 

But, really: caveat emptor or know thy mag (take your pick)... and all will be fine