6Moons New Policy: Support us, with ad revenue, and we will review your product.

Srajan Ebaen said:

Alan Sircom: "Is that the best because it is the best, or is the the best of those prepared to pay?" Here you lost me, Alan. Sorry. That's not even an issue. We're not concerned with *best*. Anyone who is has to first admit that it would necessitate intimate exposure to *everything*. Clearly not possible. The best (sorry) we can say about best is what a given writer has encountered and feels represents the creme of that assortment. That is always a function of exposure and the filter inherent in it. Do we care what the nature of the filter is? A filter of some sort will always exist. My writers aren't instructed to hunt for the best. They're instructed to describe what something sounds like and then to place it in context. In context, best is always relative. As such it's not terribly meaningful to anyone unless their context overlapped. And if a freelance writer contributes three or four reviews a year whilst a few might do 6 or 8... how meaningful is any 'best' in such a limited context in the first place? If someone did, say 60 reviews a year, now his or her context would be broader and become more meaningful perhaps. But the same filter principle applies. It's just a little less limited. So again, to me that's not even an issue. We don't publish any 'best of' issue in the first place -

As to Japan, yes, it's a very different system which works because everyone abides by it. Does that mean that because our system is broken (and you're not the only one to agree with me on that so cheers - other guys simply don't want to be on public record), one shouldn't attempt to find a better solution? Should one wait until there's some unilateral move whereby somehow, magically, all the magazines in the West collaborate to address the current issues and then, more magically still, agree to what the perfect/better solution is and then all commit? And all that within a culture that looks at colleagues and fellow publications as competitors? I feel too pragmatic to believe that would happen. I've not seen sufficient evidence of admission, by high-profile publishers, that the system is badly broken. All I see (and perhaps I don't know where to look) is repeat insistence and promise that the Chinese wall between Editorial and admin isn't breached. And because it isn't, there's no problem. It's irksome and tiresome. In it I don't see even an opening to do anything about it. It looks more like, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Case in point? What other publisher has joined this discussion aside from you (kudos by the way and thanks?)? I'd love to be proven wrong and pointed at similar type of discussions I might have overlooked as they pertain to the audio sector -

I might be pig-headed, delusional, idealistic or plain up for a new adventure but I need to address things now. Someone's gotta be first to try...

Click to expand...

You are absolutely right that a filter of some sort will always exist, but I am not convinced that a filter based on whether or not a company is willing to pay a non-refundable fee up front best serves the readers. It serves them in so far as they can continue to read the site should the concept succeed, but it directs the editorial toward 'who will pay' in addition to 'what we want'.

For example, what happens if the vinyl revival continues unabated, but the only turntable manufacturers willing to contribute make products that none of your team like? Or, if the world swings inexorably toward streaming, but all of the streamer makers refuse to pony up the cash? These situations (especially the former) are unlikely I grant you, but not impossible.

But, as I said, I respect the concept, even if I don't entirely agree.

ack said:

FWIW, we consumers often complain that reviews are biased and walking a fine line, because we see an attempt to mostly tout the positives in a component under review and just about never the negatives, in an effort to raise advertising revenue - we simply view the whole reviewing thing as a business that needs to flourish, and not a public service; exceptions are VERY rare. Therefore, people like me (who may just be in the minority) simply don't take reviews very seriously, and TAS for example, has been ridiculed many times in this forum and others. Thus, I think Srajan's new approach will probably dilute his e-zine's credibility to the point of some of us simply not caring about 6moons anymore, save for the industry news.

My suggestion would be to look at redoing the reviewing approach, with a flashy downloadable PDF e-zine like Tone Audio; I think Tone got it (the format and overall look-and-feel) right, though it has zero influence on me personally (I go through each issue in about 10 mins) because I find no real substance in most of their reviews, especially those by its publisher (and just don't care about the music they review, nor do I care about the unrelated paraphernalia they often push). Unlike Tone, though, to me 6moons' review content is of much higher quality. I think Srajan's new approach is a high stakes gamble, with all possible consequences. Having said all this, I wish them success.

Click to expand...

I don't think the reason the whole 'accentuate the positive' thing is an effort to raise advertising revenue. Even the non-advertising funded reviews and those from the general public are typically upbeat. We attempt to replicate the buyer and user experience, by living with the product for a while. Typically, you don't tend to live with crappy stuff. So, some of the worst kit gets rejected out of hand (not every magazine has the same selection process).

In fairness, I think there aren't a lot of bad reviews, because there aren't many bad product out there. There are products that fit specific systems better than others (and it is incumbent upon the reviewer to identify those products and where they do work, and where they don't), a few that are exceptionally good, and a few that are exceptionally bad. Most are in the middle of the bell curve.

Most of us also have accidental horror stories where a good review of a good product turns into an unintended slaughterhouse. We play to a house of predominantly professional boomers and retired professional boomers; this is a sub-set of society that knows precisely what it wants and is almost pathologically unable to accept second-best in any case. Under such conditions, you quickly learn that you don't damn with faint praise; faint praise locks the product in the trunk, drives it out to the desert, and buries its corpse in a shallow grave. In the UK, What Hi-Fi's star ratings reflect this. They go from one to five stars, although the number of one- and two-star reviews are tiny. This doesn't matter though, because the buying public sees five stars, and varying degrees of crap. It doesn't matter if the product reproduced the sound of an orchestra so well you could taste the rosin and the only reason it got four stars was because the box it came in was half an inch too big for the reviewer's liking. Four stars = take it outside and shoot it.

Alan Sircom: I don't expect you to entirely agree -

We're agreed that the prevailing ad model is very imperfect. Whilst I think that my current attempt can be *less* imperfect, it'll still be imperfect all around. For any kind of true equilibrium, our entire sector would have to embrace it or a much improved version or a quite different take thereon just like the Japanese are unified in their approach. And that's not gonna happen.

And let's not forget that the model you operate under, presently, erects its own barriers and filters. "None of our domestic print magazines will talk to us about reviews until we've taken out a one-year ad campaign which we can't afford." I hear that a lot. I'm not making it up. And I've been in manufacturing myself to know how I was treated by the press then. It's all a byproduct of people not knowing how to deal with the existing system. There's no openly disclosed clear road map. It's a kind of secret handshake. And those people and their products are excluded by whatever mechanism they can't overcome in it when they don't know the secret handshake. Which affects many who, for that reason, often come to us first.

Will we run out of things to review because manufacturers will elect to not support us? It's well possible. There's no way of knowing without giving it a try and making adjustments where necessary. Is it a risk? Definitely. No corporate outfit could risk it without approval of the mother ship. Since I fly solo, I can give myself permission.

What nobody has mentioned yet is that since day one, I have operated 6moons as a single owner/operator. Except for not writing the reviews I don't write (how is that for a sentence), I do everything else. I'm Editorial and Admin in one body. We've never pretended otherwise. We never had a Chinese wall in terms of, Editorial department in NYC, admin in Chicago and the twain never meet and talk. We've never even had two different people handle that. It's all been me. Those who enjoy reading us haven't been bothered by it. Those who pursued us for reviews haven't been. Applying my own sense of fair play and even-handedness, I've balanced both things to the best of my ability. How much more direct can it get? That's why I don't believe our new direct (a small fee to get access to the review process) presents an issue. It fundamentally doesn't change anything within the way we've done things for 12 years already.

If someone tried this starting out new, without any prior track record, I don't think it'd stand a chance given the overall culture of cynicism and mistrust the ad-based model as it is has generated. Look at Ack's post one or two posts back. His take on TAS is endemic to this situation. Too much trust has been eroded. I'm banking on our established track record. It's something our readers can use to compare and monitor us for any changes based on our new policy now. I can guarantee that they won't spot any changes. Nothing goes on my site unless I put it there. And I won't put anything there that doesn't meet the same criteria we've always applied. That's not to say that conceptually some readers won't have issues. But so far not *one* has emailed in and said, "you just lost me, good luck but this is simply unacceptable". I trust my audience enough to think that they'll give me a chance with this. Now the onus is on me proving that their trust is deserved. And I feel fully up to that.

Will the manufacturers embrace it? That's the open question. But the first inquiries since our change have been exceptionally positive. The gist is "the price is very fair, we appreciate that everything is fully disclosed and open without any underhanded 'back scratching'." That's the exact term a manufacturer used. Back scratching. That sums up what's at the root of the problem.

Srajan Ebaen said:

My issue is with clearly successful companies abusing that same willingness to get review after review without any compensation for us whatsoever. Obviously this can be managed. You can simply say no. So you could say that I've fallen victim to my own generosity if I've allowed myself to be abused. But then you're not allowed to ask for ads to get paid to do reviews -

I kept coming back to the inherent unfairness and imbalance of it where 'generous' manufacturers are expected to carry the bag for the rest. The only solution I see is to make everyone pay something. So I've deliberately made our entry fee very low - *far* lower than any amp you sell.

And to call a spade a spade: If commercial magazines are expected to offer free business support to start-up makers, are more successful makers expected to give away free equipment to those who can't afford it? Because when you apply consistency, that's what it boils down to -

Click to expand...

Sorry Srajan, but I think that your situation has distorted your perspective. There is no inherent 'unfairness' as you suggest- that seems to be a red herring. The fact is that many manufacturers would love to advertise more than they do. On the Internet, you have the issue of who gets the ad funds, since they are a bit cheaper, its actually a bigger deal than print advertising which is usually a lot more expensive. So who do you chose if you have a limited budget? There are a lot of websites out there, some play favorites and politics and some don't. How do you choose? This idea that there are generous manufacturers out there just does not hold water. Its not real. What is real is that those that can afford to advertise do, because if they do it right they can increase their revenue stream.

FWIW in the closing statement above, your assumption appears incorrect, as is your conclusion. How it really works? Magazines, commercial or not, exist due to content that people want from them. You've been in the industry for a while so should know this as well as anyone. In a nutshell, manufacturers are a source of content. Magazines are not offering 'free business'; its a two way street. They get an opportunity to generate content and thus a revenue stream, manufacturers get an opportunity for exposure and perhaps a revenue stream if all goes well. Magazines have the upper hand here- readers will read a bad review as much as they will a good one.

Srajan Ebaen said:

"You guys (6moons, whoever) seem to be successful. I'm a manufacturer who needs help launching my business or sustaining my business or promoting a new model. You owe me that help. That's what you're there for so get going. And don't you dare mention advertising because that's quid pro quo and I'm not having it."

Or, there's the dangle. "We'll support you if you take care of us. But take care of us first and then we'll decide how much you deserve." And that's supposed to be the Chinese wall and prevent undue influence?

Really, that system is broken in so very many places...

Click to expand...

(emphasis mine)
The above strikes me as ridiculous and condescending to manufacturers. We don't think any magazine owes us anything (if anyone really has treated you in that way I apologize on their behalf because that isn't how it works)- I can speak fairly confidently on that point. Having learned by the school of hard knocks, the manufacturer has to vet the magazine and the potential reviewer prior to approaching them about a review. I do that all the time. Interestingly, the only one in the last 25 years to turn us down was 6moons. I really think you need to apply a little more introspection on your apparent attitude. Once done, then go back and look at your advertising rates, which are apparently too low.

You mentioned (although I struck the quote) that anyone unable to afford your inexpensive rate is not a real business. I'll just put it this way- you are not in a position to judge. You don't know the costs involved with a space to build stuff, local issues like EPA permits, zoning, state laws, costs of employees if there are any, design fees, lot fees, 1st or second column pricing on low volumes, legal fees, lawsuits (as you know I had to deal with 2 lawsuits in which I prevailed, preventing my business from being stolen) etc, etc,. Its not as easy as you think apparently. We have thousands of parts in stock and we are a tiny manufacturer. I know one manufacturer whose business is so small the whole thing fits in his basement, but in order to make his (highly respected) product he has to buy one part with a $50,000 minimum!

What I am sensing in your explanations is a condescension towards the producers in the industry. I saw the word 'freeloaders' used elsewhere... when you are pushed for explanation, manufacturers are the ones at fault? Am I wrong here?

Srajan Ebaen said:

And let's not forget that the model you operate under, presently, erects its own barriers and filters. "None of our domestic print magazines will talk to us about reviews until we've taken out a one-year ad campaign which we can't afford." I hear that a lot. I'm not making it up. And I've been in manufacturing myself to know how I was treated by the press then. It's all a byproduct of people not knowing how to deal with the existing system. There's no openly disclosed clear road map. It's a kind of secret handshake. And those people and their products are excluded by whatever mechanism they can't overcome in it when they don't know the secret handshake. Which affects many who, for that reason, often come to us first.

Click to expand...

I hear that a lot, too. I hear that a lot as a criticism of Hi-Fi+, which is odd because it's not a policy of Hi-Fi+. I also hear we don't review products unless they have lots of advertising support. Except for those reviews of products that aren't supported by advertising, which apparently proves the point. Somehow.

If you listen to the chattering classes, every single damn one of us spends all our time counting the infinite amounts of money we flay off the broken backs of manufacturers, from our thrones made from the skulls of the poor saps we've exploited. Now, while I do regularly drink the blood of manufacturers from a goblet fashioned from the skull of a particularly gullible reader, I think there's some exaggeration taking place.

Srajan Ebaen said:

Look at Ack's post one or two posts back. His take on TAS is endemic to this situation. Too much trust has been eroded.

Click to expand...

And see my post about professional boomers and retired professional boomers. Hell, this site alone has more fifty-something lawyers on its books than you'd get in most courthouses. That's a target audience trained to argue and pick **** apart for a living. While there is a hell of a lot of improvement we could all make in this respect, it would never be enough. We would need to be simultaneously more and less subjective, more and less objective, more and less comparative, more entertaining and more dry, price conscious but not impecunious and occasionally capable of wigging out in the presence of something wild and crazy, investigative, but not to the point of challenging the audio world's great myths and mysteries, and more. Basically Sherlock Holmes, Woodward and Bernstein, Tom Wolfe, Captain Kirk, Mr. Spock, and Groucho Marx all rolled into one.

Srajan Ebaen said:

I'm banking on our established track record.

Click to expand...

Your track record is no more or less unsullied by writing about audio than any of the rest of us. It comes with the territory.

Atmasphere: It's true, I've never run a hifi manufacturing company. I've only worked for three in a sales and marketing capacity. That gives me a little insight into their day-to-say operations but certainly nothing like you have. I feel for your lot. It's hard trying to make a living in an overcrowded market place and an eroding dealer infrastructure. Having worked in hifi sales in a shop; and then on behalf of these three manufacturers where the dealers became my customers... I have a solid appreciation for that reality.

But I'm not expecting that a manufacturer give a friend of mine a free piece of gear just because he is a struggling audiophile enthusiast and can't afford it. If I flip that around, is it fair and reasonable of manufacturers to expect the work involved in writing and presenting a proper review for nothing?

What I hear you say is this (and correct me if I'm misinterpreting and I'm merely extrapolating): *If 6moons has issues with their ability to do free reviews, the problem is likely that their ad rates aren't high enough.* What does that say? That we should increase the financial burden on your competitors (the ones who elect to support us) so that we have more headroom to serve you and others who might be struggling and need help? (I'm not saying you're struggling! This is a discussion about certain principles, not about getting personal.)

If that's what you're saying (and it's what I'm hearing), then we have to agree to disagree. I'm not a charity. I love this industry. I love working in it and I think we contribute in a small but positive way. Though we're very small, we're a *commercial* entity. We don't have a for-profit half and a charity half. Do you, Ralph? Do you charge for your amps to half your customers and the other half gets them free? And if those who want free amps grow in numbers, do they come and tell, you, charge more for the ones you're selling and you'll be fine? (And you know perfectly well that if you price your amps out of reach or beyond what they're worth or beyond what makes them competitive and attractive, they won't sell at all. Do you think that raising ad rates makes them easier sells?)

I don't think you work like this. But please understand that under the current system, that's exactly how we operate. And I'm saying that I'm closing down the charity division. To continue being approachable by the small companies we love to work with, our entry fee is very low. If that amount really is a stumbling block... well, at the risk of sounding condescending, I'd be worried reviewing product by any company that had issues with it. I'd feel in doubt that they'd be here in half a year's time to service customers who might have bought their product based on our reviews. That is part of my vetting responsibility after all.

Look, nobody needs to pursue reviews in general; or us in particular. It's not a mandatory part of the business plan. But expecting a free service from a fellow professional who, like you, needs to turn his work into a salary to make ends meet... what would you call that if my term 'freeloader' sounds unduly harsh? What's the proper term that expresses a sense of entitlement, expectation or attitude that squares with wanting something for nothing? This isn't a trick question. I'm truly curious to learn how you see it and why you think it's okay and the way it ought to be. As I've stated in my editorial on my site, for me it's fundamentally an issue of lack of respect. I call the expectation of something for nothing a lack of respect. I think most professionals working for a living would do, too, when that expectation confronted them not from a personal friend or a broader relation; but from complete strangers whom they've never met and whose only commonality is working in the same industry.

My mom taught me never to show up empty-handed when I'm invited to someone's house. That's the kind of respect I'm talking about -

Srajan Ebaen said:

But I'm not expecting that a manufacturer give a friend of mine a free piece of gear just because he is a struggling audiophile enthusiast and can't afford it. If I flip that around, is it fair and reasonable of manufacturers to expect the work involved in writing and presenting a proper review for nothing?

Click to expand...

There is, IMO, a logical problem here, in that you can't 'flip that around' in the way that you would like it for this to make sense. The actual Reality is different. As manufacturers, we expect that you do this for fun and/or profit. Apparently, what I am hearing here is that you are not making a profit- or have not had a wage for yourself built into your expenses (IOW, you've not been paying yourself). So bottom line is, it is entirely fair and reasonable of manufacturers to expect magazines to do a review without charge, which is different from it being 'nothing' as far as you are concerned. IOW, we manufactures are a source of profit from the content you generate from us. I had thought that I made that point twice now already.

Srajan Ebaen said:

What I hear you say is this (and correct me if I'm misinterpreting and I'm merely extrapolating): *If 6moons has issues with their ability to do free reviews, the problem is likely that their ad rates aren't high enough.* What does that say? That we should increase the financial burden on your competitors (the ones who elect to support us) so that we have more headroom to serve you and others who might be struggling and need help? (I'm not saying you're struggling! This is a discussion about certain principles, not about getting personal.)

Click to expand...

Not exactly. What I am saying is that your ad rates are too cheap. That is not a burden to my competitors though. They elect to advertise with you out of free will. There is a difference!

Srajan Ebaen said:

If that's what you're saying (and it's what I'm hearing), then we have to agree to disagree. I'm not a charity. I love this industry. I love working in it and I think we contribute in a small but positive way. Though we're very small, we're a *commercial* entity. We don't have a for-profit half and a charity half. Do you, Ralph? Do you charge for your amps to half your customers and the other half gets them free? And if those who want free amps grow in numbers, do they come and tell, you, charge more for the ones you're selling and you'll be fine? (And you know perfectly well that if you price your amps out of reach or beyond what they're worth or beyond what makes them competitive and attractive, they won't sell at all. Do you think that raising ad rates makes them easier sells?)

Click to expand...

I think you need to Google 'Veblen Effect' as this is part of what we are talking about. But its not the whole thing. You seem stuck on this idea that you are doing reviews for free. You are not- or if you are, its because your site has been your hobby for these 12- some odd years. You should be getting paid. Since your prior posts and the article on your site suggest you are doing it for free, it tells me that you don't have a good model for your advertising structure.

Srajan Ebaen said:

I don't think you work like this. But please understand that under the current system, that's exactly how we operate. And I'm saying that I'm closing down the charity division. To continue being approachable by the small companies we love to work with, our entry fee is very low. If that amount really is a stumbling block... well, at the risk of sounding condescending, I'd be worried reviewing product by any company that had issues with it. I'd feel in doubt that they'd be here in half a year's time to service customers who might have bought their product based on our reviews. That is part of my vetting responsibility after all.

Click to expand...

The idea that you have a 'charity division' is IMO misguided. If I were you, I would try on the idea that such a thing never existed, and that there a different reason why you feel the way that you do.

(As human beings we often exist as reason and meaning making machines. In that regard we are often not present in our own lives, instead choosing to run our lives according to some sort of story we have made up. Now what I just said is beyond debate as it is simple fact- as difficult as many millions or billions have in accepting it. What I am suggesting is that your idea of 'charity' is a made-up story and that life does not care what your story is, it just goes on being life. Since your story does not agree with life, it is a source of suffering.)

Srajan Ebaen said:

Look, nobody needs to pursue reviews in general; or us in particular. It's not a mandatory part of the business plan. But expecting a free service from a fellow professional who, like you, needs to turn his work into a salary to make ends meet... what would you call that if my term 'freeloader' sounds unduly harsh? What's the proper term that expresses a sense of entitlement, expectation or attitude that squares with wanting something for nothing? This isn't a trick question. I'm truly curious to learn how you see it and why you think it's okay and the way it ought to be. As I've stated in my editorial on my site, for me it's fundamentally an issue of lack of respect. I call the expectation of something for nothing a lack of respect. I think most professionals working for a living would do, too, when that expectation confronted them not from a personal friend or a broader relation; but from complete strangers whom they've never met and whose only commonality is working in the same industry.

My mom taught me never to show up empty-handed when I'm invited to someone's house. That's the kind of respect I'm talking about -

Click to expand...

We don't have to pursue reviews, but a good review is better than advertising in general. What you may not understand is that they usually cost more than advertising too, and they are riskier as the manufacturer cannot choose what is to be written. We don't see reviews as a free service! That is because they are not. The way you have written this though, it makes it look like they are. What is really going on is that manufacturers do something that is interesting to the audiophile public. Magazines report on that activity, which allows audiophiles to know what is going on. Further, magazines create culture, a space that sets them apart from other magazines. This has value as well (and audiophiles have been shown willing to pay for it), and for that reason manufacturers are willing to pay for advertising to be associated with that culture and with their competitors. That's how it works- and that is why we don't see it as free. In addition, we have to pay shipping and pay for the product we shipped. Sometimes we get it back, often when we do its degraded or out of date. We got a preamp back from hp one time that was doused in cat urine. So don't think it didn't cost- it did.

This really is not a matter of respect, Srajan, whether you realize it or not you have had plenty of respect from the industry in the past. Whether you are able to acknowledge it or not is a personal matter, but take it from me (we've crossed swords in the past, so whatever idea you have of me applies) that you have got that respect already. I can also guarantee that this move on your part will not help in that regard although it may not hinder if you handle yourself properly. So I think we can leave the respect thing out of this because that really isn't what its about despite your remonstrations.

'Freeloader' is actually harsh, IMO. I've never heard the term in a good light. As well it says to me that you don't understand that the manufacturers bring you the opportunity to create revenue, by giving you the ability to create valuable content, which you could not do without them. To me it suggests a fundamental misunderstanding on your part. I really think you just aren't charging enough.

Atmasphere: I see your position but I don't agree with it. Let's leave it at that.

^^ OK: to be clear then, based on your points as best I can make them out:

1) We manufacturers don't offer you the opportunity to generate content
2) we are freeloaders unless we pay for reviews
3) smaller manufacturers aren't real businesses unless they can pay for advertising
4) magazines that offer free reviews are offering charity
5) larger manufacturers that can advertise are doing so partially out of generosity so that smaller manufactures can get a review.

I think I got these and other points, but I can't see any way other than this just looks ludicrous. At the very least here I really think you owe manufacturers an apology- most of them including myself do not understand why you are labeling them 'freeloaders' and making them responsible for your situation.



IOW I doubt very much that you see my position! But I will not persist.

i think most of us have an aversion to 'infomericials'.....i know i do. either it should be an advertisement out and out, or a critical review. we've all gone to what we thought was a review, and it turns out it's just re-hashed manufacturers information. in the digital age we more and more look for something with the value for us to justify the time to read it.

will your advertising policy lead some to view your reviews with less credibility and more like infomercials? likely everyone's line in the sand about that will be slightly different. those that now know you best will maybe give you the greatest benefit of the doubt. for myself; i would be slightly less likely to read your reviews with that policy. if you were talking about a piece of gear i had interest in i would likely still read it. knowing that any manufacturer had to advertise to get a review would/does alter my view of 6 Moons.

i agree with Alan....charge more for your ads and fight that battle instead. i view your 'full disclosure' moral high ground more like a thin thread that will break. and then you will be faced with rebuilding your credibility.

Andre Marc said:

Then Mike, how do you feel about TAS, who actually let advertisers provide content? Audioquest supplied a multi part, extensive write up on computer audio. Guess
what cables featured in the graphics. This was not advertising, this was editorial.

Click to expand...

with TAS i'm very selective about who is worth reading. there is value there but lots of fluff and useless lists of things and attempts at system examples and such which has little value. i'm not so sensitive about the reviewer manufacturers relationship that i mind what i see from TAS, however to me the requirement of ads for reviews is over the line and off-putting.

not saying that the morality of either way is above reproach, just my own views of how it is.

i'd get HiFi+ instead of TAS (or in addition) if the delivery and subscription wasn't such a cluster (or at least it was a cluster last time i looked). i'm not an on-line PDF kinda guy.

Andre Marc said:

Steve, the paid content model does not work.

What Srajan was referring to was that both the London Times and the New York Times essentially lost 95% of their readership online when they started charging.

There has not been a single instance of ad free audio publication surviving. The only one in existence now is the Audio Critic with a paltry 500 subs, if even that.

Audiophiles talk a good game about wanting untainted reviews, but when it comes time to pony up, their wallets stay in their back pockets.

Any one here willing to pay $150 to $250 a year to subsidize an ad free magazine? You will hear a pin drop...

Click to expand...

Exactly.

Andre Marc said:

Here is something Ralph might find interesting, since as far as I know, he is the only manufacturer on this thread.

A Google search on "Atma-Sphere amplifiers" provides the following results:

The first three results are the Atma-Sphere website.

followed by:...snip..

Click to expand...

-including, in case anyone didn't notice, one review on the 6moons site. Not sure what you are getting at, but if there is any question we do try to get our stuff reviewed as much as we can, which is to say when we can afford it. If you look on the individual product pages and click on 'acclaim' you will see even more reviews, as well as awards.

Long before I was getting products reviewed, I remember being excited when the latest issue of TAS would turn up, chock full of reviews on all sorts of gear in which I had an interest. They were why I bought the magazine. Today, I still look at the reviews when I read a magazine. If I look at car magazines its for the same reason. That is the content that I see as valuable in a magazine; I'm certain that I am not alone in this. We are at the heart of one of the things that makes the industry tick.

The necessarily evil. If I look at the big picture, we've got four main players: manufacturers; their sales agents; the press; and the readers. Each of these has specific needs but only the first three have economical needs. The reader likes to read reviews but doesn't go out of business if he doesn't. Manufacturers who don't sell anything go out of business. So do their dealers and distributors. And the press goes out of business if they don't sell issues and/or ads. The first three rely on the reader who is also the potential buyer of gear. The reader doesn't need any of them. He can survive without them and their gear. It seems fair to say that the three serve the one.

Ralph made a perfectly defensible argument. By their very existence as active members in the hifi production sector, manufacturers produce products without which there are no hifi news or reviews. Hence he creates opportunity for the magazines to create content. And with content comes the opportunity to attract ads. Ergo, the manufacturer, by mere virtue of his existence, is a revenue opportunity to the magazines. He needn't ever take out an ad for that to be true. And as far as it goes, that argument is solid. Of course if all manufacturers hid behind it, we'd not have a sustainable business model.

Ralph also said that reviews are better than ads. That's true in two ways. Reviews are free. And if they're complimentary, that goodness carries greater weight than if the manufacturer, by way of an ad, said "we make the best".

Readers, I think it's fair to say, would prefer reviews without any ads whatsoever. They would *love* to buy or read magazines without them. For them ads are a necessary evil which makes the system work. Those who hate the ads sufficiently either stop reading magazines with too many of them; make a concerted effort to not 'see' them; and, in the case of banner ads, not only that but also refuse to engage in click-thrus as though to say, "take that for littering up this review with so many banners".

Manufacturers, as it turns out, would prefer reviews without ads too. Such reviews pull harder as they're disconnected from the perception of undue influence. The fact is, magazines without any ads would sell and be read; but magazines with just ads and no reviews wouldn't.

To sell magazines without ads puts the whole economical onus on the reader. Such magazines would become *far* more expensive. That model doesn't seem to work. At present, most print magazines sell for a token fee so the magazine stand can make some money and carry the mag. The burden on the reader is as minimal as possible and ads do the heavy economical lifting to keep the magazine operational.

Readers don't buy or read magazines for their ads but for the content. No content, no readers. For the magazines too then, ads are a necessary evil to deliver the content the readers really want. If magazines only review product from ad sponsors, their credibility is hurt and the scope of their coverage is restricted. Hence each magazine determines a for them workable ratio of reviews from non-sponsors and sponsors. The higher a magazine's costs of operation, the higher its need for ad revenue. So either the ratio between sponsor and non-sponsor reviews shifts towards the former; and/or ads become more expensive. As ads become more expensive, smaller manufacturers are eliminated. The more expensive ads become and are thus carried by fewer sponsors, the more financially tied the magazine gets to those sponsors. This creates greater dependence, hence greater potential for undue influence. Unless they're exclusively targeting the luxury sector like a Robb Report, such magazines are perceived as having 'sold out'. They review mostly expensive gear and predominantly from ad sponsors.

If magazines elect to make their advertising as cost-effective as possible to allow smaller manufacturers access, they need more ads to cover the same expenses. If more manufacturers now take Ralph's position and elect not to participate in ad sponsorship, the magazine goes under.

It's true also that ads don't just cover a magazine's expense. They also help the advertiser build his brand. That's a clear benefit. But as Ralph also said, reviews are better advertising than ads themselves.

No matter how one looks at it, ads are the necessary evil which makes this system work. To work, the system needs a sufficient amount of good will to tolerate and feed this necessary evil to arrive at what everyone wants: quality unbiased content the reader can trust.

That's why I would say to Ralph that, as far as it goes, his position is perfectly defensible. One could in fact exaggerate it and still make it defensible. One could say that the press should *pay* a small amount for the privilege of being allowed to create content from the makers' creations and help offset or share in their cost of two-way shipping and A to B-stock losses. But of course if everyone took that position , the system would collapse. Hence Ralph's position only goes so far. It doesn't go the whole distance.

Srajan Ebaen said:

One could in fact exaggerate it and still make it defensible. One could say that the press should *pay* a small amount for the privilege of being allowed to create content from the makers' creations and help offset or share in their cost of two-way shipping and A to B-stock losses. But of course if everyone took that position , the system would collapse. Hence Ralph's position only goes so far. It doesn't go the whole distance.

Click to expand...

Srajan, have manufacturers insisted that you pay such things?? That sounds repugnant to me.

Andre, you contribute to three different publications. I'm curious what your thoughts are about the business models of each. I'm assuming they must differ in one way or another.