They cover a wide swath of consumer grade products. What would happen if they suddenly announced they would only
evaluate audiophile products? Can you say chapter 7?
That doesn't answer the question. Does the subscription base cover expenses?
They cover a wide swath of consumer grade products. What would happen if they suddenly announced they would only
evaluate audiophile products? Can you say chapter 7?
That doesn't answer the question. Does the subscription base cover expenses?
Steve Williams: Thanks for your post. Could you be a bit more specific about exactly what and how you did that? I'm all about learning new ways to skin the cat as long as it's not our actual feline named Blondie. When you say WBF, you're referring to this forum. Do you do your moderator's job full-time, i.e. whatever revenues via the donation route you raised cover not just your hosting and related expenses but your actual pay-the-rent livelihood without any supplemental income? Does WBF publish formal reviews like we do where contributors work with temporary formal review loaners? Are those contributors compensated or do they do it solely for fun? Here I'm not suggesting that magazine reviews are superior to forum posts btw. I'm simply trying to understand how close or not your situation is to mine (or a colleague's like Andre Marc) and whether your fund-raising solution could be applied to ours. I've not been to WBF before today so excuse my general ignorance about it.
I don't think there is anything wrong with the ad-based revenue model. It worked for newspapers, magazines, radio and TV for decades. But when there is editorial that could involve sponsors; especially when there are reviews of sponsors' products, the model requires strict separation of editorial and advertising staffs and strict adherence to journalistic ethics. There are plenty of cynics who believe it doesn't work, and i'm sure there are times when it doesn't, but for the most part, I think the model has served the journalism profession pretty well. What 6Moons is proposing is very different. They are proposing a very direct connection of editorial and advertising. They are establishing an open system of quid pro quo -- buy an ad, get a review. And they are promising that their ethics are so strong that the connection will never effect the content. It will inspire a lot of skepticism and demand a substantial share of negative reviews.
Imagine the Washington Post asking for campaign ads to compensate for campaign coverage. Candidate X places a full-page, full-color ad in the Sunday edition and gets a rave endorsement on Monday.
Imagine how credible the Post would be on Tuesday. Again, I admire the honesty, but this is going to be a rough road.
Tim
Again, I admire the honesty, but this is going to be a rough road.
hence my suggestion
In holland there is a saying : only the sun rises for free
If payment happens first, that issue is off the table. Now it's solely about doing the job. Do you find that argument hollow? Just curious since this is a discussion about all the various ways people say and imagine that money and opinion are intertwined
Theoretically you're going to want subsequent payments from them and they'll have future products to be reviewed.
Audiophiles want professionally produced content, on an easy to navigate web site, with nice graphics unbiased, and pure, untainted by ad revenue, by reviewers with high quality reference systems, who have sussed out all the hot new gear by travelling to audio shows.
And they want it FREE.
I don't think there is anything wrong with the ad-based revenue model. It worked for newspapers, magazines, radio and TV for decades. But when there is editorial that could involve sponsors; especially when there are reviews of sponsors' products, the model requires strict separation of editorial and advertising staffs and strict adherence to journalistic ethics. There are plenty of cynics who believe it doesn't work, and i'm sure there are times when it doesn't, but for the most part, I think the model has served the journalism profession pretty well. What 6Moons is proposing is very different. They are proposing a very direct connection of editorial and advertising. They are establishing an open system of quid pro quo -- buy an ad, get a review. And they are promising that their ethics are so strong that the connection will never effect the content. It will inspire a lot of skepticism and demand a substantial share of negative reviews.
Imagine the Washington Post asking for campaign ads to compensate for campaign coverage. Candidate X places a full-page, full-color ad in the Sunday edition and gets a rave endorsement on Monday.
Imagine how credible the Post would be on Tuesday. Again, I admire the honesty, but this is going to be a rough road.
Tim
A must read piece by 6Moons head honcho Srajan Ebaen.
http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews2/why/why.html
To have a review on *** 6Moons website, you must now, as a
manufacturer, purchase advertising in a show of support.
He makes, IMO, some very, very good arguments.
Your thoughts?
I was not a 6moons fan before this questionable move.
Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |