As a reviewer and member of the industry, I thought you knew something based on your earlier comment that they would share their perspective and that you were looking forward to learning what it is. I’m sorry if I misunderstood your earlier post.
AIAP: New Audio Industry Publications Association
- Thread starter Elliot G.
- Start date
As a reviewer and member of the industry, I thought you knew something based on your earlier comment that they would share their perspective and that you were looking forward to learning what it is. I’m sorry if I misunderstood your earlier post.
We don't know if they were invited as the three most known worldwide are all absent. Someone should ask the missing participants or the organization if this was in fact a choice or were they not included.
Thank you for explaining. I meant only that I would be surprised if the absolute sound and Stereophile deem it tenable never to explain their respective perspectives on the matter.
Yes, someone should ask David Robinson, and executives at the absolute sound and Stereophile.
Lee?
Almost invariably there are business reasons that companies join trade associations and sign onto best practices-type statements. It would be very interesting if it turned out that the missing participants were not invited to join.
We are still discussing this internally for TAS, hifi+ has joined.
It’s not a disagreement with the principles as we agree on those, it’s more around evaluating the impact of the organization and perceived impact.
Steve Rochlin and I are good friends and he reached out to me early on. We have been quite busy with big hires and new projects.
I think it’s more about impressions and reach now, not audited circulation imho. Reach drives advertising rates. Reaching particular customer segments plays a role as well.
Impressions cover both print and digital media and TAS and hifi+ have morphed into media companies with significant revenue from digital. It’s no longer correct to call us a print magazine as it is only one of the many channels we derive revenue from.
We have strict walls between the reviewers and the sales team. You can indeed trust our reviews. As I say often, read our reviews to develop a short list of candidates then audition each yourself.
Last edited:
When auditing good, old fashioned, print circulation reach is always part of the overall equation- as you well know Lee. Measuring digital subscriptions and reach is nothing new, has been going on for years, and is just an additional line item in determining your gross reach and- traditionally- advertising rates.
As noted, David Robinson is my editor at the on-line audio publication Positive Feedback. After reading the above speculative comments in this thread I said I will contact him to learn if he has information to share about AIAP in relation to thoughts expressed here. I received a quick response and below I quote our exchange in full with David's responses in bold:
Hi Tim…
Thanks for your kind comments; I appreciate them.
For my responses, please see below.
Cheers!
Dr. David
Dr. David W. Robinson
Editor-in-Chief
Positive Feedback
https://www.positive-feedback.com
From: Tim Aucremann <email address removed>
Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2022 8:11 PM
To: David Robinson <email address removed>
Subject: AIAP question
Hi David,
First let me say the AIAP is genius, a huge advance for audio press. Congratulations on convening publications for a joint policy initiative and the initiative itself.
[David W. Robinson] It took a long time to put this together…forming a initial group, arriving at a consensus, and designing the AIAP Web site. I’m very glad that it’s done now.
There is discussion about AIAP on the large WBF audio forum which leads me to ask a question.
People are saying that without collaboration of the major print publications the initiative is compromised. People ask why did TAS or Stereophile decline membership. This is not my view; at this point people simply do not know enough for such conjectures.
[David W. Robinson] Not all publications were invited to join, including TAS and Stereophile. In part this was due to the fact that herding a very large group of cats and achieving a consensus would likely be very difficult, as I’m sure that you understand. So not nearly everyone was invited to the Founders group, so that we might get the task done with the least amount of divisiveness, and with the greatest focus on developing the Statement of Principles.
After establishing the founder’s group, then we would leave the door open for others to join if they read the Statement of Principles and found themselves in agreement with it.
One must also consider the fact that TAS and Stereophile are corporate business entities that might not have the ability to freely change their own internal policies to include our principles. Remember also that in many larger corporations the rather territorial notion of “Not Invented Here” rules. They are often more competitive cultures, not easily given to shifting to a communitarian and consensual model for operations and policies.
Further, some additional publications were invited to join the Founders group, but declined the offer for various reasons, which only they could explain.
Finally, some publications were not invited to join the Founder’s group because we were reasonably sure a priori that their principles/methods of operations would not be in agreement with our Statement of Principles as they emerged. Should that prove to be untrue, they would be welcome to join the AIAP.
I hope that these clarifications will help the members of your audio forum.
Do you have any information or comment to share about AIAP in this regard that I could share with forum participants? Thanks in advance.
Best,
Tim Aucremann
Dear Tim,
Thank you very much for taking the time to contact David, and to forward our questions and to receive his answers. David's replies make great sense. I, for one, greatly appreciate his explanation of how AIAP came into being, and his candor.
A few observations based on what I know about the audio press largely drawn from my observations and participation with 3 publications over ~16 years.
The number of audio publicattions has exploded in this century. Many of these are small independents started by one person. Over time there have been some that aggregate or affiliate with a larger publication that has a support staff and an established Web publishing infrastructure -- it is v. expensive to engage and support a Web presence that is both stable and capable of growth. Growth also includes building a stable of competent contributors to allow the publisher to continually deliver fresh content and attract a regular readership.
The issues addressed in the AIAP are not new - they have been with the industry since before the Web. And with the advent of the Web and the equally explosive growth in Web forums, these issues are now highlighted and with us today. Look no further than WBF for a continuing stream of comments about audio press integrity, from sceptical sniping to outgrageous invective - it's constant. For some time now the policies addressed by the AIAP have been taken up either as an unwritten code of conduct or as a formalized statement by the print publications and the larger Web sites - at least for as long as I have been participating. But not by everone - that does not mean there are sketchy or unethical practices nor does it mean such do not exist.
Audio publishing is a business. Many of the larger forums are a business. There is competition for both eyeballs and advertisers. Individual fiefdoms (smokestacks) that carry some weight can have a certain NIH attitude, an entitlement given themselves in virtue of their own belief about being an industry leader and a standard setter. Of course this is not unique to audio businesses. Establishing an over-arching set of policies that will govern members of the audio press is no simple task. But it has been desperately needed. It took courage and leadership to even try. I congratulate David Robinson and the founding members of AIAP for accomplishing what they have thus far. As a writer I am proud to publish under the AIAP banner.
At this point, the fact that some larger and smaller scale publications have not joined should not, imo, be considered as a negative or a sign of failure. Give it time. Hopefully more and more publications will gather under the AIAP umbrella - I believe it is in everyone's best interest to participate. Audiophiles will have the assurance of best intentions when choosing which publications to read. (Yes, skeptics and negators will say best intentions doesn't count for much. But they will say that about everything else as well.) It will be up to individual member publications to enforce the principles behind AIAP. But this is a start. It's not a clean-up but a very positive move forward for all of us.
edit: grammar
The number of audio publicattions has exploded in this century. Many of these are small independents started by one person. Over time there have been some that aggregate or affiliate with a larger publication that has a support staff and an established Web publishing infrastructure -- it is v. expensive to engage and support a Web presence that is both stable and capable of growth. Growth also includes building a stable of competent contributors to allow the publisher to continually deliver fresh content and attract a regular readership.
The issues addressed in the AIAP are not new - they have been with the industry since before the Web. And with the advent of the Web and the equally explosive growth in Web forums, these issues are now highlighted and with us today. Look no further than WBF for a continuing stream of comments about audio press integrity, from sceptical sniping to outgrageous invective - it's constant. For some time now the policies addressed by the AIAP have been taken up either as an unwritten code of conduct or as a formalized statement by the print publications and the larger Web sites - at least for as long as I have been participating. But not by everone - that does not mean there are sketchy or unethical practices nor does it mean such do not exist.
Audio publishing is a business. Many of the larger forums are a business. There is competition for both eyeballs and advertisers. Individual fiefdoms (smokestacks) that carry some weight can have a certain NIH attitude, an entitlement given themselves in virtue of their own belief about being an industry leader and a standard setter. Of course this is not unique to audio businesses. Establishing an over-arching set of policies that will govern members of the audio press is no simple task. But it has been desperately needed. It took courage and leadership to even try. I congratulate David Robinson and the founding members of AIAP for accomplishing what they have thus far. As a writer I am proud to publish under the AIAP banner.
At this point, the fact that some larger and smaller scale publications have not joined should not, imo, be considered as a negative or a sign of failure. Give it time. Hopefully more and more publications will gather under the AIAP umbrella - I believe it is in everyone's best interest to participate. Audiophiles will have the assurance of best intentions when choosing which publications to read. (Yes, skeptics and negators will say best intentions doesn't count for much. But they will say that about everything else as well.) It will be up to individual member publications to enforce the principles behind AIAP. But this is a start. It's not a clean-up but a very positive move forward for all of us.
edit: grammar
Last edited:
Tim,
Although I have my personal ideas on the quoted mail, I will not enter an indirect debate. IMHO if David Robinson wishes to participate in the forum debates he should join WBF and post himself his contributions. I would surely welcome his participation, I have been a reader of Positive Feedback since long.
This is surely MHO, but indirect testimony is not the proper way of handling such discussions .
BTW, it would be great if we clearly define what is exactly an "audio publication".
Tim,
This is the kind of speech that makes me a non believer in such protocols. We could expect a good discussion on its positive and negative aspects, even of consumer participation in its elaboration - but no, any one disagreeing on it is disregarded and discredited from start.
Looking at the document presented I see no real value in for audiophile consumers. IMHO it is mostly a promotional document for some part of the audio press. As first referred by Ron, exception 11 as written can kill any trust in any subjective review process. The document does not refer to one of the most critical aspects of high-end audio reviewing - how equipment is selected for review.
Just MHO as a frequent long time audio publication reader.
Call me a skeptic Tim but I don't see any value in this. Founding members and governing body are different things, who's going to be the enforcer and enforcer of exact what? Looking at the founders list isn't HiFi+ part of the same corporate entity that they don't want anything to do with? What does this mean anyway; "guidelines for ethical and professional operations at their publications." , social credits? Diversity & equity?
Many of the web based audio magazines and forums are small independents why would any of those owners give up their autonomy to this lot? The statement of principles sounds good on paper but it doesn't hold much water in the real world. Do you believe dagogo, https://www.dagogo.com/ or similar sites can be governed with this mission statement as is? What about audio articles and sites for beginners like this one would engage with that audience without ad income? https://pitchfork.com/features/arti...and-stereo-system-for-your-record-collection/
How do you govern youtube based webzines? AIAP's intentions might be good but what I hate most about such groups is the stigma that could be attached to independent operators, some people might see them as crooks just because they're not part of this. Personally I would never join an equivalent association in any industry!
One very important point for me is that none of this addresses the giant elephant in room; most audio reviewers including long term established ones don't know what they're talking about! How do you raise the quality and ability of reviewers which is the main reason why I and many others don't read/trust reviews!
david
Last edited:
As the great Groucho Marx once said
"I would never join a club that would have me as a member" and also "I think I will join a club and beat you over the head with it"
This is off topic but funny anyway IMO
"I would never join a club that would have me as a member" and also "I think I will join a club and beat you over the head with it"
This is off topic but funny anyway IMO
I'm finding this thread very interesting. I haven't read an in print publication in a long time (except for Z-Trac for my Z scale trains ) I also only rarely go to interweb sites for audio with WBF being one of the very few I support. Most of what I own in my system came from careful listening and what my budget could support.
And even if one can have / has 100 % confidence in the integrity of the SUBJECTIVE REVIEW PROCESS , it still doesn t change a thing .
It still is what it is , a " subjective review " ,...... next please thank you.
Last edited:
Stereophile was not approached about becoming a charter member of this organization; indeed, I've only come across this in the last few days. It's interesting to consider the reasons why Stereophile was excluded, but first things first.
I have carefully read the list of principles. Stereophile is in full compliance, although I reject #11; disclosure is a powerful tool, useful when some minor but possibly meaningful fiduciary connection exists, but it is never a substitute for following the rules.
Stereophile essentially invented ethical audio reviewing, starting 60 years ago come September and continuing over decades. Its ethical principles have been laid out in print many times, and could well be a template for this new organization's ethical code. Despite occasional rumor and innuendo (such as in Ron's second paragraph, above), we have never stopped practicing that code. Over the magazine's history, violations have been rare, and those involved have quickly found themselves removed from our masthead.
Will we sign on to this statement of principles? Maybe, maybe not: I'll admit that our exclusion from this organization's establishment makes me reluctant to sign on now, but if I'm asked, perhaps I'll reconsider.
But this matters little when it comes to journalistic and reviewing ethics. I'm happy to vow, here and now, that our ethical practices meet the standard laid out in the AIAP's Statement of Principles.
Jim Austin, Editor
Stereophile
Last edited:
Similar threads
Members online
- ramesh
- Acci
- Kris
- Yosapol
- Glide3
- RichardA
- adrianywu
- KrellFan1
- SK8
- matthias
- Mike Lavigne
- willgall
- lkohn4
- Mike TRP
- KPC
- Sablon Audio
- oldmustang
- audiophilac1
- Kingrex
- MJR
- bonzo75
- andromedaaudio
- Yuen A.
- Aries Cerat
- Dierkx1
- Steveo
- kyoya78
- Florian
- ticktock
- jfr
- Genesis168
- PYP
- BruceD
- Folsom
- wbfhet
- rob
- AudioLibertarian
- Scatterbrain99
- thekong
- JRW1971
- kimurastanley
- bgrav
- quest4audio
- XV-1
- LarryK
- adamaley
- Downtheline
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |