Please let's keep this thread focused narrowly on the organization of AIAP and the Statement of Principles. Thank you.
AIAP: New Audio Industry Publications Association
- Thread starter Elliot G.
- Start date
Please let's keep this thread focused narrowly on the organization of AIAP and the Statement of Principles. Thank you.
As far as I know a few of them have principles that are respected and trusted, perfected along the years. Similarity does not mean anything - in such systems (as in the high-end systems) even the small differences make the real difference. And we are not discussing just small differences ...
IMHO in the new audio internet publications, including some of the members of the AIAP there is not a clear separation between a professional review and a consumer report. In a word of immediate answer "Letters to editor" , "Letters" , "Reader feedback " or similar are sometimes as important as reviews.
Can I ask you how many formal reviews you have written in the last five years?
BTW, I also think for the good of transparency I think these rules should be known by any reader. Particularly the exceptions. Pretending to rule friendship in a subjective hobby is a lost cause. It can't be ignored in his hobby, consumers must learn how to deal with it, not to ignore it.
Emphasis mine.
I believe writing and photography are still considered arts. Arts operate without border even when a formal agreement of cooperation between friendlies requires them to produce an examinable auxiliary document. Look how hard the act of making music has gotten among smaller bodies and individually contracted artists. Transparency can also mean seeing right through where someone should be.
Without products to review it may become rather hard to conduct business. Could be this is an adjustment to meet needs of homes receiving and sending out large amounts of freighted and crated. Practical application of these rules could have expansive usage broadcast through interests being fulfilled in their collective content a posteriori.
Stopping to consider if far flung colleagues + members of their trade are incapable of friendly business relations. Impels questioning the advisements within polite introspection being proffered to readers. Application for acceptance of hi-fi +, have to applaud Lee for his active stance on that.
Inclusion of principle 11 must have decorous purpose. Beyond quite correct revelation it should not be present in a dry business statement published for outside consumption. A casus foederis.
Pt 4 - "
Accommodation purchases after a review is
completed is a well-known and accepted practice, generally representing purchase at
wholesale pricing, and is allowable. Such accommodation transactions may be
negotiated, but should be overseen by the editorial leadership of each publication"
It is not clear to me how this practice avoids the perception of "compensation" for a review,. Likewise , it is not clear to me how this avoids the perception that the review itself was not skewed favorably as the reviewer formulated an intent to purchase while constructing the review.
Accommodation purchases after a review is
completed is a well-known and accepted practice, generally representing purchase at
wholesale pricing, and is allowable. Such accommodation transactions may be
negotiated, but should be overseen by the editorial leadership of each publication"
It is not clear to me how this practice avoids the perception of "compensation" for a review,. Likewise , it is not clear to me how this avoids the perception that the review itself was not skewed favorably as the reviewer formulated an intent to purchase while constructing the review.
for me any deal a reviewer cuts BEFORE publlishing a review and as long as it's disclosed it's fine, since I'll probably take the review less serious. What is more of a snake pit IMO, is the purchases/deals done after review, those should IMO also be disclosed in a 'retraction like' statement. What do others think about that?
I believe our statements are generally aligned; though I think any deals on the reviewed equipment shouldn't be allowed if you want to avoid at the least perception of a conflict of interest with regards to the review.
Id say never say no to a good deal .
Reviewer / listener whatever , if it makes you happy go for it .
Even better is getting stuff for free .
Nobody needs to disclose anything afaik.
Best they can do is write a enthusiastic / entertaining story about what they got.
its up to the reader whether they believe it or not
Last edited:
If the reviewer wants to go to a dealer and make a purchase after the fact and is able to maybe negotiate a deal of some kind then he/she is acting as a consumer. When he/she gets a discount on the reviewed equipment in his/her possession I think the deal lends itself to putting the review somewhat in question; sort of "guilt by association". Like I said to me it's about perception.
Many are here sharing their opinions about this document. My opinion is that this industry association and document will do little to nothing to appease the concerns of those already skeptical about the reviewing/audio publishing business. I think people will hold the same opinion about reviews as before and nothing will change.
I do find it interesting that such an association was formed. The founders must think there was a need and that it will make a difference somehow.
I do find it interesting that such an association was formed. The founders must think there was a need and that it will make a difference somehow.
Take a car magazine for example .
Lets say the reviewer wriites a nice review of the latest ferrari and ferrari says to him he can keep the car
Good for him , it doesnt affect me in a negative way , who cares
The audiophile world is way to dogmatic
Lets say the reviewer wriites a nice review of the latest ferrari and ferrari says to him he can keep the car
Good for him , it doesnt affect me in a negative way , who cares
The audiophile world is way to dogmatic
wrong to relate car reviews and manufacturer influences with hifi reviews.
almost any new car model has multiple dealerships in every metro area where it's sold. big boy marketing and distribution are required to play. it takes billions with a 'B' to create a new model and then hundreds of thousands of units must be sold to amortize it. so the selling cannot be left to chance.
auto reviews are water off a ducks ass relative to success or failure as a retail automobile model. no one knows or cares about it....with rare exception. huge marketing and on line user feedback for products and dealers dwarfs reviews for degrees of influence.
OTOH tiny hifi companies with few assets can be made or ruined by reviews. they can steer winners and losers. many audiophiles are actively searching for information for products they might not be able to hear before they buy. there is a vacuum of lack of information and reliable data. the street cred for gear is much more vulnerable to the winds of information or dis-information. therefore the consequences of a corrupted review process are much more significant.
Last edited:
That's an easy one. Generally, accomodation purchases can be made at any time and for any audio product whose manufacturer participates in the accommodation practice. Typically a writer asks his editor for permission to make such a purchase. There no requirement connecting a review with an accommodation purchase.
Sure. I doubt there is anticipation for soothing a sceptic or someone with a permanent adversarial attitude. There is a fair amount of hypocritical faux scepticism, theoretical scepticism, that is part of certain reader's persona. Being convinced is not part of a perennial sceptic's repertoire. Having a statement of principles is less about reacting to such people given their nature and more about identifying the publication as having standards, being able to say 'here is how we practice our craft', whether you believe it or not.
I guess whether these statements ultimately mean anything comes back to the real intention of the signatories. Could all just end up as a nicety on the bottom of an audio sites landing page to help convince the punters that the game is all fair and above board. I’d imagine most of us already are aware that the lines can be blurred in this and assign various weighting in believability to different writers and to different publications.
Underneath all this debate about publishing and ethical intent quite reasonably needs also to tie back to what it actually takes to survive commercially and how to make any publication in the age of online viable and then where all the lines need to be drawn. Transparency is the key.
The borders between content being more advertorial than review or vice versa and whether content is perceived as an area of journalism or as marketing may always be a difficult line to tread. In the age of blog a degree of behaviour travels below the line and these statements may also be about setting perceptions to the reader on forms of the sufficient quality of self regulation.
I’m genuinely not being cynical and we need to understand the challenge of what it takes in terms of hours and effort to create this content and to make it viable in an area where user pays for content is just hard to make happen.
Underneath all this debate about publishing and ethical intent quite reasonably needs also to tie back to what it actually takes to survive commercially and how to make any publication in the age of online viable and then where all the lines need to be drawn. Transparency is the key.
The borders between content being more advertorial than review or vice versa and whether content is perceived as an area of journalism or as marketing may always be a difficult line to tread. In the age of blog a degree of behaviour travels below the line and these statements may also be about setting perceptions to the reader on forms of the sufficient quality of self regulation.
I’m genuinely not being cynical and we need to understand the challenge of what it takes in terms of hours and effort to create this content and to make it viable in an area where user pays for content is just hard to make happen.
Last edited:
Lets stay in cars for a moment .
I dont have a' car at the moment as i travel a lot but i can take a company poolcar .
I have driven over 40 different type of medium size rental cars , so for myself i have pretty much narrowed down my favourite car if i would wanna buy one / lease one
I almost never read a review
Regarding hifi .
People can go to munich start up high in the atrium and hear a 1000 different speakers and amps over the course of 2 days .
People can also go to dealershows and listen to new gear .
Buying stuff in general based mostly on reviews is doomed to be a failure in my expirience / view
Nothing beats a hands on / PERSONAL hearing expirience..
Regarding tiny companies being ruined by a review is a fault of the reviewing industry but also from Audiophiles themselves
Some reviewers think they are gods gift to the hearing industry .
Its the audiophiles own fault if they dont prick that bubble and realize its all based on personal preference and nothing more.
Regarding myself as a small company .
I make what i want , i dont make something to seek approval of a reviewer.
Thats the whole sport of being a designer / manufacturer, you get to do what you want .
If a reviewer likes it , great '
, if he doesnt also no big deal.
Last edited:
"Real intentions" - that is a tough topic. On a daily basis people seem to make that judgement on more important things than audio reviews - all of us are engaged in weighing believability all the time. "Is this audio review trying to trick me into buying a component? Is the author subtley deceiving me against my interest? "You mean to tell me the electricity powering my Tesla is made with petroleum?" Has this reviewer been bought off to say nice things that don't match reality?" "Oh my gawd - this reviewer is using some cables loaned to him for a year!! The horror of it all."
I kinda think there are a lot of audiophiles who don't have a clue about what the want, other than "more better." It seems reasonable to learn what someone else thinks about a component or a system. Come to a forum for advice, "what DAC should I buy?" and in many cases you'll get a recommendation for the very same component owned by the respondent.
A review is intended to be informative, entertaining and a vehicle for the reader to learn if they might be further interested in the product under review. What one makes of a review is up to the reader - reviews are not a substitute for responsibility, unless the reader let's that happen.
None of that changes by publishing a set of ethical principles. I don't need such a set in order to be honest but I am happy to point at that to which I adhere. I would rather have my publisher state them out loud than say nothing - at least the lines are made clear in words. With or without published principles, there is no expectation that sceptical, suspicious 'punters' will be different from whom they are. The obligation of assessing "believability" still falls on each of us.
Transparency varies I guess, some writers such as yourself clearly have a strong compass Tim. Though not everyone arrives at ethics as a first port of call and I’m not talking about audio writers here at all. It’s good to take time to reflect on these things in an age where information comes at us from an increasingly variable range of sources. When my sister studied journalism ethics were a part of her training. How many audio writers are trained journalists and given that initial grounding. It’s good it still comes from a range of sources including from some of the current online publishers. Better that it is discussed openly and an upfront part of the conversation.
Yes, I tend to forget that many people do not think about this stuff. Modern society is way complex.
But some things are simple, at least to believe in:
- Man (people) is an end in himself, not a means to an end.
- Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
for context....
autos are BIG business. i'm part of a local dealer group that advertises in my local market for Honda. it's tier 2 (Tier 1 is the manufacturer, tier 3 is the dealer). there are almost 200 said groups just for Honda in the USA for every local market. our local ad budget (based on a fee per car sold in our market) is $6m-$10m per year. that's probably similar to all of the world wide hifi ad dollars combined. and this is only tier 2 in part of one small state out of 50 for one auto manufacturer in the US. every manufacturer has a similar arraignment.
auto reviews? not relevant at all.
hifi is hardly a rounding error in comparison, and that's being kind to hifi. most hifi consumers, even those identifying as an audiophile, don't go to hifi shows. maybe the 'influencers' do mostly. the most invested 5% or 10% might. if i go to my local audio club meeting maybe 3-5% go to shows.
others are getting their info at dealers, or on line forums or reviews, or word of mouth. especially at the entry level. so each of these info streams carry considerable weight and matter as to how products get recognition.
bottom line; it takes effort and intention to get educated about hifi, the info does not get forced on you. so the degree of effort expended, and relative truth attained, is as variable as people are. with cars you are bombarded everywhere from every direction. unless you live under a rock, car info is part of your subconscious.
Last edited:
I think the perspective of most people who have shown disagreement with the AIAP document. is being skewed by the "skepticism" divagations. I fully agree and support the existence of a code of ethic, statement of principles or what it may be called it - some audio publications already have it and publicize it - I consider such practice very relevant.
What is being questioned is this particular code, the forces behind it and its strategy, as well how the absence of information on the whole process.
Similar threads
Members online
- Wjhen
- Armsan
- rafale
- Bonesy Jonesy
- the sound of Tao
- SSvenin
- Chpray
- kasin
- justubes
- tonytsui
- Stefan
- bonzo75
- Ron Resnick
- Opabin
- tsunami0102
- thomask
- TST
- StereoLogic
- Duke LeJeune
- DW101
- GuillaumeB
- Notdead
- horn150
- orenatt
- Król_Artur
- Glide3
- Beckola66
- an.vamv
- Golum
- AudioHedonist
- kyoya78
- dystoria
- TheAudioAssociation
- ton77
- Marcin_gps
- tubes59
- MarkusBarkus
- jadis
- hopkins
- hesavary
- simorag
- Acci
- zerostargeneral
- ramesh
- morricab
- KrellFan1
- Tannoyista
- Klonk
- sapirg
- Sablon Audio
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |