THE HIFI FIVE ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION STREAMING LIVE ON YOUTUBE PREMIERING IN OCTOBER!

[microstrip]

Yes, it does.

1) In every post on this topic I state that one of my premises is equal discount on all candidates. If that condition does not obtain, then there can be corrupting influence.

Such claim weakens the scope of your posts. Discounts and accommodation prices are intrinsically a dark grey and nebulous area - in reality no one discloses exactly what he gives or gets. Secrecy is the soul of the business in discounts in the high-end. Exact amount of discounts is accepted to be protected as a private information in our debates.

2) Sometimes I forget that microeconomics theory does not always explain human behavior in practice.

Are you suggesting we consider discounts as microeconomics?

BTW, I do not have anything against reviewers, industry accommodating, prices, influencers, bloggers, dealer/distributor discounts and friendships. I consider they are a needed part of this industry. But, in this extremely subjective hobby where we have no absolute references for value, I hate when people pretend they are not biased by such factors.

 

[morricab]

Yes, it does.

1) In every post on this topic I state that one of my premises is equal discount on all candidates. If that condition does not obtain, then there can be corrupting influence.

2) Sometimes I forget that microeconomics theory does not always explain human behavior in practice.

Are you having us believe that you can get at least 40% off on ANY brand? Really? If so, that is rather unique at least in my experience. As a reviewer, I could get that level of discount but only on the gear I actually reviewed. Some of those I wouldn’t want even for a great discount …but it never opened a whole universe of options. And now as an importer I can my price but only on the gear I import.

I always felt getting a discount on reviewed gear was ok because you would still only buy it if you thought it was excellent; however, the two times I did buy I stopped reviewing and became an official rep of that company (KR Audio first and later Aries Cerat) to avoid even a hint of conflict of interest.

Is it inherently corrupt? perhaps. Let’s say you buy a Joe Blow SET amp for deep discount after giving it a glowing review. How can you then review any of its competitors without bias? You could just no longer review amps I guess, unless your preamp was also acquired that way, etc.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Short AI search on discounts reveals how humans are influenced by pricing .
Making the review not really (less )valueable anymore .
Reviewers are given discounts and the amount of discount might vary by manufacturer giving them an advantage , see below .


Yes, discounts significantly influence buying behavior by creating perceived value, urgency, and excitement, triggering impulse purchases, and making consumers feel they've "beaten the system,"

FYI same goes for manufacturers who give dealers very very accomodative pricing , much more then others.
Making the dealer margin much greater then usual ,

 

[PeterA]

Are you having us believe that you can get at least 40% off on ANY brand? Really? If so, that is rather unique at least in my experience. As a reviewer, I could get that level of discount but only on the gear I actually reviewed. Some of those I wouldn’t want even for a great discount …but it never opened a whole universe of options. And now as an importer I can my price but only on the gear I import.

I always felt getting a discount on reviewed gear was ok because you would still only buy it if you thought it was excellent; however, the two times I did buy I stopped reviewing and became an official rep of that company (KR Audio first and later Aries Cerat) to avoid even a hint of conflict of interest.

Is it inherently corrupt? perhaps. Let’s say you buy a Joe Blow SET amp for deep discount after giving it a glowing review. How can you then review any of its competitors without bias? You could just no longer review amps I guess, unless your preamp was also acquired that way, etc.

The premise that all influencers get the exact same or the recently revised “substantially the same“ discount from all manufacturers he simply not based in reality. I presume negotiations take place for advantage. This results in influence.

I also agree with your comment about the mirror appearance of conflict. This is not a court of law where proof can be demanded and found. We’re talking about private negotiations and arrangements unknown to the general public.

I commend you for avoiding even the appearance of conflict. At this point, I’ve heard so many stories in this tiny industry that I apply a grain of salt to everything. And the fact that it is evolving towards social media even more so.

In the end, we should use our own experience and judgment based on our own values when making decisions in this hobby.

 

[213Cobra]

Dear Phil,

Thank you for your always thoughtful, detailed and beautifully written Post #218, as well as your reply to Tim.

But I still am not seeing in either post a hypothesis as to why accommodation pricing is corrupting. You state this merely as an assertion, unsupported by empirical evidence and unsupported by any underlying analysis.

It is intuitively obvious to me that if everything the reviewer can buy may be purchased at the same, or at substantially the same, accommodation discount, then the playing field is level and the reviewer's genuine and honest subjective preferences emerge and become the authentic, genuine and wholly-uncorrupted basis of his/her purchase decision.

I've been trying to come up with an analogy. Someone is looking to buy a new large SUV. She has spent weeks reading reviews of cars and test driving cars. She's pretty sure she knows which one she wants. She knows how much she has to spend and which SUVs she prefers, and why.

She wakes up to find that every single model of large SUV by every single manufacturer suddenly is now offered at 40% off of sticker price.

Has her preference ordering changed -- been corrupted?

If she buys an SUV which she previously could not afford because it was out of reach financially that does not mean her preference ordering has changed. It just means that she can now purchase the SUV she preferred all along to the cheaper SUV she was planning to purchase.

A change solely in price across all options does not change her authentic, genuine preference ordering. There is no corruption of her natural and genuine preference ordering.

It would be ridiculous to present a hypothesis on this topic because the assertion isn't testable. I plainly wrote an assertion that the corrupting nature of accommodation pricing to reviewers is intrinsic. I then outlined in clear principles why I think so. No data is presented because none is available. And btw, Ron, your stated view that accommodation pricing of equal discounts, to reviewers, from maker to maker, not being an ethical problem is also just an assertion. You are stating a personal principle that you believe keeps you square. OK, if you say so. But that's all you're coming back with -- saying so. Look, most of the discussions on HF5 so far are data-free. They are just discussions -- clashes and concurrences experientially posited. What could be tested are perceptions by the buying, street price public. Assemble a statistically-significant sample of hifi gear buyers. Fully inform them that reviewers can buy equipment they are reviewing or have reviewed, at steep discounts unavailable to the test group. Ask them if, knowing this, they trust reviewers more, less or no-change. Do you have confidence in that outcome?

It is intuitively obvious to me that large discounts not available to the buying audience a reviewer is evaluating gear for, can influence a given reviewer's assessments. I am not saying it will, nor that the assertion applies in all cases to all reviewers. An influence can be corrupting, without succeeding to corrupt everyone in all cases. But corrupting influences can cast a pall of scepticism over everyone.

Your example of an SUV buyer is not analogous to what we're discussing. A consumer who suddenly sees a changed market is not corrupted by the appearance of sudden large discounts because that buyer is a consumer who is free to make a choice for any reason whatsoever. In your example, the buyer is choosing for themselves, not making recommendations to other buyers on assumption of being an unbiased authority on the subject.

All we care about in terms of this topic is what factors can, might or will impair a formal reviewer's objectivity.

Phil

 

[Ron Resnick]

Are you having us believe that you can get at least 40% off on ANY brand?

Definitely not. I did not say that for myself personally. That definitely would not be true for me personally.

However I have been offered that discount on any component I am truly interested in purely for my own hobby stereo purposes and idiosyncratic desires. I'm not breaking my arm patting myself on the back here, but I believe, and this has been confirmed to me dozens of times both publicly and privately by third parties, that I have been successful in cultivating over the last 10 years a good reputation in this industry, on both the hobbyist side and on the business side.

Regarding the question of corruption from accommodation discounts I am making as one of my premises for the hypothesis that the reviewer can get any competing component at the same or substantially the same accommodation discount. It is an explicit premise of my hypothesis.

As I responded to Keith above, if that condition does not obtain, then Phil Ressler's corruption from accommodation discounts point becomes more plausible.

 

[Ricky64]

I agree with much of this, but, as I explained in the episode, I see a world of difference between a reviewer using his/her own money to purchase components at a discount versus long-term loans which cost the reviewer nothing.

Since reviewers are afforded approximately the same discount on every component the purchasing playing field is even. So what a reviewer actually buys for himself/herself -- even at a discount -- is extremely probative. What a reviewer buys with his/her own money tells me far more than any of that person's words in a written review.

On the podcast, Jay has noted that he has never ever taken a piece for free for a review. But, he could pay $10 for the piece, and not be making a false statement. He will do the math and if he is offered piece that he can sell for more than he buys it, he will be motivated to accept it. And, I strongly doubt he will put out a negative review on a piece he will then need to move....

What is the industry standard accommodation discount for reviewers/influencers? Is anyone aware of any variance in these numbers?. At exactly what percent discount (within 5%), would you consider it an inducement, vs the number that is industry standard?

 

[dcathro]

I just watched episode 5 and I found it exasperating! No one on the panel was able to connect or understand the perspectives of the others. Danny interpreted Elliot's "Listening" observation as a "Hearing" issue. Jay appeared to interpret everything as being about cost. Ron seemed most interested in his theory about what is measurable. Dennis appears to have a very limited intellectual model of how equipment works and filters all possible data based on that understanding. I felt sorry for Elliot.

 

[Anton D]

I don't find accommodation pricing to be the moral menace that others do, but I I am of an age where I can recall the presence of some pretty pernicious practices. (Think "H" and "P.")

If done transparently and with consistency in the accommodation pricing, fine. It's pretty apples to apples and I don't mind if a reviewer is able to keep stuff around that he/she finds to be of reference quality for future reviewing. The reviewer can still accurately comment of relative values, etc. Don't mind it a bit. Just be truthful, no opacity!

I gotta tell you, if a reviewer is blowing smoke up my ass, I will figure it out via time and overlapping experiences. There is a limited window of credibility that can get closed and then the reviewer will have lost something irretrievable.

Keep the process honest and count me as happy about it.

That being said.....I like a rather formal circumstance/setting for reviews and I want the process to be clearly spelled out in terms of the mission at hand. Tell me about the gear, place it in a context, and offer examples of listening material for me to look for similarities or differences of opinion.

I loathe this "influencing/influencer" stuff. Reviewing is an intentional act. I don't want some guy tossing in brand placement as some insidious fiduciary flex and sneaking commercials into what is supposed to be a non-commercial conversation. It lowers the level of trust in the community and makes one questions motives....which, here, we should not ever have to do. We are fellow enthusiasts, not influencers and targets.

(Also, spare me the condescension and fallacious appeals to authority that invariably pop up with some in the industry. You know that old joke about Vegans? "How do you know if someone's a vegan? Don't worry, they are about to tell you." Self-puffing comments from on high don't move people.)

Apologies for any over the top iconoclasm and no one in particular is in my thoughts.

 

[tima]

What is the industry standard accommodation discount for reviewers/influencers? Is anyone aware of any variance in these numbers?. At exactly what percent discount (within 5%), would you consider it an inducement, vs the number that is industry standard?

Perhaps unknown to you, the industry membership accommodation discount has been public for quite some time and is discussed on this forum. Resnick gets it because he is a dealer, a member of the audio industry. The amount of a discount is determined by whomever grants the discount and there is no fixed percentage, which can run between 25% - 60%. and is typically 40% -- 50% -- the same as dealer' cost from a manufacturer. Manufacturers are sometimes more generous than distributors and dealers. Any member of the industry can request accommodation pricing.

Influencers exist but they are not members of the audio industry. They act under the table, pretending to be regular audiophiles touting products as end users but they are really just shills for whomever is paying them or though YouTube monetizing off of clicks.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Shows are worth much more then reading a review.
The world is changing Tima Social media YT is growing .

If a product sounds convincing at several demonstrations shows / dealers you got something.

A reviewer cannot tell if you will like the sound .
To me its more a distraction then anything of use.
Good products will shine at shows too .

I did a show a show recently and i had quit a lot of people who appreciated the sound and stayed longer / came back .
I had a feeling they got the message as to what i was trying to achieve with high Q tape and my speakers/ Sub

 

[tima]

Are you having us believe that you can get at least 40% off on ANY brand? Really? If so, that is rather unique at least in my experience. As a reviewer, I could get that level of discount but only on the gear I actually reviewed. Some of those I wouldn’t want even for a great discount …but it never opened a whole universe of options. And now as an importer I can my price but only on the gear I import.

I wasn't at Positive Feedback in 2016-2017 when you were there, so their policy may have changed.

Here's my understanding: any audio industry member can request accomodation pricing from any other audio industry member. Pricing is solely at the discretion of the manufacturer or sometimes distributor so while 40% - 50% is common it is not guaranteed.

In the case of reviewers it is typical to purchase a reviewed component which is now a used component and the manufacturer does not need to pay for it to be shipped back. Most established publications require the reviewer to receive permission from the publisher to make an accomodation purchase. But the request to purchase is not limited to reviewed products, subject to the publisher's and manufacturer's protocols.

 

[tima]

Shows are worth much more then reading a review.

Apples and oranges whether you value reviews or not. I understand you are to reviews as Al M is to videos -- no need to constantly repeat.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Reviews might be nice / good for confirmation bias / entertainment
Reading about a product you recently purchased and has good reviews too gives the buyer confidence/ a good feeling

 

[andromedaaudio]

I watched the episode , OK entertainment wise :

Key point afaic.

Europe and US should step up their game because otherwise they re gonna get run over by chinese manufacturing.
In my real business i have very good expirience with chinese manufacturing , but as everywhere you get what you pay for .
China has certainly good Q , but that costs a bit more .

Not all Hotel showrooms are bad , try out Marriot hotels as a show venue

Solidstate that does it all ..... of course FMA

 

[microstrip]

Influencers exist but they are not members of the audio industry. They act under the table, pretending to be regular audiophiles touting products as end users but they are really just shills for whomever is paying them or though YouTube monetizing off of clicks.

We can't put everyone under the same umbrella and it is not a black and white subject. The same way as with reviewers. Debating their way of interaction with this hobby is an interesting subject.

 

[microstrip]

(...) In the case of reviewers it is typical to purchase a reviewed component which is now a used component and the manufacturer does not need to pay for it to be shipped back. Most established publications require the reviewer to receive permission from the publisher to make an accomodation purchase. But the request to purchase is not limited to reviewed products, subject to the publisher's and manufacturer's protocols.

I have read in TheAbsoluteSound and HifiNews that as reviewers need to change regularly their gear to properly carry their job, the accommodation price would allow reviewers to sell their gear easily without big losses and get new gear . Some manufacturers/magazines established an allowance period - for example the reviewer could not sell the goods before two years. May be things changed with time, it was long ago.