Boon:
" like newsgroups and dicussion forums. They're bad for
business."=
Most businesses, qua businesses, figured that out by 1997.
Your problem is that you are neither fish nor fowl. You're
(attem=
pting
to) running this virtual magazine as a business, which is why you
ALWAYS
edify late model commercial high end gear and pooh-pooh commercial,
DIY,
or vintage stuff.
Wrong. We have monthly columns devoted to that stuff. We've recently
reviewed equipment from Luxman, Rotel, Sony and even Apple.
And you have a extremely high correlation factor-I'd
estimate.85 or .90- between goodness and high price in your
evaluations.
Based upon what facts? Have you even read the magazine, or are you
just guessing?
Yet you want to play hipster too in with the little people.
Whatever that means. Sounds like you're pulling the class card.
=EF=BF=BDI've seen this in NY and LA publishing types all my life. I
first=
noticed
it with Richard Collins, who was the editor of an airplane magazine. My
da=
d
idolized him and J. Mac MacLellan, the other guy, and what they said
about=
airplanes was gospel. By reading the magazine I quickly discovered they
were merely shills for the light aircraft manufacturers in Wichita, who
took out many full page ads in the magazine.
Funny how that worked.
And yet we give great reviews to manufacturers who advertise (and who
have told us they never will), and we've given so-so reviews to people
who do. If you work it out statistically, there's no correlation
betwen our advertisers and our reviews. The only place we're accused
of doing that, BTW, is on Internet discussion groups.
=EF=BF=BDYou can not put out a commercial publication without kissing
ass =
or a no
advertising expensive newsletter without kicking ass. And those are the
only two models that work, unless you're independently wealthy like Ed
Dell or the guys who put out some of the more esoteric magazines for
basement machinists or steam engine buffs. And Ed isn't doing so well
right now.
There's some truth to that on a theoretical level. But realistically,
the manufacturers are tired of that argument as well. I've had two
manufacturers actually tell me to avoid writing a rave review and to
be candid with criticisms. We've had several manufacturers buy ads
because they found our honesty to be refreshing, and that we didn't
act as if we were in the pockets of the advertisers. In fact, we're
one of the few audio publications where a large percentage of our ads
are not related directly to audio. We have ads from computer
companies, jewelers, camera companies and even Porsche.
Besides, that whole argument has a big flaw in it. If we posted great
reviews of an advertiser's product, and it isn't great...our
reputation goes down the toilet. Neither the manufacturer nor the
magazine truly benefits from that. We've actually turned down ads
from companies because we didn't like their products, and we would
have felt like whores if we had gone ahead and cashed a check.
] to who Steve Sailer is, it's easy enough to find out. Go to
hi=
s web
site.
I have. I still don't know his qualifications, or why you worship
him."
I'm going by your comments here because I don't even know how to find
your magazine.
What you say may be so, I am not disputing it, but I can say I've heard a
general pro-current-expensive-saloonware current in your comments.
Particularly pro-ARC and Conrad Johnson, two brands that have cheapened
their lines in terms of construction quality and have had problems. I've
heard their stuff: I've heard lots of homebrews that sounded as good as
good or better. I think you were also pro-Linn Sondek rabidly, a piece
that is nothing more than the old AR turntable with better metal
finishing.
--
Message posted using
http://www.talkaboutaudio.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/
More information at
http://www.talkaboutaudio.com/faq.html