Why is it in UK mags that the big brands never get poor reviews? Hmmm?

[Neil McCauley]

In the course of dumping the majority of my audio magazine collection, while retaining the occasional review of something I might buy in the future I noticed something odd. Or rather I was reminded of something I’d known for years and forgotten, namely that unlike their US counterparts, UK magazines do not print reviews of bad products!

Is this because unilaterally, all makers supply units of impeccable performance to (and only to) UK magazines? I think not.

Is it that US writers and editors have a more robust approach to reviewing technique? Possibly.

It’s true to say – and I'm talking about all the UK audio mags rather than focusing on any particular one, there are what we in the trade call “good …. but” reviews where the product is damned with faint praise, or just a wee bit of condescension, or both – thereby diluting the chances of reasonable sales – but nothing outright condemning. And then, through the 91 mags (minus a few clippings) that went into the skip, I noticed a few curious patterns.

Never, not ever, did a product from the established audiophile brand get anything other than a very positive review. At first I though this might be because these brands were big advertisers. I concluded this was more of coincidence rather than a concrete relationship. it’s a tempting but I feel tenuous ‘relationship’ that one. I think what I was experiencing was the contrast effect. Let me explain.

What was apparent was that the less established makes were likely to get the lukewarm reviews. There are exceptions of course and Music First springs to mind. But it does seem at face value that those makers with the lowest profile are – per se – likely to receive a more critically robust review.

Has anyone else noticed this?

I have 2 theories why this might be. If this thread stays on track for a while (not forever, ‘cos that’s just plain silly, right?) I might be tempted to voice them here. In the spirit of keeping this forum apolitical rather than political, I’ll not name mags, editors nor brands. Apart from anything else, it would just detract from the argument.

What I will say here and now though is that I firmly believe that in the majority (not all, mind you) of instances, small emergent audiophile companies (especially those that have far more to lose) apply levels of innovation that the larger incumbent and dare I say downright smug and complacent ones will not condone. It’s a generalisation I know, but I state it to make the point; that large incumbent companies (a) play safe and (b) see their customer bases as walking wallets – whereas the emergent companies have (a) nothing to lose because (b) they had nothing in the way of a customer base to start with!

---//---

[David Price]

ha ha - fascinating well argued point(s), and some with which I heartily concur, but if I had a pound for every time a 'big brand' PR guy has phoned me up to moan about Hi-Fi World reviews, I'd be even richer than you Howard ;) I think you are, as my old philosophy master used to say, "taking a tendency as a realised state".

[muffinman]

A couple of things i've noticed to be to the credit of aos fave mag TM is that they often, and i like to think cheekily, add the the terms 'it states' or 'says their sales team' after what i imagine are pretty hurried reviews of new or untested items. I think this is fair enough/good arrows.
They're also not afraid to comment on shoddy workmanship irrespective of explaination from supplier, another commendable act.

The big question is - obviously naming no names - has there ever been the suggestion that advertising capital 'might' be removed if a favourable review were not recieved? WHF need not reply

[Neil McCauley]

ha ha - fascinating well argued point(s), and some with which I heartily concur, but if I had a pound for every time a 'big brand' PR guy has phoned me up to moan about Hi-Fi World reviews, I'd be even richer than you Howard ;-) I think you are, as my old philosophy master used to say, "taking a tendency as a realised state".

Good evening David. I hoped you'd respond. The big brand PR guy situation must, at the very least be irksome. I'd find it impossible to be an Editor under such circumstances. You are, as I've said to you face to face, a consummate diplomat - and for all the right reasons too and yes, I acknowledge the importance and releavance of that skill.

Nice aside re philosophy incidentally. Don't change David.

Best

Howard

[Neil McCauley]

The big question is - obviously naming no names - has there ever been the suggestion that advertising capital 'might' be removed if a favourable review were not recieved? WHF need not reply

Yes, absolutely. There are thugs in this industry just like any other. Frankly there is little point in naming names. Their approach might well be unethical, although they'd probably rationalise it as 'good marketing practice'. In fact I know one that does precisely this. That's not the point though, because unpalatable though this might be, a company applying unethical leverage does not automatically make poor quality products. Very much the classic 'buyers dilemma' - if indeed you've a mind to be so affected.

---//---

[Primalsea]

I did read in a UK mag once that they said they don't do negative reviews as they chose to only print reviews of good products which is fair enough I guess.

Is it really a problem not to print reviews of bad equipment in order to keep the overall outlook positive??

I guess a bad review would stay with the manufacturer for some time and would (in the readers eyes/minds) unfairly be associated with their other products.

[Neil McCauley]

Is it really a problem not to print reviews of bad equipment in order to keep the overall outlook positive??



A slippery slope, that one. The logical progression would be that newspapers would only print good news and (for example) human rights abuses would be ignored to keep up the pretence that we live in a unilaterally wonderful world. Doctors would tell only good news, teachers similarly, everyone in an athletics race would have 'won' – albeit a tiny bit less that the winner had won, and so on.

If as if often claimed magazines – in the main – exist to educate (notwithstanding the fact that try as I may I just can’t see the ‘suits’ at EMAP and IPC being altruistic) then surely there should be no censorship in the knowledge disseminating process?

---//---

[Neil McCauley]

I guess a bad review would stay with the manufacturer for some time and would (in the readers eyes/minds) unfairly be associated with their other products.


Well ……. One solution might be to focus on making truly great value products that stood a good chance of being recognised for what they are. It would mean walking away from the 'customer-as-walking-wallet' approach though.

What infuriates me, and I guess was not as cogently expressed as I would have liked in my original post is that seemingly, the established companies (primarily importers, but not exclusively so) can – in the minds of the powers that be in the UK audio magazines – do no wrong. not even a little bit. Not ever.

If the review sample has the right ‘badge / logo’ (and preferably with a brand name comprising just 4 letters) it will automatically be immunised from the sort of scrutiny and post authoring tweaking that the less established companies experience.

The point is …. if I'm correct, then is it ethically acceptable?

Take 3 other consumer purchase opportunities such as cameras, white goods and cars. The magazines in those arenas are not fearful of printing what they believe is the truth. Wide angle lenses that at full aperture which give poor edge to edge resolution, washing machines which are thermodynamically inefficient and cars which handle poorly at the limit – and so on.

Extraordinary though it seems in the UK (unlike our more editorially confident US cousins) all the established audio brands only produce equipment of varying degrees of excellence – all the time. A truly wonderful achievement!

---//---

[Mike]

A slippery slope, that one. The logical progression would be that newspapers would only print good news and (for example) human rights abuses would be ignored to keep up the pretence that we live in a unilaterally wonderful world. Doctors would tell only good news, teachers similarly, everyone in an athletics race would have 'won' – albeit a tiny bit less that the winner had won, and so on.

I can see the point you're making Howard. But on the other hand, who wants to buy a magazine thats full of reviews of crap equipment?

Entertaining as it may be from time to time, I for one, would soon get bored with reading page after page of poor reviews of rubbish gear, and would inevitably stop buying said publication.

Cheers,
Mike.

[Neil McCauley]

I can see the point you're making Howard. But on the other hand, who wants to buy a magazine thats full of reviews of crap equipment?



Mike, I guess you are pulling my leg - right?

What do you mean 'full'?

If indeed as you seem to suggest, any attempt to redress the balance between the over appearance of fawning reviews where the product is to some extent prejudged because of (a) the brand value and/or (b) thuggery of the PR department - well it doesn't say much for your confidence in the industry now does it?

Moreover I remain unconvinced by your argument. Why is it acceptable to have what is in effect total fan-worship – whereas an enlightened editorial approach that seeks to achieve a reasonable balance is unacceptable?

Are you seriously suggesting that newly emergent audio companies are more likely to produce 'crap' than the big guys? Surely not.

Are you seriously suggesting censorship, ergo deleting information that might be of value to the readers merely because the truth is 'boring'? Where would you draw the line? For example, is it better to, for example, not point out that with a certain valve unit, a poorly shielded part would be capable of delivering say 550v DC to the hapless owner under some circumstances - merely because it was a 'boring' comment and the public (gawd bless 'em) who apparently crave entertainment above all else might be offended? Well, of course not, or at least I hope not.

Anyway, nice one Mick. You almost had me taking you seriously there! Almost. Like it.

Sincerely

Howard

---//---

[Mike]

Damn!.... 'Rumbled' again! ;)

No, you're right. I don't think theres that much 'crap' out there, at least not among the type of equipment submitted to an audio magazine for serious review. But I AM serious about not being interested, beyond occasional amusement, in reading about gear that's of poor performance. I'd like to think that gear that makes it into a magazine (that I'm paying for!) is at least of a standard that is worthy of me potentially spending my money on.

As for emerging company's not getting a 'fair shot', so to speak, I don't know. Do you really think they get a lesser deal from the mag's?... I'm afraid I'm very much a 'civilian' in these matters!

I've seen plenty of articles reviewing equipment from manufacturers that I'd previously never heard of, but I have no idea how much, if any, gets turned down. :confused:

Cheers,
Mike.

[Mike]

Just a thought...

Oi Admin!... Can we have a 'Tongue in Cheek' smiley please! ;)

[Primalsea]

Hi Howard, well I think I can now see the hidden depths to how much you despise that four letter word and its not prat is it!!

As well as the reasons that you are hinting at another possibility is that they have to publish rave reviews on equipment that would seem to be popular with their reader base otherwise they will alienate them.

[Neil McCauley]

Damn!.... 'Rumbled' again! ;)

No, you're right. I don't think theres that much 'crap' out there, at least not among the type of equipment submitted to an audio magazine for serious review. But I AM serious about not being interested, beyond occasional amusement, in reading about gear that's of poor performance. I'd like to think that gear that makes it into a magazine (that I'm paying for!) is at least of a standard that is worthy of me potentially spending my money on.

.

Funny that. I'd like to think it too. Ho hum.

[Neil McCauley]

!

As well as the reasons that you are hinting at another possibility is that they have to publish rave reviews on equipment that would seem to be popular with their reader base otherwise they will alienate them.

Yes, this is I believe true, but not necessarily for the obvious reasons. It's curious phenomenon, well known in advertising agencies and brand management organisations that a person who owns an item from a well known brand (in any walk of life i.e not just audio) needs to see that brand publicised purely and simply to maintain the brand value in their own minds.

Or put differently, the quality of the products must be good - but cannot in isolation be a substitute for reinforcing brand awareness.

One example from many is BMW in the 1980s spending on double page ads in the Sunday colour supplements advertising the then all new 7-series - despite the fact there was a waiting list. Curious about this, I asked the BMW brand manager. He pointed out that the value and prestige of the brand (note; not the car!) would dilute if despite owning one they didn't see continual exposure - to reinforce the validity of their buying decision.

It was lost on me. I bought a 850Csi - reasoning I didn't want to be seen in a glorified taxi i.e 735 or 740

---//--

[Mike]

Funny that. I'd like to think it too. Ho hum.

Eeh!... you are a cynical one aren't you! ;)

Keep it up!

I was also suckered into the BMW thing back in the 90's! :scratch:

I went from a 320 Coupe, to a 520I SE, to a M5, in less than a year. Bugger! :doh: