Hi-Fi Magazine Ethics

[Marco]

I'm astounded HFW would be using a dealer (especialy the one in question). Apart from the risk of pushing his own products his industry experience and knowledge of alternatives out there is limited compared with the average specialist journalist.

+1. I completely agree, Paul.

When chatting about hi-fi to Dave Cawley, it always struck me how little he knew about the subject, out with of the mainstream and items in his own product range. He's a 'chancer', pure and simple, and exists simply to line his pockets and make a fast buck, grabbing any opportunities he can to do precisely that, and the HFW thing is a perfect case in point.

The reality is that DC is much more interested in measuring equipment (to the extent of his limited ability) in his kid-on 'lab', full of largely outdated and sonically irrelevant test apparatus, which he makes sure that everyone visiting him sees, in order to portray the image of a 'technical guru', to give himself (and his views on audio) some credibility amongst the gullible, impressed by this facade, than actually listening to equipment properly. The truth is that he's a sales and marketing man, first and foremost, and a rather unscrupulous one at that, as we all know now, after the Mike New T/T bearings debacle.

What's happened here, and I've witnessed this first hand, is that Cawley cosies up to Noel Keywood at hi-fi shows (during meetings of the trade there), trying to 'impress' him, in order to seek opportunities to further the financial interests of his business, and this new 'consultancy' position with HFW, has clearly arisen from those cosy little chats, and the return sessions at his place in Dartmouth, where editors and owners of hi-fi magazines are given the 'VIP treatment'.

Honestly, watch him in action at the forthcoming show at Whittlebury, and you'll see exactly what I mean... It's comical!

Returning to the main thread topic, magazines should not be allowing dealers to give readers advice, based on said dealer's bias towards promoting his own product range, especially a profit-driven parasite like Cawley! It is both unethical, smacks of 'jobs for the boys', and worst of all, 90% of the time will lead those writing into the magazine down a path tailored to meet the best needs of the dealer offering the 'advice', rather than the best needs of the readers making the enquiry.

It's self-serving and (virtually worthless, to the reader) bullshite.

Marco.

[freefallrob]

I read this the other day, and had to do a 'double take' when I saw it was signed by Sound Hifi, I thought it was unusual at best, disappointing at the worst.

[chelsea]

I wish i could give a toss....but i don't.

[synsei]

I've not bought a HiFi rag since Practical HiFi folded all those years ago. Frankly it was the only rag which dealt with the scene that I really got on with...

[YNWaN]

I wish i could give a toss....but i don't.

Well I haven't bought said magazine in many years - I don't see that situation changing.

[Audioman]

+1. I completely agree, Paul.

It's self-serving and (virtually worthless, to the reader) bullshite.

Marco.

Furthermore Sound Hi-Fi barely has a credible range of products in their portfolio these days. Not somewhere one would go to audition and compare the alternatives available. There are plenty of dealers who do attempt to stock a wide product range that at least could be more objective.

While I think Noel has made a large error of judgement here I have no objection to dealer visit articles in which they highlight their recommended systems. These are obviously part advertising but can be usefull to readers in discovering what is available. Unfortunatey I end up gobbsmacked at the prices of some of the hi end systems that get featured.

[Macca]

I agree that any magazine that wishes to remain impartial cannot farm out reader enquiries to a dealer, no matter who it is. The whole point of consulting a mag rather than a dealer is to get advice that is unsullied by the desire to make profit. HFW is on a slide downhill that, in fairness, commenced prior to DP leaving. The strength of the mag used to be the DIY, the legacy articles and the standard/entertainment level of the reviews. Now DP and Adam have left that leaves NK as the only staffer able to write a review that does not send me to sleep within the first para.

[Marco]

Furthermore Sound Hi-Fi barely has a credible range of products in their portfolio these days. Not somewhere one would go to audition and compare the alternatives available. There are plenty of dealers who do attempt to stock a wide product range that at least could be more objective.

Absolutely!

DC only stocks kit that gives him a (very healthy) margin, hence his love affair with SME, Marantz, Audio Technica, Black Rhodium cables, etc. Being objective, in the sense of offering customers REAL choice, doesn't come into it, which is why his 'consultancy' role on HFW is a joke!

Marco.

[DSJR]

Ummm, I didn't think SME gives a huge margin, despite their high prices, but you may know better since I was never a huge dealer for them..

HiFi mags used to bring dealers into recommendations, but made it a "feature," rather than playing it down. I used to write a few "answers" for HiFi Answers back in the day (late 70's) and got paid well for a "Setting up a TD160" article I remember (I did set up rather a lot back then). I couldn't type at all then and my hand written sheets had to be submitted for typing up, not an ideal for them.

[The Grand Wazoo]

I'd prefer this thread to move back to the question of ethical integrity of magazines - I never intended it to be a vehicle to discuss the dealer in question. As I said before, I've come to expect dealers to do whatever it takes to worm another sale out of us in any way that they can. However, I don't expect a magazine to feed that trait through their editorial content.