But how would the magazine maintain a shred of credibility ,surely it becomes nothing more than advertorial? Keith.
It needs to be done with a few companies owning the mag, and none of the writers must write for there respective companies. You will also need a C.E.O. with absolute powers and no connections to any of the mag/company to referee the magazine and invite the public to write. It would also need a DIY section so it teaches skills and shortcut to the reader.
If the mag in question became a biased advertorial tool, it would be clear pretty quickly. Those who continued to buy it would do so because they wanted to and were happy with it.
The concept could work acceptably, if, as Col says, there is firewalled editorial independence.
Either way, many wouldn't want to read it anyway, and those who did would have a right to make up their own mind what they read.
If the mag in question became a biased advertorial tool, it would be clear pretty quickly. Those who continued to buy it would do so because they wanted to and were happy with it.
The concept could work acceptably, if, as Col says, there is firewalled editorial independence.
Either way, many wouldn't want to read it anyway, and those who did would have a right to make up their own mind what they read.
If it already exists, then we should be able to name it, by that argument.
I'd be very dubious about the practicality of editorial independence.
That's probably the nub of it Dave, I think to an extent, the editorial team would need to operate in the public's view, maybe via a forum presence. Only by interacting with the readership directly could customers be equipped to make up their mind.
It's all sounding like more trouble than it's worth, isn't it!
If a mag is already being funded by a manufacturer, or distributor, is it a clumsy business decision? - Or a conspiracy to deceive the innocent HiFi buying sheep of this land? Is it intentional, pre-meditated corruption, or is it survival?
I would imagine that anyone with the mental capacity to do so would take with a pinch of salt anything said by any magazine that is to some extent funded by advertising. This doesn't mean zero credibility, but it does mean less than 100%. But tbh this applies to most things said by most people most of the time. We all suffer vested interests of one sort or another, even if they are more ego based rather that formal sponsorship arrangements. Please read...
You'll never believe a word you say, nor a thought you think again.
Most magazines couldn't exist without advert space being sold to hifi companies as well as income from readership numbers so in a sense, the hifi mags are already being sponsored by hifi companies. Its been going on for years. Nothing unusual in that except where the magazine has more than an "advertorial" stake in promoting specific goods.
You rarely read poor reviews because magazines do not like publishing the negative, partly because of what it could do to a business (especially a small business) and partly because they know they could have "sponsorship" withdrawn. Again, nothing new in that because the argument goes if something isn't worthy of a review, then it's what's not said that speaks volumes rather than what is, or so we might be led to believe. The reviews published are meant to somehow give a cross section of the good kit which is worthy of shortlisting in the various price and type categories.
All sounds reasonable until you realise that many small companies cannot afford to take out repeated adverts in major magazines, and major magazines often have little interest or motivation in reviewing anything from a cottage industry...they do prefer the bigger well known brand names. I was fortunate in getting some of my kit reviewed and that at least shows that some magazines are willing to give the struggling UK cottage industries a second look where the products are perhaps worthy of it.
There has been corruption in the industry, and a lot of it is well known and not confined to magazines.
Back to the OP. Would you still believe what was written? I think that reviews generally are nothing more than one individual's take on something so belief is dependant upon your view of that particular journalist. The annoying thing is to see the same things over-hyped again and again and this is what puts many people off from buying magazines. Few magazines now publish full technical tests alongside the subjective tests, where as much credence is lent to lab tests as to a journalistic take on things. However, given the OP's question, the more sinister aspect of (I think) the implications of distributors or manufacturers having a controlling stake in a publication is the extent to which this will affect the range of articles and kit.
For example, a repeated series of articles could be branding the latest digital gismo as the next best thing to the exclusion of everything else, in a cynical attempt to steer the buying public into investing into a fad which is nothing more than a profit driven exercise. Those with a modicom of intelligence or experience should be able to see through such things. The unwary can be influenced but lets face it, such behaviour would only be targeting a tiny percentage of the main buying demographic which is the youngsters who cant afford to spend thousands. It's already happened with loads of portable media. It took off not because it was any good (MP3 quality is generally crap despite the cries of protest that well done, its acceptable...it isn't and never will be for high fidelity). It took off because a handful of very wealthy marketeers made from the manufacturers did a great and sustained sales job on the most influential demographic to sell convenient and very cheap-to-produce kit which complemented modern lifestyle. It's good at what it does but the full fat versions (of which remarkably there's just 3 manufacturers selling in the UK at present full hi-rez portable players) are better and the technology's been around for ages, so what gives?
Could the same happen at the "high end" of things where the small percentage of richer 40 somethings are targeted by those who may or may not have controlling stakes in magazines? Not to the same extent, but the implications are that all that glitters is rarely gold and there's remarkably little new under the sun in high fidelity playback. Fashion and convenience aside.
I think we already have sponsored magazines since all take advertising.
So long as you read them with an awareness of the potential pitfalls it's fine IME.
It's been many a year since I read magazines with any interest in the review comments. These days I read them for the tests, news, vintage stuff and general contributor opinion.
Comments
Keith.
To what extent "sponsoring / financing"?
Keith.
I know I'm often confused, but I have no idea what's happening here.
The concept could work acceptably, if, as Col says, there is firewalled editorial independence.
Either way, many wouldn't want to read it anyway, and those who did would have a right to make up their own mind what they read.
It's all sounding like more trouble than it's worth, isn't it!
If a mag is already being funded by a manufacturer, or distributor, is it a clumsy business decision? - Or a conspiracy to deceive the innocent HiFi buying sheep of this land? Is it intentional, pre-meditated corruption, or is it survival?
In other words, would it matter?
But tbh this applies to most things said by most people most of the time. We all suffer vested interests of one sort or another, even if they are more ego based rather that formal sponsorship arrangements. Please read...
You'll never believe a word you say, nor a thought you think again.