SBAF free advertising for Massdrop?

Undoubtedly, the recent events with the RDAC are controversial for a variety of reasons. Pushing aside possible sketchiness in the design of the RDAC for a moment, the rapid-fire glowing reviews that popped up in quick succession also raises another issue: have we become (or have we been for a long time) free advertisement for Massdrop?

Marv mentioned not being aware that other planned reviews would happen after his, and I don't doubt that he didn't know. But that raises another question, which is, did business and friendship bump donuts to create a manipulative offspring? Because from afar, it looks like people's intentions to help were taken advantage of, which resulted in a string of positive reviews that felt much more like advertisement at the right time to open wallets and fuel the drop that was about to go live. I'm sure Marv and others aren't blatantly lying in their write-ups, and I'm sure they like free trinkets and toys just as much as the next excited boy or girl, but Massdrop aren't even sponsors of the site. So much for friendship, or rather, mixing business with friendship unilaterally.

So what drives this kind of hype man behavior? Do we just really really ridiculously love writing long posts reviewing a product, do we just have really low self-esteem, or a pathological need for love and attention, or the need to feel important by receiving super-top-secret gear to review? If the willingness to accept these requests and help out friends isn't going to change, as this has been going on for some time now, then perhaps sbaf should also benefit from such beneficence (beyond the toy or two that a friendly reviewer gets to hang onto). Would be interesting to see Massdrop become sponsors of the site, which would allow for more gear in the loaner program, to maintain site fees, and even partially fund meets rather than have to ask for donations at the door from sbaf friends. In other words, we can draw inspiration from the successful business model implemented for millennia by the call girls of the night.

As I see it, sbaf has already been providing free reviews to friendly companies, and presumably that wouldn't change by having those folks sponsor the site. At least then we'd have --ironically-- some more explicit/official transparency about how/where/why these reviews came about. People should always take other people's impressions with a grain of salt as nothing beats first hand experience yada yada, but especially so if impressions are about sponsored gear.

 

Considering that the RDAC thread also has a lot of comments in favor of the Hibiki DAC creator, which makes Massdrop/Airist look bad, I wouldn't exactly call it (positive) advertising for Massdrop.

But like I believe @purr1n has said before, ANY manufacturer can send their stuff to him or other prominent members for review. Just most of them fear the backlash. Are we also free advertising for Leptoni? or Campfire Audio?

 

@Cspirou I'm referring to the suspicious and bizarre manner in which the reviews for the rdac appeared. When reviews take on a strategic flavor I tend to think it's more than just manufacturers sending a unit for feedback or visibility (like leptoni as a recent instance of that).

And the fact that the thread took on a different flavor when the hibiki stuff came to light doesn't change the initial motivation or intention from massdrop, getting dacs in the hands of a few members and asking that they "unveil" these positive impressions right in time for a drop to go live.

In other words, intention and timing matter a whole lot. And about campfire, even though many here like the Andromeda (and expressing people's experiences with it who purchase it or are on a loaner is a different matter entirely) -- many people also disfavored many of campfires other offerings (because even a broken clock is right twice a day).

 

My question is what do we have to do to get some 2-channel gear manufacturers giving SBAF the winkey eye?

 

On a more serious note, this seems merely like well-coordinated PR, not anything suspicious. It's why they have press embargos: so there's a coordinated rush of (hopefully positive) press that shows up across multiple channels/properties and not-coincidentally right at product release too. I don't disagree about the sponsorship stuff, just sayin' this is pretty standard practice for product releases.

 

Oh I just assumed that reviews couldn't come out because of some embargo of mentioning the product before it's formally announced. Which would make some sense that reviews all came out at the same time. I agree this can look a bit manufactured.

edit: @philipmorgan said it better

 

Massdrop relies heavily on hype and FOMO. Limited unit release at 0600 etc. They broke the internet selling a dark blue HD650! A lot of products are pre production with long lead times, so people can’t just listen and form their own opinion (like they can with the Leptoni loaner, or by dropping into a CFA dealer). So yeah, at times it seems like SBAF is part of this hype machine. Receiving sponsorship or money for this arrangement would definitely be interpreted in a negative light (for both parties).

 

I’m unsure what was required from SBAF members when the review units were sent out but from my experience, which is minimal, it’s usually requested for the reviewer to keep mum about the product until it’s announced for release/purchase.

From my point of view, the reviews could of all painted the RDAC in a terrible light. I’ve been reading this forum for around two years and most of you guys don’t sugar coat anything. Hell, you guys can be quite savage to a point. I trust reviews from Torq, AtomicBob, CSpirou, Gbeast etc. I may not whole heartedly agree with all of them but I’ve expected SBAF Friends to always voice their opinions with as little bias as possible.

I can see how being new on this forum the optics may not have looked great. The RDAC is released and you have a battery of posts of how wonderful it is for the price. As you said, I think being transparent about the release date for the reviews and what was possibly asked could go a long way. We don’t need every minute detail but a small tl;dr.

 

Totally man, and that's my only point. Not saying anything more nefarious is going on, but let's call a spade a spade. Seems like if sbaf is going to be used as a platform for that, for which massdrop will undoubtedly benefit, then it should go both ways.

 

Not sure I agree since the same behavior is already going on, sans the sponsorship. It would make explicit and visible what is already transpiring. That's just my $.02.

 

I don't think any product should be reviewed that hasn't been out at least a year, and preferably a decade.

 

At present there aren’t any ‘transactions’ occurring to obtain the reviews though, right? Pre production units are returned to MD? In that case, impressions are simply impressions (no matter how they are integrated into the MD hype machine). Once money or another exchange occurs it could only undermine the impartiality of the review.

 

I'd like to think that SBAF might be in a position to ask for ad-less sponsorship from friendly MOT's such as Massdrop. Basically, no public facing ads on the site, because we all hate those. Instead, the small but influential group of reviewers that intend to post their thoughts (positive or otherwise) on SBAF request that an optional donation be made to the loaner program or other costs of the site BEFORE a review goes up. I'm also assuming such donations are on public record, so it's all good there.

It doesn't seem like a big ask and gives to the whole community here, avoiding the cultivation of an island of self-seeking shills (HF). Otherwise, what a terrible one-way street - Massdrop making slap your momma money on nearly free/beer publicity - and SBAF having to beg from lowlife, poor contributors off the street (like myself).

 

I think it looks worse if Massdrop is sponsor. I know this site will never shill to the same degree as Ad-fi, but if SBAF is getting money from Massdrop I would have some doubt about reviews of gear from them. Personally, I'd probably just stop reading any reviews of Massdrop gear here.

I don't mind loaner gear for reviews, but I think reviewers keeping gear is problematic. Free gear is a form of payment.

The best thing about this site is its willingness to shit on bad products. I'm not sure that can be maintained in a sponsorship relationship.

 

I think @brencho may have a point, but to play devil's advocate, couldn't that same strategy go horribly wrong?

Massdrop seems to be trying to coordinate reviews for the best possible 'drop', but unless @purr1n @Hands and @Torq are going to pull their punches, which seems highly unlikely to me, if the product ain't worth it they're going to say so in spades.

By the same token, if Massdrop were a site sponsor, what would happen if it was the second coming of the Singularity 19? Would they still scathe Massdrop's reputation, or be more likely to pull punches? Or worse withhold opinions?

It seems to me that many here place a high value on cost to performance ratio (myself included) and I think that's all that this reflects.

 

This is quite a thorny issue. As I understand it, it sometimes is much more than organizing a few reviews to coincide with a product release or a Massdrop. Folks here are used as alpha & beta testers, and their feedback influences the final production release.
That has some significant benefits - if you trust the tastes/preferences of the Few who participate in this way, and the manufacturer has followed their recommendations as confirmed by positive reviews, you already have a pretty good idea whether said product will please you or not. That can be important, say, in deciding whether to join a drop or a Kickstarter or whatever that has a limited window in time.

Anyone care to guesstimate how many products that get a lot of discussion here have some design decisions that were influenced here? It's going on right now with Verum, as an example. Again, that's good if you feel better that folks you trust are helping shape the performance.

But let's face it, it can look a bit like an echo chamber to those outside SBAF.
Taking sponsorship money makes it look even more incestuous to an outsider; maybe even to some members.
I have no answers, but having Schiit as a sponsor raises eyebrows, and Massdrop would raise even more.

 

I think @brencho's original point - about "free advertising" and SBAF getting no reciprocation (transparent or otherwise) is an interesting one. There are lots of subtle, and some not-so-subtle considerations in that, that are worthy of independent discussion/consideration.

However, I also think it's clouded by conflating that point with the "soft allegations" that something other than a standard press/review embargo is at work with regard to:

Might be better to tackle those issues separately.

Just a thought.

---

On the RDAC specifically, while I cannot speak for anyone else (and didn't know who else had gotten pre-production units to listen to), and in case it's not clear from my review, I will explicitly say the following:

• There are no "free toys" here.
• My pre-production RDAC is going back to Massdrop.
• I joined the drop for the production version, when it went live, at full price, like everyone else that was interested.
• My SOLE advantage in that was that I'd heard the thing (and possibly that my feedback improved the prototype).

I'm not friends with anyone at Massdrop or the inner-circle at SBAF (nor am I a part of that "inner circle", despite the assumptions sometimes voiced in PMs).

I don't do "reviews as favors". I don't accept free gear, "industry accommodations" (discounts), or any other incentive for posting reviews or impressions. Not from Massdrop or anyone else.
If anyone is ever stupid enough to ask for that, there'll be a post about it in BIG FUCKING LETTERS about 15 seconds later. And if a site, or it's operators, is/are expecting bias in my posts as a result of them accepting sponsorship for/against any vendor, I simply won't post there.

 

It's still a paid review. Is Massdrop going to pay for less than favourable reviews?

Throw those reviews in sponsored/paid review subforum so readers can easily avoid them if they want.

 

As someone with a teensy bit of background in marketing, I have to say that I truly admire Massdrop's ability to present such a good face to end-consumers, never mind what happens behind the curtain. Putting troubles currently plaguing them aside, they do have something of a dedicated fanbase (myself included, but I'm trying to shove that down).

+1 @philipmorgan, I see nothing at all wrong with sending review units out to various people and then bidding them to hold off publishing their impressions before X date; rather, that's the absolute least you should expect of any manufacturer who has the tiniest bit of ad savvy, especially when they've access to people who've inspired trust in a great many people as the "DAC Triumvirate". Ethical? Coin toss, phase of the Calypso relative to Pluto, and temperament of a horse standing three feet from a sacred tree anointed with Mother Theresa's blood; Illegal? Nope.

Frankly, basically every MD X Someone product reviewed here seems to be positive. I don't doubt that @Will and @CEE TEE have great ears and know how to tune their products well (the collab story behind the TH-X00, which I f'ing love, is proof of that), but you'd be careless to miss that SBAF doesn't have a review of every MD X Someone collab; how many of those flops have been documented here, if any? Also, I remember @purr1n is quoted on the drop page as saying he'd take the EDC3 over some $1500 IEMs, including a link to the OP on SBAF. It's taken out of context (i.e. what he likes and doesn't like, in what particular ways they were exceptional, etc.) and kinda reads like that surprising JK Rowling endorsement of Darren Shan's Cirque du Freak series.

The Triumvirate (if that name gets annoying I'll drop it) does not have similar taste in gear, not really, so to have released something loved by all three of em is no mean feat and is worthy of praise (provided they were truly in the dark about Airist's "creative process"— benefit of the doubt). True, they could just be suffering from new toy syndrome exacerbated by the knowledge that they were trusted to be given access to an upcoming product and have the ability to influence public perception thereof, but I'm pretty sure that the three involved are WAAAAAAAY past the point of being taken in by new toys! Besides, it's been repeated many times on here that any impressions from anyone else other than yourself should be taken with a massive chunk of Himalayan pink. Most of the people on here are adults (I think? I sure f'ing hope so) and should know that the only way to know with 100% certainty whether or not a product is for them is to buy the damn thing, or loan it, and use it for long enough that they learn whether or not they can live with it.

As for SBAF appearing to run incessant ads for MD gear, what then? Do senior members ask them to invest loads of money into a partnership with a reputable manufacturer, come out with something on the higher-ish end for their target audience, say high 3-digits USD, that's designed to sound like poop, and loan it to SBAF just so we can lambaste it? I don't see that as a viable option for anyone. If something is good and works well, people should be honest about it.

 

I was wrestling with this also. Maybe the solution is that manufacturers aren't paying for final reviews, they're paying for the feedback from alpha or beta testing. Donations made as @Soups suggested, no ads on the site.

If the manufacturer trusts their judgement and modifies accordingly, they have a reasonable expectation that the production review will be positive. But no guarantees if they ignore or decide on a last-minute cost reduction.