Shilling in Social Media and Ambiguity in Trade Rags

Back before the youtube review boom and before everybody could hack together a website, I used to post a ton of reviews and comparisons on head-fi. I was prolific enough that a few companies started reaching out to me to send me gear. Everything from $10 iems to $2k dacs. And y'know, when one company sends you a few items that you kinda like, your disposition towards them improves, and your reviews become more favourable, and then they send you more stuff, and the cycle repeats. Until one day one piece of gear just doesn't sit right, and being the honest bloke that you are you say what you think but it goes through an "internal audit" before publishing, and then they ask you to tweak a few things, no big deal right? Just omit a few words, rephrase one or two things, done. Then the next time it's maybe don't say this thing, and can I take a few more pictures? And then the time after that hey can you mention this thing that's in our ad copy? Until one day you say y'know, to be honest I think I just can't review this piece of gear, and they say we understand, thank you for your honesty, and suddenly you never get any new toys from them again.

Now, I wasn't monetizing any of those reviews back in the day, but if I had an income stream dependent on getting new toys to publish with, well...

 

I dunno what is worse.....social media assholes or being a Stereophile asshole who is proud of paying six figures into a setup where they can't hear above 8khz anymore with multiple super tweeters and tell others cashing out your retirement is the only way for success.

 

Watch when they are moving over to TikTok. We can do an audio review in 30 second short video.

YouTubes often shill stuff regardless of audio, it's a plague in any overpriced hobby sadly.

 

I'm ignorant of traditional hi-fi publications outside of some of the harder ones to ignore since I got into the hobby in the late aughts/early 2010s but does that table say "positive feedback"? I'm guessing that's a hi-fi mag but the jokes just write themselves.

Because I have kid sisters (well the youngest are in med school but they're kids as far as I'm concerned) I end up vaguely aware of that platform despite me thinking it's nothing but deleterious; those 30 second reviews already exist, have LOTS of impressions, and are almost categorically horrible with respect to generating anything actually useful.

I refuse to touch TikTok with a 10 ft pole so will be letting crin filter that out:



EDIT:

This is a reference to an interaction from when I was still new to the forum (heck I STILL think I'm a noob all things considered, but the sentiment stands), but while your lungs may be shot to hell I don't think any of the members here are really "old", cuz there's a connotation of stagnation there. Sure a lot of the more treasured folk on here are retired or nearing it, but all of you still have heart. That counts for a lot.

 

This is why I go to imdb and not rotten tomatoes if I wanna know what the true consensus on a movie or show is. Although both sites are filled with biased morons, imdb people have no vested interest in the outcome, so can speak freely.

The REVIEW MACHINE is a thing, and was bought and paid for a long time ago. Movie studios and gear manufacturers can't afford to let people express their true feelings (unless its overwhelmingly positive), because there's too much money on the line. But it's alot more shady with manufacturers because people have to live with the gear they buy and alot of that shit isn't cheap... a movie or show only takes an hour or two of your life and only costs as much as a decent six pack.

Movie critics remain shills because they may not get flown out to the premieres and receive those delectable gift baskets and get to sit in a room with Tom Cruise and Scarlett Johansson and ask questions. Film criticism used to be a legit art form, because back in the day (pre-80s) studios were competing for who had the best movies, because the best movies often made the most money. Now it's the inverse... garbage sells... and the bigger, louder and more infantile it is, the more it sells. Studios compete for capital now, not coolness. Can you imagine studios valuing quality over explosions? It used to be like that. Sounds like science fiction now.

 

Siskel & Ebert

 

I know you merely tolerate me around here, Marv, but thank you for this commitment. Seriously, thank you for genuinely wanting to help. I, too, at some point thought stuff like Stereophile had all the answers and I'm very grateful I hopped off that merry-go-round cause I was poor and could only afford PSB Alphas, and a what a world of difference it would have made if I'd had the influence of an (older) salty, mostly pessimistic audio tutor. I can easily block out about ten years of this hobby (for me) lost to failing to question authority and to trust my own ears.

 

BUT I PAID MONEY INTO IT!!!!!! I NEED 75% OF A NORMAL PAYCHECK AFTER PUTTING LESS THAN 10% OF MY PAYCHECKS INTO THE SYSTEM!!!!!!!!!

Seriously, cut everyone a check for the amount they put in plus either average interest or SP500 yields compounded over a given time period every time period someone paid in and close the whole thing down. Less if you have no proven history of being able to make sensible investments, more if you're a brilliant investor I guess.

but MUH VOTES!!! will be the next thing we hear and it will never get fixed.

 

More seriously now, isn't it like this for most consumer anything now? Even most search engines, including Google, Bing, or whatever other big ones, are all kind of crappy now, probably to help someone somewhere make money. Feel like it's almost a waste of time to try to figure this type of stuff out before hand now, at least most of the time.

It's why for audio stuff I either just go listen myself now or will read on SBAF and occasionally other forums (as a lurker) about stuff instead now. Most people here that I have mentally pinned for reviews don't seem to mind saying the good with the bad, saying when they messed up, etc. Or, if I see 30 pages appear relatively quickly in a thread... probably not by accident, even if it's not for me.

For some stuff, if I care enough and it's cheap enough, then I just buy whatever, try "enough" variety, and stick with the ones I liked. If it's more expensive, it's still gotten to the point where it's more time effective and frequently cheaper, to build a per-cursory understanding of "whats going on here" and then just buy using an educated guess based on what I assume I'll want. Only works if I don't mind admitting when I'm wrong to myself though.

 

Hello?

And I don't think I'm the oldest, even. Although I might be the most stagnant.

OK ok, I admit that. It still works. Better than my ears.

I did love Stereophile back in the pre-internet, real magazine days. Daydreams for an ORFAS with no money!

Honestly, though, it was not all orfas stuff. They did recommendation lists (probably still do) split into levels. The top A items, though, would have been very expensive. I actually have one in my museum cupboard: a pre-amp, bought for a $couple'o'hundred. New, >20 years previously, it had been $1,000. A lot of money back then.

 

That’s because PBS was supported by viewers like you (us) and they can afford to to tell it like they please.

I think these days PBS is careful not to tick off their sponsors.

 

I've been on both sides of the trenches - PR for audio companies, audio reviewing for media and the wildcard - audio reviewing whilst working for a non-competing audio brand. By far the biggest creative freedom I've had was when I was doing the Sonarworks headphone review blog. The company would buy me whatever I found relevant for the reader, there was no ad-revenue pressure and I didn't have to suck up to any PR people. And I had a pretty decent measurement team providing me with data.

Now I'm writing articles for Headphonesty and it's a completely different ballgame. Maintaining relations with company PR reps is a real thing. If I want to get what I want to review, there's a good chance that I will have to take some of the more boring items as well. I am grateful that Headphonesty pays for my time, however for the same amount of text I'd prolly charge 5x that to any other client. Having my hands free is nice but I couldn't support myself or my family by just reviewing stuff.

So we come to the crux of the issue... Who pays for the reviews? Writing for the reader's benefit only works if the reader pays for the content. Or it's moral gymnastics.

Extra points:

- It seems like written reviews are going the way of the dodo. If you're depending on SEO to generate traffic, you must have video. YT, TikTok and Insta shorts are a must to get extra referral traffic.

- There are audio companies that can take 2-star reviews and still be friendly with you. Then there are brands who will want to control every aspect of the review process and throw a hissy fit if my rating is less than 5 stars. Obviously I'm either deaf or have misunderstood the deeper meaning that's imbued in their unique product. I give 4 stars to great products, 4.5-stars to outstanding products and 5-stars are reserved for once-in-a-blue-moon anomalies that defy performance expectations irrespective of price.

- What really grinds my gears is when reviewers are clueless and will brag about it. I know that the age of Amazon reviews have brought in the "people's reviewer" who is a regular joe just like you. Anyone can review stuff as long as they can feel something about the product and put their feelings on paper or film with some measure of eloquence. And here's the kicker - I blame the expert reviewers for that!

 

I think reviewers are quite smart, reviewers tongue and all. Some will just have more self control and calmness to themselves.
Most readers read what they want to read, not what is written.
My favorite written review is this one by Herb at stereophile. It is one of the most negative reviews I have ever read. I get a sense he didn’t want to listen anymore.