Because I care (and I know you do too…) Suggestions for the HC powers that be...

[Anderton]

Craig said he likes to review gear that he is interested in because it would be a waste of time to review something he didn`t use.

 

Quote me correctly or at least paraphrase me correctly. That's not what I said. This discussion would have greatly validity if you read what I wrote.

 

I`ll give you an example… I pre-ordered the Prophet 6. I`m really psyched about it. If I were to review it, I can see myself being a bit bias towards liking it more than someone who has no interest in purchasing it but still has some knowledge of keyboards. I would not be the ideal person to review it. However, on the other hand, I really have no interest in the new Korg Kronos but I appreciate what it does. I would probably be a very good candidate to review it because I would have a very objective POV. I don`t pre-like it or pre-dislike it. Does that make any sense?

 

It makes sense if you have not spent years developing the skills needed to be objective. You are not being objective in either case. And you might be the ideal person to review something you thought you'd like but ended up not liking (it's happened to me) because you can point out how people's expectations will or will not be met. And you might end up falling in love the Korg Kronos, and write a gushing review because it exceeded your expectations.

 

Reviewing is a skill. Or at least it should be. It's not about saying "I like this" or "I don't like this." Who cares what I think? What they care about is my ability to do an objective analysis that provides them with information they need. That's why whenever possible I ran my own specs rather than cut and paste those from the manufacturer's web site. Like the time I measured the "+48V phantom power" quoted on a manufacturer's web site (and repeated through multiple cut and pastes on the web) and it was +34V. Would you have found that out from user reviews? From a review on an online retailer's site? Do you take a voltmeter and measure the actual phantom power? Do you measure crosstalk at 15kHz instead of just paying attention to the best case spec at 500 Hz given by the manufacturer and parroted by "reviewers" who don't know how to test for crosstalk? I doubt it. That's why what reviewers do is not a waste of time, at least for those who bother to read reviews written by people who've proven over decades that they do their homework..

 

It's clear from your statements that you read what I write through a filter so it's entirely possible you do that with more than just my writing. For example you believe I said "it would be a waste of time to review something didn't use." That is not what I said, but you somehow believe that's what I said. So, you would make a lousy reviewer because you would not be able to sweep your prejudices aside and maintain a sense of objectivity as you did your work,

 

A good reviewer learns/knows how to be impartial. A judge may not like the way a defendant looks or the way a lawyer conducts himself in court, but examines the evidence and listens objectively to the arguments presented by both sides. That's what a good reviewer does, and was the goal I always tried to attain. And not co-incidentally, the HC Pro Reviews presented the evidence, followed by arguments from both sides and cross-examination by the jury itself. Most people had enough of a clue to realize that represented a set a pretty high standard for reviews...one that unfortunately you never experienced, or your opinion about the potential of reviews might be different.

[Ernest Buckley]

I've sometimes been asked why my reviews were generally positive (although if there were shortcomings, they were pointed out). Simple: I chose the gear I wanted to review. Think about it for a second. Which scenario is more likely:

 

A) I see a piece of gear at NAMM that looks really cool. I'd love a chance to play with it, if for no other reason than to find out if I want to buy it. So it would be great to do a review.

 

B) I see a piece of gear at NAMM that I don't particularly care for, has no relevance to what I do, and which I think has some problems.

 

If I'm going to spend several weeks of my life getting intimate with a piece of gear, do you think it's more likely I would pick the gear in (A) or (B)?

 

My point is, you chose the gear you want to review which you admit… I put that in red. You already have some bias towards it. I mentioned the Prophet 6 because when I first heard about it from the NAMM coverage I was following, I thought to myself, "I have to get my hands on it." Thats probably similar to what you said in (A) above. If I were reviewing the Prophet 6, I would want to like it.

 

This is what I`m talking about. That premature bias to a product before you even review it.

 

Now, another topic… isn`t there a chance that a reviewer who has received "special treatment" from a manufacturer will favor that gear in their reviews?

 

 

 

 

 

[UstadKhanAli]

Wouldn't you have premature bias with something you have little interest in? You think:

 

"B) I see a piece of gear at NAMM that I don't particularly care for, has no relevance to what I do, and which I think has some problems."

 

So what we have here is bias no matter what.

 

That must be where the skill as a reviewer comes in.

 

Are we ever going to acknowledge that?

 

 

 

[Anderton]

 

My point is, you chose the gear you want to review which you admit… I put that in red. You already have some bias towards it.

 

Ernest, if you had any interest in an actual discussion, instead of trying to "prove" some speculative fantasy based on selective quotations, you would have asked "What are the criteria by which you choose a product?" What causes you to be interested in a product?" Note that I said IF FOR NO OTHER REASON. (Maybe putting things in red will get you to read them.) That means there are many reasons for choosing gear, like because I thought readers would want to read about it. Or because Phil said "Hey, there's a new soft synth in booth XYZ." Or because a company sent me on a week-long vacation to their mansion in Kauna on their private jet, and both Heather and Trixie met me at the airport with a bottle of Chateauneuf du Pape. That kind of thing happens all the time in the MI industry. Yes Ernest, you sure nailed me there.

 

BUT - AND THIS IS THE LAST TIME I'LL SAY IT - IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT I THINK GOING INTO A REVIEW. ALL THAT MATTERS IS WHAT I THINK AFTER DOING THE REVIEW. There is a part in reviews called "Conclusions." It's defined as "a judgment or decision reached by reasoning."

 

Let that sink in.

 

IF BY SOME CHANCE I HAD INACCURATE EXPECTATIONS BASED ON INADEQUATE DATA, THE REVIEW PROCESS WILL TAKE CARE OF THAT. Unlike some people, I do not have such a vested interest in any preconceived notions I wouldn't toss them out in a millisecond if presented with data contrary to that notion.

 

Before the Cakewalk acquisition, at every trade show they'd thank me for my support. And at every trade show, I said "If I find something that suits my needs better, I'll drop SONAR in a heartbeat." That was the "special treatment" they got from me. That was the truth.

 

And notice how you slant your language in such a way to expose your own biases. You use the word "admit." Do you know what that means? It means "confess to be true or to be the case, typically with reluctance." Don't keep fabricating. There is no reluctance, I am stating a fact, I have said it before, I have never hidden that fact, and I have no reluctance to shine a light on any part of the process I use to review gear. Goobers thought it was a mistake not to preface every review with a 750 word essay because he felt people didn't bother to read FAQs. I felt if I'd done that, most people would have fallen asleep before they got to the first real post. I believe he is sincere and I believe there's a chance he's right, but I believe that my assessment was correct, which is why I did it .That's a disagreement. He didn't say "Craig, you did that because you're trying to cover up stuff" because he knows that's not true or I wouldn't have put an effing sticky at the top of the forum. I also think that if I had put it in every review, at least some people would have said "Jeez, enough already, you posted about this in a thread before you even started doing pro reviews, you have a 750 word FAQ posted as a sticky, you've mentioned it from time to time in reviews, just start with the effing review."

 

Now, we'll never know which was the correct judgement call, because we can't go back and have a control group. I think the odds are good that the people who would have suspected an unsavory connection between the review and manufacturers covering the cost would have thought so no matter what - you're not alone in your prejudices, Ernest - and those who read a pro review would KNOW it was the ONLY review format that had built in checks and balances to prevent rigging the review in any way whatsoever. If you told them the manufacturer paid to cover the costs, they'd probably say "Yeah, so what? Look at all these people bitching about the Konnekt drivers and the lack of iPB-10 fixes."

 

I'm sorry, but I feel you're exhibiting the very behavior you supposedly condemn - entering a situation with your mind made up, then selectively ignoring data to justify conclusions based on initial biases.

 

And by the way, if I'm editor in chief, then of course I choose the gear to review. Not always, of course; some other editor might have already wanted to assign it. Would you prefer the publisher choose it? An ad sales person? Gear doesn't get choose itself, gear is an inanimate object. It requires a human to choose it. As a reviewer, I am its designated human. Although I also chose gear based on reader requests or overall interest from users. Or if I thought it would sell magazines because it was a hot product. That interests me as well.

 

This is what I`m talking about. That premature bias to a product before you even review it.

 

I don't think you even bothered to read what I wrote about the necessity of impartiality and the need to judge on the evidence. I form my opinion of a piece of gear AFTER reviewing it. That's what good reviewers do. If I said "Hey, this box isn't as heavy as a thought!" when UPS brought me a review unit, I suppose that would represent bias to you.

 

Now, another topic… isn`t there a chance that a reviewer who has received "special treatment" from a manufacturer will favor that gear in their reviews?

 

It depends on the reviewer, doesn't it? Why don't you ask one who does.

 

As I said at the outset, I know there are publications that "pay to play." I guess you didn't bother to read that either.

 

As to special treatment, any honest manufacturer will expect "special treatment" in return - in the form of the truth. If you as a reviewer give favor that's not justified, you are violating the manufacturer's trust as well as the readers'. What if I'd said the gear that was recalled (did you read that part?) was great? Would that have done the manufacturer or readers a favor? NO. If I hadn't mentioned the bugs I found so they could be fixed, would that have done the manufacturers or readers a favor? NO. The TRUTH did them BOTH a favor. It always does.

 

I'll give you another example. MF used to write hands-on reviews that were pure fluff. Jon Chappell was assigned to take them over, and the first thing he said was we couldn't do that, the reviews had to be credible. To their credit, the MF regime at the time was reluctant but agreed. Yes, the reviews pointed out limitations. Manufacturers LOVED them. The usual comment was "These reviews will actually do us some good, they're credible. And we'll have less people returning gear because they'll know what to expect." The truth was successful on all counts. Fluff was unsuccessful on all counts - readers didn't trust it, and it provided no benefit to manufacturers.

 

Oh and by the way, if I consulted to a manufacturer for cash I did not review any of their products again, unless it was clear I would not be doing any consulting for them in the future (e.g., I wrote manuals, but they hired someone to write manuals). Even then, I waited for a year before reviewing anything.

 

You formed all your opinions without knowing how I conducted myself. The people who read my reviews and wrote to me saying the reviews were 100% spot-on didn't need to know how I conducted myself..."by their fruits, ye shall know them."

 

You have data, and you choose to ignore it. That's okay. You are free to believe whatever you want.

 

[MikeRivers]

 

Reviewing is a skill. Or at least it should be. It's not about saying "I like this" or "I don't like this." Who cares what I think? What they care about is my ability to do an objective analysis that provides them with information they need. That's why whenever possible I ran my own specs rather than cut and paste those from the manufacturer's web site. Like the time I measured the "+48V phantom power" quoted on a manufacturer's web site (and repeated through multiple cut and pastes on the web) and it was +34V. Would you have found that out from user reviews? From a review on an online retailer's site? Do you take a voltmeter and measure the actual phantom power? Do you measure crosstalk at 15kHz instead of just paying attention to the best case spec at 500 Hz given by the manufacturer and parroted by "reviewers" who don't know how to test for crosstalk? I doubt it. That's why what reviewers do is not a waste of time, at least for those who bother to read reviews written by people who've proven over decades that they do their homework..

 

There's so much of this nonsense going on, even among "professional" reviewers who I know know better - things written into reviews like "Preamp gain: 60 dBm" (gain is in dB, power is in dBm) or "zero latency DSP mixer." If I want to read the manufactuer's words, I'll go to their web site. Does the review state actual noise output, and not just the EIN quoted from the spec sheet?

 

But then, how many readers really care, or understand what these measurements really mean to them? It's for them that, after measuring the preamp gain or sensitivity of the mic input of an interface, I'll follow it with something like "at maximum gain, speaking in a normal conversational voice six inches away from an SM57 gives record level peaks of around -14 dBFS." Or "Recording a strong singer working close to a U87 required switching in the pad in order to avoid clipping" No real standards there, but it does give the user some inkling of what to expect in actual use.

 

[Goober(s)]

 

Goobers thought it was a mistake not to preface every review with a 750 word essay because he felt people didn't bother to read FAQs. I felt if I'd done that, most people would have fallen asleep before they got to the first real post. I believe he is sincere and I believe there's a chance he's right, but I believe that my assessment was correct, which is why I did it .That's a disagreement. He didn't say "Craig, you did that because you're trying to cover up stuff" because he knows that's not true or I wouldn't have put an effing sticky at the top of the forum. I also think that if I had put it in every review, at least some people would have said "Jeez, enough already, you posted about this in a thread before you even started doing pro reviews, you have a 750 word FAQ posted as a sticky, you've mentioned it from time to time in reviews, just start with the effing review."

 

Actually, we have a bit of a misunderstanding. Absolutely, do NOT put the 750 word FAQ at the beginning of each Pro Review. Totally agree.

 

However, I would put one or two sentences explaining the sponsorship relationship. That's what I believe HC is obligated to clearly disclose at the beginning of each one.

 

In a post above, Mike gave a pretty good short description of Pro Reviews. What I might do is take a couple of his sentences and add the sponsorship sentence from the FAQ (tweak a bit for flow), and consistently post this on one or two lines at the beginning of each Pro Review. Short and sweet, with more info in the FAQ for the 3 people on the planet who read those sort of things.

 

It would look fine, wouldn't bore anyone, and readers would respect the transparency. I think it's win/win

 

 

[Goober(s)]

 

I absolutely do not agree at all, on any level, because the process was made clear before the pro reviews started and addressed in a lengthy FAQ posted as a sticky at the very top of the forum. If there is no financial relationship between the manufacturer and the reviewer then there is no financial relationship to hide. And the "reviewer" consisted of a community of people, not just a forum moderator.

 

Before the pro reviews were started, I started a thread asking the community what they thought of the idea. No one objected because they understood it was an open forum, and manufacturers were paying for bandwidth and a moderator's time. It was also obvious from some of the extremely negative comments (TC Konnekt, anyone? DigiTech iPB-10?) that there was no manufacturer control over content. I didn't see any evidence of cynicism from anyone who actually participated in a pro review because it was all very obvious and out in the open.

 

The FAQ was posted at the top of the forum. It would have been silly to reprint it at the beginning of every single pro review, especially because it was obvious that there was ZERO editorial control being exercised over the content. I've pasted it at the bottom to remind you just how long it was.

 

I felt it would be equivalent to every magazine review starting with "Please note: These reviews are printed on paper and reviewed by editors. Advertising pays for the majority of the paper and editor salary costs" and then continuing with an explanation about how advertising works, how products are selected for review, etc. With Pro Reviews the manufacturer paid for bandwidth and the moderator's time. There was no financial relationship between the other reviewers (i.e., the community) or the content.

 

To say it was sponsored content would be wrong and inaccurate. To say there was a financial relationship between the manufacturer and the content of the pro review would also be wrong. The situation was far more nuanced than that and had checks and balances built in.

 

The only way to explain these nuances was in a lengthy document. There were no parallels that could be drawn to models that existed at the time for reviews, advertorial, or sponsored content.

 

Also I rejected numerous requests for pro reviews. A manufacturer could not "buy their way" into a pro review. I had to feel that it was a worthwhile product for the pro review format, and I personally had to have a generally favorable opinion of it. The last thing I wanted to do was moderate a forum for months about a product I didn't like or didn't care about.

 

 

Adressing a few of your points:

 

- In a Pro Review, the company under review pays money to HC. In your words “The manufacturer sponsors the review for a nominal fee.” This isn’t nuanced, it is simply the financial arrangement that initiates a Pro Review, and ought to be disclosed.

 

- That there is a FAQ is irrelevant for most people, since most people don’t read them, and are surprised that there is a sponsorship relationship.

 

- As for soliciting feedback from the forum, what am I, chopped liver?

 

- As for the idea that it’s silly to post the entire FAQ, agreed. Just post a sentence or two, that’s all that’s needed (as stated above)

 

- As for the notion that it’s equivalent to posting the financial support underlying magazine reviews, it’s different for two reasons:

 

First, people know how magazines work. They understand that magazine earn money from subscriptions and ads. But this is a new format and people don’t yet know how they work, so there's a need for a little extra education at this point.

 

Second, magazines do not take money to initiate reviews (and if they did, readers would want to know about it).

 

- As for the notion that the payment covers bandwidth and moderator time… how HC allocates its budget is irrelevant to readers. The fact that money is exchanged is what ought to be disclosed, as it is in the FAQ. If companies wanted to buy bandwidth, they could buy it cheaper at GoDaddy.

 

 

In any case, I think Pro Reviews are brilliant and there should be more of them. I appreciate the work on Pro Reviews 1.0, and encourage the Powers That Be to consider this additional bit of clarity for Pro Reviews 2.0. It will only make them stronger!

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Phil O'Keefe]

- In a Pro Review, the company under review pays money to HC. In your words “The manufacturer sponsors the review for a nominal fee.” This isn’t nuanced, it is simply the financial arrangement that initiates a Pro Review, and ought to be disclosed.

 

As Craig pointed out, it WAS disclosed, and has been mentioned many, many times when the topic of Pro Reviews was under discussion, as well as in the Pro Review FAQ.

 

The payment purchased access, it did not guarantee a favorable review. That was always made clear to not only the readers, but also to the manufacturers.

[Goober(s)]

- In a Pro Review' date=' the company under review pays money to HC. In your words “The manufacturer sponsors the review for a nominal fee.” This isn’t nuanced, it is simply the financial arrangement that initiates a Pro Review, and ought to be disclosed.[/b']

 

As Craig pointed out, it WAS disclosed, and has been mentioned many, many times when the topic of Pro Reviews was under discussion, as well as in the Pro Review FAQ.

 

 

not good enough.

 

it needs to be disclosed to readers of the Pro Reviews, who typically come from google searches, clearly posted at the beginning of each Pro Review.

 

 

The payment purchased access' date=' it did not guarantee a favorable review. That was always made clear to not only the readers, but also to the manufacturers.[/quote']

 

 

You want people to have faith in your even-handedness, then clearly disclose the sponsorship to all readers.

[MikeRivers]

 

 

not good enough.

 

it needs to be disclosed to readers of the Pro Reviews, who typically come from google searches, clearly posted at the beginning of each Pro Review.

 

That's a problem with a Google search. Sometimes it takes you to the middle of the movie. On the other hand, people who search Google for a product name and come up with the Harmony Central Pro Review probably don't care who paid for having the review published.

 

That's the key that you don't seem to understand, The manufacturer pays a testing lab to get CE certification and the result get published in the form of authorization to use the CE mark on the product. A manufacturer pays Harmony Central to review their product. The result is the publication of the review, good or bad.

 

Most "professonal" reviewers don't write negative reviews. They may point out some things that the manufacturer cold have done better, features that would have been nice to include, or that they couldn't read the display because the characters were too small. Those are the kind of things that are useful both to the reader and the manufacturer.

 

But if it just plain doesn't work well enough to use, generally it doesn't get reviewed. It gets returned with a polite note telling the manufacturer what's wrong with it, and suggesting that they check this unit out and make sure it's not broken. Sometimes that's all that's wrong. Other times they discover a problem with the design or a component, fix it, and send it back to the reviewer.

 

When I got a "fixed" unit back for review, I'd be inclined to write about the experience as a warning to someone who may have bought one before the problem was discovered, but never noticed it. He might want to send it back to the manufactuer for updating. However, I'm not going to write a review that says: "This compressor pumped so badly at any setting and with any source that I couldn't find any use for it, but the manufacturer said that's normal." I'll let someone else review it.

 

[Goober(s)]

 

That's a problem with a Google search. Sometimes it takes you to the middle of the movie. On the other hand, people who search Google for a product name and come up with the Harmony Central Pro Review probably don't care who paid for having the review published.

 

That's the key that you don't seem to understand, The manufacturer pays a testing lab to get CE certification and the result get published in the form of authorization to use the CE mark on the product. A manufacturer pays Harmony Central to review their product. The result is the publication of the review, good or bad.

 

Most "professonal" reviewers don't write negative reviews. They may point out some things that the manufacturer cold have done better, features that would have been nice to include, or that they couldn't read the display because the characters were too small. Those are the kind of things that are useful both to the reader and the manufacturer.

 

But if it just plain doesn't work well enough to use, generally it doesn't get reviewed. It gets returned with a polite note telling the manufacturer what's wrong with it, and suggesting that they check this unit out and make sure it's not broken. Sometimes that's all that's wrong. Other times they discover a problem with the design or a component, fix it, and send it back to the reviewer.

 

When I got a "fixed" unit back for review, I'd be inclined to write about the experience as a warning to someone who may have bought one before the problem was discovered, but never noticed it. He might want to send it back to the manufactuer for updating. However, I'm not going to write a review that says: "This compressor pumped so badly at any setting and with any source that I couldn't find any use for it, but the manufacturer said that's normal." I'll let someone else review it.

 

I understand that well. The outcome of the review is irrelevant to the ethical obligation to notify readers of the sponsorship relationship at the top of the content.

 

FTC guidelines for bloggers require "clear and conspicuous" notification of sponsorship attached to the content itself, not on a separate page (as in a FAQ). Pro Reviews are and have always been in violation of these guidelines.

 

 

from some links (the following are quotes):

 

 

Where and how to disclose. As far back as 2009, the FTC was already publicly recommending that disclosures not be buried at the bottom of a post or on a separate page (Once More With Feeling: FTC guidelines, bloggers and companies). Now, however, we have an explicit example.

 

http://www.blogher.com/must-read-ftc-clarifies-their-rules-bloggers

 

How do I make a disclosure in my blog post or on my social media platforms?

• Blog posts: Include a paragraph clearly spelling out your affiliation and/or compensation.
  

4. When do I need to make the disclosures?

Immediately; every time. Every post you publish that was sponsored by a company or brand or obtained through an affiliation with a media network must contain a disclosure paragraph. If you use affiliate links in a post on or on your site, you must disclose them as affiliate links instead of just regular links to a product or company website. Each time you send your post out into the social network, you must make the appropriate disclosures, and the same goes for tweets and status updates that don’t specifically mention your post, but do mention the product or brand.

 

5. Where do I make the disclosure?

• Do it upfront. Don’t bury it.
  
• Make sure the language or hashtag you choose is understandable to your audience.
  

6. Why disclose if I’m not a “big” blogger?

• Deceptive or unfair online advertising is against the law.
  
• You could lose your readers and their trust simply by appearing deceptive.
  
• You, or the brand, could be investigated and/or fined by the FTC.
  
• Your direct sponsorships or contracts could be pulled by the brand.
  
• Your media networks probably already require that you include disclosures.
  

http://bloggylaw.com/ftc-guidelines-blogger-disclosures/

 

 

[MikeRivers]

 

FTC guidelines for bloggers require "clear and conspicuous" notification of sponsorship attached to the content itself, not on a separate page (as in a FAQ). Pro Reviews are and have always been in violation of these guidelines.

 

I suppose that if you wanted to file a lawsuit, there would be considerable argument about what constitutes "sponsorship." But don't talk to me, talk to your lawyer.

 

 

[Goober(s)]

 

I suppose that if you wanted to file a lawsuit, there would be considerable argument about what constitutes "sponsorship." But don't talk to me, talk to your lawyer.

 

 

There's nothing controversial about what constitutes "sponsorship." Either a company writes a check or it doesn't.

 

From the Pro Review FAQ:

 

"The manufacturer sponsors the review for a nominal fee."

 

And citing FTC guidelines wasn't meant in any way to suggest a lawsuit. The purpose of the guidelines are to guide.

 

Every now and then I bring this up, and bring up the FTC Guidelines to fortify my point -- you are not only ignoring me, you're ignoring them as well.

 

Then every now and then someone makes a comment like what Earnest Buckley made, and everyone attacks him because on the "street level" of this forum, we know, love and trust Craig Anderton. But like it or not, and true or false, what Earnest is saying is what most people believe.

 

So here the forum has an opportunity to counteract the popular perception that Earnest expressed, to be a little more transparent, to give readers information that they ought to have, to engender a little more trust, to be ethical, to follow sensible FTC guidelines, to strengthen Pro Reviews with a simple one or two sentences... and yet I consistently lose this argument over what sounds a lot to me like "that depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." I mean, now we're parsing the meaning of "sponsorship."

 

Craig has mentioned the checks and balances of the forum as being something that helps keep it honest. It's in that spirit that I share my opinion, meant to be helpful, and meant to take the Pro Reviews which I think are great, and improve them in a small but important way.

[MikeRivers]

 

There's nothing controversial about what constitutes "sponsorship." Either a company writes a check or it doesn't.

 

From the Pro Review FAQ:

 

"The manufacturer sponsors the review for a nominal fee."

 

OK, so Harmony Central shot themselves in the foot here, probably through ignorance of the FTC's rule, in an attempt to disclose the fact that the manufactuer has some involvement in making the review happen.

 

It could be argued that a manufactuer that sends me an item for review, with the understanding that it will be returned when the review is completed, is "sponsoring" my review. He's taking the trouble to send me the unit, paying for shipping (both ways), and keeping that unit out of circulation for the duration.

 

A truly unsponsored review would be one of a unit that I bought with my own money. You can read those on the Gearslutz forum any day.

 

FYI, some companies require a credit card number as a guarantee of getting a review unit back.

 

And citing FTC guidelines wasn't meant in any way to suggest a lawsuit. The purpose of the guidelines are to guide.

 

The information is out there (you quoted it so it isn't that hard to find) for those who care to seek it out. FTC doesn't have the resources to look around for violators, they act on complaints. If you want to get some action, then file a complaint to the FTC. They probably aren't interested in hearing about a web site that doesn't include its disclaimer statement with every applicable article. If you have evidence that a manufactuer influenced the outcome of a review, they would probably investigate.

 

I suspect that Pro Reviews are dead, so you won't need to worry about this much longer.

 

[RockViolin]

 

 

 

I suspect that Pro Reviews are dead, so you won't need to worry about this much longer.

 

I'm reminded of the saying, "It's all over except for the shouting."

 

And this thread became some of the shouting.

 

I could maybe chime in with more than that...but, it hurts when I holler.

 

[MrKnobs]

It's a brave, new (worse) world.

 

My missus is a hospital pharmacist. As every medical professional should, she has a voracious determination to keep learning. She takes a lot of continuing education online (as required for her license) but she also goes to seminars on new medications. Except - now she can't because most of those seminars are presented by drug or medical equipment manufacturers which the corporation that employs her has determined is a conflict of interest. To do so would get her reprimanded of possibly even fired. Apparently it doesn't matter that she has a doctorate, 20 years of practice, is about as objective as anyone could be. It's a conflict because in return for listening to the presentation on on their medication or device they're offering the enormous, corrupting, damning bribe of....

 

... dinner.

 

Or maybe it's not so new. Several years ago I made a morning presentation at my Institute to the local DOT who were sponsoring one of my research projects. It was an 8AM meeting so I had some coffee and donuts available for the guests.

 

I got called on the carpet for that. Apparently donuts are an irresistable bribe for experienced construction engineers, guaranteed to cause them to lose their will power and eat.. no wait... GIVE ME hundreds of thousands of dollars of state money in return. It was explained to me that the coffee was ok, had I bought the donuts with personal funds it would have been ok, but since I spent $8 in office money on the donuts I (and they) were in trouble. Maybe I should have turned off the air conditioning too while they were here, I'm sure that was more than $8 in cost.

 

What's my point in telling these stories? EVERYTHING is at least a perceived conflict of interest. At some point, you just have to draw a line, assume professionals have SOME integrity, at least more than can be bought with donuts or dinner or whatever pittance Craig et al were paid to review this gear and write the articles.

 

Terry D.

[RockViolin]

I really can't see how any manufacturer's compensation for a review could outweigh the preservation of integrity, credibility and reputation. Not around here anyway. Those 3 things are far too easy to damage and nearly impossible repair. If Craig, Phil, Mike or Ken were to put lipstick on the pig and then the consensus after some time was that it was one ugly hog... what good are their next reviews? I would skip past disclosure mumbo jumbo quickly to get to the review-but that's just me perhaps.

[MikeRivers]

Several years ago I made a morning presentation at my Institute to the local DOT who were sponsoring one of my research projects. It was an 8AM meeting so I had some coffee and donuts available for the guests.

 

I got called on the carpet for that. Apparently donuts are an irresistable bribe for experienced construction engineers, guaranteed to cause them to lose their will power and eat.. no wait... GIVE ME hundreds of thousands of dollars of state money in return.

 

When I worked for the Government (DOT), they decided that coffee and donuts or sandwiches for a working lunch at a contractor's facility was too big of a gift. The officially sanctioned fix was to put a can on the table where we could pay for the refreshments. I dutifully dropped my quarter in the cup and had my fill of donuts and coffee.

 

I lost about 15 pounds after I retired and no longer went to donut meetings.

 

 

[Goober(s)]

It's a brave, new (worse) world.

 

My missus is a hospital pharmacist. As every medical professional should, she has a voracious determination to keep learning. She takes a lot of continuing education online (as required for her license) but she also goes to seminars on new medications. Except - now she can't because most of those seminars are presented by drug or medical equipment manufacturers which the corporation that employs her has determined is a conflict of interest. To do so would get her reprimanded of possibly even fired. Apparently it doesn't matter that she has a doctorate, 20 years of practice, is about as objective as anyone could be. It's a conflict because in return for listening to the presentation on on their medication or device they're offering the enormous, corrupting, damning bribe of....

 

... dinner.

 

Or maybe it's not so new. Several years ago I made a morning presentation at my Institute to the local DOT who were sponsoring one of my research projects. It was an 8AM meeting so I had some coffee and donuts available for the guests.

 

I got called on the carpet for that. Apparently donuts are an irresistable bribe for experienced construction engineers, guaranteed to cause them to lose their will power and eat.. no wait... GIVE ME hundreds of thousands of dollars of state money in return. It was explained to me that the coffee was ok, had I bought the donuts with personal funds it would have been ok, but since I spent $8 in office money on the donuts I (and they) were in trouble. Maybe I should have turned off the air conditioning too while they were here, I'm sure that was more than $8 in cost.

 

What's my point in telling these stories? EVERYTHING is at least a perceived conflict of interest. At some point, you just have to draw a line, assume professionals have SOME integrity, at least more than can be bought with donuts or dinner or whatever pittance Craig et al were paid to review this gear and write the articles.

 

Terry D.

 

Depends on the donuts. Yesterday I had a donut that would've made me do just about anything

 

Overall, couldn't agree with you more tho. Silly is silly.

 

Of course, that's very different from when drug companies sponsor evaluations of their own drugs. Readers have an absolute right to know that. Doesn't mean the research is bad, but it's a piece of information readers ought to know.

 

As I recall (or, more accurately, I watch "Madmen"), research into cigarettes sponsored by cigarette companies tend to conclude that cigarettes aren't all that bad for you.

 

 

[Goober(s)]

 

OK, so Harmony Central shot themselves in the foot here, probably through ignorance of the FTC's rule, in an attempt to disclose the fact that the manufactuer has some involvement in making the review happen.

 

No they really didn't. HC did half of what they need to do. They disclosed it, but not in a clear and conspicuous way for most readers.

 

 

 

It could be argued that a manufactuer that sends me an item for review, with the understanding that it will be returned when the review is completed, is "sponsoring" my review. He's taking the trouble to send me the unit, paying for shipping (both ways), and keeping that unit out of circulation for the duration.

 

A truly unsponsored review would be one of a unit that I bought with my own money. You can read those on the Gearslutz forum any day.

 

FYI, some companies require a credit card number as a guarantee of getting a review unit back.

 

Companies that send you products to review and get them back aren't "sponsoring" your review.

 

If a company sends you a product and lets you keep it, the FTC asks you to disclose that.

 

If a company gives you money to initiate a review, that is uncontroversially "sponsorship."

 

The information is out there (you quoted it so it isn't that hard to find) for those who care to seek it out. FTC doesn't have the resources to look around for violators, they act on complaints. If you want to get some action, then file a complaint to the FTC. They probably aren't interested in hearing about a web site that doesn't include its disclaimer statement with every applicable article. If you have evidence that a manufactuer influenced the outcome of a review, they would probably investigate.

 

Disagreed -- their guidelines are simple and clear: if there's sponsorship (as there is in Pro Reviews), disclose it clearly and conspicuously (which Pro Reviews do not).

 

Incidentally, everything I've said about this is as a fan of Pro Reviews and as someone who simply participates in this forum and is offering what is meant to be helpful feedback. The last thing I'd want is for HC to be the target of legal action.

 

I suspect that Pro Reviews are dead, so you won't need to worry about this much longer.

 

That would be a shame.

 

 

 

[MikeRivers]

 

Companies that send you products to review and get them back aren't "sponsoring" your review.

 

Of course they are. If they didn't do that, I wouldn't have reviewed it. I suppose one could play the "not for profit" card here since I don't make any money from my reviews, not even ad revenue from people visiting my web site. On the other hand, I got an opportunity to play with something that I was curious about that I didn't need badly enough to buy.

 

So, yeah, they're giving me the use of the device for a while at no cost to me. And they expect to see a review come out of it, which will presumably be of some benefit to them.

 

It's really the same thing when I'm writing a review that I know is going to get published by a magazine and I'll be paid for it (by the magazine). The usual procedure is that the magazine gets the item for review, but still, the company is, in effect, sponsoring the review by allowing them to have the article for a reasonable period of time, at no cost.

 

Do you know how long that FTC disclosure rule has been on the books? I'm wondering if it's in response to bloggers (some of whom eventually become well known) reviewing cosmetics or clothing, things that a manufactuer doesn't want returned because they can't sell or re-use them.

 

I think that you're being entirely too politically correct about this, If a Pro Review reader wants to find out what the manufacturer's involvement in making the review happen was, all they need to do is look at the Harmony Central web site and it's right there for him to make what he wants of it.

 

By the way, speaking of Goobers,I think it's also silly that a package of peanuts is labeled "Warning. Contains peanuts." Or that every package of cigarettes carries the Surgeon General warning that smoking causes cancer. I realize that's a different issue but it's an example of how laws can take things too far. Why doesn't every drum or guitar amplifier have a warning sticker telling you that they can cause hearing loss?

 

[Anderton]

 

There's nothing controversial about what constitutes "sponsorship." Either a company writes a check or it doesn't.

 

From the Pro Review FAQ:

 

"The manufacturer sponsors the review for a nominal fee."

 

And citing FTC guidelines wasn't meant in any way to suggest a lawsuit. The purpose of the guidelines are to guide.

 

The FTC guidelines were issued long after Pro Reviews were started and to address a completely different issue. Had I'd known in advance that "sponsorship" would become a loaded word, I would have used something different because a pro review did not fit the traditional definition of sponsor:

 

"a person, firm, organization, etc., that finances and buys the time to broadcast a radio or television program so as to advertise a product, a political party, etc."

 

The first part fits - they buy the equivalent of time. But they don't buy it to place an advertisement or solicit sales.

 

There are several other reasons why the disclaimer you want to see would be misleading. The FTC ruling (read it in its entirety, not just the remedies that apply to the entirety) was not intended to cover open forums, but endorsements by bloggers where a personal quid pro quo existed - not the same kind of impersonal quid pro quo where a company buys a page in a magazine, which also pays the expenses and where it is up to the magazine reviewer to decide whether to be ethical or not and be judged accordingly, and up to the reader to judge whether that influences editorial content because it is one step (or more steps) removed from a blogger endorsing a product.

 

The FTC guidelines relate to a company's advertising, marketing, or sales. I suppose you could consider a Pro Review marketing, EXCEPT that the manufacturer does NOT determine content. I know of no marketing, advertising, or sales medium where the company involved in those activities has no control over those activities. The only instance of control that happened in pro reviews was when a representative of the company came into the thread, and that person was required to mention their company affiliation, and most did so in every post as a sig or user name. THAT met both the letter and the spirit of the FTC guidelines. But even then, they had no control beyond making a statement because people could ask them questions or dispute anything they said.

 

No sane person would consider a group of people trashing a product in an open forum as traditional sponsored marketing...to say the least.

 

If you apply your thinking that a Pro Review truly represents a marketing effort on behalf of the manufacturer done by bloggers, then EVERY SINGLE POST BY EVERY SINGLE PERSON POSTING would need to mention that the person was affiliated with the company because they would be affiliated with "sponsored" content. If they said "I think this thing is really neat," even if they paid full retail price for it, under a literal (and incorrect) interpretation of the FTC's ruling, they would need to add a disclaimer because they were posting that opinion in a forum whose bandwidth and moderation were paid for.

 

If you read the FTC guidelines, they were intended to prevent hidden quid pro quos - for example, "Hey Craig, we'll let you keep this gear if you give favorable mentions in your pro review." So to add a disclaimer would indicate something was happening where there WAS something potentially unethical.

 

If someone puts in a post "Hey, I got really good service from Musician's Friend" that would constitute an endorsement in a forum sponsored by MF. Would they have had to add a disclaimer? According to your interpretation of the FTC's ruling, the answer would be yes. Under my interpretation, it would be no.

 

What if the pro reviews were "crowdsourced" instead of moderated? Would that require every person saying something nice about the gear to post some kind of disclaimer? Would it require every person saying something negative to post a disclaimer because they might prefer a competitor's gear, and therefore having a vested interest in that company staying in business?

 

Ah, but you say "they're not being paid to say what they say." NEITHER WAS I. The money went into a big pot with all the revenue sources. Maybe a pro review covered my salary, maybe it didn't. Who knows?

 

And what would the disclaimer for the moderator be? "Warning: The manufacturer has loaned me a piece of gear so that I can evaluate it, and be able to answer questions from forum members intelligently. Clearly, this will turn my brain to mush, I will say nothing but good things about this gear, and you should consider what I say a component of sales, marketing, and advertising intended to do the bidding of the company that paid the expenses of running this review."

 

I REFUSE TO INCLUDE A DISCLAIMER THAT EVEN IMPLIES THAT. IT'S NOT TRUE.

 

Let people judge for themselves whether I am making factual statements or not, and judge me accordingly - not PREJUDGE me because someone wants me to make a statement that isn't within the spirit of the FTC guidelines anyway and would be misleading.

 

If you read WHY the FTC instituted this rule, and what it is intended to quantify and prevent, you will see that a Pro Review does not fit within those parameters. Nonetheless, in order to be transparent, I put an FAQ in a prominent place, and queried the community whether they had any problem with it before they started. People understood it was an open forum, not an ad and not tied to sales.

 

I saw absolutely no reason to say there could be a conflict of interest, when the whole point of the pro review was to set up a format that did not allow the potential for conflicts of interest present in magazines and other media. Manufacturers understood this and agreed to it. To harp on "a manufacturer covered the expenses of doing the pro review, so we have to state that the outcome has the potential to be influenced by those expenses being covered" is absurd when you consider that the point of a pro review was to allow ANYONE to be involved, not just some blogger.

 

[Anderton]

I give up. In the future, I suppose I should just lie about what a pro review is. Or better yet, just not do any reviews, ever. Then no one can fabricate motivations. Easy solution.

[Anderton]

I'll leave it at this. My life has not been diminished one bit by not writing reviews. Aside from Craig's List, reviews were the most difficult writing I did because I knew thousands of people were looking over my shoulder. I was always concerned I would miss some great feature or some giant flaw while trying to get the review done in a timely fashion. That is no longer a worry. The only downside is that manufacturers don't fly me to their private islands, or give me briefcases full of cash.

 

Well actually, that's not quite true. The only real downside is at trade shows, where both users and manufacturers say they really miss my reviews.

 

I do plan eventually to write some reviews of gear that accessorizes SONAR and is not part of Gibson Brands (e.g., sound libraries, controllers) for SONAR's monthly release eZine to give that publication extra value. Maybe I can get those briefcases of cash again. But I guess first I'll have to wait for the manufacturers to dictate what I should write.

[nat whilk II]

All I can say is that the Pro Reviews were the most comprehensive, helpful, and deep reviews of products I've ever encountered - by some ridiculous geometric factor.

 

No good deed goes unpunished. So it goes....

 

nat whilk ii

​