Legal fund for Reviewers/Erin?

[kemmler3D]

Goldensound may be 'honest' but AFAIC he's honestly a prat when he calls a DAC that measures very well 'Dull, really dull". "It sounds like they've tried to make something really refined and hi-fi and gone too far. And as a result it's become smooth, real smooth, too smooth."

what f*ing nonsense.

Arch has a new post about it (nicer than mine):

SUMMER MUSINGS: On the perils of subjective opinions in High-End Audio (dCS v. GoldenSound).

A blog for audiophiles about more objective topics. Measurements of audio gear. Reasonable, realistic, no snakeoil assessment of sound, and equipment.

archimago.blogspot.com

Which isn't to say Godlensound should be *sued* for spouting such subjectivist garble. But I can see why the (since fired) dCS flunky that emailed him legal threats, might have lost his sangfroid, reading that.

Anyone who has their head screwed on straight knows that DACs that cost 10x what they need to are primarily covered by people with both feet planted firmly in the subjective camp. Just because Goldensound tries to have it both ways doesn't make him an objective reviewer. And everyone in this space ought to realize that subjective reviews are fundamentally based on what the reviewer thinks they heard, not what they actually heard.

And that entails getting both good and bad reviews that aren't deserved. By and large, good ones that aren't deserved.

Maybe dCS got PO'd over an undeserved bad review, but they had no right to. They had been playing the subjective nonsense game for years already. You can't win 'em all.

 

[amirm]

Wow this guy is triggered for sure. He wants to pull the trigger and get on with it! Very cool.

Luis is quite a character. Very smart and driven. He was the most vocal person to go after "Right to Repair" legislation and put the term on the map. He got his fame repairing Apple products and cursing their poor design and difficulty in repairing them. But has developed an equal side with his commentary across many domains. With 2 million subscribers, he has a lot of reach.

 

[krabapple]

Anyone who has their head screwed on straight knows that DACs that cost 10x what they need to are primarily covered by people with both feet planted firmly in the subjective camp. Just because Goldensound tries to have it both ways doesn't make him an objective reviewer. And everyone in this space ought to realize that subjective reviews are fundamentally based on what the reviewer thinks they heard, not what they actually heard.

AFAIK, no one said he was an objective reviewer. I'd say he is a reviewer who pretends towards objectivity.

As Archimago advises
If you want to do both* - writing reviews with subjective impressions and objective testing - then express your understanding with internal consistency. GoldenSound seems to be presenting himself as someone who is capable in this way; this is admirable and I think more reviewers should be encouraged to do this. But the standards need to be higher if something does not make sense. If you're reviewing a Ferrari and every measurement says you should be feeling some g-forces and you don't, well, you should be checking your own sensory system first before complaining about the car on YouTube!

And that entails getting both good and bad reviews that aren't deserved. By and large, good ones that aren't deserved.

Maybe dCS got PO'd over an undeserved bad review, but they had no right to. They had been playing the subjective nonsense game for years already. You can't win 'em all.

As I noted, whoever got 'PO'd' at dCS has (reportedly) been *fired*. If true I'd say that person ended up far worse off than the Youtube audio 'influencer'.


*Amir 'does both' with his transducer reviews, but I don't recall any examples of complete disjunction between the two 'ways' (and too, speaker measurements aren't as thoroughly dispositive as measurements of DACs). And he uses his analytic hardware to find out why things sound as they do; GS inexplicably didn't bother to use his AP analyzer to investigate his impression. An example of pretending toward objectivity.

 

[amirm]

More activities on this general front:

 

[ta240]

More activities on this general front:

It is interesting that they refer to it as a "product recommendation video" in their email. I wonder if it was called that in their initial emails with him. They may have thought they were paying for more than just jumping the line.

 

[amirm]

I agree that the default thinking for paying for a review is to get more than jumping the line.

 

[rdenney]

If I took payment from a company to review their product, I think in the current environment I'd need to get them to sign an agreement stating that their sponsorship only moves them to the head of the line, and does not in any way limit the reviewer's ability to show test results and state his opinions, positive or negative. I might in that agreement state specifically that the review is an "independent review", that any proprietary relationship will be fully disclosed therein, and that "product recommendation" is not assured. The agreement would make clear that the reviewer owes no obligation to disclose the contents of the review to the company before it is published. The agreement could also state that it is entirely at the reviewer's discretion to bring any discovered defect with the item to their attention to give them an opportunity to correct it, and warn that such discretion will normally be limited to obvious malfunctions rather than merely poor test results or negative opinions. Thus, an item that is apparently working as intended, even if it tests poorly, may be shown as received with no further interaction with the manufacturer. I'd get the company to agree to hold the reviewer harmless for any accusation of defamation, but I would also agree that the review will show objective test results as observed, even if the company does not believe that the test is correct or appropriate, and that opinions will be clearly expressed as such. And I think an agreement should outline how a rebuttal from the company would be handled. I'd put all that in my communication with them up front, too.

Part of the challenge with small YouTube channels is that the YouTubers are in many cases hobbyists not trained in either legal or journalistic issues that might accompany online reviews. To me, that would be a key service provided by a legal fund organization.

There are certainly some content creators who take advantage of the free stuff and want to keep the flow of free stuff coming. But integrity has to start somewhere, and committing to 1.) showing the results of objective testing truthfully and completely and 2.) expressing opinions clearly stated like opinions should be a couple of easy principles to follow. They should understand that the reason their viewers are interested in YouTube reviews are because those viewers don't trust traditional review sources like magazines (who depend on advertising dollars) to be appropriately independent. (And they don't want to pay money to see the review.)

Rick "has watched a lot of reviews on the Den of Tools" Denney

 

[krabapple]

An 'its not defamation because my review was honestly what I believe' defense (conditional privilege) can be a tricky needle to thread.

 

[Sal1950]

I agree that the default thinking for paying for a review is to get more than jumping the line.

I never even realized there was such a thing as paying for a review.
Now I've known for decades that many reviewers get perks like long term review samples and even "industry pricing" on products, etc, etc, all sort of fishy business.. But direct cash payment to the reviewer, how can the anyone with their head on right then believe that the submitter isn't expecting some special consideration beyond "head of the line" status?
I may have fallen off the turnip truck, but it wasn't just last night.

 

[Soniclife]

I never even realized there was such a thing as paying for a review.
Now I've known for decades that many reviewers get perks like long term review samples and even "industry pricing" on products, etc, etc, all sort of fishy business.. But direct cash payment to the reviewer, how can the anyone with their head on right then believe that the submitter isn't expecting some special consideration beyond "head of the line" status?
I may have fallen off the turnip truck, but it wasn't just last night.

I don't know this was rife either, other than when there is a big disclaimer at the top of the so called review. Are these people disclosing the paid nature of the review?

People taking money for reviews don't need our help for legal funds, because they are not doing reviews.

 

[doug s.]

If I took payment from a company to review their product, I think in the current environment I'd need to get them to sign an agreement stating that their sponsorship only moves them to the head of the line, and does not in any way limit the reviewer's ability to show test results and state his opinions, positive or negative. I might in that agreement state specifically that the review is an "independent review", that any proprietary relationship will be fully disclosed therein, and that "product recommendation" is not assured. The agreement would make clear that the reviewer owes no obligation to disclose the contents of the review to the company before it is published. The agreement could also state that it is entirely at the reviewer's discretion to bring any discovered defect with the item to their attention to give them an opportunity to correct it, and warn that such discretion will normally be limited to obvious malfunctions rather than merely poor test results or negative opinions. Thus, an item that is apparently working as intended, even if it tests poorly, may be shown as received with no further interaction with the manufacturer. I'd get the company to agree to hold the reviewer harmless for any accusation of defamation, but I would also agree that the review will show objective test results as observed, even if the company does not believe that the test is correct or appropriate, and that opinions will be clearly expressed as such. And I think an agreement should outline how a rebuttal from the company would be handled. I'd put all that in my communication with them up front, too.

Part of the challenge with small YouTube channels is that the YouTubers are in many cases hobbyists not trained in either legal or journalistic issues that might accompany online reviews. To me, that would be a key service provided by a legal fund organization.

There are certainly some content creators who take advantage of the free stuff and want to keep the flow of free stuff coming. But integrity has to start somewhere, and committing to 1.) showing the results of objective testing truthfully and completely and 2.) expressing opinions clearly stated like opinions should be a couple of easy principles to follow. They should understand that the reason their viewers are interested in YouTube reviews are because those viewers don't trust traditional review sources like magazines (who depend on advertising dollars) to be appropriately independent. (And they don't want to pay money to see the review.)

Rick "has watched a lot of reviews on the Den of Tools" Denney

this is one way to guarantee that almost all the mfrs will not ever voluntarily provide you with any of their products to review.

doug s.

 

[rdenney]

this is one way to guarantee that almost all the mfrs will not ever voluntarily provide you with any of their products to review.

doug s.

The few that are confident in their products will then own social media.

The thing is, nothing in my proposed written agreement differs from what online reviewers routinely claim is their policy. If manufacturers are unwilling to sign that agreement, it just reveals the disconnect between their expectations and the claimed policy of most online reviewers. And disconnects in expectations are the reason for written agreements.

Rick “even the idea of putting stuff in writing clarifies things” Denney

 

[EJ3]

The few that are confident in their products will then own social media.

The thing is, nothing in my proposed written agreement differs from what online reviewers routinely claim is their policy. If manufacturers are unwilling to sign that agreement, it just reveals the disconnect between their expectations and the claimed policy of most online reviewers. And disconnects in expectations are the reason for written agreements.

Rick “even the idea of putting stuff in writing clarifies things” Denney

At one time, the FCC and other regulatory agencies did, sort of, hold manufacturers feet vaguely toward the fire. These days, government agencies seem to be mostly just another receptacle (like a laundry) for government tax money.

 

[DMill]

I never even realized there was such a thing as paying for a review.

It’s just called something different. Advertising I believe is the word. I suppose I can’t argue that the reviewer in question had a policy about payment only moving the product to the front of the line and take him at his word that he is very clear that it does not guarantee a favorable review. Unfortunately any time there is an exchange of money it does have a little bit of a “wink, wink, I’m not saying it gonna get a great review but you shouldn’t worry too much”. It’s why there are extremely strict policies against things like spiffing doctors from pharma companies. That said, I have no doubt deals are made in many industries not so tightly regulated

Edit: one final thought. I’m sure there are many manufacturers that wish reviewers would just go away. Then they go back to the old days when you could say just about anything like, “trust me, it’s the most transparent $10k cable you put in your system.”

 

[doug s.]

The few that are confident in their products will then own social media.

The thing is, nothing in my proposed written agreement differs from what online reviewers routinely claim is their policy. If manufacturers are unwilling to sign that agreement, it just reveals the disconnect between their expectations and the claimed policy of most online reviewers. And disconnects in expectations are the reason for written agreements.

Rick “even the idea of putting stuff in writing clarifies things” Denney

it will never happen. because mfr's won't sign, and plenty of "reviewers" will be happy to take the cash.

 

[amirm]

The Australian youtuber is getting more on board in the form of Dave Jones now:

Notice toward an end that Dave puts up a note that two companies have asked him to take down the video but then backed off.

 

[jtwrace]

Should audio reviewers be sued?

PS Audio is a company specializing in high-fidelity audio components equipment for audiophiles and the sound recording industry. It currently produces audio amplifiers, preamplifiers, power related products, digital-to-analog converters, streaming audio, music management software and cables.

www.psaudio.com

 

[Roland68]

I never even realized there was such a thing as paying for a review.
Now I've known for decades that many reviewers get perks like long term review samples and even "industry pricing" on products, etc, etc, all sort of fishy business.. But direct cash payment to the reviewer, how can the anyone with their head on right then believe that the submitter isn't expecting some special consideration beyond "head of the line" status?
I may have fallen off the turnip truck, but it wasn't just last night.

You are forgetting the oldest type of "paid" test, which has now escaped from magazines to today's online platforms. A positive test report is of course not related to paid advertising/advertisements.
A written test report naturally leaves a lot of room for interpretation and sometimes you can read between the lines that the device is not good.
In 35 years I have often noticed that test reports were not published because the reviewer thought the device/speaker was far too bad to be able to rate it positively, but also because a device/speaker was far too good in a price range and there would have been problems with other advertisers. In one case a new device class was introduced so that a device that had been tested too well did not have to be compared with others.

In many areas, e.g. industry, test reports are actually paid for, often by completely independent specialist reviewers. But the client has the rights to the paid test report and can decide whether it is published. I know these article tests to be reliable and sometimes products are therefore revised afterwards. Of course there are exceptions, but by doing so the specialist reviewer ruins his own reputation.
The more you get into the consumer sector, the more real facts and measurement results decrease and are replaced by meaningless positive phrases. Even large and (formerly) reputable manufacturers sell their own products in this way with little effect, sometimes absolutely no effect.

 

[Gary_G]

Federal Trade Commission Announces Final Rule Banning Fake Reviews and Testimonials

The Federal Trade Commission today announced a final rule

www.ftc.gov

Review Suppression: The final rule prohibits a business from using unfounded or groundless legal threats, physical threats, intimidation, or certain false public accusations to prevent or remove a negative consumer review. The final rule also bars a business from misrepresenting that the reviews on a review portion of its website represent all or most of the reviews submitted when reviews have been suppressed based upon their ratings or negative sentiment.

 

[kemmler3D]

Are these people disclosing the paid nature of the review?

In the US, if they are not, they are quite possibly breaking the law... the FTC mandates that a paid endorsement be disclosed. In the very unlikely event someone pays for a bad review, I am not sure how that would shake out.