RE: Product reviews (was pedal abuse (was sitar))

["hazard factor" <artists@hazardfactor.com>]

Thanks Doug, you have helped me clear out some misconceptions about the
review process. From a reader point of view, it is hard to tell 'which 
comes
first', the advertising or the review. I know if I do see some huge ads
around the review for the very same product, my most logical conclusion is
that "the advertiser bought 2 whole pages, so he gets a great review,
anything bad is edited out". Now, according to Per's view "if a review is
happening the ad buyer typically does request ad space on neighboring
pages.", well, this may be true, but with so many products out there, why
make it so obvious or make the reader think the advertiser 'bought' the
review? Again, it makes me think of those 'Musician's Friend' catalog
'reviews'. A run-down of the features, followed by 'if you are looking for 
a
pedal like this, this may be the one to look for (!?!). 

A good example recently discussed is the Sitar Swami...there were some
*great* reviews of this thing (and full page ads) which is now considered
one of the worst pedals ever made. It was as if the reviewer never even
tried it at all. Same with the new Crossroads and Hendrix pedals. 

I realized there is a balance here- the magazine must balance ad $, with
target audience, with at least a nod towards a non-biased review process.
And space- guitar mags don't have the space that Sound on Sound does, and
music software has a lot more features than most amps. Guitar mags are
making everything shorter these days- tiny interviews (remember 12 pages in
Guitar Player about Holdsworth's Synthaxe?)...they are getting to be like
Cosmo with all the ads- oh yeah, get off my lawn...

As far as letting the manufacturer seeing the review first- I remember
reading a review, then seeing an ad in the same mag with quotes from the
review a few pages earlier. Funny, that. It would be awesome though, for a
CD reviewer to contact the band to see if he got his facts 'straight'. But 
a
band doesn't have the money to take out an ad in the next issue, I am
guessing. 

My favorite reviews (and most interesting to read) were those Guitar Player
shootouts in the 80s. Manufacturers and players alike talking about a lot 
of
gear at once. I understand how hard that is to do, but it was still
interesting to read. Even just pitting a few different pieces of gear aimed
for the same market against each other helps me understand what one can do
and the other can't. 
 
I also find it interesting to know about the crap they send to you- I
honestly thought the builder would labor over a special 'review piece' to
get stuff right. 

Dave Eichenberger 
http://www.hazardfactor.com
 
> 
> Hey Crew-
>     I'm gonna try and pull a few of these posts into a single 
> reply. It's l-o-o-o-o-n-n-n-n-g-g-g....
> 
> Dave Eichenberger wrote:
> > Wow, cool- for which magazine?
> I write for Guitar One, not Guitar World. (David Beardsley is 
> probably remembering when I wrote for World about 
> five-to-eight years ago.) More on the differences between the 
> two in a moment.
> 
> ...and...
> > Do they ever 'guide' or change things in your reviews?
> I have had some radical revisions made to my writing when I 
> wrote for Guitar World, part of the reason why I no longer 
> write for them, except in "emergency" situations. (G. World 
> and G. One are owned by the same publisher now (Future 
> Network) and share the same office space in Manhattan. I 
> e-commute from my home on Long Island, and only go into the 
> office once or twice a year.) Sometimes World will be short a 
> reviewer and I'll write a review for them, but overall the 
> two magazines are actually in competition with each other. I 
> have not had radical revisions - or ANY significant revisions 
> - made while writing for Guitar One, except for experiences 
> similar to Per's comments (following). My take is, I trust my 
> co-reviewers at G. One more than the guys at G. World. Even 
> tho' the guys at World are nice and all, I've seen what 
> they've done to my writing, soooo.... (D'ya think there's a 
> "tell all" trash true story in this?)
>     Per wrote:
> >  Every mag has its own set of guidelines (or templates) for which 
> > areas of the product a review has to go into. All Swedish magazines 
> > I'm writing for usually send a copy of the manuscript to the 
> > manufacturer, or product agent, before it goes to print. So if the 
> > reviewer should have misunderstood something, it can be 
> corrected. If 
> > the product is found to suck and gets bashed in the text, the agent 
> > has the chance to send in information on eventual plans for 
> upgrades, 
> > special customer support regarding that product etc.
>     In the case of Guitar One, if we get a product that 
> really sucks, we don't review it. We return it to the 
> manufacturer, and I usually provide the manufacturer with a 
> detailed explanation of why it was rejected. We also provide 
> the manufacturer with a copy of the text before publishing 
> for a "fact check." The manufacturer can (and should) correct 
> any factual errors at this point, and can suggest rephrasing 
> to correct misleading impressions, but I reject any attempt 
> by them to sweeten or rewrite a review.
> Interestingly, I just finished a review of a Mesa Boogie Lone 
> Star Special amp, and compared its 30-watt output very 
> favorably to a 50- or 100-watt amp. Boogie - one of the 
> coolest companies going, im my H.O. - actually requested that 
> I remove the comparison because it was "too positive!" I kept 
> the comparison in.
> 
> Dave continues:
> > How come reviews in the 70s and 80s seemed to be a lot more honest?
> Hmmm.... Maybe because it was a newer field, and the bucks 
> weren't as big...? I've got a lot of the old mags from the 
> day, maybe I'll crack a few of them and see how they phrased things.
> 
> > And how come, sometimes,  *within the pages of a review* there are 
> > full page ads for the product that is being reviewed?
> Per nailed it:
> > Any company can buy ads in a magazine. Without the income 
> from selling 
> > ad space there wouldn't even be possible to put out a 
> magazine. And if 
> > a review is happening the ad buyer typically does request 
> ad space on 
> > neighboring pages.
> Reviews and advertising space unfortunately go hand in hand. 
> We have a limited amount of space available in the magazine 
> for reviews. Advertisers get their product reviewed first. 
> And placing an ad next to a review is just a perk for the advertiser.
> 
> > Why do a lot of
> > reviews spend half of the words telling you the features- 
> you can look 
> > up the ad in the same issue to see those.
> Most ads don't explain the layout or function of the 
> features. I like to integrate descriptions of features with a 
> sense of a product's function.
> "The knobs do this and this, and the taper of the tone pot 
> was a bit sudden..." That sort of thing.
> 
> > I don't mean to get down on you, I honestly am trying to figure out 
> > why reviews are either non-committal or overbearingly wonderful. I 
> > know there isn't that much great stuff out there.
> You're not getting down on me/us at all, Dave! I like this 
> kind of dialogue, and honestly wish the editors at my 
> magazine would discuss the review process more in print. As 
> to why reviews are "either non-committal or overbearingly 
> wonderful," well, I would hope that mine *range* from non-com 
> to wonder. As I said earlier, we don't review stuff that's 
> flawed or really sub-standard. And quite honestly, I believe 
> that there *is* a lot of great stuff out there. I'm amazed at 
> the quality of the Korean and Chinese guitars, and effects 
> processors are getting better with each new product.
> Also note that Guitar One has its "One" Award, which I only 
> give to about one out of five or six products. With our 
> magazine, you can look at it this
> way: If the product is getting a review at all, it's decent. 
> If I point out specific flaws in a review, there is cause for 
> concern. If the review is non-committal, then the product 
> didn't excite me. The more excited my prose, the more 
> positive I felt about the product. And if it gets the "One" 
> Award, it's truly exceptional. You can also *hear* the 
> product on our magazine's CD. When I review a product, I 
> record it myself, so you can hear *me* putting the product 
> through its paces. Really good products inspire better 
> playing on my part.
> 
> > I honestly think it would be cool for a magazine to review 
> the whole 
> > purchase process...from store to home. Go to a store, buy 
> the product,
> bring
> > it home. You get to review the salesperson, the condition of the
> equipment,
> > as well as the item.
> Personally, I'm not interested in the "store" aspect. It 
> would be very easy to get buddy-buddy with a reviewer and be 
> sure he/she gets preferential treatment. And stores are 
> *local.* The guys on 48th St. in Manhattan are a whole 
> different animal than the yobbos in the 'burbs, who are yet 
> again different from a mom 'n' pop in the country. On the 
> other hand, I do take packaging and manufacturer response 
> into account, although it might not appear specifically in print.
> 
> > They wouldn't be hand picked items the manufacturer sends.
> Ah, Ha, ha, ha! Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! You should see some of 
> the crap that gets sent to me. You would *think* the 
> manufacturer would send something special, something tweaked 
> just right, with a better grade of wood, a flawless finish, 
> knobs tight and fresh batteries. You would think, and you 
> would be wrong. So we either send it back, or point it out in 
> the review.
>     And by the way, I think Harmony Central is the coolest 
> thing in the world. If you're gonna drop some coin on a 
> product, check out what HC posters say. Believe me, I often 
> cross-check my evaluation with HC posts to be sure I've 
> covered everything, or captured the vibe of the product correctly.
> 
> Douglas Baldwin, coyote-at-large
> coyotelk@optonline.net
> 
> "The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a 
> long plastic hallway where pimps and thieves run free and 
> good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side."
> --- Hunter S. Thompson
>