| Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
January 26, 2010 - 5:00pm
#1
Bose ads
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 StereophileAVTech Media Americas Inc., USA
All rights reserved
Why not?
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
I would imagine that ad revenue isn't easy to come by right now and JA probably trusts the readers to know that Bose isn't a brand that they should consider buying for themselves.
Remember the silly reaction from some readers when Stereophile <gasp> printed a BMW ad?
You would think the world was coming to an end.
Back to Bose: My thinking is that if the magazine editorial content is to be independent of its advertising they should accept ads from any company.
Elk-
The objections to the BMW ads by of some of the readers in the letters to the editor section surprised me. Personally, I think that Stereophile should broaden it's pool of advertisers, and I would assume ad dollars to include other luxury goods like wristwatches, cars, wine, photographic equipment etc. Wouldn't those companies be interested in reaching Stereophile's readers? The demographics are pretty similar surely there must be a good amount of overlap. I must be missing something obvious why this isn't done.
Whats the big deal ?
I prefer Bose ads to LARS ads !!
The magazine can accept whatever it likes, i never understood the uproar over the MSS ads just because of a few scantily clad women !!
The MSS adverts where inherently offensive, sexist, and derogatory, in a fundamental way. Animalistic, in fact and point. Not seeing that says a considerable amount about the construction of a given person's mind.
The Lars amps and the Lars guy should not be dumped on like that, Alan. The man has integrity to his vision and ideas and follows them through..and creates objects of beauty and excellent sound.
Bose, on the other hand, has done done what I would consider 'shady', with respect to how they treat the intelligence and the capacity of their given customers.
Just when it seems like you might have had something click in your head ..it's like you just 'go to ground' and go back to the same drill - again.
As for Bose, I'd like to see them take about 4-6 pages out for a 2 year contract in S'phile. That would help a bit, I'd wager, and it would be near nothing (financially) to Bose.
hell, so is Ethan Winers "naked acoustics" lesson...but they keep his ads.
I don't see the issue with BOSE Advertising in stereophile..
hell, their money is green too.
I dont really enjoy the snobbish undertones this forum(and hobby) has at times.. there is just no need for it. and ive heard plenty of "hifi" jigadollar products that sound dreadful...the hobby should be welcoming, not alienating... quit being so goddamn uppity, people, jeesh.
Logically persons considering $20,000 amps and similarly priced source and speakers are potential customers of BMW, Wine, Watches and various other luxury goods...
As Elk said, the Advertising is independent of Editorial...
It would actually be in Stereophile's best interest to fill up the advertising section with non-audio ads. That would silence the constant, false claim that Stereophile reviews are catered to brands that advertise in the mag...
What about ads for the new Lexicon BD-30 Universal Bluray Player? A bargain at any price!
I guess I was just wondering if there should or shouldn't be some kind of philosophical criteria applied to what ads are in the interest of readers. An extreme example would be Outdoor Life accepting ads from HSUS or PETA. If some Bose equipment were reviewed in Stereophile would Bose be less inclined to place ads if those reviews would conclude what I think they must? I understand there are many audio companies that employ a variety of tricks to get a particular piece to sound a certain way to appeal to the un and under informed masses. Like the mid-bass bump that many smaller speakers employ; looks horrible on a FR graph but can fool the listener into thinking that there is more bass at the expense of flat response. Again, I was just wondering and always enjoy the spirited discussion that often ensues with this group.
Other than ads that are racist or similarly offensive, to the best of my knowledge there are no restrictionss on what can be advertised in Stereophile. Certainly what you may personally feel about Bose and it the products it sells, it is still a legitimate audio company.
And please note that the "Chinese Wall" that separates editorial from ads in a magazine like Stsreophile works in both directions. I don't see the ads in any issue of the magazine until the same time a reader does - when it arrives in my mailbox.
Stereophile hasn't reviewed any Bose products since Gordon Holt wrote about the infamous 901 - see http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/425/ . However, Stereophile Guide to Home Theater did review a Bose Acoustimass system about 10 years ago, including measured performance from me. They concluded that for half the price, you could get more performance from a PSB system.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Ken
Read the review
Even the reviewer called the finish cheap and flimsy.
Im not sure what you expect to "click" I am perfectly willing and able to have open discussions about a lot of topics but im not going to change a strong opinion about these high end products being over priced without someone explaining why a LARS amp with a few hundred dollars worth of components is worth $100k. You can say im ingnorant or dumb or whatever but i think its the other way around, more people should be questioning these prices
Alan
That would seem to be the sum and total of the issue, to me.
They pay, they advertise.
I personally do not like Bose.
To try and eliminate them from advertising is plainly stupid. Far more people in the US own Bose systesm than just about any other brand that would advertise.
Who are the hifi snobs to dictate that you can only advertise if you use overpriced gear.
We really need this pasttime to get its head out of its own ass.
Alan
dont be shy alan, tell us how you really feel.
I Think We're All Bose Ho's On This Bus.
Don't you think the joke is on Bose for throwing cash away at this audience? Let them purchase all the ads they like because it can be like reading the comics section for all of us!
Would it be a good thing if Stereophile acted as a filter, thus determining which audio equipment could be accepted as HiFi/High End in these circles? Isn't it just right that you get to determine that by yourself? What if Stereophile didn't accept ads from say Levinson/Madgigal, Krell, B&O, B&W or other manufacturers due to "taste"???
Let the people who are willing to pay for the ads get to publish their ads, unless they are sexist, racist or downright lies.
Advertising is just that- companies pay to get their message out, and are outside the editorial endorsements of the magazine. The question could be: why use advertising at all? If subscribers were willing to pay $120 a year (or more), maybe ads were not be needed.
Some ads I actually like and are useful to me and I'm sure others. Many are not, some are poorly done, and others just stupid. But it pays for the good stuff- the writing.
"I dont really enjoy the snobbish undertones this forum (and hobby) has at times."
Agreed, but regardless of that tenancy Bose sucks on a price/quality level beyond anything I can recall. And I have to admit I hate their ads on TV showing how there Wave POS or "Surround" bar "replaces" a full system with a parade of lame testimonials. They are so full of shit and being that deliberately misleading really does get on my nerves.
Again though, esp. in Stereophile they are probably wasting their money, but it keeps the mag. going, so who cares?
Well, regardless of what one thinks of Bose, there is a simple question and answer at work here:
Question: What do you call a magazine without advertisements?
Answer: Bankrupt
Alternate, mostly unrealistic answer: $50/issue.
Ah, Bose isn't that bad. They have their market and we have our market.
I think that JA has shown great judgement in selecting ads from vendors whose marketing tastes have lended themselves to this magazine. He needs a consistent revenue stream to keep our favorite magazine afloat. I am surprised that more high end watch, clothing lines, wineries, etc do not grace the pages of Phile.
I would say that my music purchases are right around the level of my wife's purchases from Yankee Candle, but I do not expect to see adds from them here. Another box of 3 came yesterday. Not a darn Cd in there, either. Her candles do smell much better than my old vinyl. Sorry Mikey!
Just to clarify: The edit staff has nothing to do with the ads that are placed in the magazine or on the website. The sales reps handle advertising. If there is a particular ad that seems conspicuously bad or offensive, we may raise our concern with the publisher. But we don't select the ads, which is why, for instance, I was as startled as anyone by the Acura ad that was placed behind every page of the site.
But, yes, I'm all for non-endemic advertising (or any other kind of tasteful advertising) that allows us to give you more excellent editorial content. Advertising for alcohol, cars, cigars, watches, jewelry, etc., all make sense to me, but these markets all have their own niches to serve, as well.
Well, tell Acura to buy more advertising - as it has gone away. I'd rather you guys get the income and keep the rag rolling. Maybe few more pages of text, or whatnot..
Why does advertising have to be tasteful ??
The best adverts are thought provoking, anyone remember Benneton ?
I am waiting for the next in the series.
They haven't shown us the car yet.
I have enjoyed reading the online versions of the Norwegian high end audio magazine "Fidelity" for a while. They are IMO doing an excellent job in most areas, and - more importantly - are very true to their ears and general ideas/beliefs about high end audio in their reviews.
Now sometimes a piece of audio equipment being reviewed, gets a less than brilliant review than what the manufacturer believes is appropriate for that specific piece of equipment. This has more than once resulted in a not so dignified reply by the manufacturer in question. These replies are btw always printed in the mag no matter how outrageous allegations of bias or the like would be, against the reviewer/mag. In the most severe cases, the manufacturer have ceased all advertising in "Fidelity" for good.
Have Stereophile ever experienced such childish and shortsighted "know-it-all" behaviour from a given manufacturer?
A manufacturer who ships equipment to a mag with an unbiased review in mind, has to expect a review that actually reflects the actual experience of the piece of equipment in review. Excellent or not. If the reviewers find flaws or imperfections worth mentioning, short of what would be expected in a piece of equipment in the price category, they should indeed mention it, and of course in a proper and unbiased manner. In the cases when a unintended flaw or imperfection shows up, and it's clearly due to a "bad luck" situation, the mag always gives the manufacturer the chance to ship another item, which is in good working order. Still, they also always mention that a broken piece of equipment was received for the review, but without emphasizing it out of proportion. This is of course of interest for a potential buyer. Having read HiFi mags for 40 years, I find most mags are actually being very honest and straight forward, although this has not always been the case in every mag I have read since 1969.
I don't see a necessary conflict between tasteful and provocative.
Did you read Totem's response to EL's Forrest review?
I am sorry to say that I haven't.
Edit: Oh, the (not) sand filled cabinets! Yes, I got it...
JA has mentioned a company that pulled its ads though I don't recall the details. I think it was because the mag didn't support DVD-A enough(in their view), but I'm not sure.
Also, I agree, let whoever advertise. It helps keep the mag(& website) going!