|
Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry. |
|
|
|
Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry. |
|
In Reply to: I really don't understand it... posted by Charles Hansen on May 2, 2007 at 16:32:05:
"It sounds like you have finally realized that it was Gallo who changed their mind."Finally. The initial response was a very cursory "They did not send a review sample", which, I think you would agree, does not provide much information. That statement could mean be they decided not to send one, or it could be that Wes decided he did not want to review them, in which case, they did not send a review sample. I guess you could flip a coin as to which one it was. But I wanted to know which it was, and, frankly, I did not think was too much to ask. When someone gives me a statement which is open to multiple interpretations, I generally ask additional questions to reduce the possible explanations. And, in my experience, if there is nothing to hide, the information generally flows.
"You still seem to think that there is something evil here that needs to be exposed. As a manufacturer, let me give just a few examples of why Gallo may have changed their mind:"
Something evil? You mean like Dr. Evil? No. But I have made committments to clients that I later wished I had not. What do I do? Do what I told the client was I would do, even though I may be able to avoid the committment. If Gallo, or any manufacturer, told Wes they would supply a sample, they should supply the sample if physically possible. While the reasons you gave why a manufacturer would change their minds may all be reasons, they do not excuse a company from breaking their word.
In another thread we read that generally when you purchase a high end audio component, you are also generally buying the one or two guys who own and run the company. If I, the consumer, would like to know that a company does not honor its committments to a reviewer, believing that such conduct may indicate its unwillingness to honor its committments to me, then I think I am within my rights to ask for that information, and to be provided that information, or at least a statement that the magazine will not provide me the full details.
I note, though, you did not answer the question as to whether you would tell a reviewer that a review sample is forthcoming, a representation that the reviewer relied upon in a public comment, and then tell the reviewer that you chose not to submit a sample, if the reason for not doing so was within your control. Would you?
Of course, this has nothing to do with a manufacturer deciding not to submit a sample in the first place. That is their prerogative. I am referring to the manufacturer that tells a reviewer a sample will be forthcoming.
"Nothing nefarious here."
I am not sure how you would describe not fulfilling an obligation you made, and for which another relied upon.
"Like I said in another post, you could just call Gallo and ask them."
I could. But they have an interest in not providing me all the facts -such as they may be afraid that such behavior may have me looking elsewhere. On the other hand, I am not sure the magazine's interest is in not providing me, the other other reader who initially asked the question, all the information, which it now has with Mr. Atkinson's latest post.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: I really don't understand it... - jamesgarvin 10:25:29 05/03/07 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
