The future of the hi-fi press

Is there one?

In days gone by the audio press was all powerful and magazine circulations were high.
We had divergent opinions with round earth mags, flat earth mags, those concentrating on high end only (mostly US kit) and those looking at stuff way out on the left field.

So where are we today, and what is the purpose of a modern audio magazine?
Are they responding correctly to changing markets and what would you like to see them doing differently?

 

The purpose of modern audio magazines is to extract maximum advertising revenue from a decreasing pile of advertisers who are attempting to extract increasing amounts of money for decreasing quality goods from an even more quickly decreasing pool of customers.

 

They will either die or go on-line, like a forum with reviews, advertising and even sales.

This is not a new concept it was tried in the late 90's, but the time, the industry, the computer technology was not ready. It was called Cyber-fi and it was run by Dave Wiley (nee Rosam) and Jonathon Kettle. This is all I can find on-line about it now - http://gulib.georgetown.edu/newjour/c/msg00721.html

 

Anyone have a view on the model as used by Hi-Fi Critic?

Subscription only and ad free, plus it has a connected forum to discuss the contents.
I believe you can now also download reviews and articles.

 

And controlled by just about the worst slurper of the lot, Martin Colloms.

 

Used to buy them regularly.
Now I read Stereophile online only, and online publications - enjoy the music, tnt etc.

Internet content seems more diverse and interesting to me, and I can read about what I'm particularly interested in - which is never the new launch of a £200 amp from Rotel for example.

I especially like the ''techie bits'' on the end of stereophile reviews. Find them sadly lacking in most UK magazines, wish they would adopt a page (no pun intended ) from the stateside magazine here..

Also, wish the UK mags would publish more (old content) foc on the internet. I wonder if ''back issue'' sales count for much revenue anyway? Would they get more current sales from the increased readership of old mags on the web?

 

I still buy the new mags - Plus, Critic, World and News, though with the exception of Critic I tend to skim read them these days.
However I most enjoy going backwards - So, starting at about 1980 (when I first started to regularly read mags) I now work backwards in time buying one or two old pre 1980 mags each month. Much prefer the read TBH.

You'd be amazed how many times people have reinvented the wheel!

 

And would you just not love to be part of the slurp.

You wouldn't?

The HiFi press is part of our industry. Why be happy to predict their demise?

The old industry is still the new industry. People need to make money.

 

I think we are still in transition.
There is a place for hi-fi magazines (printed) but they need to specialise - go back to serving the niche audio community as was the case in the 1950s and 60s.
The journalism needs to be investigative and we need to move away from all this '5 Star Award' stuff.

I think that inevitably means a very different business model and its one of the reasons I like Critic. It represents several hours good reading for hardcore equipment addicts, and of course no ads.

They do need to start focusing more heavily on computer audio. Like it or not that is the future and i can't help thinking that if magazines maintain the current focus on traditional audio separates they are effectively stuck in the past. I'm tempted to use the term 'legacy'

 

On the one hand a well-functioning audio press would act as an information source and a safety net to protect customers from lies and dishonesty.

But what we have is a self-serving clique who seem to be a part of the sales force of "the industry".

There are too many obvious flaws with internet forums as well...

 

'Which' magazine is the perfect model, every product tested is bought with the magazine's own funds and ( I believe )destroyed afterwards, no possible coercion or favouritism.
Keith.

 

I cancelled the last of my subscriptions around 6 months ago. In all honesty I don't feel as if I'm missing out: the various forums out there have useful information of second hand hardware, classic equipment, esoteric stuff I wasn't previously aware of, new developments in computer audio / DACs, etc - all I need.

In the past I have bought on the strength of good reviews - its an expensive way of learning a lesson. Forum opinions on sound quality are just that, and no different to mag reviews: you tend to lean towards opinions close to yours, but I always make sure I hear before I commit (whether direct at dealers, home dems, or at fellow enthusiasts homes).

I got rid of all my 70s-80s mags, but it was interesting to have a last flick through them before they went. Some of the writing was less infomercial than current mags, and the technical articles were well written for the layman. The only current mag who get anywhere near to what I'd want is Hifi World, but I'm done with cluttering up cupboards with old mags - forums are good enough for me.

 

Aside from the twisted logic of "magazines need to do what they did in the past, or else they will be stuck in the past", there's a big issue here. It's not the 1950s anymore. When hi-fi magazines used to serve niches in the audio community in the 1950s or 1960s, they were serving niches of 50,000+ readers. Because there wasn't much of an alternative for people to get interested in.

Now, there are lots of small, shiny things to grab the attention of those potential hi-fi buyers and the circulations of all of the hi-fi magazines combined will only hit 50,000 if they are lucky. And the ones that target the enthusiasts barely hit 1/10th that kind of audience; worse, I suspect they are all reaching the same 5,000 or so people who regularly read at more than one of the magazines, rather than each one appealing to its own individual readership. A niche audio magazine today might have more people working on it than reading it.

And that poses a problem, because they become effectively as conservative as the most conservative readers they appeal to. Computer audio is an ideal case in point; the magazines have to have an on-again, off-again relationship with this because to cover it risks losing readers but to not cover it risks losing relevance.

In a way, this hobbles them more than having to pander to advertisers. Even today, there are always more advertisers. But, lost readers are irreplaceable because there are no new readers.

 

A reviewing magazine's job is to find something better each month else its readers will get bored and look elsewhere. The whole exercise seems pointless to me but I suppose it serves those who purchase stuff for the wrong reasons and need a new "fix" every four weeks.

Interviews with designers is the only thing I miss about them. However, Internet forums and email have largely solved that for me.

 

I don't think we are talking about the same market at all.

The buyers of the shinny little gadgets aren't the ones reading Hi-Fi news, Plus, Critic etc - they've moved on to technology magazines, computer magazines and AV focused publications.

Incidentally, I wouldn't put computer audio into the above category at all.
Audiophiles have a very different attitude to computer audio compared to most who've embraced the technology. Mention 'DAC' to most people 'into' gadgets and technology and you'll just get strange looks.

The audiophile end of the spectrum is niche - very niche!
Not only that but it shrinks by the day, but that doesn't mean they should be ignored or will be disappearing in the short-medium term. So they need a section of the press to cater for them. The question is surely how to fund the model. Again i would give you Hi-Fi Critic as a good example because they have responded to the inevitable shrinkage within the the market - their traditional market. The magazine is expensive at around £15 a copy but that is of course peanuts to the target market who will in all probability spend more than that on a mains fuse...

On a related point, I read a couple of quite negative equipment reviews recently where the reviewer was clearly not afraid to go against the grain.
That's quite unusual these days!

 

If I choose to transact with Martin and pay him to read his reviews, which are not supported by adverts, then how can he be slurping? He's not acting as any middle man, he's providing me with a viewpoint on gear I might not have access to.

Are you claiming he's corrupt and that brands can 'bias' reviews by crossing his palm with silver? That's a pretty serious accusation if you are Richard, you may want to consider if it's sensible pursuing that train of thought on the web.

I'll assume he gave you a shit review once and ignore it as the ramblings of a madman.

 

But these people who have moved on to shiny gadgets were the people who would have bought hi-fi and hi-fi magazines when there was nothing else out there for them to buy. With each successive gadget, the hi-fi business shrank a little more. The iPod was merely the coup de grâce.

I said 'audio' not 'audiophile'. A niche magazine in the already niche world of audio is doomed to catastrophic failure.

Unfortunately, advice and information and opinion can all be had for free online. The advice might be wrong, the information bogus and the opinion prove to be camouflaged PR-guff... but you get what you pay for. And that is ultimately what will kill off expert opinion, because expert opinion costs.

 

How much of his income do you think comes from that magazine or even directly from reviewing?

That is as far as I will take my comments, and you can invent and add what ever you want, which anyway is just your normal behaviour.

And no he has never given me a bad review, in my time I have only had one bad review and that was from Richard Black, and that one I wont go into apart from to say that it came as a direct result of me suing Hi-Fi Choice for libel and getting an out of court settlement and apology in the late 90's.

 

That is the point your expert opinion is paid, the point is by whom

 

Richard I have no idea how much of his income comes from where and frankly I couldn't care as long as it's not back handers from grateful manufacturers.

If you have anything to say against the man say it, don't infer he's anything less than 'straight up' unless you can back it up.