Home Hi-Rez Highway

New high resolution SACD releases, players and technology.

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Hi-Rez Highway ] [ Return to Search Results ]
[ Alert Moderator ] [ Edit ] [ Delete ]

Accomodation Pricing Does Not Create Conflict if . . .

its generally available to a particular reviewer from a host of manufacturers. There are very legitimate reasons for "accommodation" pricing that have nothing to do with influence peddling, but that discussion is not necessary to address your contention.

If you, as a customer, go to five retailers who represent (lets just assume) five different speaker manufacturers each (but only at full retail price), then you will presumably choose that brand and model (representing a hundred options, at least) which to you is the best balance of price v. performance (taking into account brand longevity, service, etc., as well as system matching in the decision matrix). There is no conspiracy there, just a market decision. Even if you had a long term relationship those dealers and let's say they would provide you a 10% discount on everything they sell, it wouldn't change your decision matrix, it wouldn't create a conflict of interest between brands or dealers, nor would it create a conspiracy.

However, if you only have that "special" relationship with one dealer, you may favor the brands it sells (i.e., those for which you would get your discount) over potentially superior products. Would you be getting a truly better deal, however? Only if the performance you are ultimately paying for (at the discounted price) is truly better than the alternatives at the price available to you. Here, your determination to get a "discount" creates a conflict with your true "actual available price" v. "actual performance" matrix. This is something you see all the time in retailing. Buy a Bose at 50% of retail and you may still get fleeced compared to paying 100% of retail for a product with better intrinsic value (the used market provides a very good indication of intrinsic value v. original MSRP, by the way).

Since "accommodation" pricing is roughly the wholesale price (doing a manufacturer's dealer network no direct good, which reputable brands value significantly), and since well established reviewers are generally offered such accommodation pricing across the board, the appropriate decision matrix is that of the first model, not the second. There is no conspiracy, nor is there a conflict of interest.

Contrast that situation with a less established or less reputable reviewer who is only offered "accommodation" pricing on one particular brand, or only on a piece of gear in for review. There you have two real conflicts of interest, but probably only an indirect one without any conspiracy. If only offered from one manufacturer, the "reviewer" may make the same mistake the "discount shopper" makes between perceived and intrinsic value. This generally hurts the reviewer, but I can see how it could skew the review (although not in a "payola" way, since the reviewer still shouldn't rationally pay for something which she doesn't really like). If the "deal" is only offered on the item in for review, the conflict would arise from pre-screening of gear (i.e., the reviewer seeking out only an item she believes she wants, presumably because she thinks it has true intrinsic value). In this latter case, the reviewer's review comes partly from a per-determined understanding of the product (but then again, most retail customers do this too, at least all those reading reviews -- they don't blindly go to a dealer and say "show me what you've got" without the baggage of expectations, both on the products and brands). Again, only an indirect conflict and no conspiracy.

Ultimately, trying to compare retail customers to reviewers is an apples to oranges endeavor and pointless IMO.

With regard to your continued criticism of Mr. Hansen, I don't get it. He was prompt to answer all your questions and clearly Ayre has a very tight policy on only offering "accommodations" to very established and reputable reviewers (and to well established and reputable third-party manufactures too, from what I can tell from other Asylum threads). Charlie has stated his opinion (established from over two decades in the business) that there is no grand conspiracy generally, although there are always a few bad apples everywhere (print and internet magazines, dealers, customers, reviewers, you name it). Based upon the hundreds of his posts to this site, I trust that Charlie's opinion is an honest one, and in any event he's clearly entitled to his opinion. Charlie and the other manufactures who routinely contribute to the Asylum are clearly doing so because of their true interest in the hobby, not as some kind of a marketing endeavor.



This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Kimber Kable  

Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups
FAQ

Post a Message!

 Forgot Password?
Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
  Remember my Moniker & Password  (What's this?)    Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:
Message:   (Posts are subject to Content Rules)
Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:  Automagically notify you when someone responds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]