Importance of gear ads and reviews

[Dan South]

Imagine that a new music magazine appears at your local newsstand this month. You glance through it and find interviews with top artists in a genre that you enjoy. There are record reviews, lessons and columns, sheet music and tab of some cool songs, discussions of music theory and musicology. But no gear reviews. And no gear ads. None. Zero. Nada. The ads are all for recordings, concerts, radio programs, sheet music books, etc. But NO GEAR. Would you buy the magazine? Would you subscribe to it? If you bought it, what would you read first? Interviews? Articles? Lessons? When you read the music magazines that you read now, what percentage of time to you spend on gear reviews? If a magazine didn't have any shiny new gear ads, would it still interest you?

[Salyphus]

I would be much more interested! My main peeve with music-related mags is that they are way to focused on new gear rather than on techniques to make music. It seems to help foster a mindset in people that they just need to buy that next piece of gear and they will be set, when really the gear is just a means to an end. (I guess that is what some people call G.A.S.) I realize that commercial concerns are at least partially what drive magazines to be this way, but it does turn me off. I wouldn't even say it's just the reviews or gear ads, but the mentality that seems to focus on the gear first. Gear reviews are certainly useful, even invaluable when a really great reviewer such as our gracious host is on the case, but most of the time I'm not looking to buy new gear but rather trying to make the best of what I have. Not to mention that I might be just as likely to want to read a review of some older equipment that I could find used that might serve my needs as well or better than whatever happened to have been released in the past couple of months. TapeOp strikes a pretty good balance in this respect I'd say. Sound on Sound seems to have a better approach than a lot of the US mags in my opinion, with lots of articles about techniques and even vintage gear. Great topic :thu:

[Gtoledo3]

I'm sick of gear reviews and ads. I want "making of the song/album" type of stuff.

[MattC]

It's not that there is too much in the way of gear reviews, it's that there's too little of everything else. you can pick up a copy of a weekly entertainment rag and there's more features than in a monthly music magazine. There should be moer of everything- reviews, lesssons, etc.

[Sylver]

Dan, are you going to start your own music mag? I think you got one hell of an idea there.

[Nawor]

I used to buy an English mag called 'Home and Studio Recording'. It was full of great articles, tips and DIY projects. Equipment reviews, interviews with engineers, and equipment designers, mic techniquies, use of EQ and FX etc. Even articles on DIY acoustic design for your home studio. IMHO all really useful stuff! :) It changed it's name to 'The Mix' and the content changed, more multipage ads, more 'music fashion' related articles... 'who's cool now' sort of crap. :mad: Interviews with the lastest megastar dance DJ's etc. In the end it turned to complete shite and I stopped buying it! :freak:

[Franknputer]

H&SR was a great little rag - I found some at a church I used to sub at, and ended up borrowing several to read. Too bad it went away.

[Hippie]

I like the gear ads and reviews, but it seems they run the same gear ads for too long. 2 - 3 months worth would be fine. However, if the mags. did not contain the ads and reviews, that would not stop me from buying the magazines; I'm sure I could find gear info. & reviews somewhere else, like the internet. My favorite type of articles are the ones where they pick a classic rock album and find the people who produced, engineered or played on it to give insights about how the record was done. More of those please!! Matt

[Erlic]

I really don't mind the other magazines that are out on the market, however, I would greatly appreciate a magazine that was devoted to the music genre you spoke of along with musical theory, updated lessons, hints, practical applicatons for music, and anything else remotely related to the playing and performance of music. It would be an interesting concept. I just wonder how it would stay published without any adds by the major manufacturers. :confused:

[Dan South]

[quote]Originally posted by James P. Sullivan: [b]Dan, are you going to start your own music mag? I think you got one hell of an idea there.[/b][/quote]No, Sully. Maybe my own girlie magazine someday. ;) The question was precipitated by several observations. First, I noticed that the back cover of the December Keyboard was a MOTU ad. Now, when I buy camera magazines, there's usually a camera ad on the back cover. Why isn't there a keyboard on the back cover of Keyboard? Doesn't that seem a bit odd? Then I started to think about people who play piano or organ, have a nice instrument at home already, and have no interest in recording or engineering or live sound reinforcement. How is a copy of Keyboard going to look to this person? Probably like a pile of junk mail. I also noticed someone on the Keyboard forum asking what reviews were in the December issue. It appeared that that was this person's criterion for whether to buy the magazine or not. I've also heard American musicians say that they will pay a premium for British music publications because, drum roll please, of the SUPERIOR GEAR REVIEWS. Finally, I've noticed that the gear reviews and gear ads in Magazines like Keyboard, Bass Player, EM, EQ, Mix and others are, well, let's just say I don't know how you could possible add any more of them and have ANY content left. So I'm wondering whether gear is the only thing that sells magazines these days.

[not coaster MODERATOR]

Oh no... all my friends are turning into old farts. We're gear junkies, remember??

[surfmonkey]

Yeah, I don't even really play keyboard, and I read Keyboard for their reviews and articles on computer and recording gear. Go figure. I do susbsribe to Bass Player, and I don't think there are too many gear reviews. My only complaint with them is that many of their reviews are pretty fluffy, and they don't really form a strong opinion one way or the other.

[Anderton]

<> Well, we have access to reader surveys at EQ, and people like gear. They also like techniques, "the making of" stories, certain columns, etc. The way we've been able to keep a balance at EQ is by making the gear reviews shorter. That way we get to do more reviews without short-changing the other material. BTW I'm always a big advocate of getting more techniques pieces in the mag. It's not true that only gear stories make advertisers happy. Manufacturers like techniques pieces too because it gives them feedback on how people use things. This is valuable information for people who are planning future products. As to ads, that's an interesting topic. I always took ads for granted. Then I started doing page proofs of the magazine with Mitch. They arrive to us as PDFs of the articles, without any ads, and I go over them with a fine-tooth comb. But I still look forward to getting the magazine, because the ads DO interest me. There's one techniques article related problem, though. If you do them for specific pieces of gear, then readers who don't have that gear tune out. But if you make the pieces generic, a lot of readers find them too basic. Any thoughts on how to overcome this problem?

[DC]

How about a Consumer Reports approach? Would you pay more for a music mag with no ads?

[Tom Capasso]

I like the equipment stuff. I'm a gearhead for sure. I'm OK with the balance of gear/technique/players in Bass Player and Gig. I could accept a few less gear ads in place of ads for performances. Tom

[Ethan Winer]

DC, > How about a Consumer Reports approach? Would you pay more for a music mag with no ads? < I don't think it has to go to that extreme. Ads are a good way to see what's available because every product can't get a timely "first look" mention. My problem with gear reviews is they are not usually critical enough. [Keyboard magazine is a shining exception.] And too often reviewers parrot whatever the gear maker says without question. For example, in the current issue of EQ Craig reviews the M-Audio TAMPA saying, "According to M-Audio, acoustic sound sources generate harmonics that are in phase with the fundamental." But that is complete nonsense - as are the other claims M-Audio makes about tubes vs. solid state regarding phase. If you watch a plucked guitar string on an oscilloscope you'll see that the harmonics are constantly changing their phase relationship to the fundamental, and therefore are neither in nor out of phase with it. The same is true for pianos and every other plucked string instrument. I'd rather Craig had said, [i]"Although it makes no sense,[/i] according to M-Audio..." Though I suppose that's asking for a little too much! :) When I used to design audio circuits I received the pro engineering magazines, and they were all quite careful in their assessments of new gear. Every new product was compared to similar existing products, with the pros and cons of all compared in great depth. The only time you'd see pseudoscience in those magazines was in the April 1st issue. Contrast that with my instructions from the editor when I used to write for Recording magazine. I was told specifically [i]not[/i] to compare any product with any other product! Many magazine publishers wrongly believe they have to cater to their advertisers since the advertisers pay the bills. But in fact it is the [i]readers[/i] who deserve the magazine's loyalty, because without them there would be no ads or revenue! --Ethan

[RM]

As a musician, I gather that those who chose this thread for the most part...do not approve of ads per se, given the need for more meat on the bone, articles, techniques, reviews etc. As for MOTU on the back of Keyboard, they aparrantly pushed for rear cover on a lot of mags, on the new box...rear covers are expensive and they may have made a blanket deal or something with the various publishing groups for that exposure. Gear, is a business and though as players we may see it as a grab for money in one sense, it is the nature of products and the process to be massaged via the advert conduit into the market. It would be cool if a product were so revolutionary, that word of mouth alone sets it in motion as a "Gotta have it". Given that we are not sheep, companies who employ folks to make and sell gear, both large and small have no way to get the attention of those who potentially invest for the sake of improved gear, newer sounds, processing, software etc...without looking to advertisments and reviews... Sometimes, it's these reviews which help launch the awareness of a great product, and can make or break a gadget literally, especially if the company is not one of the giants, who can suck up a misfired product... The mags are essential for everyones marketing plan and critical for the little guy. The ads, pay for the costs of production and distribution and of late, several mags have had staff cuts and are running close to the line... Those who are employed by the mags, have a tough enough time because of the competitive market, the loss of ad revenue from 911 etc and are all honest, hardworking folks. A lot of them have gigs, George Petersen at MIX still does sessions etc, Craig here, does a juggeling of many aspects creatively, Albert Margolis who sells ad space for MIX has a family and ties it up as a gigging keyborad and B 3 session guy, John Levy who does the same for Guitar Player and Bass Player, also gigs as a session player guitarist... All of these folks on the other side of the newstand, are dedicated to brining us, their readership, the best possible version in a time allotted and time critical way... For me, who's day job is running sales and riding herd on 18 rep firms for two lines of cables... it becomes even more critical to understand both sides of the dynamic. Of the 10 people in our office, six of us are players, singers or writers who are glad to have day jobs in the business... One might ask why not advertise in industry trade publications? Well, that is part of a manfacturers budget indeed, but compare the 9,000 issues which may be read by a handful of decision makers who are indundated by vendors clamor...to the 149,000 issues of Guitar Player. Those are the end users and they will make or break a retailer, driving business or rejecting business, based upon their perspectives, more's and peer awareness. How many times has the Les Paul or say Mustang, come and gone because of the sound of a certaatian band or artist...a few to say the least. That brings up another facet, artists in ads, it's complicated indeed This is a double edge sword because, we as musicians are skeptical more often than not. The guy's got a deal so... so and so threw cable at them and made a six foot tall poster for Guitar Center...I do understand that cynical perspective however, on the other hand, there are many who are not giant marketing machines and cannot pull millions from their consumer division, to put a pan falshing charted band on a poster, and replace them next year with the next flavor of 18 to 30 year old's who are getting airplay... Smaller companies, rely on the reputation of those who appear in ads, because for the most part, these folks are endorsing because they use the products and value the difference these items bring to the creative process...at least that's what I've experienced in the last year or so Some folks are persuaded by testimonials and that's why the big guys still make six foot tall posters like next weeks movie poster... Kids especially as we all know, want to be wearing the cool shoes and the same goes for which guitar string Zack is using this week... There are mags which do cover more technique then a competing version but, anymore, just as trade shows like NAMM, NAB, NSCA, INFOCOM and AES begin to look so much alike, because the technology melds at the seams... where there once were distinct differenece, they now overlap in a lot of ways and have become similar. I'm not suggesting that Extron, will show up at NAMM or that Fender will show up at NAB, but the lines are definitley blurred and so have the magazines, trying to stay true to the core ideal, yet having to cross market and cross editorialize, becuase of the changes in technology... Perhaps suggesting via e-mail or letter, to the editors who manage the mags in question, that they re-examine the roots and style of the offerings from a decade or two ago, in order to better serve your needs, may be a good place to start... BTW, I have always been a fan of both Sound on Sound and Future Music, from the UK. SOS will be launching a US version of the mag neaxt year, so there will be one more in the fray... I got's to put the soap box away now...it's my day off for at least a few more hours... Thanks, Rob :D

[RM]

I believe that articles are sent to the manufacturer for fact check, however, the manufacturer, especially with Craig, does not write the article... I attest to having 3 seperate reviews on a piece of gear, all published, and all fact checked but not content controlled. The folks at Recording prefer not to have any outside influences, and run their system without input from the manufacturer, as I recall (No prepared text etc.), but they also do a fact check?? The engineering community generally, prefers the staid and set in stone approach, usually based upon physics and yet, I have heard folks associated and retained to teach seminars at trade shows... blatently deride and procalim that "The last thing I tell every audience is if someone tells you that their cable wires make a differneces, don't believe them for a minute" OK, and when I asked him to please review our white paper on cast silver conductors and the independant evaluation comparisions, he agreed to do so and let me know what he thought...but I still have never heard a word from him... On balance most reviewers do not bow to the advertisers, at least not in our case, so I can only vouch for us and MIX, EQ and PAR... BTW I love Tape OP...that is like a garage band MIX.. Rob :wave:

[Ethan Winer]

Rob, > the manufacturer, especially with Craig, does not write the article. < Of course, and I surely did not mean to indict Craig! Craig is one of the "good ones" who really knows the facts. But in the audio field, more so than any other engineering discipline, pseudoscience abounds. And the problem is far deeper than advertiser influence. I read all of the pro audio magazines, and am now an advertiser too. Time and again I see an interview with some famous engineer or other who surely knows how to turn the knobs to get a good sound, but is clueless on the science yet speaks with authority anyway perpetuating the same myths. --Ethan

[RM]

Ethan.. That myths abound is human nature...even science and it's step child pseudo can be limited and personalized to the point of redundency... This week we recieved a writing from a very knowledgeble free lancer, comparing high end cables for guitar... At the end of the read, after trying to determine the methodology, myself and the GM determined that his entire premise, was non scientific and subjective, even though the intent was noble, his ears, his high end gear etc, left an occluded premise with results based upon tactile and extremely variable catagories which make sense if one replecates the project...and has his sensibilities only... In that, the person uses a chart with Bass on one side, treble on the other, to build what appears to be a scientific graph resembling an amplitute wave... alluding to his method as a point system he uses ten catagories to acheive the segments on that graph...we scored at the very bottom in total points of his quasi method scale and I assume then that to his ears, the more expensive types of cables, were more pleasing to him... The point is, a graph representation, with nomenclature such as that, would lead a reader to see, an actual wave graph, when in his case, it's a graph based upon subjective catagories, most of which are resultant from the act of striking chords etc, and that can never be a true bench test... I recently asked the GM how our first few cables were tested, he e-mailed the lab and the answer was some type of test apparatus, costing around $250k, which measures from well below to well above the common range one expects to work in doing audio... Anyway, I'm not sure that a third party publisher will pick up the article, because it's so unscientific...but who knows, I'm tempted to ask him to just leave us out, not because we are the lowest score, but because the thing appears to be only a personal opinion...and not in the least bit static... Being the lowest score translated to being superior IMO, meaning you can turn up our cables to 12 anyway... Yeah it's crazy sometimes, what people choose to focus on... Rob :cool: :D

[henrysb3]

A year or more ago, someone complained about Guitar Player giving out abundant Editor's Picks. One response was that the gear GP reviews is already above a certain line of quality in its market niche, therefore, a comparison of top offerings from competing manufacturers may net high scores for the lot. This made some sense to me, but I have noticed this year that some gear scoring very high on the five star scale does not win the Pick. I think this trend started six or eight issues ago. This kind of comparison is not as scientific as Consumer Reports, my other long-time magazine subscription, but it's done by some obviously savvy testers. The way CR would test twin amps would be to put it in a lab, where they could measure power output in watts,and distortion in dB. They might chart additional comparisons of durability of the Tolex or carpet by putting a machine that simulates a thousand load-outs. Though I would study this kind of information with interest, it seems that some kinds of products defy the data and just sound good. What do I read? Often first it's Soundhole, the chief editor's column. The one in this month's issue addresses this very topic. I scan the gear reviews, and read some ads, then ponder my budget. I read most of the magazine, though I don't dive right into the lessons. It's on a back burner of good intentions many issues long... That goes back to the early seventies when a friend's brother worked at Guitar Player and I would get some of his back issues when I visited him in Kansas City. That was my musical free lunch. I have since become a regular subscriber, with the exception of a few years when the public library was in route of some regular meetings I attended. Magazines like GP that survive into their fourth decade have been successful at balancing the taste of their readers with advertising revenue. Namaste Henry

[Anderton]

<> WRONG. That was NOT a REVIEW, that was a First Look!!!They are extensions of the Product Views section (they even follow Product Views in the magazine; reviews are in the BACK of the book). They allow us to give more ink than just a few sentences for products that we think are interesting for one reason or another. If you actually READ the thing, you'll notice that we include information on when the product is supposed to ship. That's because THE FIRST LOOK PRODUCTS AREN'T YET AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW. There have been some isolated incidents where I've done a First Look on a software product where I was able to spend some time with beta software, but even then, IT'S NOT A REVIEW BECAUSE WE DON'T REVIEW BETA SOFTWARE. Who knows what's going to change by the time the product actually ships? It does let me speak about the product with a bit more authority, but a First Look is never a definitive statement on what a product can or cannot do. That's the province of reviews. And not surprisingly, that's why I said "According to M-Audio..." because THAT'S WHAT THEY STATE. I think what they were trying to get at was the tube = even harmonic, solid state = odd harmonic thing, but it's impossible to know how TAMPA responds unless there's one sitting here to test. As far as I know, review units have still not been sent out. Regardless of how any technological claims got mangled by the marketing department, though, it still looks like an interesting unit...which is why we covered it. ALL product press releases are treated similarly. If a manufacturer says their product is compatible with VST hosts, that's what we say. The review process determines whether, in fact, it is. Of course, we remove the superlatives ("The most VST-compatible plug-in in the history of western civilization!") but that's to be expected. FYI regarding Keyboard -- I have seen five reviews of Arturia's Storm, including one written about version 1.0 for Keyboard a few years back. Mine was the ONLY ONE that mentioned that the synths cannot recognize pitch bend. Keyboard printed that, of course. But EQ would have too. I suspect the other reviews didn't print it not because there was any censorship, but because, due to the nature of the product, it never occurred to the reviewers to test it with pitch bend messages.

[Dak Lander]

I don't mind the gear reviews but too often the rags have the same crappy gear ads over and over again. I'm much more interested in the reviews of the gear and lessons, mythology, music & etc. The plethora of ads turns me off & it's now to a point where I don't even look at them so they aren't getting any of my business.

[Ethan Winer]

Craig, > WRONG. That was NOT a REVIEW, that was a First Look!!! < I understand, and I certainly did not intend to single you out! That article was just what I read most recently. I have a lot of respect for you, as you know. > a First Look is never a definitive statement on what a product can or cannot do. < I understand that too, and my point is unrelated to whether it was a review or a first look. It's just that M-Audio's statement is so obviously unscientific - which is a big hot button for me. :) > I think what they were trying to get at was the tube = even harmonic, solid state = odd harmonic thing < That's not what their ads say at all, which is exactly why I object so strenuously. From their PR sheet: "... based on M-Audio’s Temporal Harmonic Alignment technology, a revolutionary process that corrects the phase alignment of overtones to achieve the perceived warmth of tubes ..." What a crock. The concept of phase is confusing enough for a lot of folks, and M-Audio's nonsensical statement just makes things worse. If they have a good product they should explain why it's good - there's no need for them to invent BS explanations. > Keyboard printed that {Arturia Storm], of course. But EQ would have too. < Sorry, I was just trying to make a point about audio magazines in general. EQ is one of my faves. You know that. Heck, I just bought a bunch of ads! :) --Ethan

[Anderton]

<> I'm getting tired of this. Last time this topic came up, some people mentioned that reviews in magazines were too positive. So, I challenged anyone to name ONE product to which I gave a positive review that didn't deserve it. I'm still waiting. And, to think that publishers don't recognize the importance of reader loyalty is simply absurd, if not downright insulting. I'm not a publisher but note that we don't take advertiser surveys, we take reader surveys. I don't come to these forums to ask advertisers what they want to see in the magazine, I ask READERS what they want to see. When we spend hours agonizing over what to put on the cover, it's because we want to figure out what will draw READERS to the magazines. What people not involved in the magazine business can't seem to understand is that advertisers need magazines more than magazines need advertisers. Yes, we both need each other, but I don't worry too much when a manufacturer cancels their advertising with us because they're upset for one reason or another -- they're just hurting themselves, and deep down, they know it. EQ is seen by something like 42,000 people each month. Can an advertiser really afford NOT to be making their case in front of those people? Advertisers can bitch and moan all they want, but the bottom line is they need to advertise to get the word out, and they need magazines like EQ. <> Fact-check does not mean a negotiation process. It is done to save MY butt, not the manufacturer's. To realize the value of a fact-check, all it takes is one time that you get a phone number wrong in a review and some poor lady in Ithaca gets 500 calls and threatens to sue you...yeah, that actually happened once before I did fact-checking. Also, price changes are notoriouslycommon. The list price of the TASCAM PocketStudio 5 dropped by $100 while I was writing the review. Had I not sent the review in for fact-checking, it would have been printed with the wrong price. The other thing is that sometimes, this allows a manufacturer to fix a problem. There have been times when I complained about a bug, the manufacturer saw it during the fact-check, and fixed the problem before the review went into production. This kind of thing benefits everyone. 'Fess up: as a consumer, would you rather have a review with a complaint so it has a nice negative vibe, or would you rather have a product that actually works? Fact-checks also prevent a situation I saw in another magazine (I'm a nice enough guy not to say which one, but it wasn't a UEM publication) of SONAR with several factual errors. Yes, it had that negative tone so many of you seem to like...yet the negatives DIDN'T EXIST. The real negative was that the reviewer apparently didn't read the manual. Finally, fact-checks are essential when dealing with untested freelancers. When I was editing EM, a review stated that a piece of software had a serious deficiency. The manufacturer was perplexed, because the software did in fact do that particular function. Tim Tully was the editor for the review, and called the reviewer. Tim said "Well here in the manual, it says you can do this function by blah blah blah." At which point the "reviewer" said, "Well, I didn't read the WHOLE manual..." He never wrote for us again. Standard disclaimer: I speak only for myself. I make no claims regarding the objectivity, or lack thereof, with other reviewers or publications.

[Ethan Winer]

Rob, > his entire premise, was non scientific and subjective, even though the intent was noble < Yes, with electric guitars and amps fidelity is not particularly important. Tone is everything, and a little distortion is always better than none, and a lot is often better than a little. --Ethan

[Anderton]

<> Well, I'm with you there. But what I get out of it is engineers who can't communicate with marketing, who aren't into technology and can't really explain what's going on. I'm sure they're doing SOMETHING interesting, I'm just not sure what (and it did sound pretty good when I heard it). I guess I'll find out if I ever review it. Actually, I always thought tubes sounded the way they did because all those electrons were getting a nice tan from the cathode, and were more relaxed, thus making a mellower tone. In fact, if you get out a magnifying glass and look at a tube, you'll see bunches of electrons hanging out by the cathode, sipping wine and conversing.

[jackpine]

It amazes me that every 60 days we make Craig go through this same argument. Reviewers review, you all know how to deal with it.

[Anderton]

...but we also have to be careful about what is branded as "pseudo-science." Eric Johnson did an interview in Guitar Player where he mentioned that some effects sounded better with "old school" carbon-zinc batteries than with alkalines. Engineers, of course, raked him over the coals and thought this was preposterous...a battery is a battery, right? Ha ha ha, what a moron. Well, except that carbon-zinc types have a much higher internal impedance than alkaline types, and for effects with poor power supply rejection -- which was the norm for vintage stomp boxes -- this DID make a difference in sound, because more of the audio could "ride" the power supply rails and get into other stages, thus altering the tone. In my general experience, if a guitarist like Eric Johnson says he hears something and an oscilloscope says he dosen't, I trust the guitarist. Another example: I read an article debunking the whole "designer cable" thing. It was meticulously researched, used carefully controlled double-blind testing, etc., and came to the conclusion that all cables sounded the same. Well, of course they did -- they were being fed from a low impedance source and were going to a low impedance input. I said to the author at a show "But did you try going from a high-impedance output to an extremely high impedance in, like a tube?" "Uh...oh...hmmm...well, uh...no, not really." This is one reason why the cable controversy continues: two people can test the same cable and reach different, YET TOTALLY ACCURATE, conclusions because the conditions weren't the same. My best guitar cable ever: a Mattel one I picked up surplus for fifty cents. Why? It was so cheaply made, and the shielding was so deficient, that it had virtually no cable capacitance. I could feed a 50 Meg input with no dulling! OF course, if you breathed on it wrong, it would break... Now here's a pet peeve: I was at a NAMM show where a manufacturer showed a cable that was "polarized" -- one end was supposed to plug into the guitar, and the other into the amp. When I asked why, I got some crap about how "the crystalline structure of the precious metals in the cable blah blah blah." Well actually, they had three conductors, with the hot and ground being inside a shield, and the shield connected at one end only. So of course, you'd want that end to be at the amp. But clearly, the guy doing the explaining was a marketing person, not an engineer, and figured I wouldn't know any better. So the bottom line: Maybe M-Audio has figured out some secret, like Eric Johnson. Or maybe they haven't. But I wouldn't dismiss anything out of hand unless I've had a chance to try it myself. There have been too many times I was SURE I was right based on past experience and conventional wisdom, but turned out to be wrong because of factors that weren't yet generally recognized.

[Marvster]

The August, September, and October '98 issues of Keyboard ran a three-part, "full disclosure" ed letter series about how the mag approached product reviews (and I assume still does under Greg Rule's watchful eye). If anybody's interested enough to dig those issues up, we were completely straightforward about the process. Completely. That said, I think we all know that -- with the exception of a special business model like SOS US -- ads aren't going away. Period. So as someone who now creates these items of contention for a living, I'd be really interested to know which ads (if any) folks like and which they hate. What's a "good" ad as far as you're concernced? Mostly information? Enough pizazz to give you a sense of corporate culture? Nothing more than a wrapper to let you know a product's available? Disruptive enough (sorry, marketing geek term) to make you sit up and take notice of a product you wouldn't otherwise consider? I'd love to know. Marv *Full disclosure (again): My agency did the recent "Faces of Alesis" campaign as well as an ad for Arboretum's new video editor, Montage.