Hi Srajan,
I thought this might happen..... And I do apologise for any offense given, it was not my intention, I knew your sensitivities, and was determined to avoid visiting them here again. Furthermore, I regret that you have forced me to respond to your points in a public email; this is something of a train wreck, not good for either of us. We should have taken this private, as we largely did before, but I was committed to answering Haron. In any case, for the bloody record, I quite like you, you are 1 straight up and down fellow, but you really should know better........
Let me explain MY position, which you have miscontrued, in precise, abject, and infinitesimal detail.
I had indeed offered Hugh a review, done personally, by me here in Cyprus. After the exchange on AC leading up to that offer my Australian reviewer had forwarded me his prior correspondence with AKSA for my benefit. I forwarded some of that to Hugh then to refresh his memory since his recounting of things didn't entirely mesh with our records.
Well, I don't want to go there again.
We are there again, so let's get it straight!!
I understood very clearly, from the outrage in your second private email, that you were so upset you were not interested in a review. You'd made the offer of a true review in good faith, for which I thank you, prior to this final blowup. True story!! You implied that your reviewer was blameless, took his side completely, which took leadership and loyalty too far in my view. Besides, look at it from my POV!! Why would I send you an amplifier for review if you doubted my integrity, and insulted me by suggesting I had 'forgotten' all relevant details? I did not know you then, do not know you now, and the damage to my brand would have been mortal had you decided to cane the product on the basis of our 'difficult' relationship. Worse things have happened in good families, Srajan. Would you, Sir, would you entrust your life's !@#$ work in this situation?
I would just say that there is something very wrong with Hugh's second half of the answer above if, by insinuation, it's supposed to describe us. Namely, it "is frustrating is that the reviewers generally are concerned only with their readership and their advertisers. This means they have some autonomy, a nice position to be in, but with the potential to ignore good products. The manufacturer needs good reviews, but the reviewer has it pretty much on his terms as he has the marketing machine. Unless one pays for advertising, this is the reality. This is expensive, so the payment must be supported by the retail price! That said, there are still reviewers who show integrity and ignore the advertising revenue, but it's a tricky balance."
Srajan, you are posturing. In my last email to you dated 22nd December, after explaining IN DETAIL my less than edifying experiences with another reviewer who shall remain nameless, I said this:
I knew you guys to be much more upright than this, and was keen for a review and had an amp in NYC, but you demurred because none of your US reviewers were interested, and asked that I send one on to ******.
When you wrote just now that I was clearly insinuating 6moons lacked integrity, I was outraged. I had specifically explained to you that I had selected you as my reviewer BECAUSE I perceived your honesty. I can only conclude that you are either baiting the situation, or being very cynical because you perceive ANY bad press for 6moons must be flattened regardless. This reminds me of a couple of warring academics, 'The fighting was bitter, and trenchant, and vindictive, because the stakes were so low'. Not a good look, Srajan. You suggested my memory was flawed; perhaps this is just yours similarly afflicted. I hope it is merely that.
I further added on 22nd December:
I have no beef with you, never did, and with sincerity I wish you a Merry Christmas. I am quietly furious with ******, who is not telling the whole story. I really don't want this to go any further, but I cannot prevent ****** telling his story in the forum if he chooses. I thank you for discouraging him at this time; you might suggest quietly to him that manufacturers are hypersensitive - even neurotic - about their products, and he would be advised to be very careful with email communication. The problem is that, for the most part, their products are their life's work - just as your ezine is your life's work, something which fires you up each day and brings you into contact with fascinating products and people.
Thank you for the kindness of your forum offer. That really impressed me and I was touched.
Srajan, I think this makes it very clear I was not having a shot at you. I think my post today makes that clear, too - I did say we parted by mutual agreement and I hold with that now.
I will say it now, and shout it from the treetops, that I still like your ezine. I always did, and that is why I felt, at the suggestion of one of my customers, that I should approach you for a review. I think it is well written, of high integrity, technically and musically rigorous and graphically outstanding. I think you guys are dead honest, and I had said that to you some months back, which is why this outburst from you is both astonishing and intensely disappointing, at least to me. I refute utterly that you had any intention of reviewing my amp after our communication of the 22nd December when I bid you farewell, and I am frankly astonished that you imply any differently. There is nothing to be gained by pretending otherwise.
I am seated at my PC in sweltering 100F heat today, this is not really helping any. Again, I apologise if you are offended, but it's not my doing. For your own reasons, you have chosen, despite earlier private comments and no clear insinuation in today's post, to be offended. I like 6moons, will go on reading and recommending it, but sadly it is not for me and I've gone elsewhere. Please, Srajan, let us end this here.
Neither of us needs this; I regret it deeply, and hope we can walk away without further bloodshed.
Cheers,
Hugh
