[HT cOz]

Let me say that I'm a vapor fan. If I were to spend big money on speakers it would be with you guys.  No matter what happens here I don't see that changing.  However, I don't see the 6 moons thing being a problem. I would leave it at we decided not to send our speakers.  Next....  Keep rockin it and move on, life's too short. 

[Vapor Audio]

Let me say that I'm a vapor fan. If I were to spend big money on speakers it would be with you guys.  No matter what happens here I don't see that changing.  However, I don't see the 6 moons thing being a problem. I would leave it at we decided not to send our speakers.  Next....  Keep rockin it and move on, life's too short. 

Thanks man, that's essentially what it comes down too.  We don't need the review, but I did want one.  And I wanted one from Srajan, some don't like how he writes but I always have.  I was anxious to see what he's say about our stuff. 

I'm not trying to say 6moons or Srajan are untrustworthy, it was just our decision based on a lot of considerations.  And I spent hours and hours weighing them, I went back and forth.  In the end I had to listen to the advice of people who know me and have my best interest in mind, some of which I see viewing this thread right now 

[Early B.]

I didn't renew my subscription to Stereophile a few years ago mainly because I noticed that manufacturers often had ads in the same edition as a review of one of their components. Perhaps that's why 99% of the Stereophile reviews are ultra positive.

Srajan should either run his website like a hobbyist and not sell ads, or establish a different business model where his income is perhaps derived by selling equipment he doesn't review, consulting, marketing, etc. Either way, selling ads is selling out. 

If a manufacturer "purchased" a review, I would question the integrity of both parties and frown on the legitimacy of the review.

[lowtech]

So, it costs nothing to have a presence on this site?  I guess I don't see the distinction (and your objection) to pay him for his time to publicize your products.

[Phil A]

I know more than one reviewer.  Bad reviews as a rule almost all of time are simply not published.  Also reviewers tend to be partial to advertisers and manufacturers who give them accommodation sales.  It is just human nature and the way things work.  If I read a review it is in the context of what other equipment is used and the material played.  It is not a perfect system.

[Vapor Audio]

So, it costs nothing to have a presence on this site?  I guess I don't see the distinction (and your objection) to pay him for his time to publicize your products.

Here I purchased the subforum and presence that gives.  On 6moons he clearly states that he is selling reviews, not advertising.  If you want a short 2-page review you pay $, and if you want a longer review you pay $$$.  It is his website, and it is his decision how to run it.  It is nothing more than my opinion that his decision blurs the lines too much. 

FYI I had my own print magazine for years.  I also had numerous large forums which were sold to a California tech company.  In both we sold advertising, but the advertising was a product on it's own.  We had media kits which told the potential buyer what they would receive as far as magazine circulation, page views, impressions, etc.  We sold the advertising, meaning all the work involved with sales goes with that.  But in my magazine especially we reviewed products, there was never a tie to reviews and advertising.  The people who handled each were independent, and usually who was going to advertise in a certain issue wasn't known until hours before printing.  The reason why things were handled that way wasn't result of some deep ethical considerations, it was just the industry standard and the way things have always been done.  The content generates traffic, traffic justifies and provides value to advertisers, thus with good content you get enough traffic to make money on the magazine or website.  But that is clearly more work than simply requiring that your content providers pay to play. 

[Vapor Audio]

Srajan should either run his website like a hobbyist and not sell ads, or establish a different business model where his income is perhaps derived by selling equipment he doesn't review, consulting, marketing, etc. Either way, selling ads is selling out. 

I don't agree with that.  Selling ads doesn't mean selling out, it's simply reality of the World.  Srajan deserves to be properly compensated for his work, only he can decide what 'properly' means.  I have no doubt for me that number would be less than him, but that's beside the point ... it's his decision.  When a website such as 6moons becomes large enough, and time intensive enough to be a full time job, yes he must find ways to monetize it.  His website has incredible content, and a large stable of loyal readers.  I have no doubt he could easily sell ads completely independent of reviews. 

Again, you're all free to draw your own conclusions.  I don't want to sway anyone's opinion of 6moons, I'll continue reading.  I'm only making my own decision trying to protect the company I've spent 8 years building.  Even if the threats are only perceived, I've given Vapor Audio everything I have, and there are other people here who depend on me as well.  It's just too important.

[pconley2]

Ryan, good for you.  It is shame that this had to work out this way, but given what you have shared, I think you have made the right decision.

i also agree that Srajan runs a very good website, I would hope that he rethinks or at least clarifies his policies.

Phil

[Srajan Ebaen]

I don't *sell* reviews. I simply can't work for free (something that should be obvious to most who know that I do this full-time, not as a hobby). Under the old system, about 30% of manufacturers who advertise with us in essence paid so that 70% of manufacturers, often direct competitors, would get free reviews. Under the new policy, everyone is obliged to support us with at least a one-month token ad. That pays us (myself or my writers) a bit for our time, not our opinion. Those who misconstrue this to imply something else... well, they needn't read us anymore. 

If you were a Vinnie Rossi, Sasa Cokic, Konstantinos Papachristou or any number of other small one- or two-man manufacturers... would it sit right by you to support us (so we can continue producing content) and allow the majority of makers who are reviewed to get a completely free pass? This 'something for nothing' attitude is becoming more pervasive especially on the Internet where "everything is free". It's not, actually.

And yes, we do sell ads entirely independent of reviews. Those are companies who wish to build their brand; and also support us so we keep doing what we're doing. But that doesn't justify that the rest who want our services (a well-presented review on a global platform with a large readership) should get those services for nothing. We're not a non-profit organization, I'm not a trust-fund baby, live off my wife or am retired and living off savings from a prior job. I'm an ordinary working bloke who puts about 60 hours a week into his job.  Paying me a one-month ad fee towards my time doesn't, believe me, come close to the actual time I spend on a review. But it now does act as a filter, weeding out those who object to paying even very little because to them, reviews should be free, their competitors should pay for them and to hell with the guy who actually does all the work 

[Folsom]

I'm not sure that anyone who hasn't done a lot of work for free can understand.

By the way, upon seeing this I immediately started looking for pricing, because I want to be ready and willing.

[Eugene2]

I can see it working both ways especially when a magazine request multiple or on going reviews.  In this case it is a one month commitment prior to the review, which the magazine should put the manufacturerer on notice that the review is unbiased and could go either way.  That way after the review is published the manufacturerer has the choice of continuing to advertise or not moving forward.  It still is one man's ear and opinion, they may still need the exposure and have the opportunity to revise the product or go elsewhere to advertise.
A manufacturer that does not believe in this type of review structure has the right to participate or not, if you read the commentary by 6 Moons it was very fair in he assessment of why the review was pulled and Vapor was very clear in their reasoning for not participating.  I like reading 6moons and am a fan of Vapor's product line so I wish both sides continued success...
P.S. I think the Aurora would have gotten a helluva thumbs up

[Early B.]

I don't *sell* reviews. I simply can't work for free (something that should be obvious to most who know that I do this full-time, not as a hobby). Under the old system, about 30% of manufacturers who advertise with us in essence paid so that 70% of manufacturers, often direct competitors, would get free reviews. Under the new policy, everyone is obliged to support us with at least a one-month token ad. That pays us (myself or my writers) a bit for our time, not our opinion. Those who misconstrue this to imply something else... well, they needn't read us anymore. 

If you were a Vinnie Rossi, Sasa Cokic, Konstantinos Papachristou or any number of other small one- or two-man manufacturers... would it sit right by you to support us (so we can continue producing content) and allow the majority of makers who are reviewed to get a completely free pass? This 'something for nothing' attitude is becoming more pervasive especially on the Internet where "everything is free". It's not, actually.

And yes, we do sell ads entirely independent of reviews. Those are companies who wish to build their brand; and also support us so we keep doing what we're doing. But that doesn't justify that the rest who want our services (a well-presented review on a global platform with a large readership) should get those services for nothing. We're not a non-profit organization, I'm not a trust-fund baby, live off my wife or am retired and living off savings from a prior job. I'm an ordinary working bloke who puts about 60 hours a week into his job.  Paying me a one-month ad fee towards my time doesn't, believe me, come close to the actual time I spend on a review. But it now does act as a filter, weeding out those who object to paying even very little because to them, reviews should be free, their competitors should pay for them and to hell with the guy who actually does all the work 

While we can all certainly understand the need to make money, the reailty is that your readership wants unbiased reviews, and your business model casts doubt on that. We also understand your moral dilemma -- providing "free" reviews. However, you benefit greatly from those reviews through a larger number of visitors to the site over time which, in turn, allows you to generate more income from ads. Seems like you've already created a win-win scenario. 

[HT cOz]

I read the entire 6 Moons page on what they are doing and it all seems very sensible and I have no problem with their policy. 

[Bob in St. Louis]

I'll make you a deal Ryan....I'll charge half as much to review your speakers as Srajan does.
I won't even be picky on the color.

[mav52]

Having worked for a large outdoor fishing magazine in Florida during my college days I don't really have a problem as running a site or printing a mag is not as cheap as people think.    But we never requested a boat manufacturer to purchase a small add for us to review their product. 

You can look at this a few ways, if you build a product and have faith in it's build structure and it's performance a review is nothing but a blessing for success. But to be required to buy a little add for that review,  well that's rather odd..  Might as well pay for the review.

Good luck to Vapor and 6moons you both provide a nice product. . 

[Vapor Audio]

If you were a Vinnie Rossi, Sasa Cokic, Konstantinos Papachristou or any number of other small one- or two-man manufacturers... would it sit right by you to support us (so we can continue producing content) and allow the majority of makers who are reviewed to get a completely free pass? This 'something for nothing' attitude is becoming more pervasive especially on the Internet where "everything is free". It's not, actually.

I'm not going to get into a back and forth, I just wanted to quote this because I've seen you say it on other forums and well, and it's an incredibly myopic view. 

I am your content provider.  Without product to review, there would be no 6moons.  And without you writing the reviews nobody would hear about what they could do.  It's the same story with every magazine and rich content website in existence, or that ever has been in existence.  The symbiotic relationship has always been there, and both parties benefit from it. 

Something for nothing?  Take a step back and realize what it takes to send product, especially speakers.  My investment of resources is far more than yours, and the only way I'm willing to make that investment is if I have 100% certainty that my product will be reviewed fairly and on even footing with other manufacturers no matter the size.  Whether your policy change means I'm now 99% entrusting, or 0% doesn't matter.  Before I'm going to spend $2500 on shipping to Switzerland on a product I have 80 hours and $2200 cost in producing, I MUST have absolutely no doubt of the fairness which I will be shown. 

Srajan, back to every magazine and rich content website on the planet ... you are completely out in left field with this pay-to-play policy of forcing the monetization onto your content providers.  All the established means of making money from a mag/website, you decided not to employ them and instead chose the easy/lazy way regardless of public perception.  I even offered to help you (having much experience myself) put into place pieces needed like sophisticated ad serving software so that you could market the reach of your website, and tell potentials exactly what they would receive by purchasing ads.  I assumed you don't sell ads as a product like every other site because you don't have the sophistication needed to do so.  The only other reason to do it how you do would be because of a sense of entitlement, which your comment above leads me to believe might be the case. 

[Vapor Audio]

Before anyone says anything else ... just one more point.

I'll say it again for about the 20th time.  I very much enjoy reading 6moons, and have the utmost respect for what Srajan has been able to create.  He deserves to make money from his efforts! 

I just think it's a shame what this near-sighted policy has done, and will continue to do to the perception of their legitimacy.  I hope Srajan reconsiders, and enacts an industry standard monetization policy that doesn't cast this shadow of doubt.  And Srajan, if you do, or even if you just want to consider those options, I have a lot of experience in that field and will happily give my time freely to help if wanted. 

[Srajan Ebaen]

"I exist, therefore I benefit you."

It's your argument, Ryan. I simply no longer buy it. It's a freeloader's mentality. Sorry but that's how I see it and that's why I instigated the new policy. It eliminates it from our site. And I did offer to grandfather you under my old policy given the timing but you declined.

As far as this assignment is concerned, you're left with a brand-new speaker in the colour you suggested. I should expect zero loss on your investment unless you had to repaint it to match a customer's requirements. And $2'500 shipping to Switzerland is flat-out crazy. You should change shippers immediately.

You clearly don't like my new policy. You're free to diss it then. As such you probably could care less that all of the manufacturers who have contacted us since not only understand it but find our pricing structure eminently fair; and fully agree that our involvement of time in our work should be compensated (and not just by the major ad sponsors). In fact, we had a very small manufacturer from India the other day who too fell into this group. That's from a country whose currency is worth far less than the US dollar or Swiss frank to the Euro. They were actually aghast that people could expect to get reviews for nothing. So I'm quite confident that I'm far from as out in left field as you think. Yes it will polarize people into pro and con but that's the way it goes.

Since I've done 6moons full-time for 12 years, I've obviously relied on exclusive ad support for ad support's sake for all of that time. And again, the recent change was to level the playing field which I considered unfair and imbalanced particularly when well-to-do manufacturers had in some cases collected 6-7 reviews over the years and never reciprocated at all whilst in many cases smaller companies shouldered the burden. That's because with smaller companies, I'm dealing with the owners. Like me, they know exactly what it's like to be self-employed. They don't for one second imagine or expect I should work for nothing. With bigger companies, one deals with salaried personnel who pull a regular pay check. They often could care less. That's the way of the world.

You've chosen to view my fairness (which compelled you to approach me in the first place) compromised due to my decision. Curiously enough, my fairness was not in question as long as I reviewed the majority of companies for free yet also reviewed products from companies who supported us with ads.  Interesting logic at work there 

That you choose to call a guy's insistence that he can't work for free a sense of entitlement merely confirms the rationale for my new policy. I'd rather work with people who don't begrudge me that (or expect competitors to foot the bill) 

[Vapor Audio]

Again, Srajan ... I have the utmost respect for 6moons writers and content, yourself included.  I do not want to change anyone's mind about how they view 6moons.  And even still, I feel sad that it couldn't work out.  I was quite excited to see what you would have to say about our product. 

I don't want to bicker.  There is a way advertising sales are handled and have always been handled, you chose another way.  My decision is simply a result of yours, as each of us are free to make their own. 

I wish you nothing but the best, and have no doubt of your continued success. 

[sts9fan]

Who here thinks its coincidence when certain companies are always involved in drama and other are not?  Must be bad luck.