Skip to main content

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: [USELESS OFF-TOPICNESS] Article: Why We Need Audiophiles (Read 11060 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

[USELESS OFF-TOPICNESS] Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

I'm arguing that they are not necessarily connected in any meaningful way.

Sure, not necessarily, but how about commonly or normally?

Quote
Just as a good car salesman could create an enjoyable test drive experience in not necessarily the best car ever, yes absolutely. It's called salesmanship.

Actually, a good salesperson should help you purchase the most affordable, appropriate and effective product from among those available. What you've described is actually showmanship.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  ;~)

[USELESS OFF-TOPICNESS] Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1
Actually, a good salesperson should help you purchase the most affordable, appropriate and effective product from among those available. What you've described is actually showmanship.

That's weird. I thought a good salesperson would be along the lines of "someone who can sell ice to eskimos", the point being that his efficiency in selling a product was definitive of his skills in salesmanship, not his morality. Besides, I'd say that a big part of good salesmanship is showmanship, and this revolves around the same themes that have been a big part of the whole discussion.

[USELESS OFF-TOPICNESS] Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #2
Actually, a good salesperson should help you purchase the most affordable, appropriate and effective product from among those available. What you've described is actually showmanship.

That's weird. I thought a good salesperson would be along the lines of "someone who can sell ice to eskimos", the point being that his efficiency in selling a product was definitive of his skills in salesmanship, not his morality. Besides, I'd say that a big part of good salesmanship is showmanship, and this revolves around the same themes that have been a big part of the whole discussion.

As a former salesperson, I can personally speak to this. That successful salespeople generally use deception or pressure in order to sell more is a common misconception among the public and among new salespeople. Many of the most famous marketing and sales books have written about the need to develop long term relationships based on providing the service of proper product selection. A good salesperson knows the market and provides the customer with the right product thereby ensuring return business. The poor salesperson manipulates the customer and may gain in the short term but eventually ruins their own customer base and income potential.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  ;~)

[USELESS OFF-TOPICNESS] Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #3
As a former salesperson, I can personally speak to this.

Based on what you said earlier, it's the reviewer's job to deceive instead.

[USELESS OFF-TOPICNESS] Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #4
As a former salesperson, I can personally speak to this.

Based on what you said earlier, it's the reviewer's job to deceive instead.

I've said quite a lot. Was there a particular statement that you're referring to? A quotation would be helpful.

PS. A reviewer is not a salesperson. A reviewer is just a reviewer.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  ;~)

[USELESS OFF-TOPICNESS] Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #5
Greynol edited his post, adding a link.

[USELESS OFF-TOPICNESS] Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #6
Based on what you said earlier, it's the reviewer's job to deceive instead.

What I said was, "Isn't getting people to purchase products at exorbitant prices, a reviewers job?" Where did I mention deception? It appears to me as if you're misrepresenting my statements in order to put me, or my arguments, in a bad light. I'm sorry, but personally, I fail to see how your comment contributes, in any way, to the discussion at hand.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  ;~)


[USELESS OFF-TOPICNESS] Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #8
2tec's honesty ranking:



After you evaluate the logic, you understand his bias a little better: In 2tec's world a salesman, that is doing his job, deserves more trust than a reviewer, that is doing his job!  When I recap, many posts really sounded somewhat as if he was wired like that. It sometimes sounds as if he was proposing to put the sales pitch on an equal footing besides 'objective' evaluation.

[USELESS OFF-TOPICNESS] Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #9
...of course you wouldn't.

WOOSH!!!

Would you care to explain how it is that you see your comment contributing anything to this discussion? Furthermore, what exactly is it you're trying to say? You sure seem to be upset about something, perhaps you'd care to be more open and honest about your reason for your feelings?

Personally, I believe that if people can't contribute something positive, it's usually best not to say anything at all. With all due respect, all I see is you painting a pretty accurate picture of an arrogant and dismissive perspective. As well, with all due respect, I'd like to politely suggest that as a moderator it might be better for you to forgo any further ad hominem arguments, as it sets a poor precedent by which other posters may be negatively influenced.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  ;~)

[USELESS OFF-TOPICNESS] Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #10
When you get off your high hypocritical horse, I may decide to indulge you.

In the meantime, feel free to look up the meaning of the word exorbitant.

[USELESS OFF-TOPICNESS] Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #11
After you evaluate the logic, you understand his bias a little better: In 2tec's world a salesman, that is doing his job, deserves more trust than a reviewer, that is doing his job!  When I recap, many posts really sounded somewhat as if he was wired like that. It sometimes sounds as if he was proposing to put the sales pitch on an equal footing besides 'objective' evaluation.

A salesperson works for his client, the purchaser, therefore their honesty is directed towards their customer. Reviewers work for the magazine, and indirectly for the advertisers. A reviewers loyalties extend towards his employers, the magazine and indirectly to its advertisers. A scientist's loyalties are towards objectivity.

Furthermore, I fail to see how you arrived at your conclusion based upon any of my prior statements. Nor do I recollect ever having made a statement that in any way equated a sales pitch, with a review or an objective evaluation. Perhaps you could provide an example of where I made just such a statement? In this regard, if you're going to present my views, perhaps you should use my own words?

PS. Of course, a reviewer's loyalties also extend to a magazine's readership as well. A good reviewer should present an honest but balanced review.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  ;~)

[USELESS OFF-TOPICNESS] Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #12
When you get off your high hypocritical horse, I may decide to indulge you.

In the meantime, feel free to look up the meaning of the word exorbitant.

Quote
ex?or?bi?tant – adjective

exceeding the bounds of custom, propriety, or reason, esp. in amount or extent; highly excessive: to charge an exorbitant price; exorbitant luxury.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exorbitant

Here it is, so what's your point? By the way, if the best you can do is quibble over my choice of diction, it sure looks as if there are no real issues with my position that you're actually able to address.

Quote
When you get off your high hypocritical horse, I may decide to indulge you.

Please, don't go too far out of your way on my behalf as I wouldn't want to see you put yourself out  for nothing.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  ;~)

[USELESS OFF-TOPICNESS] Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #13
A salesperson works for his client, the purchaser, therefore their honesty is directed towards their customer.

No, a salesperson works for his employer, who expects him to sell as much as possible (unless he is his own employer). Yes, his honesty or dishonesty is directed towards the client, of course, but whether deceptive or honest marketing yields better results from the enterprise's point of view, depends on what he's selling and where. I'd say purely from my own experience, that hi-fi sellers generally tend to lean on the deceptive side (though, it may just be a case of believing their own bs :P).

Reviewers work for the magazine, and indirectly for the advertisers. A reviewers loyalties extend towards his employers, the magazine and indirectly to its advertisers.

It's true that because of advertising, the reviewer's objectivity may be compromised, and that's what a lot of this discussion has been about: many people have questioned the objectivity of articles written by mr. Fremer and mr. Atkinson.

A scientist's loyalties are towards objectivity.

Ideally yes, but usually scientists need funds for their research, which may cloud their objectivity too, depending on the motives of the funder.

[USELESS OFF-TOPICNESS] Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #14
No, a salesperson works for his employer, who expects him to sell as much as possible (unless he is his own employer).

A commission salesperson, which is common, is paid by the customer, who, in essence, has become the employer. You really shouldn't bite the hand that feeds you.

Quote
Yes, his honesty or dishonesty is directed towards the client, of course, but whether deceptive or honest marketing yields better results from the enterprise's point of view, depends on what he's selling and where. I'd say purely from my own experience, that hi-fi sellers generally tend to lean on the deceptive side (though, it may just be a case of believing their own bs ).

Sorry, I must respectfully disagree as direct experience has taught me, and many others, that honesty is always the best policy. Dishonest companies and salespeople simply don't prosper. Furthermore, in my experience, most audio salespeople are ordinary people more into audio than sales. Personally, I've never seen a high end, high pressure audio store. High pressure tactics however, are all too common in the consumer electronics business. I guess that small time misrepresentation is somehow ok, but misrepresenting high-end audio is a mortal sin?

Quote
It's true that because of advertising, the reviewer's objectivity may be compromised, and that's what a lot of this discussion has been about: many people have questioned the objectivity of articles written by mr. Fremer and mr. Atkinson.

The problem is in how you've represented the review as objective. This is factual incorrect as a reviewer isn't a scientist and isn't conducting a controlled experiment. A reviewer is a subjective expert providing a subjective opinion.

Quote
Ideally yes, but usually scientists need funds for their research, which may cloud their objectivity too, depending on the motives of the funder.

True, however, unethical science has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. Perhaps it's best to stick to the topic?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  ;~)

[USELESS OFF-TOPICNESS] Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #15
A salesperson works for his client, the purchaser, therefore their honesty is directed towards their customer. Reviewers work for the magazine, and indirectly for the advertisers. A reviewers loyalties extend towards his employers, the magazine and indirectly to its advertisers. A scientist's loyalties are towards objectivity.

PS. Of course, a reviewer's loyalties also extend to a magazine's readership as well. A good reviewer should present an honest but balanced review.


Do you *really* believe these two paragraphs?

If so, you must be in the running for being the most naive person to ever post on HA...

If you do believe these two paragraphs, I've got a bridge across the Detroit river that I'd like to sell you! ;-)

[USELESS OFF-TOPICNESS] Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #16
A commission salesperson, which is common, is paid by the customer, who, in essence, has become the employer. You really shouldn't bite the hand that feeds you.


This is far from the general case. In general, commissioned salespersons are paid by their employer who is the sales enterprise. IOW, the store. Been there, done that, many times.

The only exception that comes to mind would be real estate where the agent is employed by both the seller and purchaser, and this is not the general rule. In that case the agent does not receive a commision from the purchaser as the salesman, but rather as the purchaser's agent in the transaction.

In general, if a salesman takes money from the purchaser, it is symptomatic of an ethical problem. One common term for this is "kick back". Another is "bribe".



[USELESS OFF-TOPICNESS] Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #17
This is far from the general case. In general, commissioned salespersons are paid by their employer who is the sales enterprise. IOW, the store. Been there, done that, many times.

I disagree, as a commission sales person, I was paid a 'commission' on items I sold. The more I sold, the more I made. There were no wages or salary ever paid to me by the company I sold for. In fact, I was repeatedly told, and we as sales people believed, that the customer was the employer. I don't know what sales world you live in, but it's apparently not the same reality as I've experienced.

Quote
In general, if a salesman takes money from the purchaser, it is symptomatic of an ethical problem. One common term for this is "kick back". Another is "bribe".

Personally, I've never heard of a salesperson either receiving a kickback or a bribe from a customer. By the way, I've provided links so that you may discover the factual meaning of the words you've misused.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kickback
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bribery
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  ;~)

[USELESS OFF-TOPICNESS] Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #18
Do you *really* believe these two paragraphs? If so, you must be in the running for being the most naive person to ever post on HA...

Sigh. I guess this is what happens when there's no real issues left to address. Personally, I've got better things to do than be abusive and insulting towards others. However, if that's what it takes for you to feel like you're not a fool, what can I say, except perhaps it's better sometimes not to say anything at all. Furthermore, I guess I'd rather be seen as naive rather than bitter and derogatory. Lastly, I'd like to point out that from my perspective it seems as if your behavior isn't contributing to an open and honest discussion.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  ;~)

[USELESS OFF-TOPICNESS] Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #19
This is far from the general case. In general, commissioned salespersons are paid by their employer who is the sales enterprise. IOW, the store. Been there, done that, many times.

I disagree, as a commission sales person, I was paid a 'commission' on items I sold.


That agrees with what I said.

Quote
The more I sold, the more I made.


Right, which incentivizes you to sell as much as possible for the highest possible price, regardless of the best interests of the purchaser.

Quote
There were no wages or salary ever paid to me by the company I sold for.


Oh, this was one of those situations where you bought the product from someone, and sold it for whatever you could get?  That's not really commisioned sales, that's you as retailer and you self-employed. Umm, like Amway...

Quote
In fact, I was repeatedly told, and we as sales people believed, that the customer was the employer.


Finally, finally we get to the area of controversy.

The customer was the employer?

Did your employer's name and address change every time you made a sale?

OK, so you received no paycheck, you got whatever you could get out of each transaction after you paid for the merchandise. That's a kind of retailing, but in fact you were self-employed.

Quote
I don't know what sales world you live in,


Where that is would be readily obtained from HA.

Quote
but it's apparently not the same reality as I've experienced.


I can see a sales motivational rally where the speaker told the salespersons that they were employees of the customers, but I would take it for a figure of speech.

I've worked for a number of sales organizatons that ranged from small to large, and its always been the same. My employer was the sales organization, whether a small electronics retail chain or a Fortune 100 corporation. My employer's name and identitiy did not change every time I commenced or completed a sale with a different customer, or any time in between. That's a more typical situation.


[USELESS OFF-TOPICNESS] Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #20
I disagree, as a commission sales person, I was paid a 'commission' on items I sold. The more I sold, the more I made. There were no wages or salary ever paid to me by the company I sold for. In fact, I was repeatedly told, and we as sales people believed, that the customer was the employer. I don't know what sales world you live in, but it's apparently not the same reality as I've experienced.


All this salesmen hypocrisy is insufferable! Your unbelievably clumsy point is, that a commission sales person's only incentive is customer satisfaction, but a reviewers incentive is mainly advertiser satisfaction.

You don't get commission by the number of items sold, do you? Like three times amount A for three items sold. That would mean getting more commission for a cheap set of CD player + amp + cable than selling one store flagship amp for $10.000. Tell that your dog, he will just shake his head without even barking at you. No, commission is basically calculated on turnover and sometimes boosted for high margin stock.

A commission sales person's only employer is he himself. He has to get enough money at the end of the month to pay his bills. That's his main incentive especially if there is no other wage being paid. So there is much more direct incentive to sell high price gear than in the case of a reviewer, who has to built up his reputation over years, closely observed by thousands of people. I thought that should have been clear from the beginning. I am really wondering why you are still pursuing a track that is so translucently false for everybody else to see.

[USELESS OFF-TOPICNESS] Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #21
Quote
It's true that because of advertising, the reviewer's objectivity may be compromised, and that's what a lot of this discussion has been about: many people have questioned the objectivity of articles written by mr. Fremer and mr. Atkinson.

The problem is in how you've represented the review as objective. This is factual incorrect as a reviewer isn't a scientist and isn't conducting a controlled experiment. A reviewer is a subjective expert providing a subjective opinion.

Of course in absolute sense, every review is by definition completely subjective. But I think you can still understand the point of trying to be "objective", in the sense of providing factual information, that is not coloured by ulterior motives. This is what was questioned in those aforementioned articles.

It is also ultimately irrelevant, whether the reviewer is a scientist or not - he/she might as well be one. Reviews may also include controlled experiments to support the reviewer's views.

[USELESS OFF-TOPICNESS] Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #22
That agrees with what I said.

No, no it doesn't, and you just saying that it's so, doesn't make it so. Indeed, where's your reasoning that would justify your statement?

Quote
Right, which incentivizes you to sell as much as possible for the highest possible price, regardless of the best interests of the purchaser.

No, as I explained, the incentive was, and is, to offer good service to the purchaser.

Quote
Oh, this was one of those situations where you bought the product from someone, and sold it for whatever you could get?  That's not really commisioned sales, that's you as retailer and you self-employed. Umm, like Amway...

Sigh, no, I worked for a large, well known, consumer electronics retailer. My paycheck was calculated as a percentage of my gross sales, plus incentives provided by manufacturers for each time I sold a current promotional product. This is the industry standard practice. Furthermore, all the senior salespeople had more regular customers than "walk-ins" which kept their sales numbers higher and their paychecks larger. We were motivated to provide good service, in order to establish customer loyalty, thereby increasing our incomes.

Quote
Finally, finally we get to the area of controversy.

What proof of this do you have? Actually, it's not, in any way controversial.

Quote
The customer was the employer?

Effectively yes, as I've repeated stated.

Quote
Did your employer's name and address change every time you made a sale?

Sigh. Yes, in a way, on each and every sales contract. However, we both know that salespeople receive paychecks from the store they work under. The truth is I primarily worked for the benefit of purchaser, no matter how you'd like to spin it. Your contention that a salesperson's loyalty is towards the store simply isn't valid.

Quote
OK, so you received no paycheck, you got whatever you could get out of each transaction after you paid for the merchandise. That's a kind of retailing, but in fact you were self-employed.

This isn't what I said, nor does it apply to anything in this discussion.

Quote
Where that is would be readily obtained from HA.

Representing your personal perspective as the prevailing perspective of all of the users of this forum is factual incorrect.

Quote
I can see a sales motivational rally where the speaker told the salespersons that they were employees of the customers, but I would take it for a figure of speech.

You, of course, could; however, it's clearly more than just a figure of speech, it's a reality for many sales people.

Quote
I've worked for a number of sales organizatons that ranged from small to large, and its always been the same. My employer was the sales organization, whether a small electronics retail chain or a Fortune 100 corporation. My employer's name and identitiy did not change every time I commenced or completed a sale with a different customer, or any time in between. That's a more typical situation.

Sigh. I've already addressed this point. Actually, once again it simply appears as if you are just deliberately ignoring the fact that salespeople are motivated to serve the customer's best interests as a method of ensuring a better income. It seems to me that rhetorical tactics seem to be your only response here. By the way, just out of curiosity, is your spell-check broken or are you just in a rush and being careless?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  ;~)

[USELESS OFF-TOPICNESS] Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #23
By the way, just out of curiosity, is your spell-check broken or are you just in a rush and being careless?

This is a bit funny coming from someone who doesn't appear to get a commission for using adverbs or proper subject/verb agreement.

[USELESS OFF-TOPICNESS] Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #24


Right, which incentivizes you to sell as much as possible for the highest possible price, regardless of the best interests of the purchaser.


No, as I explained, the incentive was, and is, to offer good service to the purchaser.


How was that incentive delivered to you in a tangible way?  Answer: via a paycheck from the store where you worked.

The customer was not your employer.  You've finally admitted that you "receive paychecks from the store they work under". 

The tax man thinks that your employer was this store where you worked.
The store where you worked reported you to the government  as an employee.
Your customers left to their own thoughts thought that employer was this store where you worked.
I think that your employer was this store where you worked.
You can believe what you want, say what you want, but in fact your employer was this store where you worked.

Quote
Quote
Did your employer's name and address change every time you made a sale?

Sigh. Yes, in a way, on each and every sales contract.


Not on any standard sales contract. The address that changed was the address of the purchaser. The address of the store, your employer, was no doubt permanently printed on every contract.

Quote
However, we both know that salespeople receive paychecks from the store they work under.


Which under common law as well as the laws of most governments, makes the store your employer. Thanks for finally clearing the air!

Quote
Quote
I've worked for a number of sales organizatons that ranged from small to large, and its always been the same. My employer was the sales organization, whether a small electronics retail chain or a Fortune 100 corporation. My employer's name and identitiy did not change every time I commenced or completed a sale with a different customer, or any time in between. That's a more typical situation.

Sigh. I've already addressed this point.


Only if you call blatant denial of common law and relevant local law thoughout most of the world "addressing". I'm in a good mood today so I'll call it spin.

Quote
Actually, once again it simply appears as if you are just deliberately ignoring the fact that salespeople are motivated to serve the customer's best interests as a method of ensuring a better income.


Most sales people are "at will" employees. That means that they have a job per the will of the employer, not the will of the customers. Most salespersons are motivated to improve the financial situation of their employer, plain and simple. Unprofitable employers have this nasty tendency of going out of business. No business, no job!

Quote
It seems to me that rhetorical tactics seem to be your only response here.


What rhetorical tactics?

You seem to wish to deny general commecial practice and business law throughout the first and second worlds.

Pretty strange, if you ask me!