Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , MINe
109 wrote:


What Stereophile can't afford is unpopular articles.

This indicates a dliemma for many commerical magazines. They may well have
established a group of frequent readers who have views and expectations of
what they want to read in the magazine. Any change of stance or content
risks losing some of those established readers.


I don't see it as a dilemma. The established group are established
because they like the content. The content was established because it
was what the editor and staff chose to publish. Jut like it was never a
dilemma for magazines like Stereo Review to print reviews which
routinely claimed that certain components sound just like all others in
the same catagory. Both reflected the beliefs and experiences of each
magazines' editors and staff. Each also has their audience. I don't
believe that either operates/operated out of fear of ****ing off the
readers with review content.




In the longer term, newer readers might start buying the mag. But changes
of content can be risky. So any sigificant change may be "unpopular" if it
conflicts with expectations of those who are used to seeing what they have
become accustomed to in the mag.


Over he years Stereophile has evolved and has published many a review
or article that managaed to anger some of it's readers. Yet the
magazine survives. I have never heard of any instane that a review has
been rejected due to the oinions expressed. IOW there is nothing to my
knowledge to prevent a reviewer from stating they cannot distinguish a
product from others like it by sound. I see no evidence that any
reviewe does not believe the content of their review.


Scott