Karl Miller comments:

>As an aside, our product will never be review in Fanfare since they
>have the same policy.  When I first started our company I had a call
>from their editor who told me that upfront.  He also said that if we
>took out a full page ad, we would get a feature article.
>
>While such practices might make me question the credibility of both
>publications, I know several of the reviewers and know they do indeed
>speak for themselves.  I might also mention that I used to write for
>American Record Guide.  Not once did any of the editing of my reviews
>change the meaning.  While the editor didn't always agree with my
>perspective, he respected my right to my opinion.  I should also add
>that they have never requested a "premium" for getting a review of our
>releases.  We have no money for advertising!

Having spent twenty years in the publishing industry I can appreciate
and understand the rationale behind the approach that Gramophone and
Fanfare make to the question of how to protect revenue streams.  Without
an adequate and accurate basis on which to base financial assumptions,
forecasting the continued health of a publication becomes almost a matter
of sticking a wet finger in the air!

What is going to change this position is the continued growth of modern
methods of information dissemination -- i.e.  the Internet.  The first
tranche of brilliant advertising ideas on Internet sites has been and
gone, and more sensible, consumer-friendly approaches are now being
implemented.  And it will then be close to unacceptable that electronic
versions of the above publications and their competitors make the same
demand "advertise or freeze in the cold", since alternative channels
will be infinitely more numerous than hitherto.

Tim Mahon
[log in to unmask]