Six Moons charges for reviews?

I think Srajan has a valid point that advertising needs to support the cost of the editorial. Magazines and newspapers have used this model for generations. Websites are using this model as well. The way in which he is executing the plan will be seen by some as compromising his editorial.

Traditionally, the advertising side and the editorial side of a publication are separated like church and state. One does not interfere with the other in order to maintain integrity of the content. Journalism 101.

Some publications pretend there a separation between the ads and the editorial. Readers see that the ads match the publications reviews and credibility of the reviews diminishes.

The approach of requiring a company place an ad to get a review makes it easy to sell ads but hard to be objective. When a vendor pays for a review, it will be very difficult for a reviewer to say something negative about the product. It is a classic dilemma - particularly for publications that review equipment.

I appreciate the difficulty that Srajan discusses in generating advertising dollars. In my experience, selling ads requires a significant amount of energy and one or more dedicated salespeople. It is far more work to keep the advertising and editorial separate but that is the approach that other publications and websites have taken to maintain integrity in their reviews. Possibly Srajan is hoping to bypass the process of managing a sales effort by just requiring the companies reviewed to buy ads. I am not sure that will best serve the readers. Time will tell.

The bottom line, has there been any rave reviews by 6 Moons over terrible gear? If not, get over it. Business is business. Ultimately truth in reviews and integrity are what survive the test of time in this and other arenas. Read the reviews, then evaluate for yourself. Most of us have to pay bills. Trust your ears, pt

Anything that compromises subjective intellectual property is tainted and immediately suspect when it is offered free to the public. What I see are a bunch of broom closet companies trying to get attention in a crowded marketplace with too few buyers and they are willing to pay to get their product reviewed. When they prosecuted Alan Freed they called it payola, nowadays the consumer sheep don't care what gets wagged in their faces, as long as it is free.In my opinion, this guy has screwed the pooch and can't be trusted, regardless of his vision and intent. Just keep sending those shiny objects to him. The word is credibility.

So, if I understand you correctly, all of the reviews he's done all these years for free don't contribute to the entirety of his work now that he had to level the playing field for participation?

All the best,
Nonoise

The ethical issues are really dependent on how the publisher runs the operation, since the conventional model, as others have pointed out, doesn't really assure editorial integrity anyway. (Despite all the dirt thrown against the wall over the years about long-term loans of gear, cushy relationships among reviewers and manufacturers, etc. I think most mainstream reviewers try to get it right. Whether there is an inherent bias to always say something 'nice' is another question, but I seem to recall some less than stellar reviews in magazines like Stereophile).
Why couldn't a site have a front end that is 'free' to users for capsule reviews and certain coverage, but a 'pay wall' for more in-depth reviews? Charge users a nominal fee for access per review? Like an iTunes charge- .99 cents? Not much, and those pennies add up. Advertising could still run on the 'free' part of the site to reach the greatest number of users. Frankly, while I skim most gear-centric websites and have an e-subscription to Stereophile, I rarely read whole issues or all of the reviews- just focus on the stuff I am interested in. And, eventually, the pay for access reviews could be migrated to the 'free' side of the wall.