Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments. Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!
quote from Dan Silverwood: "In other words, being an owner of a piano dealership, and having a financial interest in a publication of piano playability and quality is such an obvious conflict of interest, one has to wonder if this book release will end up with any measurable credibility."
Agree. This issue that Dan notes, along with that of having a publication that rates and review a product having income based on advertisers whose products are being reviewed, opens large questions about independence and conflict of interest. Steve keeps saying -- well, show me the page or passage that reveals any bias-- as if that settles the question. No, it doesn't. Potential bias due to conflict of interest typically won't show itself that obviously but can affect decisions at every point in the process from who is asked to contribute, to the types of questions asked, to how the information is weighted and presented, to the wording choices, and ad infinitum. Sometimes it is what is NOT said as much or more than what is stated that can be affected. The line between content and advertising has also been blurred in the Piano Buyer as certain dealers contribute articles on why we love the pianos we sell. Ok, we can all recognize that as harmless fluff but you won't see that in Consumer Reports either.
If you follow medical and pharmaceutical research at all, there is now good data that the source of funding can affect the results found and presented in research studies. Studies funded by industry sponsors are significantly more likely to find positive results for their product than those funded independently despite the protestations of the researchers that their studies are conducted completely free of bias or influence. These forces operate at subtle (and at other times not so subtle) levels. In some situations, there has been more overt pressure to suppress or change findings.
Of course, buying a piano is not a life-or-death decision (although around here we tend to treat it that way ) and we can enjoy the Piano Buyer for what it is-- entertaining, with some good information and those glossy colorful ads-- while keeping its limitations and realities in mind.
Steve opens himself up to criticism with his constant touting of Piano Buyer, a publication in which he has a financial interest. Whilst the publication may be useful to some people, it is not the only piano publication around. If piano world truly has a policy of not permitting dealers to tout their products, it seems unfair to have one rule for Steve and a different one for all the other dealers.
I don't see the slightest way Steve opens himself up for criticsm. PB may not be "the only piano publication around" but I would assume it's by far the most successful, most used, and it's by far the best IMO. I think saying it "may be useful to some people" is the understatement of the century. As far as rules against not touting products, it's also clear that this is enforced minimally if at all at PW. In addition to all this Steve Cohen continually makes posts that help piano buyers where there is no connection to to PB or products he sells.
Originally Posted by AJB
In his signature he describes himself as Contributing Editor and Advertising Director, which implies a significant degree of influence over the published material, especially as he also calls himself "Piano Industry Consultant" (though without stating which brands use his consulting services). Whilst the terminology that Norbert used to describe Steve's role was incorrect it was partially caused by Steve's own signature.
First of all, the incorrect terminology Norbert used to describe Steve's role is just one grain of sand on a whole beach of similar statements. If Norbert misread the signature, that's not someomone else's problem. I think "co-editor" would imply something like equal input compared to Larry Fine, and this would not be something I would infer from Steve's sig.
Since I assume Steve Cohen's signature line expresses his positions correctly, there's nothing that can be done about this anyway. You don't expect him to write Contributing editor(but not co-editor)do you?
Since I assume Steve Cohen's signature line expresses his positions correctly, there's nothing that can be done about this anyway. You don't expect him to write Contributing editor(but not co-editor)do you?
What is expected is proper conduct with regard to conflict.
To give the appearance of no conflict a decision will have to be made. Either be a contributing editor of a piano quality guide and put your dealership into a “blind trust†(operated by someone else, usually a trust officer)
Or be a dealer and sell the interest in the publication. An attempt to wear both hats, while perhaps from sincerity, to become both, leaves the “appearance†of impropriety.
Example: I read the PB guide about the glowing reports of a piano model. Then I attend the Jason’s Music Centre to look at the instrument in question and lo and behold! The same guy that writes the glowing report in the book sells the same instrument??? This is pretty bad optics would you say?
You might fool a five yr old with this kind of thing......
My response is how do they rate pianos in other countries. Like England, Japan, Germany. Do they all look to America for the ratings, or are there pianos built so well they do not have to really rate them. What are we rating the ones that are considered budget models, should they even be rated. We you rate the $$$$ ones, it's more on a personal attraction, as the build quality is probably not an issue.
As far as Piano Buyer goes, it is a guide, not the Bible. I think they do a fine job as it takes a lot of time, patience and energy. I look at it as a guide not the Bible and more of a guide to newcomers, budget-seekers, than folks who use or work on them for a living.
The only people that may have a problem are the salesman, I wonder why?
I am just looking forward to the next issue.
Yamaha P-120, Feurich 122
Always look ahead, but never look back. - Miles Davis
Since we're all busy "piling on" Steve, I just took a look at the Jason's Music website, which purports to sell new Kawai and Pramberger pianos.
Raise your hand if you think Kawai and Pramberger pianos were unfairly rated upward in the Piano Buyer. Those brands occupy category 4 and 5, with the exception of Shigeru up in #2. That seems about right to me, possibly a little too harsh a rating for the RX series Kawais.
Do you think these were mis-rated due to bias, or misrated at all? I don't.
FWIW, Steve is one of just a small handful of dealers here who bother to assist potential customers with brands and models of piano he doesn't even sell, or sells against. That's more than I can say for many of the dealers and industry professionals here.
Yes, he's promoting the piano buyer. Last time I checked, they bought ad space here on the right side of the page.
Example: I read the PB guide about the glowing reports of a piano model. Then I attend the Jason’s Music Centre to look at the instrument in question and lo and behold! The same guy that writes the glowing report in the book sells the same instrument??? This is pretty bad optics would you say?
Is your example hypothetical or actual? I thought Larry Fine has final say about all reviews/discussions of individual makes(other than ones clearly written by others in a different section of the PB)?
This issue that Dan notes, along with that of having a publication that rates and review a product having income based on advertisers whose products are being reviewed, opens large questions about independence and conflict of interest.
This topic was discuessed on PW before the PB came out and I believe Fine also talks about this in the intro to the PB. I found the discussions more than adequate to dispel any doubts about conflict of interest.
"Sometimes it is what is NOT said as much or more than what is stated that can be affected."
This is the thing I miss the most about the former Piano Book - its frankness.
Thankfully however, there are many experts on this forum willing to give good advice.
Nick's Piano Showroom Naples, Fort Myers, & Sarasota, FL New Estonia, Mason & Hamlin, Kawai, Brodmann & Ritmuller 239-206-4541 direct line www.nickspiano.com
My post was not an attack on Steve Cohen. It was in fact a general point that we cannot expect Piano World to be credible as an industry guide for consumers if there is one rule for certain dealers and a different rule for everyone else.
It is not equitable for Norbert to be criticised for his promotion of his brands, when Mr Cohen is allowed to mention piano buyer in bold at every available opportunity. I am aware that this is apparently done with Ferank Baxter's permission - but my personal view is that to permit this freedom to the extent that Steve uses it is an error of judgement. It detracts from PW and I feel may even be at the point of detracting from the credibility of piano buyer.
But more than that it is entirely improper in my view for PW moderators to bow to pressure from Mr Cohen for posts to be removed because he takes issue with them. There is a back track that has gone on here, with significant PM traffic behind the scenes.
As to his signature - my point is a simple one and Steve is well aware of it. He calls himself a contributing "editor". Use of the word editor suggests, in plain and simple English, that he has some form of editorial role and thus makes decisions about content.
If, as Steve has said to me, decisions about content are made by Larry Fine and not be Steve, then Steve's title is misleading. He may be a "contributor" to piano buyer, but not an "editor".
Furthermore, Steve has a financial interest in piano buyer, the extent of which is not disclosed.
I am not suggesting that Steve is biased or that he is unfairly promoting his own brands. However, this does not remove the clear conflict of interest. A person does not need to be indulging in unfair bias for the potential for conflict of interest to exist. It is this 'potential' that undermines the credibility of piano buyer because Steve is also a dealer and promotes himself as an "industry consultant" with undisclosed consultancy connections.
It is for these reasons that I consider Ken's removal of posts at Steve's request to be improper if Ken purports to act in an even handed way.
Norbert's point that Larry Fine rarely posts, tells us nothing. Steve is doing it all for him.
Piano buyer is useful for those who know little about pianos if they wish to know more about origin and manufacture. Since it went free and on-line, it must generate advertising revenue and it must promote itself in order to provide the traffic that advertisers require. Like it or not, this inevitably exposes the book/web-site to a charge of potential conflict of interest too, whether or not actual bias exists.
Yours is a totally logical post addressing the very important issue of "independence" "neutrality" and "non-interference"
It has nothing to of with 'personality' or perceived 'hostility' on those who point things out.
This is very important as I personally have never sought conflict with Mr.Cohen, someone I have kown for many years.
If this simple point made in Adrian's post is not understood or accepted, it will IMHO effectively eliminate the usefulness of Piano Buyer as an independent buyer's guide.
In fact I would admit to this immediately exact same if *I* was in Mr. Cohen's position myself.
It was in fact a general point that we cannot expect Piano World to be credible as an industry guide for consumers if there is one rule for certain dealers and a different rule for everyone else.
I think it's far different to officially allow someone involved with a piano buyer's guide(which discusses all pianos and is free)to post about the book at PW and to allow dealers of specific makers to make posts pushing those pianos.
PB has been out for quite a while and I don't think this issue has even come up until this thread. As another poster has said, do lots of PW members think the reviews/ratings of pianos sold at Jason's Music are outrageously overrated? Or is it more like virtually no one thinks they are overrated?
The fact is that when people ask here for advice about pianos, by far the most common advice given by non industry professionals at PW is to read the PB(or to read the Piano Book and its Supplements before the the PB was published).
There are a couple of reasons why I've allowed Steve to bring up the Piano Buyer in posts:
1.) It is a FREE piano resource on the Internet written by the same author who has been producing the well known Piano Book for years. Larry Fine and his publications have been highly respected by both the industry and the public for a long time now.
Steve does not push his own agenda in these posts, nor does he try to direct anyone to his own store, he simply points out the benefits of the PB and occassionaly asks for feedback from our members (much like Haliun is doing right now about their web site).
2.) We have a reciprocal advertising agreement between the Piano Buyer and Piano World. No money is exchanged, we simply promote in each others "publications".
3.) I know that Larry truly values the input he gets from our membership and takes your feedback to heart. I think it's a great opportunity for communications between the people who create the Piano Buyer, and the audience it is intended to reach.
You should know that most of the major piano manufacturers also audit the forums, even if they don't participate. They realize the value in reading what so many piano buyers/owners/players have to say.
While we're on the subject...
It's a fine line (no pun intended) we walk here between providing information and "selling". While I discourage businesses from soliciting sales from our members (other than purchasing obvious ads, which as you can see, we label as ads), I don't want people in the business to be afraid to post here either.
If all we ever hear from is piano players/owners, and never from the professionals in the industry, it becomes a one way street. I'd like to have a little more open communications provided once again that it doesn't dissolve into nothing but a sales pitch.
My Keyboards: Estonia L-190, Roland RD88, Yamaha P-80, Bilhorn Telescope Organ c 1880, Antique Pump Organ, 1850 concertina, 3 other digital pianos ------------------------- My original piece on BandCamp: https://frankbaxtermrpianoworld.bandcamp.com/releases
Me banging out some tunes in the Estonia piano booth at the NAMM show...
You seem to be subscribing to the model which says:
"all the other sheep are jumping over the precipice so it must be a good idea".
The principle of conflict of interest is very well established. Why not stand back and view it dispassionately?
I would also disengage from the recommendations of piano buyer. Years ago, when I first started posting here, it was recommended frequently by numerous posters (including me, occasionally). This is because it was a useful technical guide that was untainted by the advertising and the potential for bias. It had the defect of being a technician's rather than a player's view, but that was at least clear.
In contrast, now it is touted frequently by only a few people, at least one of whom (Steve Cohen) has a vested interest in the commercial success of the publication / web site.
You are clearly a defender of Mr Cohen as your recent posting record amply demonstrates. Fair enough, but I wonder if you are standing back and looking at this entirely fairly?
The latter part of this thread (in the last 24 hours) has mainly been about Steve, who defends and promotes piano buyer vigorously, and Norbert who defends and promotes Brodmann and Hailun equally vigorously (though he has vowed to cease and desist!). Both positions have become tedious to some, judging by recent posting history on a few threads.
In both cases the central point is that over promotion becomes counter-productive and potentially damaging.
I am not disputing that piano buyer has some value. I am merely pointing out that ramming this down our throats all the time may make some of us question the motives and then question that value.
In the end I couldn't care less what two dealers in a sea of dealers do. But I do think that Piano World is a much bigger entity and should ideally be maintained as a fair and reasonable place where our shared enthusiasm for pianos can be discussed without the agendas of a small group being followed.
Larry Fine's publication had much more credibility when it was more independent and when it was not being so blatantly rammed down all our throats on this forum by a dealer with undisclosed interests in it and undisclosed claimed industry consultancy arrangements. You are entitled to have a different view if you wish and I shall respect that right.
Rating pianos in a publication that sells paid advertisements, by anyone other than Larry Fine, would be difficult and suspect, if not impossible.
It is also true of a publication by Larry Fine. If I am researching a purchase, any article or publication which is paid for by manufacturers and dealers of that product is going to be very suspect. While Larry Fine is held in high regard here, to the general public he is an unknown. By accepting money from those he rates, he has damaged his credibility.
This is not an attack on Larry Fine, but this is how an outsider is going to view it. And that's the real problem with the piano ratings now.
"Sometimes it is what is NOT said as much or more than what is stated that can be affected."
This is the thing I miss the most about the former Piano Book - its frankness.
Thankfully however, there are many experts on this forum willing to give good advice.
I liked Sofia's post as well, and I agree with you about the frankness that comes from being a bit more outside the industry. but this is a far different time from the late 80's and early 90's.
There are two ways to look at this. The first is about synergies. Frank Baxter makes no secret of trying to earn a living through PW. Larry Fine will not be able to get by on revenues from re-issuing the Piano Book every few years. That's about as viable as making one's fortune publishing a mainstream daily newspaper for street corner sales. If Frank and Larry have formed a contractual relationship to assist each other and have not taken into account the philosophical leanings of every member, that's life. Do you really think that contractual relationships between piano retailers and distributors are based on giving consumers every break possible?
This is about synergies and mutual survival in a tough environment. It's a business venture. Is Dan on the board of directors? Does he have a stake here? I don't think so. All of us can like it or leave it, or more pragmatically, see how it plays out before reaching a conclusion that our heavily-invested free memberships are being jeopardized. The end-product may have more fluff, less candor, and enhanced entertainment value alongside the ads. That's not all bad. The piano industry on Larry Fine's home turf doesn't have much going for it in the way of pizzazz. Maybe this will help.
The other way to look at it is that PW membership is being used as a test kitchen for sampling opinion. If people feel used and abused that this is what the cost of their free membership is exposing them to, then they can tune out, offer none of their priceless opinions for free, and stew in their own juices.
I still think you have allowed this to go too far Frank. It is one thing for you to carry a piano buyer advert in exchange for Larry to carry one for PW. It is entirely another to allow Steve Cohen to mention it at every opportunity.
His signature promotes his store and his consultancy.
I agree that Larry's book was well respected in times gone by. Now that it is advertiser funded and has at least one dealer with a financial interest, is that respect undiluted? Questionable.
And permitting moderators to delete posts that raise pertinent points about Steve's role is going a long way down the street of bias and favouritism.
I also question the relevance of Steve's promotional posts. He tends to jump in with a "read piano buyer" response. He rarely, if ever, states exactly where in piano buyer one might find something direct;y relevant to the thread.
You state that piano buyer is free on the web. You seem to infer that this is a virtue. This may be so - or it may not. It is not a virtue if the reality is that bias in imperceptibly creeping in due to the need to satisfy advertisers, investors and interested parties. Whichever way you look at it, the publication is less independent than it was, and it would appear less frank in its expressed views.
The PB piano ratings(at least for the performance pianos, the only ones I read)are extremely close to the ones in the last edition of the Supplement.
Have makers with big ads suddenly been given rave reviews after receiving poor reviews previously? Or have makers with no ads suddenly been given poor reviews after receiving good reviews in the past?
IMO the individual piano reviews are similar in tone, content, the precision and objectivity of the writing, and what I would call "bending over backward to be fair"?