Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Forum How Would You Rate Pianos?

Not only illogical, but an outright falsehood. I am not, a co-editor, nor have I ever claimed to be. That invention was Norbert's.

I guess you feel that at some point Piano Buyer or one of its predecessors was giving you the whole story. That doesn't really square with your expressed opinions of Fine publications in the past. I doubt from anything you've said in the past that you've ever based a purchase (or accepted free loan ) of a piano based on Fine's take.

The man has said in his opening remarks that he welcomes his role as a GUIDE rather than a CRITIC and that Piano Buyer has a different thrust and different purpose from his earlier publications. Your arguments are always carefully structured, but Fine's opening remarks in Pianobuyer are far more impressive, to the point, and pertinent to an understanding of what Piano Buyer purports to do.

The publication exists because of ad revenue. It will succeed or not succeed based on content. Fresh content is on the immediate horizon. You're jumping the gun.

No worries, Journey, this statement did not make it into the Piano Buyer from the last full edition of the Piano Book:
“Although the reviews in this book tend, by their nature, to highlight the problem areas, my sense is that most technicians feel that Steinway grands, properly serviced, are among the best-performing pianos- if not THE best- made.” (p.146)

Well, that could complicate the story....

Remember it's not just what is said; it's what is NOT said as well.

I am extemely familiar with the Piano Supplements for the last ten years at least. I am extremely familiar with the last two editions of The Piano Book and the Piano Buyer. I see nothing in the PB that indicates it's "perceptibly less frank" than ealrier editions of the Bupplement or Piano Book.

I don't think even a single example of this has been given on this thread. The one example about the review of NY Steinway referred to two editions of the Supplement and was easily explained by Fine's statement that quality control was improving.

I think it's silly to expect that the phrasing of each review to be exactly the same every time. This would assume that the opinions of the people giving those reviews to Larry Fine and Fine's own opinion have to remain fixed. It would also assume the same collection of people are responsible for the input on each piano for every edition.

(He also invented what he said about 'cars and other big-ticket items.' You didn't have to concede on that.)

Let me put the advertising issue in perspective:

The single biggest asset Piano Buyer has is Larry Fine and his reputation. (I know I'll be personally attacked on this, and could, in advance name those who will do so, and what they are going to say!)

The cost of a full-page ad in Piano Buyer to multi-issue advertisers is relatively inexpensive.

Would we jeopardize Larry's reputation by "accommodating" an advertiser for such an insignifcant amount?

Give me a break!!!

AJB set out the conflict of interest issue very well. The idea that there has to be a bleeding body or smoking gun is simply wrong. It's a matter of protecting against the thousands of small and not so small ways that decisions can be affected consciously or unconsciously at every point in an evaluation process as I wrote before-- ranging from whose opinions are sought, how the questions are worded and interpreted, how they are weighted, wording choices, etc. Credibility as an independent rating source depends on maintaining the appearance as well as the reality of independence from the entities that stand to benefit from the ratings. This has been the elephant in the room all along since the Piano Buyer appeared.

Sophia

1. Wasn't NY Steinway downgraded in the last tiered rating system in the Piano Buyer?
2. Has NY Steinway quality control/finished instruments improved in the past few years? The technician I respect most seems to think that the current new crop of NY S&S are the best he's ever seen in his lifetime. How many NY S&S pianos do you get to play over there?
3. Isn't S&S and their affiliated dealers one of the largest advertisers in all musical publications in the US? Local, state, and national music teachers organizations, industry publications, etc. etc.

Your "conspiracy theory" seems weak at best based when put in perspective. Yes, I'm an apologist...

Exactly, not very hard to figure out...

Everybody can understand what a "Director for Advertising" is.

But "Contributing editor"? Is this a secret?

Or is this part of it:



Norbert

So you're saying that while Steinway quality improved, they got downgraded in Piano Buyer. Maybe if they had purchased an ad they wouldn't have been smacked down.

I don't think this is the case at all, but this is a perfect example of the can of worms that gets opened when advertising revenue comes into play.

So perhaps the answer is indeed that the best way to change the ratings of pianos is to have no rating. Keep the Piano Book style descriptions and prices of pianos along with good articles about pianos and shopping for them. That would remove any idea of conflict of interest, no?

Turandot

I follow your perspective. (And you are right, I didn't consult piano buyer about whether the free loan was a good idea ;-). I think my points have become diluted by discourse. My starting point and where I still am:

1 Mr Cohen is obviously and blatantly conflicted
2 There appears to be favouritism in favour of Mr Cohen and piano buyer and this favour is not extended to other dealers
3 It was inappropriate for the moderator to remove several posts when Mr Cohen complained
4 Mr Cohen's editorial title suggests he edits and is therefore a content decision maker.
5 The co-editor / contributing-editor terminology is mere semantics that Mr Cohen could resolve personally by not calling himself an editor
6 I do not think it is appropriate for Mr Cohen to be permitted to make constant references to piano buyer in a generic way (with no reference to post specific guidance) when other dealers are castigated for brand promotion and breaching pw "rules".

I wonder how other advertisers feel now that they have learnt that there is a no cost reciprocal advertising arrangement between piano buyer and piano world? Does everyone get this benefit?

If they don't, then it must be a bit galling, especially when a dealer is allowed to promote pb constantly in threads.

Kind regards

Adrian

Here's the problem: People LIKE ratings.

This has been seen in other venues also. Here's a couple:

The (great) baseball writer and analyst, Bill James, at first just wrote theoretical pieces about his ideas. He had trouble getting them published. He was told that what people want to see is ratings and rankings -- take his ideas and show how players and teams would rank. That worked -- and over time, his ideas caught on.

And there's also this familiar notorious thing: music competitions.
We're fond of saying that competitions are stupid and destructive, who needs them. Yet, when the organizations put on festivals that are just "celebrations," with no competition and no ranking, somehow we're not nearly as interested.

People like ratings.

There were different rating systems in the PB and the Supplement that immediately preceeded it. NY Steinway was not downgraded in the PB.

In the Supplement, NY Steinway was rated in Tier 1C and in the PB it was in 2A(the highest level in Group 2). But since the PB Tier 1 didn't have A,B, and C levels and Tier 1 in the PB included the pianos in Tier 1A from the most recent Supplement, there was no downgrading. Most or all of the piano in Tier 1B and 1C in recent Supplement were moved to Tier 2A in the PB.

I think this is an example how misinformation or lack of complete understanding can be harmful.

There would still be the possibility to "damn with faint praise."

At the risk of starting up yet another firestorm, yes, it is a bit galling, and no, its not a good feeling.

IMHO, Frank has the absolute right to make any type of arrangements he wishes with individual advertisers. But to announce the arrangement between PB & PW publicly on the forum is distressing to an advertiser who has and is paying for advertising here all the while not being able to self-promote in threads.

This is my opinion only, I don't presume to speak for others.

Piano Buyer gets thousands of unique visitors online every month, and is growing. The overwhelming majority of those readers are acutely interested in pianos and many do not know about Piano World. Piano World gets significant traffic by advertising in Piano Buyer.

I am sure Frank would be glad to discuss ads swaps with other sites that provide the same number and as well-targeted a reader as Piano Buyer does.

If M.O.P. has that kind of draw, let Frank know. But, no one should be galled by this swap unless they have the same advantages to offer.

As always, this answer has nothing to do with potential piano consumers other than seeing them as gullible marks to be taken advantage of by undisclosed, mafiosi arrangements.

I don't understand why the question is suddenly shifting to P.W.

Frank is not a "Contributing Editor" of *Piano Buyer* - he is the owner of this website.

He does not take swings at other members and has never expressed his preferences 'for' or 'against' certain makes.

He does sell stuff but it has nothing to do with piano brands or 'ratings'

Frank has been a most gracious host and should be completely left out of the discussion.

The basic question was 'ratings' and if and to which extent Mr. Cohen is personally involved in this as "Contributing Editor" of Piano Buyer.

Norbert

No, I read you loud and clear. Realitically, to accomplish the changes you want, you will need to exchange your seat among the bored for a seat on the Board here. Good luck with that!

Adrian and Nancy,

Pianobuyer gets a free ticket here. MOP gets a free ride. AJB get a free ride. turandot gets a free ride. It's all FREEEEEEEEEE!!!

Frank's largesse exceeds his business sense.

Nancy, At $196 for a multi-issue PB ad, how can you go wrong?

I disagree. Frank has unfortunately involved himself by:

a) allowing moderators to delete posts that don't suit Steve Cohen
b) allowing Steve Cohen to advertise piano buyer indiscriminately in his posts, even though Steve has a vested interest in PB advertising revenue among other things
c) revealing that there is a no-cost reciprocal advertising deal (that Steve has felt it necessary to defend) that other dealers do not benefit from.

But I do agree that the central issue is Mr Cohen's conflict of interest.

And the fact that this calls into further question (along with the obvious advertising aspect) the independence of piano buyer.

Adrian