Talk:Fanfare (magazine)

Comment on Fanfare's business model
I just referred to this article to check a date, but noted this unsupported statement: "The magazine's business model includes the editor directly contacting artists unsolicited, guaranteeing a review if they advertise in the magazine." I wrote for Fanfare for over nine years, and while there are aspects of the publisher's business model with which I take issue, this statement is not an accurate description of what is offered. Artists for whom positive reviews have already been submitted by a critic are contacted with an offer for a feature article, usually an interview, with the agreement to advertise in the magazine. Some artists have a longer-term relationship in which they initiate an arrangement for advertising and a feature article themselves. Occasionally, an artist will be approached on the basis of a recommendation from a critic on staff. Reviews are published in the magazine, on the website, and often on Amazon's listing for the recording, regardless of the response from the artist. The vast majority of reviews have no associated advertising/interview associated with them.

Where this policy becomes problematic is when the disc is then sent to reviewers after such an agreement is made. They are sent with a request that they only be reviewed if the critical response is positive. No critic to my knowledge is ever pressured to be anything but candid, but this possibility then leads to multiple copies being distributed so a reviewer or reviewers who like(s) the release can be found. If no positive review can be secured, a rare but not unheard-of occurrence, the advertising agreement is withdrawn.

More recently, the publisher has also added greater visibility on the Fanfare website for those who pay to be included in the "Not to be Missed" section. Reviews for inclusion here are handled in the same way.

The statement, as it stands, suggests a direct quid-pro-quo arrangement to obtain a review. Again, this is not the situation and would clearly be unethical if it was. The actual "model," while I do not personally care for it, is much more nuanced than the Fanfare article, as written, would suggest.

I would be happy to edit this statement in line with the above, but this might run afoul of "primary research" restrictions. The publisher has written an article on this, describing the process in its most positive light, but it is accurate as far as it goes. (http://fanfarearchive.com/ntbm/articles/flegler-wonderm.html) Might this be used as a source? Rgrames (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)