Russ Andrews falls foul of Advertising Standards Authority

[admin_exported]

Hi there - first, and slightly controversial, post from me

-

http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/Public/TF_ADJ_44177.htm

What Hi Fi seems to buy it though, with its 5 star reviews of RA products!

 

[John Duncan]

Wow. They've basically been told not to claim any benefits for their products (calls broker).

 

[John Duncan]

I'd like to know why Keith phoned them in the first place though............

 

[Anonymous]

[quote user="JohnDuncan"]I'd like to know why Keith phoned them in the first place though............[/quote]

Eh? Who is Keith? I am also curious as to who raised the complaint in the first place. The RA claims are usually ridiculed in pro audio (i.e. no hi fi, but music production) forums so I am not surprised someone has raised this to test the claims.

 

[Andrew Everard]

You can always rely on lawyers to come up with controversial opening arguments...

 

[John Duncan]

[quote user="Andrew Everard"]
You can always rely on lawyers to come up with controversial opening arguments...

[/quote]

No you can't.

 

[JoelSim]

Having dealt with the ASA a number of times for various clients, I know they can be quite tough, but this is a blow to RA if they can't support their claims. I would imagine that one of RA's fiercest competitors was the complainant as that is usually the case!

 

[Andrew Everard]

[quote user="JohnDuncan"]No you can't.[/quote]

Is this the five-minute argument or the full half hour?

 

[Anonymous]

But if RA's competitor is making the same type of products on the same snake oil basis, then how would they benefit?

I should say, BTW, that I dabble in music production and that is why I know about recording engineers' general views about RA and this sort of thing.

But what is WHF's stance on this? Presumably it does not give 5 stars willy nilly. And I'm pretty much relying on WHF when I buy my new LCD TV and (if I can afford it) Arcam solo next month!

Leonard

www.myspace.com/leonardng

 

[JoelSim]

If they haven't got the evidence to support their claims then the ASA are correct in upholding the comment. I'm surprised that RA really haven't got this support, you can't rely on getting away with things for ever as inevitably there will be someone who wants to stick the boot in.

 

[Andrew Everard]

Not bad - only nine posts in before we have to put 50p in the 'snake oil' box.

 

[Andrew Everard]

[quote user="leonardng"]But what is WHF's stance on this? Presumably it does not give 5 stars willy nilly. And I'm pretty much relying on WHF when I buy my new LCD TV and (if I can afford it) Arcam solo next month![/quote]

Our stance is that we report on what we see and/or hear when we test the products, rather than get drawn into the claim and counterclaim of the interminable objectivist/subjectivist flame wars.

And no, we certainly don't dole out five-star verdicts either willy or nilly.

 

[JoelSim]

[quote user="leonardng"]
But if RA's competitor is making the same type of products on the same snake oil basis, then how would they benefit?

I should say, BTW, that I dabble in music production and that is why I know about recording engineers' general views about RA and this sort of thing.

But what is WHF's stance on this? Presumably it does not give 5 stars willy nilly. And I'm pretty much relying on WHF when I buy my new LCD TV and (if I can afford it) Arcam solo next month!

Leonard

www.myspace.com/leonardng
[/quote]

Fortunately HiFi is not quite as objective as this, everyone has a different set of ears and different tastes in music. Given many a recording studio uses expensive wiring they can't all be wrong. I still believe that having dedicated, pure, RF shielded etc leads is of benefit to a system's sound. It's the same with Premium petrol, do you get a cleaner engine, does it improve performance, do you get better MPG? There are arguments both ways.

If we all bought HiFi based on a performance graph then the world would be a worse place and we'd all end up with the same system. Some people want detail, some people want bass, some want soundstage. Each to his own.

 

[John Duncan]

[quote user="Andrew Everard"]
[quote user="JohnDuncan"]No you can't.[/quote]

Is this the five-minute argument or the full half hour?
[/quote]

Arguments are next door, as well you know.

 

[Andrew Everard]

[quote user="JohnDuncan"]

Arguments are next door, as well you know.[/quote]

No, that's the Lensbury.

 

[John Duncan]

I only get in as a guest.

 

[Andrew Everard]

[quote user="JohnDuncan"]I only get in as a guest.[/quote]

Well, that's more than I've ever managed to do...

 

[John Duncan]

You wouldn't like it

 

[Anonymous]

[quote user="JoelSim"] Given many a recording studio uses expensive wiring they can't all be wrong. I still believe that having dedicated, pure, RF shielded etc leads is of benefit to a system's sound.[/quote]

As fara as I know, recording studios rely on a stable power supply, with power conditioners. They do spend a lot of money on instrument, microphone and speaker, cables/leads etc, i.e. any thing which has sound passing through, but NOT on RA-type power chords. That is where the controversy lies.

 

[Andrew Everard]

Oh Lord, Len, don't get this lot started on power conditioners...

 

[Andrew Everard]

[quote user="JohnDuncan"]You wouldn't like it[/quote]

I'm with Groucho Marx on that one...

 

[Clare Newsome]

[quote user="Andrew Everard"]
[quote user="leonardng"]But what is WHF's stance on this? Presumably it does not give 5 stars willy nilly. And I'm pretty much relying on WHF when I buy my new LCD TV and (if I can afford it) Arcam solo next month![/quote]

Our stance is that we report on what we see and/or hear when we test the products, rather than get drawn into the claim and counterclaim of the interminable objectivist/subjectivist flame wars.

And no, we certainly don't dole out five-star verdicts either willy or nilly.

[/quote]

I'd also add that we don't give Russ Andrews five stars for every product, either - a quick look at our Buyer's Guide reveals a couple of five-star reviews, two four stars and a three-star rating.

As Andrew says, we ignore the claims and concentrate on the performance benefits for the price.

 

[Clare Newsome]

Reading through the ruling again, I think another way RA has come unstuck is the mix-up re products - attributing speaker-cable benefits to their mains products etc - plus the language used.

We've been banging on at cable manufacturers about this for ages. Here's an extract from a piece I wrote for a trade magazine last year:

"I think one of the main problems is the language used to describe and sell many cables - even the most down-to-earth manufacturers veer towards the kind of pseudo-scientific terminology more typically seen in skincare adverts (aka 'a load of old Boswelox').

When we're trying to have a rational discussion with our readers about cables we've seen/heard can make a difference, it severely hampers our argument to have big chunks of meaningless marketing literature quoted back at us with quite obvious (and often justifiable) disdain.

It's the technology equivalent of sitting down to dinner to be faced with one of those pretentiously worded restaurant menus ('jus', 'coulis', 'cappucino of garniture') so effectively-parodied in the opening scene of American Psycho. Hackles get raised, along with the great British fear of being ripped off.

Why can't manufacturers simply focus on a) what task a particular cable is designed to do (you'd be surprised how many people don't grasp the basics - but are too afraid to ask); b) what sort of systems it will suit and c) the potential performance benefits it can bring? All in real-world language, and without resorting to the kind of pitch that has our readers hurling accusations of 'snakeoil salesmen' and worse.

At this point I can hear cable-makers protesting about the need for people to know about the pampering/torturing/oxygen-deprivation of the precious metals involved in their products' manufacturer. OK, have your list of ingredients and recipe to hand if ever asked for it, but otherwise please concentrate on telling people what a tasty audiovisual treat they could be enjoying.

Or even better - as ever - show them."

 

[Anonymous]

But you must be able to substantiate claims made about your own products. If they had quoted reviews to advertise the product then they would have been alright. Reviews ARE subjective. But make a claim and you may be asked to substantiate it. Clearly they could not do that to the satisfaction of the ASA. Which is in place to regulate advertising.

Pro engineers do scoff at some claims the Hi Fi industry sometimes makes about interconnects. But they require a clean, completely transparent sound for critical decision making. Hi Fi doesn't do that. It really doesn't. Russ Andrews cables don't stand up to scientific scrutiny in this case.

 

[John Duncan]

Did anybody go to their workshop at the Bristol Show?