Idolator

Ampliwho?

Wow. Just wow. Try feeding your kids with unsold magazines.

Yeah, I've never heard of that magazine either. Putting Badly Drawn Boy on the cover doesn't help things either.

Is glossy magazine paper really fiber-rich?

But yeah, sentiment second. Wow. Just wow.

Ouch. I've never seen it ever put in words quite like that... It's a long standing assumption for most people, and a simple fact of life that the companies that advertise in USA magazines are the ones who get the coverage. When operating a "bottom line oriented" publication, it's the way it's done.

How long before that guy gets canned at "Amplifier" I wonder? The apology (or denial) should be out in no time eh?

Canned? The guy is the PUBLISHER! But you're right, he should can himself.

Ha, love that they have a section on the website (you mis-linked, btw, it's amplifiermagazine.com) called "Artist Driven." Maybe they just haven't rolled out its sister section, "Ad Driven."

If my kids had to eat I wouldn't be pinning their hopes on the massive sales a Badly Drawn Boy cover generates...

(fixed the link -- thanks, philip!)

Good God, is there anything more dispiriting than Boston Rock?

Are we really not allowed to use "douchebag" anymore?

Explain. Ads = bought. Are we talking not covered = reviewed or interviewed? Sorry, I must not be as bitter. Surprising.

Hey -- if turning one or two people a year on to indie rock they wouldn't have otherwise listened to qualifies one as a "driving force", then I'm a goddamned force of nature in the genre! I turned three people on to The Hold Steady last year alone! Who wants to run ads with me?

This is so ham-handed. Where is the subtle offer of cocaine? Even Johnny Fever would be outraged.

I totally understand that a magazine needs $$ to operate.But i spent thousands @ Amplifier and after i stopped the ads i couldn't even get a free mag.Now keep in mind Joe once told me i was his biggest account for 3 years running.1999 -2002.Oh well live and learn.But they do continue to review my cd's and they all were positive.There are better ways to play the game.You scratch my back and the itch will go away...

Amplifier started as a power pop-focused mag. Being a fan of the genre, I was willing to overlook the bad writing and worse design to read about bands I liked (same with No Depression vis a vis alt-country). I grew tired of most of the genre -- well, both, actually -- and found my needs met by places like Magnet, which covers the cream of the crop from both and more, and quit reading them. I obviously wasn't the only one, as both have moved away from straight genre coverage. In the case of Amplifier, they did so without improving anything, which makes the "highly influential force within the indie rock genre" line so funny.

Having worked as a music journalist, publisher and editor for a fair bit, I'm sorry to say this sort of stuff has been going on for years and it's getting worse. I started off quite idealistic, feeling overjoyed to have the chance to find some great music and talk to artists about what made them tick. Frankly, I've become pissed off with the bullying that occurs.

This is the first time, that I've seen anyone (i.e. Amplifier's publisher) dare to put it in writing. Magazines survive from ad revenue, not from magazine sales, just as most TV & radio survive on the revenue they receive from ads. Major entertainment companies know this all too well.

One ad guy took the time out to phone me and tell me that I could kiss goodbye any chances of any of his acts ever advertising in my magazine, because I dared to say one of their act's releases wasn't up to their usual standard in a review. I argued that any critic should have the right to write whatever they felt to be true; then I pointed out that 3 or 4 other artists from his label had received glowing reviews in the same issue. He told me that didn't matter because they were not priority artists - which is code for they'll probably get dropped after their 1st album because we spent very little on their album's production and marketing. Another record company phoned me to tell that they wanted to bike over a package, knowing that at the time I was regularly contributing to 8 magazines. I told the person on the other end of the phone, that it would cost less in carbon emissions and courier's fees if they just posted the package, but she insisted. She then went on to tell me that they'd fly me to any capital city of my choice, all expenses paid to interview their new band (who were based 45 minutes drive from my place), if I got the act into any one of those magazines. The package arrived, I'd guesstimate that it cost around £100 to put just that 1 package alone, together - 4 poster sized black & white photos (not posters which cost a lot less), 2 CDs, 2 pieces of vinyl, 1 DVD, a video, a promo t-shirt and a specially commission toy. The band were one of worst I've heard, every single one of my colleague and editors agreed. Needless to say I didn't take the company up on their offer. One editor even went as far as saying she'd rather self-harm before she put them in the magazine. They were huge for about 3 years - with lots of accompanying print, TV & radio ads, There's always someone happy to get their palms greased. I heard said band on the radio the other day, the DJ obviously had no choice in playing their song and said something derogatory about the singer having a bizarre voice.

You can usually tell who'll be the next big thing as soon as the 'goodie bag' arrives. 'Payola' in all is subtle guises is rife.

and how about the writers they screw over as well?

shady editors are everywhere. i've worked for several who watch ad sales increase yet don't even bother to pay writers while they take every form of swag known to man and have the audacity to brag to you about it...that and ask for you to write juicier stuff because music writing is all about the "snark" these days kids! (TWO major publications told me that...)

Having worked as a music journalist, publisher and editor for a fair bit, I'm sorry to say this sort of stuff has been going on for years and it's getting worse. I started off quite idealistic, feeling overjoyed to have the chance to find some great music and talk to artists about what made them tick. Frankly, I've become pissed off with the bullying that occurs.

This is the first time, that I've seen anyone (i.e. Amplifier's publisher) dare to put it in writing. Magazines survive from ad revenue, not from magazine sales, just as most TV & radio survive on the revenue they receive from ads. Major entertainment companies know this all too well.

One ad guy took the time out to phone me and tell me that I could kiss goodbye to any chances of any of his company ever advertising in my magazine, because I dared to say one of their act's releases wasn't up to their usual standard in a review. I argued that any critic should have the right to write whatever they felt to be true; then I pointed out that 3 or 4 other artists from his label had received glowing reviews in the same issue. He told me that didn't matter because they were not priority artists - which is code for 'they'll probably get dropped after their 1st album because we spent very little on their album's production and marketing'. Another record company phoned me to tell that they wanted to bike over a package, knowing that at the time I was regularly contributing to 8 magazines. I told the person on the other end of the phone, that it would cost less in carbon emissions and courier's fees if they just posted the package, but she insisted. She then went on to tell me that they'd fly me to any capital city of my choice, all expenses paid to interview their new band (who were based 45 minutes drive from my place), if I got the act into any one of those magazines. The package arrived, I'd guesstimate that it cost around £100 to put just that 1 package together. It was 4 poster sized black & white photos (not posters which cost a lot less), 3 CDs, 2 pieces of vinyl, 1 DVD, a video, a promo t-shirt and a specially commission toy - completely over the top. The band were one of worst I've heard, every single one of my colleague and editors agreed. Needless to say I didn't take the company up on their offer. One editor even went as far as saying she'd rather self-harm before she put them in the magazine. They were huge for about 3 years - with lots of accompanying print, TV & radio ads, There's always someone happy to get their palms greased, indulge in blow or blow jobs. I heard said band on the radio the other day, the DJ obviously had no choice in playing their song and said something derogatory about the singer having a bizarre voice.

You can usually tell who'll be the next big thing as soon as the pre-release 'goodie bag' arrives. 'Payola' in all is subtle guises is rife.

As the owner of a music marketing and promo company, this type of thing directly affects our ability to effectively promote our artists. However, I've fortunately never come across something like this in all of our promo campaigns. I've serviced Amplifier for a while and never had a problem, but of course that doesn't mean this thing doesn't go on every day all over the place. Maybe it's the artists we promote, the vibe we operate with, or the fact that we aren't big into advertising anyway, but we've rarely had a problem getting coverage for appropriate records at the right outlets. Seems to me that if you are pushing your artists to media outlets that really care about the genre and style, the traditional editorial still works like a charm.

I'm either really naive or really good. Maybe 30/70.

just to add my 2c here.

I never once asked for editorial coverage. He started the email chain. My current record is being worked by a publicist. I've known joe for almost 7 years now. I have taken ads when i had the available funds and even tried to get my distributor and other labels i know to help them out. he's always been good to me. Then, 3 days ago, i get "fuck you...pay to play". no thank you. i have not said he did anything wrong or illegal. just completely unmoral and contradicing all journalistic values. i admire his honesty. i hope he has admired mine in sharing it with other labels.

*ps* i never sent this to any websites or gossip columns. i simply sent it to others i work with in the biz.

As a member of an independent band that at one point opted for the budget package offered by a publicity group, I know how little zines will do for you if you don't do something for them. We were constantly turned down for reviews from editors that usually raved about the releases covered by the publicity group. Come to find out, our budget package did not include "follow up" phone calls/e-mails to the editors. So the illusion that press is earned instead of bought was shattered for me a long time ago. Payola is alive in well in many forms. Although sad and unprofessional, the editor of AMPLIFIER is obviously shitting trou over his lack of relevance in the music biz. Instead of admitting it, he tries to blame it on the label.

Once I stopped laughing I had to respond. But first, fair disclosure. I'm a publisher of music magazines (DRUM!, TRAPS, HOW TO PLAY DRUMS) and I've been editor or publisher of several other other magazines in music and technology.
What Amplifier is doing reflects their misguided sense of how to work with record companies (definitely stupid) and their own lack of editorial quality (probably--I've never read them).
I say misguided because advertisers do not primarily buy ads as payback for editorial coverage. They love it and often expect it but most advertisers are buying access to the readership and association with the magazine brand or identity. When you advertise in Vogue, or Business Week, or Filter or Playboy, you're saying that you believe that the readership wants or needs your product and will be predisposed to trust the information if you present it in the context of those particular magazines. So, to at least some degree, magazine advertising reflects editorial quality. If Amplifier's editorial quality were the best in the music industry, it would have more ads. End of story.
Having said that, though, the presence of advertisers does skew what journalists write. Because of advertisers magazines in general are more product-focused than they would otherwise be. This applies to all types of magazines--fashion, guns, recordings, whatever. Magazines that are not about a product category--think of political magazines--usually have hard time getting enough ads and either have to depend on help from benefactors or high subscription prices to survive. But even in editorial categories like that the winners tend to be those with the best ideas, the best design, the best stories....really the most concern for the reader.
In my experience, most ad salespeople try to do a fair job. Everywhere I've worked they had rules and lines they could not cross. Of course, there are instances of blatant whoring. But it ain't the norm. And, everyone in publishing has to take responsibility for having more integrity than Amplifier. In other words, if you don't like magazine whores, don't be one.