He makes many good points, although as I have said in the past, I consider Twitter a useful tool. If I get some retweets, might mean more people are reading my blog!
In any event, he's right about transparency. For the record, some things I've said before:
- Nobody pays me to write this blog.
- There's no advertising on the blog.
- If a review of mine is in SFCV or Classical Voice, I was paid by them to write it and the ticket was comped, with a very few exceptions.
- If a review appears here, I probably paid for the ticket, but I do get some comps.
- My tone in paid reviews is more measured and deliberative than my tone here.
Still planning to get together some statistics about my readership.
2 comments:
I'm all for transparency, however I don't think comp tickets are an issue. Classical music is an expensive proposition and many reviewers would be unable to attend were they not comped. When I read reviews, I assume the writer was comped, unless told otherwise. I don't think the writer's integrity is compromised thereby.
I started reading ITOM rather recently when Georgia Rowe told me about it. Before that, I read your reviews at SFCV and enjoyed hearing your pov when our paths crossed.
Bob Shingleton at On an Overgrown Path seems to think there's a problem with comps - or maybe he doesn't, it is a little hard to tell. :) And thank you!
Post a Comment