[Viewpoint] Old and new leashes in HiFi reviewing

Our TNT-Audio was founded 30 years ago, and over the course of these three decades we've witnessed a series of radical shifts in the world of specialized publishing. First came print magazines, sustained (and still sustained) by pages of advertising and subscriptions. They were often criticized because their opinions were sometimes believed to be influenced by the weight of the advertiser. This form of blackmail has always lurked beneath the surface, and it still exists in the minds of readers: “If you don't speak well of my product, I'll pull my ads from your pages.” Sometimes it was blatant, other times more subtle, and in some cases it took the form of a fraudulent gentlemen's agreement between reviewer and company. And other times (most of the time, I like to think) there was no blackmail at all.

Then came the web, and on-line magazines - both new and printed ones which had to adapt. The support system remained essentially the same: advertising. This time, however, banners took over, reaching simply unbearable levels of presence on web pages in recent years compared to the actual written content. Companies paid a fixed monthly or yearly fee to place banners of various sizes and degrees of intrusiveness (the infamous pop-ups) in every corner of the page, making it nearly impossible to read a review or article. This system forced texts to become disproportionately long, just to create enough space for including as many banners as possible. Short reviews like ours don't suit. In fact, we don't host banners at all and we never did 😉

Still, there are (and always have been) advertorials, the true blessing of web magazines that lack ideas or real reviews to publish: articles disguised as reviews, usually discussing some newly released product but actually nothing more than company press releases. In this way, the YouTube channel or website gets paid to publish a press release dressed up as an article or review. Pathetic, to say the least.

Now, while print advertising and advertorials are somehow still holding on, the banner system is collapsing, because companies have realized it's unprofitable. That's why many on-line magazines have died or gone down a dead-end path. So what's the most effective system today? The affiliate program! 💰 Essentially, a link is inserted into the review or article that allows you to purchase the reviewed product - either on an e-commerce platform or on the company's website.

And here's where the brilliant (and sinister) idea comes in: if you, the reader, buy the product by clicking that link, the magazine (or YouTube channel) earns a percentage of the sale (between 3% and 15%). For companies, it's a godsend: they only pay if a sale is actually generated by the review. No more banners whose effectiveness is impossible to measure! Did the reader buy through your review? Then I'll pay you! Now ask yourself why so many YouTubers go to such lengths to include countless infamous “links in description”! Those links are, in most cases, affiliate links. If you buy through them, the channel or site owner gets a commission. And when it comes to expensive products, those percentages are far from negligible. Of course, also unboxing videos exploit the affiliate link bad practice.

...hence the urge to sugar-coat reviews

Why is this system dangerous for you, the readers who seek honest opinions before buying? It's obvious: if I, as a publisher, journalist, or YouTuber, only earn money when products are purchased through my review, why would I ever publish anything less than glowing praise? The more positive the review, the more likely readers are to click the affiliate link and buy. So, to increase my earnings, all I have to do is sugar-coat everything, consistently praising the product until someone is convinced to purchase it. In the past, some companies asked us to join this perverse system, and we always refused, because we have never been willing to sell our complete independence of judgement. The freedom to always write what we truly think is priceless.

Of course, I don't want to lump everyone together, and there are certainly reviewers who manage this psychological blackmail (I only earn if you click and buy) better than others. But let me tell you: things were better when things were worse - when magazines simply had traditional advertising pages. At least everything was clear, and often even pleasant to look at.

DISCLAIMER. TNT-Audio is neither a shop, nor a HiFi company or a repair labouratory for HiFi components. We don't sell anything. It is a 100% independent magazine that neither accepts advertising from companies nor requires readers to register or pay for subscriptions. If you wish, you can support our independent reviews via a PayPal donation. After publication of reviews, the authors do not retain samples other than on long-term loan for further evaluation or comparison with later-received gear. Hence, all contents are written free of any “editorial” or “advertising” influence, and all reviews in this publication, positive or negative, reflect the independent opinions of their respective authors. TNT-Audio will publish all manufacturer responses, subject to the reviewer's right to reply in turn.

January 2026 Editorial

Old and new leashes in HiFi reviewing

...hence the urge to sugar-coat reviews