MQA and the Sponsor Wars

[Speed Racer]

3 minutes ago, witchdoctor said:

You said you would WANT to lose sales. Did you mean NOT want to lose sales??

 

Obviously a typo.....don't be a tool.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

Here's another thread over at Audiocircle that has all the familiar WD MQA shilling.

 

1 hour ago, witchdoctor said:

I don't think it is polite to refer members here to another similar site.
If you have a question about MQA and marketing feel free to post. If you are just a stalker that's ok too.  

 

It's totally appropriate. 

[witchdoctor]

1 hour ago, Speed Racer said:

 

Obviously a typo.....don't be a tool.

I think word of mouth is the best type of marketing, for example:

http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2016/06/an-inconvenient-truth-mqa-sounds-better/

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

10 hours ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

Yes - that is part of the issue - MQA offers no real benefit sound wise (Archimago tests) yet costs more to implement with regards to hardware.

 

Its funny about statistical significance vs meaningful result on which to base decisions.

 

The Archimago tests of lets say 50/50 means the observed differences were more *likely* due to chance - it is not the same as saying it was due to chance 100% . Also you, the individual, do not know into which group you will fall.

 

What if you were told there was a 50% chance, the odds of flipping a coin, that treatment A would cure your cancer. Would you say "not worth it" ?  I'm just saying statistics are really just probabilities and one must not take them as absolutes, rather apply them to the situation.

 

Is the statistical difference between groups whether significant or not, arbitrarily p < 0.05, still worth taking the chance? I wager in the cancer scenario most would say go for it (all other things being equal).

 

Now, what if the same Archimago tests were conducted with the same exact group and got the same 50/50 result - with the same individuals in each camp ie the one's that preferred it still preferred it and the one's that didnt still didn't...or vice versa?

[kumakuma]

14 minutes ago, witchdoctor said:

I think word of mouth is the best type of marketing, for example:

http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2016/06/an-inconvenient-truth-mqa-sounds-better/

 

I'm confused. How is this word of mouth marketing?

[witchdoctor]

39 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

I'm confused. How is this word of mouth marketing?

GREAT question.  That article generated 199 comments if you scroll down. Then you have the SM hashtags for the readers to share that article on FB, twitter, etc. If that was in a paper based publication it would be forgotten. Instead you can backlink to it for years like I did even though it is a year old. MQA partners like Harman will see an article like this and then retweet it out to their followers. Then Harman follower will then retweet it and so on. Don't you think it is 100 times more powerful for an MQA partner to tweet a link to that article or a similar one to their folllowers instead of writing it themselves?

Now the reverse is also true if it was a negative article, thread, blog post, etc. 

[witchdoctor]

45 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Its funny about statistical significance vs meaningful result on which to base decisions.

 

The Archimago tests of lets say 50/50 means the observed differences were more *likely* due to chance - it is not the same as saying it was due to chance 100% . Also you, the individual, do not know into which group you will fall.

 

What if you were told there was a 50% chance, the odds of flipping a coin, that treatment A would cure your cancer. Would you say "not worth it" ?  I'm just saying statistics are really just probabilities and one must not take them as absolutes, rather apply them to the situation.

 

Is the statistical difference between groups whether significant or not, arbitrarily p < 0.05, still worth taking the chance? I wager in the cancer scenario most would say go for it (all other things being equal).

 

Now, what if the same Archimago tests were conducted with the same exact group and got the same 50/50 result - with the same individuals in each camp ie the one's that preferred it still preferred it and the one's that didnt still didn't...or vice versa?

Hey you weighed in! Thanks for posting. 

[kumakuma]

5 minutes ago, witchdoctor said:

GREAT question.  That article generated 199 comments if you scroll down. Then you have the SM hashtags for the readers to share that article on FB, twitter, etc. If that was in a paper based publication it would be forgotten. Instead you can backlink to it for years like I did even though it is a year old. Large companies like Harman will see an article like this and then retweet it out to their followers. A Harman follower will then retweet it and so on.

Now the reverse is also true if it was a negative article, thread, blog post, etc. 

 

It's actually a better example of Influencer Marketing than it is of word of mouth marketing.

[witchdoctor]

36 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

It's actually a better example of Influencer Marketing than it is of word of mouth marketing.

Look how Dynaudio retweeted this from Chris. Now Dynaudios follower hopefully follow Chris and then become members here. The thing with this tweet is you only reached Dynaudio followers. That MQA article that was likely retweeted/posted/emailed etc by ALL of those MQA partners which in turn could be retweeted, etc.That is like word of mouth on steroids, especially with the halo effect of brands like those MQA partners, audio powerhouses IMO.

CA and Dynaudio now share each others halo, for better or worse. If Chris posted he didn't like Dynaudio would there be this type of synergy? Duh. 

 

But remember, negative posts get rebroadcast and negative word of mouth happens too.

 

This tweet from @CA was retweeted by @Dynaudio to all of their followers and likely posted to FB, etc. 

 

 

https://twitter.com/audiophilestyle/status/920600527104299008

[Indydan]

11 hours ago, witchdoctor said:

Their is an aspect to branding called the "halo effect". What type of "halo" do you think surrounds the brands of the companies that have chosen to partner with MQA?
My opinion is their common halo is primarily luxury, quality, and consistency. What's your opinion? 

http://www.mqa.co.uk/customer/our-partners

 

Nice way to generate traffic towards the MQA site... 

[Indydan]

4 hours ago, witchdoctor said:

I don't think it is polite to refer members here to another similar site.
If you have a question about MQA and marketing feel free to post. If you are just a stalker that's ok too.  

 

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/shill

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tout

 

 

[witchdoctor]

22 minutes ago, Indydan said:

 

Nice way to generate traffic towards the MQA site... 

OK now ask yourself, if MQA partners saw a lot of traffic coming from one site and very little traffic coming from another similar site  (google analytics lets you track these things) where would you spend your sponsorship dollars? Remember MQA is more than Bob Stuart, it is a group of MQA partners. That is a LOT of potential sponsors.

or

 

What if you saw a lot of negative posts coming from a site (or a thread) would you spend marketing dollars there?
Social listening apps let's you track nearly everything posted today about what ever keywords you want to track.

[Speed Racer]

1 minute ago, witchdoctor said:

OK now ask yourself, if MQA partners saw a lot of traffic coming from one site and very little traffic coming from another similar site  (google analytics lets you track these things) where would you spend your sponsorship dollars? Remember MQA is more than Bob Stuart, it is a group of MQA partners. That is a LOT of potential sponsors.

or

 

What if you saw a lot of negative posts coming from a site (or a thread) would you spend marketing dollars there?
Social listening apps let's you track nearly everything posted today about what ever keywords you want to track.

 

 

[Indydan]

24 minutes ago, witchdoctor said:

What if you saw a lot of negative posts coming from a site (or a thread) would you spend marketing dollars there?
Social listening apps let's you track nearly everything posted today about what ever keywords you want to track.

 

 

Well I don't have any social listening apps. But, I have a shill meter and a bullshit meter. They both look like this when I read your posts.

 

 

 

[Ralf11]

1 hour ago, kumakuma said:

 

It's actually a better example of Influencer Marketing than it is of word of mouth marketing.

 

 

Effluencer Marketing ??

[witchdoctor]

48 minutes ago, Indydan said:

 

 

Well I don't have any social listening apps. But, I have a shill meter and a bullshit meter. They both look like this when I read your posts.

 

 

 

Or when you look in the mirror? 
Just go find another thread OK? No one is forcing you to read this one .

[Ralf11]

I think it more likely that you will be told to find another forum.

[witchdoctor]

22 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

 

Effluencer Marketing ??

When done properly it's called "viral marketing".

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_marketing

[witchdoctor]

7 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

I think it more likely that you will be told to find another forum.

Look at your tagline Ralf11-

"The overwhelming majority [of audiophiles] have very little knowledge, if any, about the most basic principles and operating characteristics of audio equipment"

 

that is bad branding, better branding would be:

 

"Ralf 11 has very little knowledge, if any, about the most basic principles and operating characteristics of audio equipment"

 

  Consider that a freebie, next time I'll have to invoice you. Now run along and go play in the other threads OK? Thanks   

[Indydan]

11 minutes ago, witchdoctor said:

Or when you look in the mirror? 
Just go find another thread OK? No one is forcing you to read this one .

 

When I look in the mirror, I like who I see. 

 

I'll post where I want. You wanted the attention, you got it. 

[witchdoctor]

29 minutes ago, Indydan said:

 

When I look in the mirror, I like who I see. 

 

I'll post where I want. You wanted the attention, you got it. 

Toilet references don't hurt the witchdoctor brand, they hurt the posters. If you want to post here fine, the topic is about MQA and sponsorship/marketing.

[Indydan]

7 minutes ago, witchdoctor said:

Toilet references don't hurt the witchdoctor brand, they hurt the posters. If you want to post here fine, the topic is about MQA and sponsorship/marketing.

 

MQA = Master Quality Arnaque

 

 

[Indydan]

13 minutes ago, witchdoctor said:

Toilet references don't hurt the witchdoctor brand, they hurt the posters. If you want to post here fine, the topic is about MQA and sponsorship/marketing.

 

Well actually, toilet references don't hurt this poster, nor Schiit audio. Speaking of Schiit, they also do just fine without MQA. According to Schiit, MQA "isn't the shit":

 

http://www.schiit.com/news/news/why-we-wont-be-supporting-mqa

 

Good ole PCM. Now that's the shit!  

 

[PeterSt]

2 hours ago, witchdoctor said:

they hurt the posters.

 

Says who ?

[firedog]

I doubt any sponsor cares what is written here about MQA.

For most of them MQA is a feature they add to DACs as a part of a checklist of features that ensures they don't lose a customer who insists on it as a feature. 

I think the sponsors know that this is a site that brings lots of traffic from their most likely and most influential buyers, and that Chris gives them a fair shake, and a way to communicate directly with customers. As long as that continues, I doubt the MQA thing makes any difference to sponsors.