Garry
Senior Member
- The problem:
- Sample libraries can be expensive, and can be a risky purchase for the reasons below.
- Most libraries cannot be experienced before purchase:
- You (mostly) can't go to a retail outlet and listen to it, (as we would expect to be able to do for almost all other audio-based products), as few are available to try out in music shops
- You (mostly) cant' try it at home first, as few developers provide demos/trial periods/returns
- If you are disappointed after your largely blind purchase, there is no recourse for many libraries, as few developers offer resales/license transfers
- Information available prior to purchase is incomplete and risks bias:
- Developer demos/walkthroughs only focus on positives; negatives are not covered, and there is an obvious, unavoidable bias.
- Reviews paid for by the developer can be impacted by this relationship, and the reviewer may find it difficult to be objective, no matter how well intentioned, or at least, a perception of bias is difficult to avoid, real or not, when the developer has paid for the review, or provided a free copy of the library
- Reviewers who buy the product themselves can be seen as more independent, but:
- some reviewers are more skilled than others (I'll leave it at that!)
- it comes at a risk to the reviewer, since they can't return the product, so they have to bare the cost of the library themselves
- We therefore have to rely heavily on the feedback of this community (recent poll here found >100 respondents (>80% of total votes) took into account one reviewer's Youtube reviews for their purchasing decisions).
- Bottom line: given this context, how can we make better informed decisions in a way which is fair to the developer, customer and reviewer?
- The opportunity:
- VI-Control has many highly knowledgable, highly skilled contributors
- A number of these are excellent at providing detailed, unbiased reviews, and have already done many (unpaid, free) reviews to date, which the community greatly benefits from (eg @Daniel James, @ashtongleckman, @ManchesterMusic, @Dirk Ehlert, @Cory Pelizzari, @reutunes, @Guy Rowland, @ChrisSiuMusic - and many others)
- Bringing together potential buyers with potential reviewers would be a win/win for everyone.
- The idea:
- A new library is released by a developer
- A poll is taken here on VI-C to determine whether there are a sufficient number of people that would like to see a detailed review of it.
- Based on the feedback, a decision is taken whether to make a review (for example, the cost of the library is $300, and there are 150 respondents who would like it to be reviewed - a price is thereby set at 300/150 = $2 contribution per person) - if a reasonable price is found (ie, max of $5 per contributor), reviewers are invited to be considered
- A poll is taken with the names of all reviewers wishing to be considered: the person with the most number of votes wins. Reviewers don't have to participate in all library reviews - they choose, based on their interest/availability on a per library basis
- The library is purchased using the community funds, and the reviewer provides the review within an agreed time; the reviewer gets to keep the library, and agrees to provide additional responses to comments/questions.
- Potential for failure and mitigation:
- Reviewer takes the money and doesn't do the review. Ok, everyone is down <$5, trust is broken, and we'd probably never do it again.
- Reviewer provides inadequate review. Seems unlikely, as we'd be voting for reviewers with demonstrated experience doing this, but again, you placed a <$5 bet, and on this occasion it didn't benefit you. Better luck next time.
- Draft of suggested rules (to be amended based on community feedback):
- Reviewers must have already completed online reviews (for other libraries, so people have an idea of the standard)
- Reviewers must agree to complete review within agreed period (eg 1-2 weeks)
- Reviewers must agree to respond to comments on the thread for an agreed period (eg 1 week), and perhaps supply additional requested quick demos (eg, 'here's 2 bars of staccato with the close mics')
- Contributions are paid using PayPal to a central point (administered by someone who is willing and the community agrees to).
- Reviews are only conducted if there are a sufficient number of respondents for the library - decided on a per library basis. eg. 'we have 100 positive responses for this $400 library - does everyone agree to go forward at $4 each?' Library is purchased only when the required amount is achieved; or: we got 50 responses for this $700 library - no review due to insufficient interest.
- Reviewer keeps the library; must not enter into agreement with developer (for that library).
Last edited: