Originally Posted by GaryM63
Every Web site has a different style - if anyone looked at any other review I wrote they would see that we routinely do a company history for pretty much every product we review. Remember, I don't write for an "audiophile" site - so many of our readers have no idea who any of these companies are - they just like to know what is new and cool and get an honest impression.
First page pictures are most often logos or small images of the product just for size purposes - this isn't uncommon. I'm curious to see if I get the same reaction after the Sleek review next week.
Gary, didn't mean to be harsh, but there have been reviews of the Custom 3s here and a few reviewers/users at least pointed to some downsides to those specific phones other than price and fit. Be that as it may, if the site you review for requires company history, etc., my suggestion would be that you tell the site that starting with the "real" review makes much more sense, engages the reader, etc. For all that other stuff, some actually cut and pasted from the Klipsch site, just add a link at the end for anyone interested in visiting the manufacturer's site, or seeing stock photos of the phones/gear. Curious readers, audiophile site or not, know enough to click on a link if they want to get more info.
Seems to me, all that stuff up front just gunks up the review, making it almost impossible to wade through. In fact, when I first started to read, I wondered if there was any review to the review. Finally, I got to the point where I believe the review began. It would be like a movie critic listing the cast, a history of the film company/production company, etc., before actually delivering a review. Not very compelling, nor interesting.
Nothing wrong with liking the phones. I am sure you are not the first to give the Custom 3s a generally positive review. But the format just mucks up the actual delivery. I'd revisit the format, and ask your site to maybe reconsider their approach to reviews.