During my recent car-shopping odyssey I discovered an entertaining BBC television program called "Top Gear" that really has no American equivalent. I can't claim to be an expert on the show, having watched a motley of video clips on YouTube, downloaded a number of complete shows from iTunes, and read the show's entry in Wikipedia. But I think I notice in the evolution of the show a general phenomenon that's familiar: reviewer creep. In the early days of the show, the main presenter (an "everyman" stand-in—he's originally meant to represent you, that is, the viewer, only with special access to cars and plenty of time to evaluate them) is to be found presenting sober evaluations of ordinary road cars of the sort most people buy. Along the way he tosses in some bon mots and good jokes in an appealing way. By the mid-2000s the number of presenters had increased to three, and on one episode the three can be found arguing heatedly over which £90,000 car is the best; the main presenter, having become a rich television star whose personality has become the point of most of the shows, has at that time just bought a Lamborghini Gallardo, a car most of his viewers have most likely never seen, much less driven, much less own. He's observed on the episode in question grumbling that an Aston-Martin with a V-8* just doesn't have adequate power. This while tearing along a road on the Isle of Man that the police have helpfully closed to traffic so he can drive fast for the cameras.
It's a typical arc, one you can detect at work in a great many fields. People tend to be most interested in gear at the level at which they themselves can contend. But reviewers are people for whom the natural hierarchy gets thoroughly subverted. They begin as "real people"—"real" in this sense meaning representative; that is, representative of the audience. But inevitably they get spoiled; they have opportunities that typical audience members never have; they can justify playing their particular game at a very high level, and then they are no longer representative—typical—at all. Reviewers start out actually caring about the things most people want to buy, but the very fact that they're reviewers launches them up the connoisseur scale until their tastes are highly refined and their interest can't be piqued by anything but the very best. If they're successful reviewers (successful meaning influential), then manufacturers tend to shower them with products to test, and offer them purchasing discounts ordinary customers never enjoy. They get jaded about ordinary products and can't even work up much enthusiasm for products that for most people are out of reach.
One of my other longtime hobbies is audio, and "reviewer creep" can be seen much more nakedly in audio writing than in photography. In the 1960s, the godfather of subjective reviewing, J. Gordon Holt, called a certain nicely-made mass-market box speaker that sold for a few hundred dollars "essentially perfect." By the late '80s, the editor of the magazine Holt founded called a $3,300 two-way mini-monitor "very expensive for a speaker this size"—shortly before he himself acquired a pair of even nicer two-way mini-monitors for $8,000. Nowadays, reviewers for the major magazines for the most part just can't get very excited about $8,000 loudspeakers at all. A recent enthusiast magazine has a cover blurb that says, "Lowest Priced Magico Yet! The V2 Loudspeaker." This low-priced wonder costs $18,000 a pair. That seems on the pricey side for six drivers in two boxes to me, but the question the reviewer poses in his opening paragraph is "...whether [Magico] can successfully translate the R&D that inspired its statement products...to an 'entry level' offering." Seems they were up to this dire challenge. At least he put "entry level" in quotes.
The exaggerated expectations of reviewers can sometimes lead to some unintentional hilarity in audio writing. I remember one review in which the reviewer recounted the difficulty of getting a very heavy, very expensive Class A amplifier up the stairs to his apartment—at which point the heat the behemoth generated became a practical problem, since the reviewer had to turn his window air-conditioner off in order to do his "critical listening." The picture of this poor fellow sweating away in his sweltering walk-up listening to an amp that was probably worth more than he was and that doubled as a heater was entertainingly vivid—especially since I lived in a hot, cramped city walk-up myself at the time.
In photography, I'm not sure we suffer much from reviewer creep. The reviewer best known for using expensive equipment is Michael Reichmann, but he's not an example of true reviewer creep—he's just a wealthy guy who'd naturally be using expensive cameras whether he wrote about them or not. They make sense for his work. I admit I hardly ever read camera reviews, so I don't really know which reviewers use what and why. Ironically, however, the problem in photography might not be the reviewers so much as certain readers! Not long ago I became aware of some bitter criticisms leveled at TOP because we supposedly only talk about "cheap toys." On some forum sites, apparently participants have to list the equipment they own as bonafides. I probably wouldn't qualify for those discussions.
Maybe we need a bit of reviewer creep around here.
We almost got a medium-format digital back for Ctein to wring out this summer, but that fell through. I've actually been trying to figure out what our next review series ought to be. I'd been planning on evaluating some small cameras, but maybe we harp on that too much already—perhaps what's most needed is a series on mainstream cameras—bestsellers of the sort most of our readers use.
I have to admit I wouldn't know what to do with a Lamborghini Gallardo. I don't think there's a single road in the town I live in where I could legally get it out of second gear.
Mike
*The last time a bestselling car in the U.S. had a V-8 option was in 1996, when you could get one in a Ford Taurus.
Send this post to a friend
Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.
Featured Comment by Tim Bradshaw: "'Top Gear' is about cars in roughly the same way that Moby Dick is about whales."
Featured Comment by Dennis: "Reviewer creep! What a great term! I like the subtle association between review and creep. (Oh, was that unintentional?) [Nothing is unintentional. —Ed.]
"Remember 'Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous'? 'Hi, I'm Robin Leach. I'm shouting at the top of my lungs and I don't know whhhyyyyyy!' I can see where such a show is more about entertainment than information. And when it comes to audio gear, while reviewer creep is obvious in what the reviewers say about the high end gear, there has to be an audience out there that wants to read about high end gear. Whether for entertainment, something to drool over, or because hobbyists spend a small fortune on audio gear compared to camera gear.
"Where I think the biggest difference lies between photography and auto/audio is the (relative) lack of a luxury market. Certainly an $8000 DSLR in the hands of a doctor or lawyer who does photography on the weekends is a luxury, but the camera wasn't designed as a luxury item; it was designed for professional. It would be like owning a delivery truck for running your garbage to the transfer station, rather than owning a Lamborghini. Our objects of desire are better than the objects we own because they're 'dust and weather sealed.' How sexy is that??? There's Leica, of course. But within a class of cameras, you don't have choices from dirt cheap entry level to you have to be a Syrian prince. If you like compact digicams, they range up to $500 ($1000 for the Ricoh GXR). If you like the new EVIL cameras, they range from practical $500 models to practical $1000 models. DSLRs see a wide variance up to top-of-the-line professional models at $8000. So we creep, but we have limited dynamic range."
Featured Comment by Ed Kirkpatrick: "Have you ever noticed the phenomenon of Comment Creep? It's when there are lots of comments and we don't always read them all before we put in our two cents worth. This tends to cause duplication and redundancies in the comments. I was sure to read all the way to the end before making this comment. And by the way, did you see the 'Top Gear' shows on the Bugatti Veyron? They tried to see just how fast it would go on a closed track...pretty amazing."
Don't worry about the camera and lens reviews Mike. I recommend this site to my students because of the writing about photography.
Posted by: Mark Roberts | Wednesday, 05 May 2010 at 07:54 PM
I do not know how to even start to comment on your "review" of "Top Gear". My boys are fans of this TV series to the extreme that, like Green Days, I have to go to their live show in Hong Kong. (It is obvious they have a lot of fans globally as they can have such a 1960s style live show around the world!) In fact, it is normal the Santa would remember to have some UK DVD fix of Doctor Who and Top Gear. A major UK export I believe.
I did agree that in the older days they are actually review and I might try to catch some of those good one as said by other poster. Just recent encountered one with Leno in that show, quite entertaining. But, well, they are really just shows. I would ask my boys whether they have some comments on your comments.
As regards to Michael, I would say that when he is good and especially when he concentrate on being a Landscape photographer, he is excellent. I quite remember In the good old days of Rollei, Pentax 67 and Contax ... and DVD #10 is the best of all DVDs he produced. I bought all his DVDs. Lately I am building up my Pentax 67 systems and his review is still the authority in that camera system. The list of points he made is still good after so many years. He is just good when he is good.
But like some politician, he is somehow affected seriously by the his "ideology" e.g. Canon D30, Digital Back, Leica M8, ... lately video-still photo convergence etc. If you are not with him (on digital), I am not sure you can read his site without some question marks all the time. May be it is just pros talked to pros and hence we are not his audience. He is in the 100k group anyway. At the end of the day, I heard about you via his site. Cannot be too hard on him I guess.
On the audio part, may I suggest you a look at to review portable 96khz/24bit system for listening and field recording. They are affordable. They are useful to people who use their Canon 5D Mark II as video cam. It is quite a lot of choice. Also, it seems so far it is still on 1k group i.e. each component like a 3 inch cable can start with from just .1k to 1k and you are still good to go. It is a bit like camera this day, you can have your choices and even low end is quite good. As the basic player (like ipod) max on 48/16 (but the DAC chip inside is not too bad), the marginal increase in quality is quite significant. Given that they are not going to be reviewed by the big boy and it is something everyone can use everyday and talk about. Got any interest for one post?
Last but not the least, quite like to see Ctein and you on the Pentax 645D. Any chance? If you can pull this out, you might even beat Michael on his game!
Posted by: Dennis Ng | Wednesday, 05 May 2010 at 08:08 PM
"Also, I am pretty sure that Mr Holt's $8000.00 small speakers were Mr Wilson's 'Watt Puppies'"
Dale,
No, it was John Atkinson, and they were B&W John Bowers Silver Signatures. Although, being not only a reviewer but the king of all reviewers (a.k.a. a chief editor), he probably didn't actually pay the full $8k for them.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Johnston | Wednesday, 05 May 2010 at 08:12 PM
The 'Top Gear" phenomenon, which is basically inane, snarky content-free entertainment, is one reason that I've watched perhaps six hours of television in the past year, football aside.
Posted by: John Camp | Wednesday, 05 May 2010 at 08:13 PM
T.O.P: The site is about people, good persons who enjoy whatever they do to survive. Photography is part of the mix, audio too as well as family. Your family Mike is Zander, as well as your summer excursions and related happenings.
Your daily mixture gives many of us a reason to just keep going and functioning. And we your readers, don't literally bite the hand that feeds us! Woof!
Posted by: Bryce Lee in Burlington, Ontario Canada | Wednesday, 05 May 2010 at 08:22 PM
With regard to your example of the amp that generated so much heat...I also know of at least one audio reviewer who didn't realize the heat wasn't working on the first floor of his house until he swapped from a pair of 200wpc Class A mono vacuum tube amps to a pair of similarly powered solid-state Class AB amps. Because the Class A amps sounded their best only after they had warmed up for a few hours, he never turned them off and the heaters of the 16 KT88 output tubes generated enough heat that even during a NY winter, they successfully masked the problem with his heating system.
Posted by: Jeffrey Goggin | Wednesday, 05 May 2010 at 08:28 PM
"Remember 'Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous'? 'Hi, I'm Robin Leach."
Being English majors, we used to make fun of the show, and made a parody called "Lifestyles of the impecunious and obscure."
It was a lot funnier then.
Posted by: misha | Wednesday, 05 May 2010 at 08:30 PM
Exactly how does one accomplish "critical listening" to an expensive amplifier with a window air conditioner clattering away in the same room?
Posted by: Bill Rogers | Wednesday, 05 May 2010 at 08:36 PM
Bill,
No, the point was that he had to turn his a/c OFF to listen. So he had to sit there and sweat for his review...literally!
Mike
Posted by: Mike Johnston | Wednesday, 05 May 2010 at 08:46 PM
could you combat reviewer creep with a reverse creep? review things from previous decades? "introduced 30 years ago today." examine early digital with modern eyes?
Posted by: Aaron Grier | Wednesday, 05 May 2010 at 08:58 PM
The camera review equivalent of Top Gear would be to take a 1D4 and a D3s and compare how they photograph Olympic sprinters in full flight... while standing under waterfall to test the weather seals.
350 million viewers can't be wrong.
Gordon
Posted by: Gordon | Wednesday, 05 May 2010 at 09:43 PM
Get Ctein a 645D for the summer. The folks in Golden, CO might have one by then...
Posted by: MarkB | Wednesday, 05 May 2010 at 09:54 PM
So palladium printing is not "reviewer creep"?
Posted by: Nikita | Wednesday, 05 May 2010 at 10:43 PM
I think that the Top Gear car reviews are excellent (though I will probably never be in the market for a new Aston), if only because they are not afraid to say that a car is ugly, loud, or uncomfortable.
I count myself as a car enthusiast, but I can't stand to read car magazines that have become color press release for manufacturers. The use of technical specs has only made it easier for these writers to avoid giving opinions. Honest feedback helps everyone. Had writers been more honest with criticism, the US auto industry might have not been so complacent in developing a car that people want.
Posted by: Scott Kay | Wednesday, 05 May 2010 at 10:44 PM
Factoid: There's no speed limits on much of the roads of Isle of Man. Much the same way folks would go to Montana which had no numerical speed limit on many of its roads until the 55 mph national fuel crisis speed limit was imposed.
Clarkson is an ass, but that is his charm, I suppose.
Posted by: David Ralph | Thursday, 06 May 2010 at 12:52 AM
Actually, a camera equivalent of a Top Gear challenge would be buying a used film camera and one lens for $250, going to Nepal and bringing 10 excellent photos in ten days. With reviewers making a sidetrip to some phenomenal Indian restaurant where one of the reviewers would be shown as being unable to eat anything that isn't a hamburger. Or they would laze around some five-star resort for a couple of days and then hurrying to make the photos during the last day. Or they would spend a day trying to load the film into their cameras. :)
The whole trip would be chronicled, of course. By three camera crews who really know their job. And then the result would have top editing and post-production applied to it. Maybe with spaceships shooting around the photographers while they try to capture that decisive moment.
Each episode of Top Gear costs tons of money. Oodles. Googolplexes.
BTW, I'd really like to support that lone opinion on the quality of cinematography in the series. It's not world-changing or meaningful because of its contents. It's incredibly pretty, though. The polar special episode. The Botswana episode. The Stelvio Pass episode landscapes. The review of Honda Civic. Wow.
Mike, let me add my voice to those who want more about lenses. No, not that tired crap with numbers about resolution or edge sharpness or distortion and aberration. I think there's been a lot of voices clamouring for more about bokeh. Half of the reviewers out there wouldn't know good bokeh if it tripped them on the way to the loo.
Posted by: erlik | Thursday, 06 May 2010 at 02:19 AM
If you ever get the chance try out "Top Gear Live" - lots of fun but no relation to anything real. The ultimate extrapolation of the review show - a world tour!
Posted by: semiglossy | Thursday, 06 May 2010 at 03:21 AM
Dear Folks,
Mike and I agree the Pentax 645D is definitely on our "must review" list... *IF* it's introduced in the US.
Otherwise, it's an exercise in frustration for the majority of TOP readers, not to mention me, who cannot read Japanese.
pax / monolingual Ctein
Posted by: ctein | Thursday, 06 May 2010 at 03:32 AM
I totally agree with your point. IMHO reviewers should focus on gear pushing the boundaries further away, as electric-powered micro-cars or EVIL cameras or Ricoh GXR system or Lensbabies or tilt/shift lenses or amphibious compacts (and so on) do. Gear that can actually change our approach to photography making, thus bringing about a shift in our visual language. For instance, I'd like to know what TOP thinks about the stunnigly-featured Fuji HS10. If its specs are true, it could help to a new approach to telephoto and high-speed shooting. I'm aware it's not as ornamental as a Leica, but if minimum IQ standards are complied, it could mean something to real world photographers.
Posted by: Gianni Galassi | Thursday, 06 May 2010 at 04:16 AM
Ray: Was Top Gear ever really about some mythical everyman test driving everyday cars?
I think if you can remember back to days of Quentin Wilson (~1991), you might find more reviews of ordinary cars there. But maybe that's only my dodgy memory.
Posted by: Tim | Thursday, 06 May 2010 at 06:07 AM
"I've actually been trying to figure out what our next review series ought to be."
You should do a quick post on what combination of equipment you would get if you were restricted to various budgets...and why.
i.e. If you were restricted to less than $500 today and were starting all over again, what would you get. If you were restricted to less than $1500...etc.
You can have an unrestricted category for your "Top Gear" enthusiasts.
Posted by: Jeffrey K, Hartge | Thursday, 06 May 2010 at 07:24 AM
Speaking of audio reviews and Mother's Day, audio reviewers have a wonderful technical term to rate the aesthetics of audio equipment: WAF or, Wife Acceptance Factor. In general, there is an inverse relation between the aesthetics of a piece of equipment and its WAF rating. Another audio anecdote: a couple years ago I saw a pair of 1 year-old B&W Nautilus speakers (the ones that look like they were designed by H.R.Geiger) go for $14,100 on ebay. Wow, I thought, what a bargain; these speakers retailed for around 40-50K new. But then it struck me as to what the cost would be to build a setup around the speakers -- amp, pre-amp, cables, cd transport, d/a converter -- it quickly climbed from Lexus into Mercedes E series territory. Anyway, the B&W's still look great and, from what I've read in reviews, sound even better. (I had to settle for a pair of 802's and some Rotel hardware. I still love the sound.)
Posted by: J. G. Baker | Thursday, 06 May 2010 at 10:07 AM
You stated that "*The last time a bestselling car in the U.S. had a V-8 option was in 1996, when you could get one in a Ford Taurus." This is not quite true, as the best selling "car" in the U. S. is the Ford F-150, and number 3 is the Chevy Silverado. Both typically have V-8 engines.
Posted by: Scott Breshears | Thursday, 06 May 2010 at 10:10 AM
Dear me, Breshears, those aren't cars.
I refuse to have anything at all to do with trucks. I had to drive a pickup when I was the handyman for a garden center in my youth; for any errands that didn't requiring hauling anything large and/or heavy and/or flat, I cadged the MGB belonging to one of the young ladies in the accounting office, put the top down, and timed my way to the lumberyard. I hated that truck. Have no interest at all in trucks, in any of their current guises--in anything built on a truck frame. Have never driven an SUV, and am intending to maintain that spotless record. I deal in cars, preferably small, light ones, preferably small, light ones with a horsepower to weight ratio the lower the better. A truck is not an acceptable substitute for a proper car IMNSHO even in a theoretical, rhetorical sense.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Johnston | Thursday, 06 May 2010 at 03:50 PM
Mike
Top Gear is about entertainment in the same way Photography magazines are about selling advertising. No surprises in any of this is there.
Posted by: Louis McCullagh | Thursday, 06 May 2010 at 05:42 PM
It is really too bad that American car TV shows are not more like Top Gear...There is a lot to like in the show, and comparatively our shows are...Boring.
Posted by: Bill Perez | Friday, 07 May 2010 at 11:14 AM
But within a class of cameras, you don't have choices from dirt cheap entry level to you have to be a Syrian prince.
I beg to differ, there is always this: http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/13/carl-zeiss-creates-over-five-foot-long-telephoto-lens/
Posted by: Peter | Friday, 07 May 2010 at 01:10 PM
I don't know whether I'd call it "reviewer creep" or "taste evolution," but the same happens in all forms of evaluative writing.
As a dance professor friend put it: "When you first start seeing dance, you can learn something from almost every concert. But once you've seen a lot, you can only learn something from seeing work that's really good."
At that point, the trick becomes learning how to stay relevant to readers who have seen different things and have different perspectives.
Posted by: Ranger 9 | Sunday, 16 May 2010 at 08:32 PM