Editor’s Note: In response to my editor’s message in the November/December issue of Hearing Products Report in which I detailed the frank assessment of the magazine by Unitron Hearing’s Henrik Nielsen, I was pleased to receive feedback from a number of readers. Whether it was positive or negative, it shows interest in the publication and in improving it, which means ultimately we’re all on the same page. Here’s what these readers had to say. —WC
What’s in a Name?
Will, what have you done?
I was about to throw the magazine away also after paging through. The articles didn’t really pertain to our type of business: pediatrics, NIHL OAE measurements. That article [Renee Diiulio’s “Turn It to the Left,” November/December] I read and did find somewhat interesting, but would have benefited a whole lot more if the article dealt with how someone’s practice has benefited from expanding into hearing loss protection, rather than all the behind-the-scenes studies.
In fact, I think your name Hearing Products Report should be one of the main guidelines for selecting which articles are put in the magazine. Is the product–or a new procedure with a product–being discussed in the article? Does it explain how or why this product can make you or your practice more efficient, more profitable, or more desirable to do business with?
Every supplier that advertises should have an in-depth story on how their product somehow improved someone’s business or bottom line. If not, they’re wasting their money.
One thing I think needs to be addressed in this industry is Assistive Listening Devices. The margins are horrible and that is why it is a neglected sideline industry. When one real wholesaler steps forward who is not reselling to the public, and offers the hearing professional a decent profit margin, that company will soar. So it is up to you to find them and let us know if there are any.
I’ve said enough, but I give Unitron credit for saying what needed to be said rather than just thinking it and brushing it off. I am actually giving Unitron another look at their products.
Dan Pantzlaff, BC-HIS,
Green Bay, Wis
Share and Share Alike
Thanks for sharing. I would not consider the reading and then pitching of the magazine a failure. Maybe Mr Nielsen has caught an episode of Oprah on practicing minimalism and is doing his best not to “clutter.” I do the same for a few reasons:
- Its size—I like the traditional 8.5 x 11 format.
- I know I am getting another issue soon and could go to the Web if I need it.
- It doesn’t contain articles I think I may need to reference again in the future—and that’s OK, I use it to keep up to date on product releases.
It’s a good reference!
Jennifer Gehlen, AuD
Make It Meaningful
I really must agree with Henrik. I looked through this issue more carefully and all I saw were advertisements and puff pieces from the manufacturers. There was no logical sorting of the products and no critical judgments made. If I were publishing this, I would definitely sort the products in some way and I would only publish it as an advertising supplement to The Hearing Review. Hope you can find a way to make it a more meaningful publication.
Emily Jaffe, AuD
Fountain Valley, Calif
I receive Hearing Products Report, and as an audiologist, I find it greatly informative. I do have one suggestion, however, regarding the format. It would be really nice to have the new products organized by category. As it stands now, you have all products mixed together and I have to search through many pages to find what I am looking for. It would be most helpful—especially when making recommendations to peers—to be able to flip right away to telephones, marketing supplies, or earmolds, for example.
Thank you again for publishing this product and I hope you will find my suggestion helpful.
Dawn V, AuD