Monster Cable has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: December 14, 2013. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
no archives yet ( create) |
|
This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
In the Recent history section, there is a sentence beginning with "Following the collapse of the Beats deal with Apple." There have been no mentions of Beats or Apple before that point. The relevant information starts two sections lower. Maybe it wasn't changed following an edit? I think some re-ordering would make the article work better for a first-time linear reader like me. Hyperdimension ( talk) 01:15, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Am I the only one who doesn't see a huge bias in this article? Where's the bit about how Monster Cables are extremely overpriced, and in some cases, especially with digital optical cables (a poor cable won't cause a 2 to be placed in a stream of 1s and 0s), are absolutely no better than a cheap cable you can find on eBay. Also don't forget about how they sue pretty much anyone who has "monster" in their domain name — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.151.185.106 ( talk • contribs) 15:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I have changed the article to reflect the over pricing of their product. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.161.86.254 ( talk • contribs) 18:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I believe that monster cables have a profound effect on the quality of sound. on my sytem, with all monster cables(no cheap copper wires)sound quality is extraordinary. perhaps the person above me has cheaper wire running from the reciever to his speakers. add to that you can get these so called expensive cables for $20 on ebay, they are very much worth it and better than above stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.198.246 ( talk • contribs) 18:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
This is very likely the placebo effect at work, you're hearing the improved sound quality because you *want* to, and who wouldn't want to, after spending a small fortune on Monster Cable products? One should attempt a double-blind test involve other cables, before being so certain they're actually working so much better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.253.177.76 ( talk • contribs) 22:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Alex, digital is only 1s and 0s. Either you have it or you don't. Look at the post above, what will thin cable do, put a 2 there? No. The picture/sound will just stop totally if the cable is overloaded. I'll get you citations later. Andrewwski 04:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
The unsigned individual above must be a plant for Monster Cable. If they sue everyone left and right to "protect their name", then why wouldn't they hire people to hit the internet and spread the ridiculous garbage about their audio cables being "superior" in the face of solid evidence that proves otherwise. Spark plug manufacturers often make the same claim and they are also lying to you. It is all in the marketing. 75.44.35.141 06:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC) Bill
I'm amazed any company would have a plant who is so clearly a moron. I'd expect the dumbest corporate marketing slimeball to be better informed than that 68.227.254.206 ( talk) 05:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I understand that, however, have you ever heard of magnetic interference? Of course, either it's digital or it isn't, but stating that they will yield NO higher quality than that of the cheapest cables is far untrue. For example, if you go buy cables from some street person and hook them up, and they have only a PVC coating on them, and the room has a hundred electronic devices in it, there is a high possibilty of something going wrong. Besides any of this, since research hasn't proven your statement, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. See WP:CITE for more information. Thanks, Al e x 43223 22:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe i'm the only one who noticed this, but Monster does not only sell digital audio cables. Analog cables are not just on or off, therefore cable quality can make a difference. I think this article is biased to Monster Cable products being worth the money. It's a matter of opinion really, and the better your equipment, the more sensitive it will be from interference that can be introduced through poor cabling. As far as digital cable goes, yes, it's either "on" or "off", but loss and bandwidth can be issues. For example, some HDMI cables use super-thin copper wire and cannot support the new HDMI 1.3, which is required to transmit the new 1080p resolution. Also, some inexpensive HDMI cables don't support HDCP content protection protocol, which can make that new cable useless on many newer set top boxes and DVD players.
Digital signals are transmitted as near square waves, true. Depending on the type of signal being transmitted, the protocol in use, and a few other factors, the actual voltage on the line will be a varying square wave between two voltages, sometimes 0 and 5 volts, sometimes 12 volts and -12 volts... it depends on the protocol. The protocol determines how the sender & receiver represent a 1 or a 0. If the implementation of the protocol includes error detection, or some form of error detection and correction (EDAC), such as parity check, manchestor encoding, or various other techniques, incorrect signals will be ignored or not received. There are several ways interference can cause signal degradation and/or loss of signal; cross coupling, outside EMI...
If there is no error detection or EDAC in the HDMI protocol, and no encoding, rather a simple square wave of 1's and 0's (unlikely), it's possible for various 1's and 0's to be misinterpretted (1 can look like a 0 or 0 can look like a 1), and the result would again depend on the protocol. It could cause artifacting and intermittent picture, rather than no picture at all.
But! In the case of HDMI, which uses the TMDS protocol, it will depend on the hardware, but the most likely result of a cable problem will be no picture, with an unlikely but possible result of an intermittent picture - either way you will know if the cable is working or not, quite quickly. No slight image degradation is likely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TMDS
If you really want to compare Monster's cables, audio or digital, to other cables, all that's needed is a wavefunction generator and a oscilloscope. It's possible to measure the performance (or lack thereof) of one cable versus another. But most people don't bother, because those who know how to use this equipment usually already know that the physical cable construction materials and manufacturing technique determine the signal quality - not advertising. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.169.218.182 ( talk) 00:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC).
While it may be true that when it comes to the copper, a cable is a cable, why aren't there any points/counterpoints with regards to the build quality of Monster Cables? I find that the Turbine Connectors, for example, do make a difference...as does the braiding on the higher-end cables (not even cats can chew through it), and the balanced construction and dedicated shielding layers. What I do NOT buy into is the 'direction' of the cables...since when are cables directional? It'd be great if this article was fleshed out properly with more details about this... -- 75.176.185.207 01:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
its not biased, most people would agree. http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/03/audiophiles-cant-tell-the-difference-between-monster-cable-and/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadamzz ( talk • contribs) 14:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
source of the test is in the article, and this test has at least one bias... "A high quality recording of smooth, trio, easy listening jazz was played (Piano, drums, bass)" ... Potentially a second source in the mastering of whatever CD they were listening to (recent jazz, as most recent pop music overuses dynamic compression which would impact the test, see below) and a third in the absence of precision on the source used, as to test the weakest link - cables - you have to make sure all oher links are very high end (source or D/A conversion, amp, speakers). without any information on this, the object of the test is useless (just imagine doing a headphones quality test with an iPod, compared to, say, a CD through an apogee D/A converter... the detail to be heard / respected in the signal will just be absent in the first case).
On high quality cables (actually bigger and threaded cables is what makes them quality, not the brand or whatever else) The difference is noticeable on high dynamics music, certainly not on smooth jazz (which is likely to be over-compressed if it is a recent record). I did a similar test to some friends between thin out-of-the-box and fatter dedicated cables, there was no obvious difference either on over-compressed (dynamic compression, standard pop music) or smooth (lounge, classical, easy rock) music. However when playing more aggressive and demanding sounds, with more dynamics (it was most obvious on an autechre record)... the difference was clearly audible.
Additionally I remember a test 128kb MP3 vs wave on a Pavarotti record, which had a 60% identification rate, mostly due to poor electronics, phones and D/A converters on the user end and .... the over-compressed (dynamic compression during mastering) sound of the original record. a similar test on a track with more dynamics got a 90% identification rate.
Actually whatever this brings in, I'd still suggest to remove the link on the coathanger test as it does not present properly defined experimental conditions —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
81.57.103.19 (
talk)
18:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
What year was this company founded? The infobox states 1979, but the actual article states 1978. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.69.205 ( talk • contribs) 18:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Monster Cable was founded in 1978 and the page should be updated to reflect this. TedAtM ( talk) 21:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
There's something of an amusing read over here. It appears to be a quite a cogent response to a threat of litigation from Monster Cables. It might be pertinent to include a reference to it in the article perhaps under something along the lines of litigious behaviour. -- EvilMonkeySlayer ( talk) 14:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I have added the fact that Monster Cable is currently incorporated in Bermuda, with reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.204.254.94 ( talk) 07:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Ted from Monster Cable here. Monster Cable Products, Inc. is California Incorporated with an LLC In Nevada as well. TedAtM ( talk) 21:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
There have been a few mentions in the article about Monster Cable's corporate filing being off-shore. This has been expanded on to note the discussion and link to Monster's current corporate filings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TedAtM ( talk • contribs) 20:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
This article is ripe with weasel words, glitzy pretentious phrases, and a general sense of "we're better because we're better". I've marked various examples with the necessary annotations, and removed some of the more flagrant displays of 'we let our advertiser edit our article'. For particular examples of idiot editing, see the edits by Edjthompson. My favorite was a bunch of pseudo scientific babble of technical terms meant to go over people's heads, then saying "Not so expensive now, is it?" Ftc08 ( talk) 06:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Hi. I'm here on Monster's behalf and would like to help improve the article from the Talk page. My hope is by offering content and making requests we can bring the article up to Wikipedia's standards, with a little help making sure we stay neutral and aligned with Wikipedia's content policies.
To start, I was hoping an impartial editor would consider if the False Advertising section is UNDUE. I can only find a couple brief blurbs and press releases on these issues, which relate largely to Engadget, a publication the company has had disputes with, as explained in the Wikipedia article. If there is something salvageable, I leave it up to an impartial editor's judgement, but I can't find any source material to suggest this is an important part of the company's reputation/history.
Thanks North. I went ahead and closed my Request Edit. I didn't know if you were going stick around for future edits, but if you are, I'd be open to any suggestions on where we focus next. I've already collected a lot of good sources on Monster's early history for a draft I'm working on about the company's founder, so I was thinking of starting with their early history and working down. CorporateM ( Talk) 03:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Suggestions
North8000 ( talk) 11:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I've prepared a few first drafts of material for consideration by impartial editors. I know this is a lot of material at-once and some of it covers complex and nuance topics. I'd be happy to go through them one-at-a-time, or whatever is easiest. Hopefully these will at least provide a starting point for future fine-tuning. CorporateM ( Talk) 13:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Notes: This is a very complex and nuance topic that does not lend itself to being easy to do with a COI. That being said, I do think this is "better" and "more neutral" than the current and it will continue to improve through other editors and eventually the GA process. Two things I want to point out:
draft
|
---|
Some believe that more expensive audio cables like those from Monster do not have an audible effect on audio quality when compared to generic cables. According to a reporter at SoundStage Network, "many audiophiles think cables make no difference... then there are those who think they make a tremendous, monumental, huge difference. There's validity in both views." [1] In 1980 Speaker Builder said that more expensive cables were a "reasonable investment" for high-end audio systems. The author said that Monster's cables out-performed generic 24 or 18-gauge cables, but the author could only tell the difference, "at the extremes of performance" such as bass, high pitches and cables run over long distances. [2] In 1983, tests by Stereo Review Magazine concluded that Monster audio cables were "indistinguishable" from generic speaker cable. Monster CEO Noel Lee responded, saying that in customer surveys 98 percent report hearing a "significant" or "noticeable" improvement in the sound. The same publication in 1990 said there were "some good reasons" to use more expensive cables, but it depends on the application and the user's willingness to pay a premium. [3] In 1998, a reporter for Forbes said it "depends on how well you hear." [4] USA Today ran a test in 2005 comparing 20 feet of Monster-branded audio cables and connectors with generic products and reported that Monster Cables had "a slight edge." [1] Gizmodo tested Monster-branded HDMI cables and compared them to generic cables using a Digital Serial Analyzer. They found that the cables performed relatively equally over a short distance of six feet, but inexpensive cables experienced distortion when ran over longer distances. [5] WIRED also said Monster's HDMI cables made a difference over ten-meter distances, but that, "with Monster, you pay a staggering premium for durability and good looks." [6] In tests by PC World, Monster's M500CV video cables had the least distortion out of all the cables tested at 1 ohm, compared to 63-86 ohms of resistance by other cable brands. [7] Monster CEO Noel Lee claims the average consumer may not be able to tell the difference on-screen but that Monster's video cables have higher bandwidth, are future-proofed, are more durable and that they perform better over long distances. [8] Many reviewers stress in-turn that Monster cables aren't needed for lower-resolution televisions [9] or over short distances. [10] |
Note: This is to expand on the first paragraph of the current Pricing and Performance section. One side of the coin is that retailers are very happy with Monster's margins and they spend money on sales incentives instead of advertising. The other side of that issue is that this makes salespeople highly motivated to push the cables and raises accusations that they are not a good value.
draft
|
---|
Instead of spending money on advertising, Monster has grown by providing higher profit margins to retailers and incentives to their sales staff. [11] According to The New York Times, profit margins for retailers can be 40 percent or more [12] and The Consumerist reported that one retailer was selling some cables at an 80 percent markup. [13] Retail employees are trained to package the cables with larger purchases with lower margins, such as televisions, to increase overall profit-margins. [14] This has led to criticisms that sales staff are motivated to sell high-end cable products to customers that don't need them and to be aggressive in order to obtain incentives. [11] [15] According to PC Magazine, Monster is "often accused of selling over-priced cables that you can buy elsewhere for a fraction of the price." [16] Monster has responded by saying that markups are determined by the retailer and are usually less than those found on clothing, jewelry and furniture. [10] As of 1998, Monster spent $13 million a year in training and incentive programs for salespeople. The sales staff are provided data on their performance in selling the cables and top-performers are sent on all-expenses-paid vacations. [4] Monster also hosts its Retailer Awards at CES each year, which the Las Vegas Sun called, "one of the biggest events on the CES party circuit." [12] [17] [18] [19] |
Notes: This is also hard to do because there are 6,000 products spanning a wide-range of electronics. I focused substantially on the various audio, video, HDMI cables they are best known for and tried to keep it as concise as possible. I think a subject-matter expert at Monster might have some good feedback on this later on.
draft
|
---|
Monster manufactures 6,000 different products, [20] including headphones, speakers, surge protectors, televisions, adapters and accessories for cars and mobile devices. [21] The company is best known for its speaker cable. [11] Monster cables are sold under the premise that if the consumer has spent a lot on their electronics, they shouldn't risk reducing the performance of those products by using cheaper cables. [22] The first Monster audio cables used a twisted pair of copper wires within a cylinder shielding. [20] As high-definition televisions grew in popularity, the company expanded into HDMI and high-def cables, [23] including a cheaper HDMI Basic [22] and HDMI cables with five different speed ratings. [24] Monster began manufacturing and marketing USB and ethernet cables as well as power management products in 2009. It markets the GreenPower Powercenter, which automatically turns off accessories like printers and speakers when the main device, like a computer, is turned off. [16] Monster also sells portable power strips, [25] and cables intended specifically for gaming consoles [26] [27] [28] and Apple products. [29] Monster has been producing its own line of headphones since 2012. [30] [31] It also manufactures celebrity-branded headphones, like Heartbeats by Lady Gaga, which were introduced in 2009, [32] the Miles Davis Trumpet in-ear headphones, [17] and a headphone lineup for LeBron James. [33] [34] It use to manufacture the Beats by Dr. Dre headphones from 2008 to 2012. [35] Monster sells speakers under the Clarity [36] and Katana [37] brands [38] and mobile accessories like an iPod dock and a line-up of Tron-branded products. [39] |
I have already researched and written a lot of Monster's early history for the article on Noel Lee, so that seemed like a sensible thing to add as well. I would also like to move all the controversies currently in the article into the History section as well, as they appear to mostly take place at specific dates in history, as oppose to the performance debate, which is a timeless and long-standing issue deserving of its own section.
Early history
|
---|
Monster was founded in 1979 in Noel Lee's garage. [40] Lee invented the company's first cabling by experimenting with different copper qualities, insulation and winding methods. [41] According to USA Today, "early sales were slow." At the time, audio equipment vendors provided lamp wire for free [40] and audiophiles didn't believe audio cables made a difference in the sound. [11] Monster is credited with creating the market for high-end audio cables in the 1980s [11] through Lee's "marketing prowess." [15] He did demonstrations for retailers comparing the sound with different cables [4] and grew the company by courting retailers that were attracted to the cable's profit margin. [11] |
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
As noted by the San Francisco Chronicle here, the company shortened its name to just "Monster Inc." Currently Monster Inc. is a redirect to Monsters, Inc. the movie, so I think we may need an admin to move this page to the proper title. CorporateM ( Talk) 19:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Are you saying that majority vote by significant margin of those who bothered to "vote" is consensus or am I understanding you incorrectly? I'm reading the below from the same page.
In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever.
Cantaloupe2 ( talk) 01:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented. |
As can be seen higher up on the Talk page, I've been working on a draft of the Pricing and performance section with some help from User:North8000, who appears to be a subject-matter expert. At this point, I would like to request an impartial editor consider my draft (pasted below) for inclusion in article-space, where it can be improved further, incrementally. I would also welcome any edits before the merge to article-space. While I feel it is more neutral than the current and certainly more complete, I am not convinced it is completely neutral. It is a complex and nuanced topic and may never be perfectly neutral.
I acknowledge that it is a little uncomfortable (for both parties) for a company rep to write their own controversies, but I also see no other practical way to bring the article up to GA than to proceed this way. I appreciate your time, thoughtfulness and good-faith in advance. CorporateM ( Talk) 16:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Some audiophiles believe that more expensive audio cables like those from Monster do not have an audible effect on audio quality when compared to generic cables. According to a reporter at SoundStage Network, "many audiophiles think cables make no difference... then there are those who think they make a tremendous, monumental, huge difference. There's validity in both views." [1] In 1980 Speaker Builder said that Monster's cables out-performed generic 24- or 18-gauge cables, but the author could only tell the difference, "at the extremes of performance" such as bass, high pitches and cables run over long distances. [2] In 1983, tests by Stereo Review Magazine concluded that Monster audio cables were "indistinguishable" from generic speaker cable. The same publication in 1990 said that it depends on the application and the user's willingness to pay a premium. [3]
Gizmodo tested Monster-branded HDMI cables and compared them to generic cables using a Digital Serial Analyzer. They found that the cables performed relatively equally over a short distance of six feet, but inexpensive cables experienced distortion when ran over longer distances. [4] WIRED also said Monster's HDMI cables made a difference over ten-meter distances, but that, "with Monster, you pay a staggering premium for durability and good looks." [5] In tests by PC World, Monster's M500CV video cables had the least distortion out of all the cables tested at 1 ohm, compared to 63-86 ohms of resistance by other cable brands. [6]
Monster CEO Noel Lee claims the average consumer may not be able to tell the difference on-screen but that Monster's video cables have higher bandwidth, are future-proofed, are more durable and that they perform better over long distances. [7] Many reviewers stress in-turn that Monster cables aren't needed for lower-resolution televisions [8] or over short distances. [9]
Nice work and nice referencing. I guess it depends on whether you want to cover this just as a sidebar on Monster, or want to help explain it. If it's the latter, this is pretty confusing. Multiple times it jumps between HDMI (video) cables and speaker wires which are two COMPLETELY different situations, in every respect. Also, when talking speaker wires the conversation lumps 2 variables together (the brand and the gauge). Not that you should put this in, but to help sort it out, the reality is that Monster speaker wires are better than the typical cheaper wire because they are heavier gauge than the typical cheaper wire. But it is possible to have cheap wire which is a heavier gauge in which case they are probably the same. And the third variable with immense impact is length. At unusually short distances (for speaker wires) all of the realistic choices are the same. Gauge becomes very important as you start getting into medium and longer distances. My suggestion: Put it in as you wrote it, (perfection is the enemy of progress, and IMHO there are no COI issues in the draft) and then tweak it after that. I'd be happy to help tweak it if you ping me. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 12:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking somewhere in-between might be appropriate. I noticed #5 looks like it's an op-ed and 6&7 are referring to the opinions of the reporters themselves, not audiophiles. But they are also not "reviews" per se. I'd suggest something like "Some audiophiles[1] and reporters [5,6] are unable to tell the difference in audio quality between substantially higher-priced Monster cables and inexpensive, generic products.[6][7][8]
CorporateM (
Talk)
16:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I took a shot at a second draft (below). I reduced the use of quotations and made quite a few edits both positive and negative. The negative NYT and PC World tests were not really proper implemented except as a cite for the word "reporters." I've put those in as a counter-point to the positive USA Today test. I mis-used the 1980 Speaker Builder source, because it looks like the "extremes of performance" comment was not specific to Monster and some of those sources were mostly positive, but I made them sound balanced in over-compensating for Crisco's observation that it had a very slight bias.
I think this may swing the pendulum the other way (yet again) just very slightly, but (again) is more neutral than the current. It's getting really, really close. May just need a few small tweaks to get the balance perfect. CorporateM ( Talk) 12:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
second draft
|
---|
Pricing and performance Whether someone can hear the difference varies from person-to-person. [4] [7] Many reporters and audiophiles have done double-blind a/b listening tests and are unable to hear the difference. [4] The New York Times and PC World have reported not hearing a difference in the sound, [3] [2] while USA Today said Monster had "a slight edge." [1] According to The Anstendig Institute, listeners may have a better experience with the music, even if they cannot consciously tell the difference. [4] Gizmodo tested Monster-branded HDMI cables and compared them to generic cables using a Digital Serial Analyzer. They found that the cables performed relatively equally over a short distance of 6 feet (1.8 m), but inexpensive cables experienced distortion when ran over longer distances. [8] WIRED also said Monster's HDMI cables made a difference over 10-metre (33 ft) distances, but that, "with Monster, you pay a staggering premium for durability and good looks." [9] In tests by PC World, Monster's M500CV video cables had the least distortion out of all the cables tested, being within 1 ohm of the standard 75 ohm impedance. [3] Monster CEO Noel Lee claims the average consumer may not be able to tell the difference on-screen but that Monster's video cables have higher bandwidth, are future-proofed, are more durable and that they perform better over long distances. [10] Many reviewers stress in-turn that Monster cables are not needed for lower-resolution televisions [11] or over short distances [12] or that the difference is not substantial enough. [13] References
|
Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented. |
I took a shot at a "Relationship with retailers" section in three paragraphs:
I haven't gotten any feedback on it yet (see above) and would be very appreciate of anyone willing to spend some time giving it a look-over and adding it, or a modified version, depending on what they think is fair. CorporateM ( Talk) 22:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
draft
|
---|
Instead of spending money on advertising, Monster has grown by providing higher profit margins to retailers and incentives to their sales staff. [1] According to The New York Times, profit margins for retailers can be 40 percent or more [2] and The Consumerist reported that one retailer was selling some cables at an 80 percent markup. [3] Retail employees are trained to package the cables with larger purchases with lower margins, such as televisions, to increase overall profit-margins. [4] This has led to criticisms that sales staff are motivated to sell high-end cable products to customers that don't need them and to be aggressive in order to obtain incentives. [1] [5] According to PC Magazine, Monster is "often accused of selling over-priced cables that you can buy elsewhere for a fraction of the price." [6] Monster has responded by saying that markups are determined by the retailer and are usually less than those found on clothing, jewelry and furniture. [7] As of 1998, Monster spent $13 million a year in training and incentive programs for salespeople. The sales staff are provided data on their performance in selling the cables and top-performers are sent on all-expenses-paid vacations. [8] Monster also hosts its Retailer Awards at CES each year, which the Las Vegas Sun called, "one of the biggest events on the CES party circuit." [2] [9] [10] References
|
I haven't taken the time to figure out how to look at the references, but I think that it certainly has no pro-Monster COI problems. If anything the opposite. Selling high markup / overpriced items is near-universal practice for consumer/retail businesses in the USA (French fries and soft drinks with the hamburger, service plans with everything from a power drill to an automobile, accessories when you buy a bicycle, HDMI cables with the High Def TV. The wording makes noting a common business practice sound like an expose. But I digress....I'd just put it in as is and would be happy to do so if you wish. North8000 ( talk) 21:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
I took a first shot at a Products section at User:CorporateM/Monster. I would like to humbly request an impartial editor take a look and at the content and consider adding it, or a modified version, to the article if they feel doing so would serve the reader. The current Dr. Dre partnership content I'd suggest be moved to History for future expansion. CorporateM ( Talk) 22:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I've taken a shot at the Trademarks section at User:CorporateM/Monster. The current section in article-space relies heavily on primary sources, though there are actually strong secondary sources available in The Wall Street Journal and The San Francisco Chronicle. I wasn't able to find much in terms of stories that cover the outcomes of individual disputes, probably because most are settled with non-disclosed terms.
Being that there are 30 lawsuits in all, a challenging aspect is determining which examples to include and with how much detail.
Would appreciate anyone willing to take a look and provide any feedback/edits/etc.. CorporateM ( Talk) 21:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
North8000 has reviewed the proposed Trademarks section at User:CorporateM/Monster and found that it was an improvement and did not contain COI issues. I would like to request an editor go ahead and move it to article-space, assuming they believe it is appropriate to do so.
Next-up, the History section and a new Lead and we should be ready for a GAN. CorporateM ( Talk) 14:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I did it. I asked anyone to revert me if they do not agree. North8000 ( talk) 14:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm research the History section and I think I'll keep some notes here as I notice stuff that may be helpful for other sections:
CorporateM ( Talk) 15:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I've started on a draft History section at User:CorporateM/Monster. I will give it a few more read-throughs and do some more research tomorrow. It has a bit of an undue focus on recent events, but I believe this is both because of the abundance of recent sources and because it has been in the news more over the last decade. I'll keep working on it and have it ready soon. CorporateM ( Talk) 21:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
CorporateM asked me to take a look. There is much duplication of material between the "trademark disputes" (notably, it's "disputes" not "controversies" which would be a different story) subsection and the "trademarks: section. Should certainly be combined, but the question arises: into what section? The material is almost all about the disputes, whether it be Monster disputing (on the grounds of trademarks) the use of the name by others, or the accusations and pushback against such activities. There is very little material on trademarks aside from the disputes. So I think that "trademark disputes is the more appropriate section. I'll merge. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 03:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I threw together a quick draft of the Lead that is representative of the current article. Would greatly appreciate any input. CorporateM ( Talk) 13:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Monster Inc. manufactures and markets 6,000 different products, but is best known for audio and video cables. It also produces speakers, headphones, power strips, mobile accessories and audio devices for automobiles. The company was founded by an audiophile and engineer, Noel Lee, in 1979 by experimenting with different ways to build audio cables. It grew by doing demonstrations to convince the industry that audio cables made a difference in audio quality and by establishing relationships with retailers that were attracted to the cable's profit margins.
Over the years it created new divisions like Monster Music, Monster Game, Monster Mobile, Monster Photo and Monster Power. In the 2000s, Monster had legal trademark disputes regarding other companies or products that have "Monster" in their name, such as Monster.com and the movie Monsters Inc.. Monster said it needed to defend its premium brand, while critics said it was pursuing litigation against companies that do not have confusingly similar products. It began manufacturing headphones in a partnership with Dr. Dre in 2008, which ended in 2012, and it created other celebrity branded or Monster-branded headphone products.
Several tests done by audiophile publications, news reporters and academics have conflicting viewpoints on whether more expensive audio or video cables like those from Monster make a difference in audio or video quality when compared to generic cables. Instead of advertising, Monster offers incentives to retailers and their salespeople to sell the cables. Retailers bundle high profit-margin cables with larger purchases that have smaller margins in order to improve profitability.
My suggestions:
Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 14:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and nominated the article for a GA review. It usually takes a few months before we get a reviewer. Before we get one, I'll give the article a few more lookovers for copyedits and obtain some images we can use. If anyone has some feedback on anything it needs to pass a GA review, we can keep improving the article as well. Thanks to Crisco and North for all their help on this one! CorporateM ( Talk) 23:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I do GA reviews, but I wouldn't do this one because I've been involved here. Although there is a criteria framework, each reviewer's standards are different. I think I'm "middle of the road" compared to other reviewers in most areas, except that I'm tougher than most regarding empathy for the reader....that whatever is written conveys information to someone in their shoes. I just did a slow read with my own criteria in mind, (noting that a real review would require more depth than just one slow read) and my comments as a reviewer would be: Nice work!....this article is about as ready as I've seen for GA....a few notes:
Nice work! Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 15:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
How's this Crisco? We would have to leave the image small, so readers don't notice all the jagged edges from my Photoshopping. CorporateM ( Talk) 13:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I think that the problems with the material and the editor's actions are numerous and obvious. I think that the IP's recent summary when continuing to war it back in when I said "take it to talk" is emblematic: which was "... Fact does not require talk it requires acceptance...". This probably needs reporting of the editor more than talk here, but I am opening this thread up here. North8000 ( talk) 11:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
The primary source does not even back the content which is in the article. It merely says that there is a trademark application, which was cancelled. Monster's behavior may or may not be what the IP alleged it to be, and if covered in media to become a scandal, or have an effect on stock price, or something, we can cover it, but as is trademark disputes happen all the time, and are not of lasting encyclopedic value. As the primary does not actually back the text included, I am boldly deleting. I do find it intresting that they so vigorously defend their own trandemark then iddn't think of rolling on another's but unless such hypocrisy is noted in reliable sources, we can't mention it on wiki. Gaijin42 ( talk) 21:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented. |
A few edits I would like to suggest to bring the article up to the GA standard:
Shorter lead
|
---|
Monster Inc. manufactures and markets audio and video cables, electronics, power strips, headphones and other products. It was founded by audiophile and engineer Noel Lee in 1979 and created the market for high-end audio cables in the 1980s by convincing the industry that cables may make a difference in audio quality. Tests by audiophile publications, news reporters and academics have conflicting viewpoints on whether more expensive audio or video cables like those from Monster make a difference in audio or video quality when compared to generic cables. In the 1980s and 1990s, Monster created new divisions for power management products, music, speakers and entered the headphones market in the 2000s. It also pursued numerous trademark disputes with other companies or products that contain the word "Monster" such as Monster Mini Golf and Monster.com. Monster provides incentives for retailers and their salespeople to package Monster products with other purchases, for commissions and profit margins, leading to criticism that its margins are too high. |
Clarifications
|
---|
|
CorporateM ( Talk) 04:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I looked at the first one (shorter lead) and at first glance the one that is in the article looks good more typical for length, paragraphs, depth of summary. Maybe others or a more thorough analysis would provide a different answer than my first impression.
The second one is sort of malformed. (despite being flattered that you selected my comments and suggesting that they be implemented) Suggested edits should include a specific proposed change which I don't see there. This is doubly relevant here because not only would someone need to create the wording, they would need to research/learn what those divisions do in order to create that wording. If I knew what they did, I'd be happy to write the changes myself. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 13:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 00:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Monster (company) →
Monster Cable – Per
WP:NATURAL, the use of an alternative name is preferred over parenthetical disambiguation. This name change would also reduce the ambiguity with
Monster.com and
Monster Energy.
sovereign°
sentinel
(contribs)
08:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Monster Cable has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: December 14, 2013. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
no archives yet ( create) |
|
This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
In the Recent history section, there is a sentence beginning with "Following the collapse of the Beats deal with Apple." There have been no mentions of Beats or Apple before that point. The relevant information starts two sections lower. Maybe it wasn't changed following an edit? I think some re-ordering would make the article work better for a first-time linear reader like me. Hyperdimension ( talk) 01:15, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Am I the only one who doesn't see a huge bias in this article? Where's the bit about how Monster Cables are extremely overpriced, and in some cases, especially with digital optical cables (a poor cable won't cause a 2 to be placed in a stream of 1s and 0s), are absolutely no better than a cheap cable you can find on eBay. Also don't forget about how they sue pretty much anyone who has "monster" in their domain name — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.151.185.106 ( talk • contribs) 15:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I have changed the article to reflect the over pricing of their product. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.161.86.254 ( talk • contribs) 18:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I believe that monster cables have a profound effect on the quality of sound. on my sytem, with all monster cables(no cheap copper wires)sound quality is extraordinary. perhaps the person above me has cheaper wire running from the reciever to his speakers. add to that you can get these so called expensive cables for $20 on ebay, they are very much worth it and better than above stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.198.246 ( talk • contribs) 18:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
This is very likely the placebo effect at work, you're hearing the improved sound quality because you *want* to, and who wouldn't want to, after spending a small fortune on Monster Cable products? One should attempt a double-blind test involve other cables, before being so certain they're actually working so much better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.253.177.76 ( talk • contribs) 22:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Alex, digital is only 1s and 0s. Either you have it or you don't. Look at the post above, what will thin cable do, put a 2 there? No. The picture/sound will just stop totally if the cable is overloaded. I'll get you citations later. Andrewwski 04:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
The unsigned individual above must be a plant for Monster Cable. If they sue everyone left and right to "protect their name", then why wouldn't they hire people to hit the internet and spread the ridiculous garbage about their audio cables being "superior" in the face of solid evidence that proves otherwise. Spark plug manufacturers often make the same claim and they are also lying to you. It is all in the marketing. 75.44.35.141 06:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC) Bill
I'm amazed any company would have a plant who is so clearly a moron. I'd expect the dumbest corporate marketing slimeball to be better informed than that 68.227.254.206 ( talk) 05:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I understand that, however, have you ever heard of magnetic interference? Of course, either it's digital or it isn't, but stating that they will yield NO higher quality than that of the cheapest cables is far untrue. For example, if you go buy cables from some street person and hook them up, and they have only a PVC coating on them, and the room has a hundred electronic devices in it, there is a high possibilty of something going wrong. Besides any of this, since research hasn't proven your statement, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. See WP:CITE for more information. Thanks, Al e x 43223 22:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe i'm the only one who noticed this, but Monster does not only sell digital audio cables. Analog cables are not just on or off, therefore cable quality can make a difference. I think this article is biased to Monster Cable products being worth the money. It's a matter of opinion really, and the better your equipment, the more sensitive it will be from interference that can be introduced through poor cabling. As far as digital cable goes, yes, it's either "on" or "off", but loss and bandwidth can be issues. For example, some HDMI cables use super-thin copper wire and cannot support the new HDMI 1.3, which is required to transmit the new 1080p resolution. Also, some inexpensive HDMI cables don't support HDCP content protection protocol, which can make that new cable useless on many newer set top boxes and DVD players.
Digital signals are transmitted as near square waves, true. Depending on the type of signal being transmitted, the protocol in use, and a few other factors, the actual voltage on the line will be a varying square wave between two voltages, sometimes 0 and 5 volts, sometimes 12 volts and -12 volts... it depends on the protocol. The protocol determines how the sender & receiver represent a 1 or a 0. If the implementation of the protocol includes error detection, or some form of error detection and correction (EDAC), such as parity check, manchestor encoding, or various other techniques, incorrect signals will be ignored or not received. There are several ways interference can cause signal degradation and/or loss of signal; cross coupling, outside EMI...
If there is no error detection or EDAC in the HDMI protocol, and no encoding, rather a simple square wave of 1's and 0's (unlikely), it's possible for various 1's and 0's to be misinterpretted (1 can look like a 0 or 0 can look like a 1), and the result would again depend on the protocol. It could cause artifacting and intermittent picture, rather than no picture at all.
But! In the case of HDMI, which uses the TMDS protocol, it will depend on the hardware, but the most likely result of a cable problem will be no picture, with an unlikely but possible result of an intermittent picture - either way you will know if the cable is working or not, quite quickly. No slight image degradation is likely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TMDS
If you really want to compare Monster's cables, audio or digital, to other cables, all that's needed is a wavefunction generator and a oscilloscope. It's possible to measure the performance (or lack thereof) of one cable versus another. But most people don't bother, because those who know how to use this equipment usually already know that the physical cable construction materials and manufacturing technique determine the signal quality - not advertising. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.169.218.182 ( talk) 00:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC).
While it may be true that when it comes to the copper, a cable is a cable, why aren't there any points/counterpoints with regards to the build quality of Monster Cables? I find that the Turbine Connectors, for example, do make a difference...as does the braiding on the higher-end cables (not even cats can chew through it), and the balanced construction and dedicated shielding layers. What I do NOT buy into is the 'direction' of the cables...since when are cables directional? It'd be great if this article was fleshed out properly with more details about this... -- 75.176.185.207 01:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
its not biased, most people would agree. http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/03/audiophiles-cant-tell-the-difference-between-monster-cable-and/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadamzz ( talk • contribs) 14:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
source of the test is in the article, and this test has at least one bias... "A high quality recording of smooth, trio, easy listening jazz was played (Piano, drums, bass)" ... Potentially a second source in the mastering of whatever CD they were listening to (recent jazz, as most recent pop music overuses dynamic compression which would impact the test, see below) and a third in the absence of precision on the source used, as to test the weakest link - cables - you have to make sure all oher links are very high end (source or D/A conversion, amp, speakers). without any information on this, the object of the test is useless (just imagine doing a headphones quality test with an iPod, compared to, say, a CD through an apogee D/A converter... the detail to be heard / respected in the signal will just be absent in the first case).
On high quality cables (actually bigger and threaded cables is what makes them quality, not the brand or whatever else) The difference is noticeable on high dynamics music, certainly not on smooth jazz (which is likely to be over-compressed if it is a recent record). I did a similar test to some friends between thin out-of-the-box and fatter dedicated cables, there was no obvious difference either on over-compressed (dynamic compression, standard pop music) or smooth (lounge, classical, easy rock) music. However when playing more aggressive and demanding sounds, with more dynamics (it was most obvious on an autechre record)... the difference was clearly audible.
Additionally I remember a test 128kb MP3 vs wave on a Pavarotti record, which had a 60% identification rate, mostly due to poor electronics, phones and D/A converters on the user end and .... the over-compressed (dynamic compression during mastering) sound of the original record. a similar test on a track with more dynamics got a 90% identification rate.
Actually whatever this brings in, I'd still suggest to remove the link on the coathanger test as it does not present properly defined experimental conditions —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
81.57.103.19 (
talk)
18:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
What year was this company founded? The infobox states 1979, but the actual article states 1978. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.69.205 ( talk • contribs) 18:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Monster Cable was founded in 1978 and the page should be updated to reflect this. TedAtM ( talk) 21:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
There's something of an amusing read over here. It appears to be a quite a cogent response to a threat of litigation from Monster Cables. It might be pertinent to include a reference to it in the article perhaps under something along the lines of litigious behaviour. -- EvilMonkeySlayer ( talk) 14:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I have added the fact that Monster Cable is currently incorporated in Bermuda, with reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.204.254.94 ( talk) 07:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Ted from Monster Cable here. Monster Cable Products, Inc. is California Incorporated with an LLC In Nevada as well. TedAtM ( talk) 21:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
There have been a few mentions in the article about Monster Cable's corporate filing being off-shore. This has been expanded on to note the discussion and link to Monster's current corporate filings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TedAtM ( talk • contribs) 20:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
This article is ripe with weasel words, glitzy pretentious phrases, and a general sense of "we're better because we're better". I've marked various examples with the necessary annotations, and removed some of the more flagrant displays of 'we let our advertiser edit our article'. For particular examples of idiot editing, see the edits by Edjthompson. My favorite was a bunch of pseudo scientific babble of technical terms meant to go over people's heads, then saying "Not so expensive now, is it?" Ftc08 ( talk) 06:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Hi. I'm here on Monster's behalf and would like to help improve the article from the Talk page. My hope is by offering content and making requests we can bring the article up to Wikipedia's standards, with a little help making sure we stay neutral and aligned with Wikipedia's content policies.
To start, I was hoping an impartial editor would consider if the False Advertising section is UNDUE. I can only find a couple brief blurbs and press releases on these issues, which relate largely to Engadget, a publication the company has had disputes with, as explained in the Wikipedia article. If there is something salvageable, I leave it up to an impartial editor's judgement, but I can't find any source material to suggest this is an important part of the company's reputation/history.
Thanks North. I went ahead and closed my Request Edit. I didn't know if you were going stick around for future edits, but if you are, I'd be open to any suggestions on where we focus next. I've already collected a lot of good sources on Monster's early history for a draft I'm working on about the company's founder, so I was thinking of starting with their early history and working down. CorporateM ( Talk) 03:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Suggestions
North8000 ( talk) 11:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I've prepared a few first drafts of material for consideration by impartial editors. I know this is a lot of material at-once and some of it covers complex and nuance topics. I'd be happy to go through them one-at-a-time, or whatever is easiest. Hopefully these will at least provide a starting point for future fine-tuning. CorporateM ( Talk) 13:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Notes: This is a very complex and nuance topic that does not lend itself to being easy to do with a COI. That being said, I do think this is "better" and "more neutral" than the current and it will continue to improve through other editors and eventually the GA process. Two things I want to point out:
draft
|
---|
Some believe that more expensive audio cables like those from Monster do not have an audible effect on audio quality when compared to generic cables. According to a reporter at SoundStage Network, "many audiophiles think cables make no difference... then there are those who think they make a tremendous, monumental, huge difference. There's validity in both views." [1] In 1980 Speaker Builder said that more expensive cables were a "reasonable investment" for high-end audio systems. The author said that Monster's cables out-performed generic 24 or 18-gauge cables, but the author could only tell the difference, "at the extremes of performance" such as bass, high pitches and cables run over long distances. [2] In 1983, tests by Stereo Review Magazine concluded that Monster audio cables were "indistinguishable" from generic speaker cable. Monster CEO Noel Lee responded, saying that in customer surveys 98 percent report hearing a "significant" or "noticeable" improvement in the sound. The same publication in 1990 said there were "some good reasons" to use more expensive cables, but it depends on the application and the user's willingness to pay a premium. [3] In 1998, a reporter for Forbes said it "depends on how well you hear." [4] USA Today ran a test in 2005 comparing 20 feet of Monster-branded audio cables and connectors with generic products and reported that Monster Cables had "a slight edge." [1] Gizmodo tested Monster-branded HDMI cables and compared them to generic cables using a Digital Serial Analyzer. They found that the cables performed relatively equally over a short distance of six feet, but inexpensive cables experienced distortion when ran over longer distances. [5] WIRED also said Monster's HDMI cables made a difference over ten-meter distances, but that, "with Monster, you pay a staggering premium for durability and good looks." [6] In tests by PC World, Monster's M500CV video cables had the least distortion out of all the cables tested at 1 ohm, compared to 63-86 ohms of resistance by other cable brands. [7] Monster CEO Noel Lee claims the average consumer may not be able to tell the difference on-screen but that Monster's video cables have higher bandwidth, are future-proofed, are more durable and that they perform better over long distances. [8] Many reviewers stress in-turn that Monster cables aren't needed for lower-resolution televisions [9] or over short distances. [10] |
Note: This is to expand on the first paragraph of the current Pricing and Performance section. One side of the coin is that retailers are very happy with Monster's margins and they spend money on sales incentives instead of advertising. The other side of that issue is that this makes salespeople highly motivated to push the cables and raises accusations that they are not a good value.
draft
|
---|
Instead of spending money on advertising, Monster has grown by providing higher profit margins to retailers and incentives to their sales staff. [11] According to The New York Times, profit margins for retailers can be 40 percent or more [12] and The Consumerist reported that one retailer was selling some cables at an 80 percent markup. [13] Retail employees are trained to package the cables with larger purchases with lower margins, such as televisions, to increase overall profit-margins. [14] This has led to criticisms that sales staff are motivated to sell high-end cable products to customers that don't need them and to be aggressive in order to obtain incentives. [11] [15] According to PC Magazine, Monster is "often accused of selling over-priced cables that you can buy elsewhere for a fraction of the price." [16] Monster has responded by saying that markups are determined by the retailer and are usually less than those found on clothing, jewelry and furniture. [10] As of 1998, Monster spent $13 million a year in training and incentive programs for salespeople. The sales staff are provided data on their performance in selling the cables and top-performers are sent on all-expenses-paid vacations. [4] Monster also hosts its Retailer Awards at CES each year, which the Las Vegas Sun called, "one of the biggest events on the CES party circuit." [12] [17] [18] [19] |
Notes: This is also hard to do because there are 6,000 products spanning a wide-range of electronics. I focused substantially on the various audio, video, HDMI cables they are best known for and tried to keep it as concise as possible. I think a subject-matter expert at Monster might have some good feedback on this later on.
draft
|
---|
Monster manufactures 6,000 different products, [20] including headphones, speakers, surge protectors, televisions, adapters and accessories for cars and mobile devices. [21] The company is best known for its speaker cable. [11] Monster cables are sold under the premise that if the consumer has spent a lot on their electronics, they shouldn't risk reducing the performance of those products by using cheaper cables. [22] The first Monster audio cables used a twisted pair of copper wires within a cylinder shielding. [20] As high-definition televisions grew in popularity, the company expanded into HDMI and high-def cables, [23] including a cheaper HDMI Basic [22] and HDMI cables with five different speed ratings. [24] Monster began manufacturing and marketing USB and ethernet cables as well as power management products in 2009. It markets the GreenPower Powercenter, which automatically turns off accessories like printers and speakers when the main device, like a computer, is turned off. [16] Monster also sells portable power strips, [25] and cables intended specifically for gaming consoles [26] [27] [28] and Apple products. [29] Monster has been producing its own line of headphones since 2012. [30] [31] It also manufactures celebrity-branded headphones, like Heartbeats by Lady Gaga, which were introduced in 2009, [32] the Miles Davis Trumpet in-ear headphones, [17] and a headphone lineup for LeBron James. [33] [34] It use to manufacture the Beats by Dr. Dre headphones from 2008 to 2012. [35] Monster sells speakers under the Clarity [36] and Katana [37] brands [38] and mobile accessories like an iPod dock and a line-up of Tron-branded products. [39] |
I have already researched and written a lot of Monster's early history for the article on Noel Lee, so that seemed like a sensible thing to add as well. I would also like to move all the controversies currently in the article into the History section as well, as they appear to mostly take place at specific dates in history, as oppose to the performance debate, which is a timeless and long-standing issue deserving of its own section.
Early history
|
---|
Monster was founded in 1979 in Noel Lee's garage. [40] Lee invented the company's first cabling by experimenting with different copper qualities, insulation and winding methods. [41] According to USA Today, "early sales were slow." At the time, audio equipment vendors provided lamp wire for free [40] and audiophiles didn't believe audio cables made a difference in the sound. [11] Monster is credited with creating the market for high-end audio cables in the 1980s [11] through Lee's "marketing prowess." [15] He did demonstrations for retailers comparing the sound with different cables [4] and grew the company by courting retailers that were attracted to the cable's profit margin. [11] |
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
As noted by the San Francisco Chronicle here, the company shortened its name to just "Monster Inc." Currently Monster Inc. is a redirect to Monsters, Inc. the movie, so I think we may need an admin to move this page to the proper title. CorporateM ( Talk) 19:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Are you saying that majority vote by significant margin of those who bothered to "vote" is consensus or am I understanding you incorrectly? I'm reading the below from the same page.
In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever.
Cantaloupe2 ( talk) 01:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented. |
As can be seen higher up on the Talk page, I've been working on a draft of the Pricing and performance section with some help from User:North8000, who appears to be a subject-matter expert. At this point, I would like to request an impartial editor consider my draft (pasted below) for inclusion in article-space, where it can be improved further, incrementally. I would also welcome any edits before the merge to article-space. While I feel it is more neutral than the current and certainly more complete, I am not convinced it is completely neutral. It is a complex and nuanced topic and may never be perfectly neutral.
I acknowledge that it is a little uncomfortable (for both parties) for a company rep to write their own controversies, but I also see no other practical way to bring the article up to GA than to proceed this way. I appreciate your time, thoughtfulness and good-faith in advance. CorporateM ( Talk) 16:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Some audiophiles believe that more expensive audio cables like those from Monster do not have an audible effect on audio quality when compared to generic cables. According to a reporter at SoundStage Network, "many audiophiles think cables make no difference... then there are those who think they make a tremendous, monumental, huge difference. There's validity in both views." [1] In 1980 Speaker Builder said that Monster's cables out-performed generic 24- or 18-gauge cables, but the author could only tell the difference, "at the extremes of performance" such as bass, high pitches and cables run over long distances. [2] In 1983, tests by Stereo Review Magazine concluded that Monster audio cables were "indistinguishable" from generic speaker cable. The same publication in 1990 said that it depends on the application and the user's willingness to pay a premium. [3]
Gizmodo tested Monster-branded HDMI cables and compared them to generic cables using a Digital Serial Analyzer. They found that the cables performed relatively equally over a short distance of six feet, but inexpensive cables experienced distortion when ran over longer distances. [4] WIRED also said Monster's HDMI cables made a difference over ten-meter distances, but that, "with Monster, you pay a staggering premium for durability and good looks." [5] In tests by PC World, Monster's M500CV video cables had the least distortion out of all the cables tested at 1 ohm, compared to 63-86 ohms of resistance by other cable brands. [6]
Monster CEO Noel Lee claims the average consumer may not be able to tell the difference on-screen but that Monster's video cables have higher bandwidth, are future-proofed, are more durable and that they perform better over long distances. [7] Many reviewers stress in-turn that Monster cables aren't needed for lower-resolution televisions [8] or over short distances. [9]
Nice work and nice referencing. I guess it depends on whether you want to cover this just as a sidebar on Monster, or want to help explain it. If it's the latter, this is pretty confusing. Multiple times it jumps between HDMI (video) cables and speaker wires which are two COMPLETELY different situations, in every respect. Also, when talking speaker wires the conversation lumps 2 variables together (the brand and the gauge). Not that you should put this in, but to help sort it out, the reality is that Monster speaker wires are better than the typical cheaper wire because they are heavier gauge than the typical cheaper wire. But it is possible to have cheap wire which is a heavier gauge in which case they are probably the same. And the third variable with immense impact is length. At unusually short distances (for speaker wires) all of the realistic choices are the same. Gauge becomes very important as you start getting into medium and longer distances. My suggestion: Put it in as you wrote it, (perfection is the enemy of progress, and IMHO there are no COI issues in the draft) and then tweak it after that. I'd be happy to help tweak it if you ping me. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 12:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking somewhere in-between might be appropriate. I noticed #5 looks like it's an op-ed and 6&7 are referring to the opinions of the reporters themselves, not audiophiles. But they are also not "reviews" per se. I'd suggest something like "Some audiophiles[1] and reporters [5,6] are unable to tell the difference in audio quality between substantially higher-priced Monster cables and inexpensive, generic products.[6][7][8]
CorporateM (
Talk)
16:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I took a shot at a second draft (below). I reduced the use of quotations and made quite a few edits both positive and negative. The negative NYT and PC World tests were not really proper implemented except as a cite for the word "reporters." I've put those in as a counter-point to the positive USA Today test. I mis-used the 1980 Speaker Builder source, because it looks like the "extremes of performance" comment was not specific to Monster and some of those sources were mostly positive, but I made them sound balanced in over-compensating for Crisco's observation that it had a very slight bias.
I think this may swing the pendulum the other way (yet again) just very slightly, but (again) is more neutral than the current. It's getting really, really close. May just need a few small tweaks to get the balance perfect. CorporateM ( Talk) 12:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
second draft
|
---|
Pricing and performance Whether someone can hear the difference varies from person-to-person. [4] [7] Many reporters and audiophiles have done double-blind a/b listening tests and are unable to hear the difference. [4] The New York Times and PC World have reported not hearing a difference in the sound, [3] [2] while USA Today said Monster had "a slight edge." [1] According to The Anstendig Institute, listeners may have a better experience with the music, even if they cannot consciously tell the difference. [4] Gizmodo tested Monster-branded HDMI cables and compared them to generic cables using a Digital Serial Analyzer. They found that the cables performed relatively equally over a short distance of 6 feet (1.8 m), but inexpensive cables experienced distortion when ran over longer distances. [8] WIRED also said Monster's HDMI cables made a difference over 10-metre (33 ft) distances, but that, "with Monster, you pay a staggering premium for durability and good looks." [9] In tests by PC World, Monster's M500CV video cables had the least distortion out of all the cables tested, being within 1 ohm of the standard 75 ohm impedance. [3] Monster CEO Noel Lee claims the average consumer may not be able to tell the difference on-screen but that Monster's video cables have higher bandwidth, are future-proofed, are more durable and that they perform better over long distances. [10] Many reviewers stress in-turn that Monster cables are not needed for lower-resolution televisions [11] or over short distances [12] or that the difference is not substantial enough. [13] References
|
Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented. |
I took a shot at a "Relationship with retailers" section in three paragraphs:
I haven't gotten any feedback on it yet (see above) and would be very appreciate of anyone willing to spend some time giving it a look-over and adding it, or a modified version, depending on what they think is fair. CorporateM ( Talk) 22:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
draft
|
---|
Instead of spending money on advertising, Monster has grown by providing higher profit margins to retailers and incentives to their sales staff. [1] According to The New York Times, profit margins for retailers can be 40 percent or more [2] and The Consumerist reported that one retailer was selling some cables at an 80 percent markup. [3] Retail employees are trained to package the cables with larger purchases with lower margins, such as televisions, to increase overall profit-margins. [4] This has led to criticisms that sales staff are motivated to sell high-end cable products to customers that don't need them and to be aggressive in order to obtain incentives. [1] [5] According to PC Magazine, Monster is "often accused of selling over-priced cables that you can buy elsewhere for a fraction of the price." [6] Monster has responded by saying that markups are determined by the retailer and are usually less than those found on clothing, jewelry and furniture. [7] As of 1998, Monster spent $13 million a year in training and incentive programs for salespeople. The sales staff are provided data on their performance in selling the cables and top-performers are sent on all-expenses-paid vacations. [8] Monster also hosts its Retailer Awards at CES each year, which the Las Vegas Sun called, "one of the biggest events on the CES party circuit." [2] [9] [10] References
|
I haven't taken the time to figure out how to look at the references, but I think that it certainly has no pro-Monster COI problems. If anything the opposite. Selling high markup / overpriced items is near-universal practice for consumer/retail businesses in the USA (French fries and soft drinks with the hamburger, service plans with everything from a power drill to an automobile, accessories when you buy a bicycle, HDMI cables with the High Def TV. The wording makes noting a common business practice sound like an expose. But I digress....I'd just put it in as is and would be happy to do so if you wish. North8000 ( talk) 21:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
I took a first shot at a Products section at User:CorporateM/Monster. I would like to humbly request an impartial editor take a look and at the content and consider adding it, or a modified version, to the article if they feel doing so would serve the reader. The current Dr. Dre partnership content I'd suggest be moved to History for future expansion. CorporateM ( Talk) 22:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I've taken a shot at the Trademarks section at User:CorporateM/Monster. The current section in article-space relies heavily on primary sources, though there are actually strong secondary sources available in The Wall Street Journal and The San Francisco Chronicle. I wasn't able to find much in terms of stories that cover the outcomes of individual disputes, probably because most are settled with non-disclosed terms.
Being that there are 30 lawsuits in all, a challenging aspect is determining which examples to include and with how much detail.
Would appreciate anyone willing to take a look and provide any feedback/edits/etc.. CorporateM ( Talk) 21:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
North8000 has reviewed the proposed Trademarks section at User:CorporateM/Monster and found that it was an improvement and did not contain COI issues. I would like to request an editor go ahead and move it to article-space, assuming they believe it is appropriate to do so.
Next-up, the History section and a new Lead and we should be ready for a GAN. CorporateM ( Talk) 14:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I did it. I asked anyone to revert me if they do not agree. North8000 ( talk) 14:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm research the History section and I think I'll keep some notes here as I notice stuff that may be helpful for other sections:
CorporateM ( Talk) 15:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I've started on a draft History section at User:CorporateM/Monster. I will give it a few more read-throughs and do some more research tomorrow. It has a bit of an undue focus on recent events, but I believe this is both because of the abundance of recent sources and because it has been in the news more over the last decade. I'll keep working on it and have it ready soon. CorporateM ( Talk) 21:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
CorporateM asked me to take a look. There is much duplication of material between the "trademark disputes" (notably, it's "disputes" not "controversies" which would be a different story) subsection and the "trademarks: section. Should certainly be combined, but the question arises: into what section? The material is almost all about the disputes, whether it be Monster disputing (on the grounds of trademarks) the use of the name by others, or the accusations and pushback against such activities. There is very little material on trademarks aside from the disputes. So I think that "trademark disputes is the more appropriate section. I'll merge. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 03:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I threw together a quick draft of the Lead that is representative of the current article. Would greatly appreciate any input. CorporateM ( Talk) 13:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Monster Inc. manufactures and markets 6,000 different products, but is best known for audio and video cables. It also produces speakers, headphones, power strips, mobile accessories and audio devices for automobiles. The company was founded by an audiophile and engineer, Noel Lee, in 1979 by experimenting with different ways to build audio cables. It grew by doing demonstrations to convince the industry that audio cables made a difference in audio quality and by establishing relationships with retailers that were attracted to the cable's profit margins.
Over the years it created new divisions like Monster Music, Monster Game, Monster Mobile, Monster Photo and Monster Power. In the 2000s, Monster had legal trademark disputes regarding other companies or products that have "Monster" in their name, such as Monster.com and the movie Monsters Inc.. Monster said it needed to defend its premium brand, while critics said it was pursuing litigation against companies that do not have confusingly similar products. It began manufacturing headphones in a partnership with Dr. Dre in 2008, which ended in 2012, and it created other celebrity branded or Monster-branded headphone products.
Several tests done by audiophile publications, news reporters and academics have conflicting viewpoints on whether more expensive audio or video cables like those from Monster make a difference in audio or video quality when compared to generic cables. Instead of advertising, Monster offers incentives to retailers and their salespeople to sell the cables. Retailers bundle high profit-margin cables with larger purchases that have smaller margins in order to improve profitability.
My suggestions:
Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 14:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and nominated the article for a GA review. It usually takes a few months before we get a reviewer. Before we get one, I'll give the article a few more lookovers for copyedits and obtain some images we can use. If anyone has some feedback on anything it needs to pass a GA review, we can keep improving the article as well. Thanks to Crisco and North for all their help on this one! CorporateM ( Talk) 23:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I do GA reviews, but I wouldn't do this one because I've been involved here. Although there is a criteria framework, each reviewer's standards are different. I think I'm "middle of the road" compared to other reviewers in most areas, except that I'm tougher than most regarding empathy for the reader....that whatever is written conveys information to someone in their shoes. I just did a slow read with my own criteria in mind, (noting that a real review would require more depth than just one slow read) and my comments as a reviewer would be: Nice work!....this article is about as ready as I've seen for GA....a few notes:
Nice work! Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 15:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
How's this Crisco? We would have to leave the image small, so readers don't notice all the jagged edges from my Photoshopping. CorporateM ( Talk) 13:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I think that the problems with the material and the editor's actions are numerous and obvious. I think that the IP's recent summary when continuing to war it back in when I said "take it to talk" is emblematic: which was "... Fact does not require talk it requires acceptance...". This probably needs reporting of the editor more than talk here, but I am opening this thread up here. North8000 ( talk) 11:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
The primary source does not even back the content which is in the article. It merely says that there is a trademark application, which was cancelled. Monster's behavior may or may not be what the IP alleged it to be, and if covered in media to become a scandal, or have an effect on stock price, or something, we can cover it, but as is trademark disputes happen all the time, and are not of lasting encyclopedic value. As the primary does not actually back the text included, I am boldly deleting. I do find it intresting that they so vigorously defend their own trandemark then iddn't think of rolling on another's but unless such hypocrisy is noted in reliable sources, we can't mention it on wiki. Gaijin42 ( talk) 21:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented. |
A few edits I would like to suggest to bring the article up to the GA standard:
Shorter lead
|
---|
Monster Inc. manufactures and markets audio and video cables, electronics, power strips, headphones and other products. It was founded by audiophile and engineer Noel Lee in 1979 and created the market for high-end audio cables in the 1980s by convincing the industry that cables may make a difference in audio quality. Tests by audiophile publications, news reporters and academics have conflicting viewpoints on whether more expensive audio or video cables like those from Monster make a difference in audio or video quality when compared to generic cables. In the 1980s and 1990s, Monster created new divisions for power management products, music, speakers and entered the headphones market in the 2000s. It also pursued numerous trademark disputes with other companies or products that contain the word "Monster" such as Monster Mini Golf and Monster.com. Monster provides incentives for retailers and their salespeople to package Monster products with other purchases, for commissions and profit margins, leading to criticism that its margins are too high. |
Clarifications
|
---|
|
CorporateM ( Talk) 04:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I looked at the first one (shorter lead) and at first glance the one that is in the article looks good more typical for length, paragraphs, depth of summary. Maybe others or a more thorough analysis would provide a different answer than my first impression.
The second one is sort of malformed. (despite being flattered that you selected my comments and suggesting that they be implemented) Suggested edits should include a specific proposed change which I don't see there. This is doubly relevant here because not only would someone need to create the wording, they would need to research/learn what those divisions do in order to create that wording. If I knew what they did, I'd be happy to write the changes myself. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 13:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 00:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Monster (company) →
Monster Cable – Per
WP:NATURAL, the use of an alternative name is preferred over parenthetical disambiguation. This name change would also reduce the ambiguity with
Monster.com and
Monster Energy.
sovereign°
sentinel
(contribs)
08:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)