nexusheli wrote: alexedge wrote:
STARNUT wrote:We need our resident SkEpTiC to come over and tell us why ad dollars directly translate to good tests. Paging..........
I love how everyone really believes this. As a professional journalist for some years now, I can say with certainty that this is very, very rare except possibly among small, start-up mags from no-name publishers that hire no-name journalists and simply create what we call an "ad book".
From personal experience, I can tell you if I am running, say, a Kawasaki ad, and a Kawasaki wins a shootout, I will get more than 1000 emails calling me a shill and damning me for selling my soul. None of these 1000 people notice that (example again) Kawasaki was running the same ad, and was already the largest advertiser, when they finished last in three shootouts in a row....
I could say much more on this topic, but it's late and I'm tired. I'll probably come back to this thread tomorrow.....
The key here is that in most magazines and television shows, ad dollars DO equate to favorable reviews. An advertiser may not "WIN" a shoot-out style test, but they certainly don't get hammered for the negatives of their product.
I don't want to start an argument here, but how do you KNOW? You put this out there as a bald statement of fact - "ad dollars DO equate to favorable reviews [in most mags/tv shows]".
Anywhere other than the internet, such a statement would need to be backed up with facts before anyone believed it. Do you have some statistical data indicating a correlation between ad dollars spent and favorable reviews received? Or is this just based on your opinion? Because if it's strictly an opinion, you should make that clear.
The real truth is, writing to please your advertisers is a losing proposition. Since most major cycling mags have ads from almost every big bike maker at some point during the year, and these ads are scheduled months in advance to get them into the mag, that would mean they could basically never write a bad/negative review. This would quickly become really obvious to readers.
I do agree that some magazines seem to have a policy of minimizing the attention they pay to a bike's faults, across the board.
But in the end, as a journalist, it makes more sense, business-wise and ethically as well, to simply write what you think and let the chips fall where they may. I have written negative reviews of some big products from several major motorcycle OEMs, and I've never had their PR guys get mad, or their ad people threaten to pull ads. Only feedback I received was from engineers pissed that I trashed their design and wanting to argue my conclusions, which is cool!