roger@wet.UUCP (Roger Niclas) (04/27/91)
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: > In article <1991Apr24.033643.3628@anomaly.sbs.com> mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes: > >Its real simple. Start taking out huge, multi-page mega$thousand$ > >dollar ads, and you're reviews will instantly, mysteriously, shoot > >up to A-numero-uno. > > That's unfair. I've had two very positive reviews in PC Magazine without > every buying more than a classified at the back, as well as good reviews in > other Z-D magazines. > > These guys are not perfect, perhaps even far from perfect, but I don't think > there's any actual evil scheming. In most big magazines the editorial people > do not associate much with the ad sales people, and find them boring. As one who is associated with the magazine publishing industry, and who has worked with a number of the computer-related publications (both trade and consumer), I have to say Brad has it (largely) correct: You can't 'buy' a review or other editorial coverage by advertising; at least not in any of the major magazines. (There are some smaller publications who are known as "whores," but that's relatively rare. A magazine that allows its editorial content to be compromised in that way fast finds that they lose credibility with the readership. And *that* is what advertisers pay for. My beef with PC's reviews is that they seem to be produced more with an eye toward yielding impressive charts and stats, and less to produce useful, real- world insights. PC World, on the other hand, produces sparser reviews, but, it seems to me, ones that more closely approximate what I can expect to encounter in day-to-day use. (I rarely spend my time benchmarking, after all.) Brad's largely right about the existence of a "Chinese wall' between editorial and sales personnel, though I'm not sure I agree that it's because editors find the sales reps boring. It's really because editors don't want to take the chance of being even inadvertantly influenced, and (maybe more importantly) that sales reps spend most of their time out of the office. Magazines are profit-making endeavors, and most of the profits come from sell- ing ads. Editors know that, and even they keep a _general_ eye on ad sales, but they don't react to individual advertisers (at least not at reputable magazines -- and PC is certainly one). They _will_ listen to criticism of the "our advertisers say there's not enough telecommunications coverage" sort from the sales department, though. They listen to that because it's sometimes a valid criticism, and may be an indication that they're losing the interest of some parts of their readership. But if you have a crummy product in a category PC reviews, you'll get a crummy review, even if you've bought the 3rd and 4th covers for the last 6 months. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Email: roger@wet.UUCP | * * alt: rogerd@well | witty remark designed to exhibit intellect goes * * CompuServe: 72730,1010 | here *
sl@wimsey.bc.ca (Stuart Lynne) (04/27/91)
In article <2355@wet.UUCP> roger@wet.UUCP (Roger Niclas) writes: }brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: }> In article <1991Apr24.033643.3628@anomaly.sbs.com> mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes: }> >Its real simple. Start taking out huge, multi-page mega$thousand$ }> >dollar ads, and you're reviews will instantly, mysteriously, shoot }> >up to A-numero-uno. }> }> That's unfair. I've had two very positive reviews in PC Magazine without }> every buying more than a classified at the back, as well as good reviews in }> other Z-D magazines. } }As one who is associated with the magazine publishing industry, and who has }worked with a number of the computer-related publications (both trade and }consumer), I have to say Brad has it (largely) correct: There is a chicken and egg situation here as well. Companies that get a good review in a magazine will often take advantage of that to pump up some good advertising. This can lead to an appearance of collusion where none exists. But it may simply be the advertisers taking advantage of the situation. I don't think you can blame either the magazine or the advertisers unless you want to support a Consumers Reports type magazine with your subscription dollars (i.e. absolutely no advertising whatsoever). -- Stuart Lynne Computer Signal Corporation, Canada ...!van-bc!sl 604-937-7785 604-937-7718(fax) sl@wimsey.bc.ca
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (peter da silva) (04/29/91)
In article <1991Apr27.091638.11273@wimsey.bc.ca>, sl@wimsey.bc.ca (Stuart Lynne) writes: > This can lead to an appearance of collusion where none exists. But it may > simply be the advertisers taking advantage of the situation. I don't think > you can blame either the magazine or the advertisers unless you want to > support a Consumers Reports type magazine with your subscription dollars > (i.e. absolutely no advertising whatsoever). If you want reliable reviews, it's that or the net. I've given up completely on trade computer magazines for everything but announcements, scanning the ads, or humor. Even Dr Dobbs isn't worth my time any more. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' peter@ferranti.com +1 713 274 5180. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"