| Author |
Message |
    
Gwb
| | Posted on Sunday, July 18, 2010 - 03:03 pm: | 
|
We all accept a certain amount of pretense concering advertising so we can enjoy reading our magazines.
We all know that magazines cannot print articles critical of their biggest advertisers. The magazines know it, the advertisers know it, and the readers know it. Everbody knows it.
This tempest is because we're being forced to publicly acknowledge that pretense. It's as if during your favorite tv cop-drama the actors turned to the camera and told the viewers to watch the comming commercials.
(Message edited by gwb on July 18, 2010) |
Dynasport
| | Posted on Sunday, July 18, 2010 - 03:44 pm: |
|
Gwb, I just typed a long response to your post, but I deleted it because I believe it was just repeating facts that have already been stated. If you can't see the difference in this situation and one where a magazine writes favorably about a mediocre motorcycle just to make the manufacturer happy, I don't think any more typing by me will change your mind.
OK, I think we are to this point now 
so I am done. |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Sunday, July 18, 2010 - 03:51 pm: |
|
To me it isn't the inter play of advertiser and journalism.
It's the insestuous relationship between manufacturer and independent safety testing body.
We, the consumer, are the ones harmed. Instead of the manufacturers joining forces with the journalists to push for better standards from SNELL, Arai and Shoei chose to shoot the messenger and place profits over safety.
Why would a manufacturer be upset about following the best standard available at the time (M2005) and, when better data is available, follow the next best standard available at the time (M2010)?
Companies do this every day. When they do, we recognize it, and we refuse to do business with them. |
Gwb
| | Posted on Sunday, July 18, 2010 - 03:52 pm: |
|
I used to read 'Motorcycle Consumer News' because they didn't accept advertising and so could print 'the truth'.
But after even another long and verbose, and boring article about the details of the chemical properties of oil, etc, I just let my subscription lapse. |
Arcticktm
| | Posted on Thursday, July 22, 2010 - 01:08 pm: |
|
GWB still has the gist of it, even if this was not a strictly product comparison situation.
This makes us deal with the underlying compromise most of us know is there, but we want to deny.
What this specific case seems to show is that the magazine was scared enough just of the belief that 2 major helmet companies MIGHT get pissed off again and pull some ad $$$.
To dismiss the guy before you even have a direct concern from your advertiser seems even worse than watering down a product review to not be too negative.
I get a lot of the bike mags, including MCN because of their no-ad policy. They do tend to get to techy on things that seem only vaguely relevant to most riders, though.
However, compare MCN's recent shredding of the new Honda VFR1200 to the mainstream mags much more reserved reviews.
Hmmmmm.
I seem to recall that I first seriously considered a Uly in no small part because of a favorable review in MCN.
That was only 2 years after riding an '03 at Sturgis and saying to my wife: "I would never buy on of these pieces of junk".
Never say never... |
Aptbldr
| | Posted on Thursday, July 22, 2010 - 01:41 pm: |
|
Who are customers of a magazine (or an internet forum), its readers or its advertisers? |
Doerman
| | Posted on Thursday, July 22, 2010 - 01:48 pm: |
|
Advertisers pay the bills since the lionshare of revenue to the publishers come from them.
The number of subscribers (readers) provides the basis for the publishers have a charge structure for the advertisers.
So both groups are customers of the publisher. |
Reg_kittrelle
| | Posted on Thursday, July 22, 2010 - 03:01 pm: |
|
As Doerman sez.
It's a symbiotic relationship of sorts, but it's not the way it should be. There is no "free press," and I'm not sure there ever was, in any area.
If you are going to write something controversial, you'd better make so shocking and interesting that the concerns of the advertisers are discounted. This is the strategy behind rags such as The National Enquirer. And you had better count of subscriber/buyer revenues being great enough to, again, not worry about advertisers.
Part of the problem with motorcycle magazines is that there really isn't any awful motorcycles, and scandals in the industry are few and far between, so they end up writing about pretty good stuff, in a pretty nice way.
Many have tried to turn the HD/Buell debacle into a scandal/fraud issue, but it really was just biz as usual. (There are still a couple of things going on with this, but doubt they'll bear much fruit) |
|
