| Author | Message | ||
     Jaimec |
Greg, That's not the problem. The problem is the US tendency blame the manufacturer (and make them pay BIG money) in lawsuits where a jury of the clueless decide that Jimmy got a concussion when his head was run over by a tractor trailer while he was wearing "Brand X's" helmet. Never mind that if he WEREN'T wearing the helmet, he'd be DEAD. It's why BMW stopped selling helmets here. Quite a few manufacturers felt the same way. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
I want the new GIVI convertible helmet. I can't get it because the don't get it DOT approved here. It's ECE approved though. | ||
| Firebolt020283 |
well heck you can buy a dot sticker on the net then it is dot approved. http://www.chopperstickers.com/DOT-Sticker-pr-130. html to really fool people throw a shot of clear over the sticker and they would never know. | ||
| Firebolt020283 |
Here in Texas I don't think it would matter much as you don't have to even wear a helmet and then there is the @$$ clowns that wear those plastic chrome Nazi helmets backwards that are not even dot approved either. | ||
| Britchri10 |
IMHO no one ever buys a helmet expecting to crash test it in real life conditions. As stated previously, many factors need to be considered when buying a "lid". I have a Shoei. I paid mucho dinero for it. I am happy with me wearing it ( more importantly, my wife is too!). Lab' tests are just that. Lab' tests! Any helmet is better than no helmet. Wear what you are comfortable with. However, dude shouldn't have been fired for the contents of this article. Chris C. | ||
| Jaimec |
Getting back on topic: It's obvious now that you can't trust what you read in Motorcyclist because they don't want to piss off their advertisers. In other words, there is now "Reasonable Doubt" that when they do a "Superbike Comparison" and the bike you feel should've won DOESN'T... you can now REASONABLY ASSUME it won because the manufacturer PAID for the glowing review. Thank you, Brian Catterson, for making that clear to us. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Zactly Jamie!!!!!!!!! | ||
| Britchri10 |
I wouldn't trust anybody (thing, entity, magazine article, etc') that shows itself as: A) disingenuous. B) Subject to influence from advertisers. Chris C | ||
| Firebolt020283 |
What happened to a business taking negative criticism in a review and making it positive by improving a product. I remember Buell being known for this. They would give magazines preproduction bikes the writers would the magazines would publish some faults in a part on the bike and it was improved before it got to the customer. | ||
| Reg_kittrelle |
I believe you need be careful of extrapolating this so as to indict everything and everyone. I'm not defending any of the involved individuals. In fact, if anything I'm more pissed about this than most, as eroding journalistic ethics has bothered me for many years. At the same time, there are some very good motojournalists out there who should not be painted with this broad brush. There is an attitude existing within the enthusiast publishing community (motorcycles, cars, skiing, et al) that believes they are in the entertainment business first and foremost. Because "entertainment" is more frivolous than journalism, facts often get shuffled about or influenced. But it also needs be added that their are important exceptions to this, e.g., Roadracing World. There is not a domestic motorcycle magazine that is as nearly as financially healthy as it was two years ago. Many are on the verge of bankruptcy. This situation gives unscrupulous advertisers a significant amount of power. If a published believes that the money they'll lose with an unfavorable review would be the death knell ...well, what would you do? I'm not excusing it. I have been in situations where advertisers have tried to influence me. I was fortunate, though. One, I owned the publication and, two, I react very badly to unfair pressure. It is easy to cry "foul" here, but playing fast and loose with facts is not a stranger to this ...and most... motorcycle forums. I think there will be more to this story, but it might take a bit of time. | ||
| Greg_e |
"The PRIMARY reason people buy one helmet over another is the perceived safety factor. " I disagree with this... The biggest reason most of the @ssclowns by a helmet is it looks cool or their favorite racer wears it. Yes I do know people that have bought a helmet only because they had to have a certain color/pattern, especially women that seem to require getting a helmet in pink. Doesn't what what brand or features as long as it's pink and girly. Not that you couldn't buy a really good white helmet and have it painted for an extra $50. I do know of other examples but that one comes to mind first. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
I should have said the primary reason people, who are not a$$clown squids, buy one helmet over another is the perceived safety factor. | ||
| Reg_kittrelle |
Greg... Couldn't agree more. | ||
| Court |
One of those times when it's best to listen close and speak little. | ||
| Rwven |
I bought my last helmet based on the features I wanted and the price, in about equal measure. I wanted a flip front with an integral sunvisor. I wanted it for around 250 dollars or less. I ended up with an HJC SyMax II. Perceived safety didn't really figure into my calculus. I figure DOT is good enough for the kind of riding I do, and I had read the articles stating that in most cases the SNELL 2005 rating is to aggressive anyway. I'm in the "any decent helmet beats no helmet" crowd. | ||
| Dynasport |
Court, who are we to be listening to? Catterson has not made a statement on this that I am aware of. According to the article I linked Ford confirmed the emails are accurate. No one in this thread has any inside information to this situation as far as I can tell. I don't have any trouble believing that a magazine that depends greatly on advertising dollars can be influenced by those same advertisers when it comes the content of the magazine. The thing is, the article at issue in this instance was in a separate publication. Also, it seems that the editor (Catterson) had been supportive of Ford beforehand, but after the fact he threw him under the bus. And finally, the official reason Catterson gave for canning Ford does not seem to be the actual reason based on numerous emails. If any of those facts are not true, I will happily reevaluate my position. Without those facts, however, it is hard to come to a different conclusion. | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
I bought my last helmet (a Shoei) on the basis that the previous helmet (also a Shoei) prevented my bonce being splattered all over the top of a Renault van. Seemed a reasonable buying criteria to me. That said, I never buy a lid without reading as many different reviews as I can lay hold of and also getting opinions from current users. (Message edited by mr_grumpy on July 17, 2010) | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
If neither Shoei nor Arai felt that the perceived safety benefits of their helmets were important in the buying process, the threat to pull advertising would never have been levied. | ||
| Reg_kittrelle |
It might be helpful to go back and read everything again. While Shoei and Arai are being tossed around, I can't find anything concrete that directly indicts them on this. If you have something, let me know, please. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
It might be helpful to go back and read everything again. While Shoei and Arai are being tossed around, I can't find anything concrete that directly indicts them on this. If you have something, let me know, please. See if this will help shed some light on the situation: http://www.mc24.no/getfile.php/Innhold/Bransje/DFe mail-2.pdf "None of that matters to the brass when two of our biggest advertisers are threatening to yank their ads over a story a freelancer wrote for another publication when we're down $2 mil from last year! I know what you wrote for the NY Times is accurate, but I think you greatly downplayed how significant an improvement the Snell 2010 standard is. In my eyes it "rights all wrongs," which should have been the thrust of your story, not just a couple sentences in a piece that focused largely on the dangers of Snell 2005 helmets. I'm getting serious heat over this, to the tune of threatening my job unless I do something about you." --Brian Catterson "FYI that bit is likely to cost us Arai and Shoei advertising -- again. The wagons are already circling..." --Brian Catterson | ||
| Greg_e |
The last quote is taken out of context. The context was that if MC was to openly gather advertising revenue from the manufacturers who refuse to get/make/buy a Snell rated helmet that Shoei and Arai would pull their ads again. Of course had the trick worked and those other manufacturers took on significant enough advertising then MC wouldn't have cared if it lost the other two. Of course when a very popular magazine no longer advertises your products, your sales of said product also go down, so if they want to pull the ads, they will lose too. It's all about eyes on product here. | ||
| Reg_kittrelle |
Yes, I read that. However, it is hearsay insomuch as; 1. We have not direct quote from the mentioned companies 2. "threatening" needs to be defined. For example, I've had companies say to me, "I wish you hadn't written that." In once instance that was determined to be a threat to pull ads; it wasn't in reality. 3. "likely to," is conjecture on Catterson's part. It is popular exercise to throw large companies under a bus. Sometimes it is a good idea to do so, but the evidence needs to be very clear that the companies are, indeed, at fault. Here's a scenario which plays out on a regular basis in news work (I DO NOT claim that this happened here): The head ad guy currently holds great power in publishing. These people are totally focused on the bottom line, and often care diddlely for content UNLESS they believe it might upset a client. If that's the case, they go to an editor and say something like, "We might be putting xx client's advertising at risk if we publish this." In other words, the "threat" is in-house, not from the advertisers. Again, I think we need proceed cautiously. Source Interlink Media has been embarrassed by this. They might just hunker down, or they might just drop the other shoe. | ||
| Dynasport |
Reg, I too have experienced misinterpretations of statements and bad assumptions. That is not what I am focusing on here, though. Whether the pressure came from a certain helmet company or companies, or from within the magazine itself, a writer was fired for writing something perceived to be problematic to advertisers. My issue is with the magazine and their publishers. I don't understand your statement that we need to proceed cautiously. What does that mean? And what do you mean by dropping the other shoe? They might fire Catterson too? Please enlighten me. I am terrible at innuendo. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
The are direct emails back and forth between Ford and Catterson. There is no context other than the back and forth. Specifically what smoking gun are you seeking? | ||
| Reg_kittrelle |
FB... The smoking gun are the e-mails... no doubt. What is lacking is direct evidence (other than hearsay) that Arai and Shoei threatened to pull advertising. There simply is no evidence public that this happened. Might it have? Certainly! Were I writing an article on this I'd first go to Marty Estes, Motorcyclist publisher. Dyna... My "cautiously" position relates to the helmet companies (see above); NOT the magazine. If we take Catterson's e-mails at face value then, yes, Motorcyclist screwed the ethics pooch insomuch as church and state have erased the boundary. (That statement would get me laughed at by several publications I'm familiar with). | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
I guess the question would be whether or not there were other reasons why Ford might have been fired unrelated to his article in the NYT or his 2-3 year crusade to change the safety ratings system away from SNELL. There is a direct statement (if taken at face value) that Arai and Shoei HAD pulled $100,000 in advertising in the past (see email dated January 19, 2008). "Also FYI your last column cost us Arai's and Shoei's ads again -- approximately $100,000. Or roughly twice as much money as I WAS going to get to hire the road test editor I desperately need." --Brian Catterson It would seem to me that MC had been walking a tight rope with both Arai and Shoei for several years. A take the "again" to mean that they had pulled the advertisement before the January 19th email. The between the lines take I have is that Management was sick and tired of having to eat advertising losses caused by Ford's articles and gave Catterson the "either he goes or you both go" notice. Maybe I'm seeing it wrong, but the only evidence I have are these emails and they don't tell a very good story for either Arai or Shoei or MC. Seems Arai and Shoei would rather advertise in a magazine they control with a readership who now knows MC is in their pocket. It was obvious from the email chain that Arai and Shoei didn't want Ford talking about the SNELL rating any more. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
"Some of our advertisers were upset by Dexter’s article in the New York Times, but none ever threatened to pull their advertising, as they had done over the original helmet test published in Motorcyclist in 2005. My job was never literally threatened, either, though our publishers made it clear they wanted me to “fire” Dexter as he had become a bigger liability than an asset - a sentiment I fully shared. As a professional moto-journalist since 1986, I firmly believe in separation of “church and state,” and have always told it like it is, never mind the repercussions. I in fact published all of Dexter’s articles about the Snell M2010 helmet standard, including the one subtitled “Snell surrenders, claims victory.” But the one he wrote for the New York Times crossed the line, and was clearly vindictive." --Brian Catterson "Motorcyclist clearly lets their advertisers dictate not just what they run, and the opinions expressed on their products, but also who their writers are. And even what their writers write for real, world-class papers like the New York Times." --Dexter Ford | ||
| Dbird29 |
 | ||
| Xl1200r |
I should have said the primary reason people, who are not a$$clown squids, buy one helmet over another is the perceived safety factor. I don't believe this to be accurate. Yes, I bought a helmet at all because it's safer than not having one, but after that the safety of one brand over another doesn't weigh on my mind much. I spent a lot of money on a Suomy because I liked the light weight, the high quality materials and the superb fit. And yeah, it looks cool as hell. The fact that it meets ECE standards (and DOT) but not Snell was icing on the cake. That said, while an $80 helmet may protect better than a $400+ Arai or Shoei, that doesn't mean the more expensive options aren't safe or there aren't compelling reasons to buy them. I caught wind of this a weeks or so ago and my feelings sort of mimic Reg's - stuff like this is something we have to live with, and as EDUCATED consumers we can make the choice to support certain helmet manufactures over others and certain publications over others. My end opinion on this is that the move was short sighted on Motorcyclists part. Maybe the advertisers would have pulled. But if they lose enough subscribers over this, the advertisers won't care to advertise anyways. However, I'd be willing to bet that most people will make a stink and continue to buy the magazine anyway. | ||
| Boogiman1981 |
well that sucks but i still love my shoei. i love it becasue it fits my head shape just right. in the last 7 and a half years i have had about 8 lids from 6 companies reallllly cheap on up to my shoei i don't feel any safer perse but i do wear it because it's comfy(for a helmet) it's getting some age on it so i'll be replacing it soon with whatever fits the best regardless of cost or brand color is kinda important though |
