what the point in equipment reviews in magazines scoring ?

northernneil

I always find it annoying that reviews of kit are pretty much always 'perfect'

just did a quick tot up from 3 magazines recently including the winter clothes edition of CW and the average score is 8.75 - meaning everything you buy is brilliant

simonaspinall

Clothes are easier to design and produce than bikes?

snakehips

Kit reviews are how they fill the magazine , and they can't say something is crap because they rely on advertising revenue.

Snake

My Library

bails87

Also, stuff generally is good. Or it's ok but cheap, so scores well for value.

Kit doesn't appear by chance, it's designed, tested, redesigned, retested, etc etc.

teagar

bails87 wrote:

Also, stuff generally is good. Or it's ok but cheap, so scores well for value.

Kit doesn't appear by chance, it's designed, tested, redesigned, retested, etc etc.

'Tis true.

Not sure it's of much use to the cosumer though. Reviews are, in part, supposed to help consumers differentiate.

The reviewers need to adjust to quality inflation!

eh

http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/category/bikes/mountain/product/hemlock-09-33753

This review makes me laugh, the review was of the frame which then snapped and yet they still gave it 2 out of 5 stars. WTF has to happen for it to get 1 or less, kill the reviewer?

APIII

I never pay attention to the marks they give as they invariably include an element based upon the reviewers perception of value. i.e. they might say it's the best thing they've ever tested, but give it an 8 because it's more expensive than they would be willing to pay. The issue of value is down to the customer, we know the price ffs.

Cressers

I often wonder what is the point of magazines?

northernneil

Cressers wrote:

I often wonder what is the point of magazines?

you wouldn't be on here without one or two !

rake

reviews only test new stuff for a eek or so. shows nothing about the main requirement of how long it will last.
wow a shiney new wheel held up for 300 miles.no trueing or cracks.

keef66

"reviews only test new stuff for a eek or so..."

Is that the point at which the brakes fail on the downhill hairpin?

SteppenHerring

As snakehips points out, it's down to advertising revenue. I had a piece of my software reviewed many moons ago. It wasn't finished, buggy as hell and annoying, but we bought a double-page advert in a magazine and they gave it a glowing review.

Yes, they are all corrupt - except Which? who take no adverts. They don't review cycling stuff - maybe I should apply for the job ...

Heckler1974

The weekly comic is almost all adverts including the reviews.

dennisn

Cressers wrote:

I often wonder what is the point of magazines?

They are full of pretty pictures of things we NEED to buy.

Crankmeister

Their just catalogues which you pay for, they are rambacked full of advertising to sell you what you need or dream of owning..........i would warrant a guess that the company that spends the most advertising with the magazine or provides the most free equipment or pays for the best trip out to test ride facilities wins the highest vote...money talks!! :roll:

STEFANOS4784

bails87 wrote:

Also, stuff generally is good. Or it's ok but cheap, so scores well for value.

Kit doesn't appear by chance, it's designed, tested, redesigned, retested, etc etc.

+1 When was the last time someone on here bought their new bike then came on slating it? Never happens because all bikes are good (within reason), that's also why you find everyone recommending what they happen to own, the main exeption seems to be decent winter gloves :!: