Shooting oneself in the foot....

Andy B

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic ... ng-adverts

Looks like it confirms what a lot of people already suspected, magazines are not impartial no matter how much they claim they are. They are biased towards those who advertise with them.

Not exactly shocking news, but for it to actually be out in the public domain....

http://twitter.com/#!/shedfire

cat_with_no_tail

All that means is that the manufacturers who bring in the advertising ££££ are more likely to get their bikes included in the tests though. Doesn't mean they'll give them better scores.

VWsurfbum

Well i always said that the Orange 5 deserved to be the best bike in all catagory's

warpcow

I'm inclined to agree with CWNT. It was obviously (apparently) tested, impartially, it was just financial issues that meant it won't appear in print (maybe a test will be publushed online anyway). I'd imagine there would be a reasonable amount of interest from, perhaps less-experienced, readers in seeing tests of products by companies who advertise heavily too.

Andy B

Cat With No Tail wrote:

All that means is that the manufacturers who bring in the advertising ££££ are more likely to get their bikes included in the tests though. Doesn't mean they'll give them better scores.

You may be right

But surely that means the tests aren't as impartial as they could be because smaller brands who don't advertise hardly get a look in on the bike reviews, therefore only the big boys who can afford to advertise get reviews. Is that not a tad unfair & biased?

Yes I know business is there to make money, but when magazines claim they are impartial they are not. In essence you have to pay for the review by paying for the advert.

Gazlar

Readers Wives uses a similar format

YeehaaMcgee

Cat With No Tail wrote:

All that means is that the manufacturers who bring in the advertising ££££ are more likely to get their bikes included in the tests though. Doesn't mean they'll give them better scores.

Until I have a reason to believe otherwise, I have to agree with CWNT.
We haven't got the whole story, and I'm actually a little dubious about the twitter post thing (yeah, I don't "get" twitter). Does he have a grievance? Is he intentionally being a little vague in order to arouse suspicion, due to some frustration/anger?

cooldad

+1 confused twitter potato. Can't see the point of hanging onto someones' inane ramblings.

cat_with_no_tail

Andy B wrote:

Cat With No Tail wrote:

All that means is that the manufacturers who bring in the advertising ££££ are more likely to get their bikes included in the tests though. Doesn't mean they'll give them better scores.

You may be right

But surely that means the tests aren't as impartial as they could be because smaller brands who don't advertise hardly get a look in on the bike reviews, therefore only the big boys who can afford to advertise get reviews. Is that not a tad unfair & biased?

Yes I know business is there to make money, but when magazines claim they are impartial they are not. In essence you have to pay for the review by paying for the advert.

No that's not quite true. There have been LOADS of MBUK / WMB reviews of Ragley / on-one bikes in the past and they almost always blow everything else out of the water, including the big brands who contribute significant revenues.

Based on the very limited info available, it sounds to me more like one of 2 things. Either one of the big boys kicked off and said "add this bike to the review or we'll pull all our ads"
or more likely, part of the contract they have with future stipulates they'll feature X number of bikes in reviews each year, and someone has just noticed the financial year is just about up and they're 1 bike down.

However it's just interweb speculation. It could just as easily be all Wiggles fault.

supersonic

See other thread in the General section.

Oh I have spoke to the person who tested the bikes. He is the least biased and most objective tester around. He does not know why the test was pulled - he is waiting to hear from those at Future HQ.

supersonic

Oh, and to add that that: three of the other five bike manufacturers in that test do not advertise in the mag.

YeehaaMcgee

supersonic wrote:

five bike manufacturers

Ah, Orange.
The plot thickens.

The Northern Monkey

They had a ragley in MBUK last month...

Would be interesting to see what they replaced it with... Orange? haha.

To be fair, the Dirty Harry 29er looks like the most booooooooooooo...................rrrrrrrrrinnngggg frame ever.

supersonic

It might not have even been replaced - often space constraints mean that things have to bite the bullet. The editor juggles stuff around to fit in the available space, so what might have been a commission for the tester for six bikes may have been cut to five. Not all that is tested makes it to print. But we just don't know.

YeehaaMcgee

Makes sense.
I often find that on a group of say, 3 bikes, the 3 bikes reviewed will represent 3 very differing takes on the same idea. That gives an overall idea of what to look for, rather than reviewing a load of bikes that are fundamentally the same - so cutting it down to 3 bikes after the review process frees up space for other content, as well as making it a more focused, interesting piece.

cat_with_no_tail

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

interesting piece.

I've got an interesting piece for you right here!

YeehaaMcgee

Cat With No Tail wrote:

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

interesting piece.

I've got an interesting piece for you right here!

Good. I fancy a long walk.

UH DH

supersonic wrote:

It might not have even been replaced - often space constraints mean that things have to bite the bullet. The editor juggles stuff around to fit in the available space, so what might have been a commission for the tester for six bikes may have been cut to five. Not all that is tested makes it to print. But we just don't know.

Still though, it's bad form to then tell the people who make the dropped bike that maybe greasing a few palms would help in future.