Forum home Mountain biking forum The Crudcatcher

Shooting oneself in the foot....

Andy BAndy B Posts: 8,115
edited March 2012 in The Crudcatcher
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
2385861000_d125abe796_m.jpg

Posts

  • 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.
  • VWsurfbumVWsurfbum Posts: 7,959
    Well i always said that the Orange 5 deserved to be the best bike in all catagory's
    Kazza the Tranny
    Now for sale Fatty
  • warpcowwarpcow Posts: 1,448
    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 BAndy B Posts: 8,115
    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.
    2385861000_d125abe796_m.jpg
  • GazlarGazlar Posts: 8,110
    Readers Wives uses a similar format
    Mountain biking is like sex.......more fun when someone else is getting hurt
    Amy
    Farnsworth
    Zapp
  • YeehaaMcgeeYeehaaMcgee Posts: 5,740
    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?
  • cooldadcooldad Posts: 32,904
    +1 confused twitter potato. Can't see the point of hanging onto someones' inane ramblings.
    I don't do smileys.

    There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda

    London Calling on Facebook

    Parktools
  • Andy B 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.
  • supersonicsupersonic Posts: 82,708 Lives Here
    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.
  • supersonicsupersonic Posts: 82,708 Lives Here
    Oh, and to add that that: three of the other five bike manufacturers in that test do not advertise in the mag.
  • YeehaaMcgeeYeehaaMcgee Posts: 5,740
    supersonic wrote:
    five bike manufacturers
    Ah, Orange.
    The plot thickens.
  • 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.
  • supersonicsupersonic Posts: 82,708 Lives Here
    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.
  • YeehaaMcgeeYeehaaMcgee Posts: 5,740
    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.
  • interesting piece.

    I've got an interesting piece for you right here!
  • YeehaaMcgeeYeehaaMcgee Posts: 5,740
    interesting piece.

    I've got an interesting piece for you right here!
    Good. I fancy a long walk.
  • UH DHUH DH Posts: 4,160
    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.
    Check out my site - http://www.trail-dog.co.uk
    It's good for you.
Sign In or Register to comment.