How objective are bike reviews in magazines?

alihisgreat

Mercia Man wrote:

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

Mercia Man wrote:

I agree that the Felt AR2 review is too gushing. Next year no doubt we'll be told by a reviewer that this AR2 model was too stiff or something and that the latest 2015 replacement is so much better. Just one of those reviews filled with PR guff that discerning readers will take with a pinch of salt. I wish they would put bylines on all their reviews so we know who has written it. Some writers clearly have more cycling experience and technical knowledge than others.

Is there any reason why a bike can't be that good though? Its not as if they are giving everything a glowing review and 5*s then we might need to be more concerned.

I'm sure that bike is really good but I just feel that the AR2 write up and the Synapse one mentioned above seem so gushing that they might as well have been written by a PR person. I feel it's over enthusiasm by the reviewers rather than pressure from advertisers or marketing people. I know how difficult it is to write an objective review to a tight deadline while avoiding PR speak and cliches like those dreaded "bombproof wheels" we are always reading about.

Each new year's model is better than the last - or so we are generally told in the magazines. I don't accept that. Much modern stuff is great. But other developments are not necessarily an improvement.

What magazine and website reviews don't normally tell us is how these fantastic frames and components perform in the long term. There are plenty of comments on this forum from people suffering broken spokes on their supposedly bombproof wheels or squeaks from their supposedly ultra stiff press fit bottom brackets.

The write up of the new Synapse in Cyclist says that its come the closet to being the "perfect" (as in speed and comfort) bike out of anything he's ridden. (and there weren't any Cannondale ads in the mag ) .. and thats the £3k spec.. not the £7k spec that BR tested.

But it manages to do it in a more measured way than the BR review haha.

mamba80

I ve a mate in the WW Kayak industry and ages ago asked him about the reviews that got written on boats and he said " it basically comes down to advertising, these mags cant survive without it, so write a really bad review of the latest Dagger or wavesport and they may drop their advertising, we dont lie as such, more miss things out "

i doubt the cycle mag world is any different.

Bozman

I know that you're buying a bike as a package, but it'd be interesting to see just how much these bikes differ if they were all tested with using same wheels, groupset and finishing kit. Then again after you've purchased your first bike there can't be that many folk that buy a bike again, they'll buy a frame and build to please.

I have a friend who reviewed restaurants for a small free publication, she wrote a review on a small restaurant and told the truth that the place was lacking this that and the other but she was fair and honest with them, the restaurant threatened to sue the free magazine because they thought the review could ruin their business. In the end the magazine had to retract the review and publish an apology, she gave up after that.

mercia_man

I think some posters are being unfair to journalists. After 40 years in the profession, I never came across any genuine journalist who would write a fake good review because of pressure from advertisers. I know it's fashionable now to slag off unions, but the NUJ has always taken a stand to ensure the independence of journalists against advertisers trying to manipulate coverage to boost their financial interests.

kajjal

The reviewers won't bite the hand that feeds them and this will influence their reviews. The only example I saw of this not happening was for an old computer magazine called ZZap64. They used to really rip into poor games etc and the consumers / industry really took note of what they said. The middle aged cyclist journalists won't do this and just tend to waffle on using meaningless descriptive terms about road bikes. Mountain bikes tend to get a more objective review in the main in comparison as there are marked differences. Road bikes don't as they are not significantly different in the same way.

tomisitt

I think it comes down to two things: the size of the industry involved and the skill of the journalists.

I've spent most of my working life testing stuff for consumer magazines (motorcycles, cars, Jet Skis, powerboats etc), and attitudes differ according to how big the industry is. In the motoring world, a bad review has little impact on global sales because they're making millions of the things for a global market. The importer might not be happy with a bad review, but they'll usually shrug it off and move on. If you are a respected and knowledgeable journalist then the importer will respect your opinions, as long as they are honest and informed ones. Rarely do they pull their advertising, and on the one occasion I can remember it happening, the magazine published an editorial explaining that the advertiser had pulled out because of a poor review. The readers were left to draw their own conclusions.

In the powerboat business, where very few units are built, a bad review can be catastrophic, and has the potential to destroy businesses and put people out of work. As a responsible journalist it is down to you to write a review that highlights the bad points but also highlights the good ones. A skilled writer can write a piece that allows the reader to read between the lines.

The problem with tests in the mainstream cycle press is that they are so unimaginative, so joyless, so sterile. Where's the craft? Where's the inspiration? Where's the character? Where's the amusing turn of phrase, or lexicographic adventurism? There is something magical about riding a good bike somewhere nice, but you'd never know it by reading the mainstream cycle press. Cycling needs it's own L J K Setright or Mark Williams or (dare I say it?) Jeremy clarkson.

mercia_man

I quite agree, Tom. The early issues of Bike magazine inspired me in my journalistic career. The writing was so good. And I still dip into Mark Williams' blog.

tomisitt

Me too. And I bought a bloody Laverda Jota because of that man. Then I ended up working for him. That was an experience, I can tell you :shock:

mercia_man

And I bought a Laverda Mirage because of a Bike mag test. Can't remember who wrote it but it might have been Bill Haylock whose writing I really admired. And I had a friend who bought a Laverda Montjuic on the strength of a Bike test which described how you had to take your brain out first before you rode it.

kajjal

Mercia Man wrote:

And I bought a Laverda Mirage because of a Bike mag test. Can't remember who wrote it but it might have been Bill Haylock whose writing I really admired. And I had a friend who bought a Laverda Montjuic on the strength of a Bike test which described how you had to take your brain out first before you rode it.

As previously posted that is what's missing in the cycle reviews now a bit of fun and journalistic licence. The current ones tend to be stale, formulaic and sterile. You could write most of them yourself. For example my road bike came with really poor brakes and a saddle that launches an attack on your nether regions. The forums mention this a lot but none of the reviews did. A quick change of brakes and saddle and all is well now thankfully.

Extralight

I worked in the bike industry in the early 90s, for a small company importing high end road and MTB exotica into the UK, mostly from the US. Things may (and I hope have) changed, but in my experience, as others have suggested, being a 'good advertiser' with a mag pretty much assured you of good reviews. What hasn't been said (I don't think - forgive me if I've missed it when I've skimmed the posts above), is that 'journalists' expected to keep the product they were testing. For us, this wasn't always possible - for a small company, we simply couldn't afford to give away kit that cost hundreds of £s or frames that cost thousands, as we'd want to pass them on to other mags, use them at shows, or loan them to retailers. One or 2 journos for prominent mags at the time seemed affronted at our efforts to get product returned, which meant not only did we not get the review for that item, but subsequently our other products were not included in group product tests, even if we had some of the best kit on the market. I think today's readers are more sceptical of what is written in reviews and the editorial process - I often see people questioning why products and brands have been excluded from reviews. What also seems to have changed for the better is the journos are more accessible, and therefore answerable, to their audience. It's always encouraging seeing them respond to queries and criticisms posted by the public (and sometimes even the companies - Chris Boardman on BikeRadar memorably held BR to account for some silly comment in a review, and credit to BR, the author of the review responded). Very different to the 90s, where keeping the journos sweet was a necessary evil to even get your products into print, let alone reviewed fairly.

cycleclinic

Unfortunatley too many reviewers make statements like this is stiffer than what is replaced or this is more comfortable without giving a frame of reference (you know what I mean). Statements need to quantified empirically and many reviews do not bother to do this. The test involves riding the bike - I can do that but my view may and will be different to the reviewers depending on how I feel at the time, the roads I am on where I am.

Magazine's should be a platform for testing manufacturers claims. They should be for verifiying or disproving manufacturers frames. Unfortunatley I do not know of a British publication that does this. Tour does and that is useful but it is hardly available in print form and if I pay for something I want a hard copy not a download.

I therefore ignore reviews and try stuff more myself. I let my own judgement be my guide sometimes I buy stuff I hate other time I love it. In the end a review is just someone else opinions what I think about it if I am using it is far more important to me.

I doubt my 1980 Alan would be reviewed very well in a mag against modern bikes but I love riding it more so than modern bikes.

mercia_man

Extralight's post highlights outrageous behaviour on the part of "journalists" who I suspect were bike enthusiast/blaggers rather than professional trained journalists. The specialist magazine world and increasingly the internet can be a sort of Wild West in which amateur "citizen journalists" and bloggers let rip without thought of legalities or ethics. Look at how Peaches Geldof, who actually works as a "journalist" on national newspapers, has just landed herself in it by illegally identifying child victims of sexual abuse on twitter - a basic error that even the most junior trainee reporter on a local weekly would be expected not to make.

I don't dispute Extralight's account of the behaviour by some magazines in the 90s but I do not believe that Cycling Plus and Bikeradar writers act in this unethical manner.

When I worked on mainstream local and regional newspapers, I obtained test motorcycles for a couple of weeks from national test fleets or borrowed a bike for a few days from a local dealer. The same applied to cars and cycles that were reviewed by us. Things sent to us for review such as crash helmets we would keep because they were by then secondhand.

Judging by the way the same bikes pop up for review in the various cycling magazines and websites, I would guess the same system applies - the bike is returned after testing, but things like group sets and clothing are retained. As for the long term tests in which Cycling Plus writers have custom built bikes like Parlee and Enigma, I don't know what the set-up is. Maybe they buy the bikes at a discount. It would be interesting if Cycling Plus could spell out its policy. I seem to remember that in the early days, the mag used to buy its test bikes and sell them on.