[Closed] Bike magazines selling editorial content

So as part of the advertisement package they buy they get a set number of reviews and interviews. I would only start to get worried if this content becomes impartial.

$24k for all that?

Brutal.

Yeah I thought it was a bit cheap.

Course, it doesn't follow that buying editorial space buys positivity. But then I have 2 guesses which website it is and one of them's hilariously biased, to the point of publishing outright lies...

But then I have 2 guesses which website it is and one of them's hilariously biased, to the point of publishing outright lies...

I can really only think of one that has multi national content. I'm sure ST towers wouldn't want us speculating about their competitors though.

Which website is it then?

Honestly, I'm a little surprised that there is such a formal, financial contract in place for this. I'd have assumed it was more of a "you've given our last 4 products terrible reviews. Like f-k can you have a demo product to rate again..." or "We read you liked our xxx, Here is our new xxx for you to review."

Hmmmm...

I'm not sure exactly what to think...

Some of what they agree to is definitely content that the public would be interested in. Rider interviews and product reviews fit into this, as odes the first look at new products that we're all curious about. And I can certainly see why a brand/team wants to line up media spots for its pro riders ahead of time.

But the links back to the brand, preferred posting locations, and co-branded video, and such makes it all a bit slimy...

Which website is it then?

I'm gonna say BikeRadar.

Not sure of the issue though. It doesn't say 'you'll give us 5 star reviews'. There's a bit of not biting the hand that feeds you I guess, but it's hardly a surprise they're wanting content rather than just ad space.

They have to make money somehow but should be clearer.
Im sure i stumbled across something about stw and road cc being from the same publishers and offering content like the mid week movies for £500, sorry if I've just made that up but the principle of advertising becoming blurred around the edges is true.
Look at vloggers who recommend products and may be soon required to state before the clip that its an advert. You can also employ people to sit at home make up persona's and recommend products on forums like this, i bet 10% of people on here have commercial interest in their recommendations.
Buy what you like, ignore the web.

I have a very limited experience with many of the popular websites, I released an app some of you may be aware of called Bike Setup, it was my first app, I have no connections to the bike industry, just sent out a bunch of emails to all the main websites asking if they would feature it, surprisingly many of them did for no fee or anything more than an email or two, so front page coverage for a $1 app from a nobody.

Those that did were Singletrack, Dirt, Flow (australia), Bicycle Retailer, Sicklines, AMB (australia), Bike Rumour, and a few more smaller ones, some without even an email that just found it, so they are not all bad and focussed on the $ to provide content. Many others didn't even respond to my emails or did and then did nothing.

offering content like the mid week movies for £500

are you thinking that these videos are anything other than adverts?

The word you are looking for is 'advertorial'
Why are you all so surprised?
Funny thing is I look at the numbers and it just reinforces how little bike brands spend on marketing and the poor quality of most of the visual and editorial content, most of the journalism and visuals is right up there level with a trade magazine for meat processing.

Doesn't surprise me in the slightest, magazines sell advertising space,bike manufacturers buy advertising space. Ok some are a bit cozier than others (MBR/Specialize) but so long as you have a salt cellar next to you alls well.

I admit to not understanding the world of sales, marketing and publishing but

....my belief that the industry and the cycling media work together to get more people on bikes

I've always seen hobbyist publishing as catering to those who are already "in" and more likely to influence what/how many bikes, cars, media devices, running shoes, cameras etc you're going to own than encouraging you to "join the club"

I would gfo as far as betting that almost no-one has grabbed a copy of <insert niche bike mag of choice> and though hmmmm, must go buy bicycle - but influenced my televised cycling events and sporting heroes, yes almost certainly.

Only a few of the investigative roadie press (in my most humble opinion) deserve to be called "journalists" the rest are product fluffers making a living out of their love of bikes, and best of luck to them, but don't try and pretend it's some sacred mission to get the world a-peddling....

Jesus, that's a bit of an eye opener.

The word you are looking for is 'advertorial'
Why are you all so surprised?

Advertorial is something quite distinct, MBUK do some now and again and it's easy to distinguish. This is much more subtle and sinister.

Don't worry about naming sites etc. You can't libel a company and if I was ST I'd be happy for my rivals' underhand practices to be exposed.

I'm sure I asked a while ago amongst the other dross I posted on here wether bike reviews were worth 1 iota of the time it took to read them.

Selling advertorial content tends to be what needs to happen when users piss and moan about adverts, refuse to click on them, or use ad blockers to stop them completely. Gotta make money somehow 😉

[i]Im sure i stumbled across something about stw and road cc being from the same publishers and offering content like the mid week movies for £500, sorry if I've just made that up but the principle of advertising becoming blurred around the edges is true.[/i]

1. STW and Road.cc are in no way related. We're both independents.

2. We don't charge for Midweek Movies, me and Dan search vimeo and Youtube to find bike content.

So wrong and wrong.

I suppose thinking about it... websites have different issues to magazines. With a mag, there's a page limit, so if you sell an extra feature, something else suffers. With a website, that could still happen but equally it could be genuinely extra- the website could be limited by the amount of content it can create and host, ie resource not space limited. So extra money could mean they add extra content, which as long as it's not biased, is probably just good.

But that's all a bit idealist maybe, because maybe the website just produces the same amount of content, spends the money on crack and hookers, and then awake from their drug and sex binge 10 minutes before the deadline and so just posts the company's provided content verbatim... Like seemed to happen in an article about "UST-Ready" on a certain website.

There are blurry lines I think. And not just from the crack.

The initial link proves nothing but certainly should raise questions for anyone naive enough to think that the bike media and companies don't work together.

Of course, as has been pointed out, just because a company is offered reviews doesn't mean that the review is biased. That's really where your faith in specific media outlets comes to the fore.

For me, I trust ST mag to do the right thing (even if we found out that there was this overt link between ads and reviews) because they're independent and IMO have an interest in the sport as a whole, not only the bottom line.

On the other hand, given what's been going on at Future recently I don't trust their publications and wouldn't be remotely surprised to hear that their reviews are influenced by advertising/financial considerations.

So, by all means let this open your eyes but don't necessarily tar everyone with the same brush.

On the other hand, given what's been going on at Future recently I don't trust their publications and wouldn't be remotely surprised to hear that their reviews are influenced by advertising/financial considerations.

You know Future sold the portfolio don't you?

Well I thought so but a quick check and MBUK is still listed under Future as is Bikeradar. Either way, they're part of a larger media company whose interest is purely in profit, not the sport so the same applies. IMO of course...

Not sure I follow that just because a company wants to make a profit, they're not interested in the things they cover. After all, a short termist approach of selling editorial would soon be seen through and then the money dries up. I saw this years back working for a well known music and lifestyle title.

It's a bit of a narrow and restrictive view to think corporate = bad and small = good. I know of small titles (in a number of different fields) attempting to gain favour with "editorial support" - but they must be ok because they are little operations right?

just because a company wants to make a profit

purely in profit

IMO the way Future and most large publishing organisations are going is heading well away from the side of interest in what they're publishing. I don't buy wholesale into the big business is bad thing but that's what I believe we see in this specific industry.

If we're spreading rumours I Heard Dirt don't actually charge for placing reviews, instead they have a two tier editorial system...

One set of payments covering some basic checking (AKA: using the spell checker), limit the number of typos and grammatical balls-ups...

The Second set of payments is to keep Steve Jones well away from it, so that your product review doesn't turn into a rambling pseudo-philosophical diatribe about turnips or seagulls that confuses readers, gives no conclusions whatsoever and stops them buying the bike for fear it might melt their brains...

😆

A bit of realism needed here. Mags need the advertisers and the readers to provide income, and if they lose either then they're screwed. It's both common and reasonable that those who support the business with advertising spend will get editorial coverage, including invitations to submit product for either individual review or into group tests.

What's not reasonable, and isn't something supported by any evidence I can see in the linked material, is for the actual editorial coverage to be "bent" by the advertising spend, in this industry that would be a mag saying a bike was great that they thought was terrible. Not only would that be unethical, but it also wouldn't make business sense - if the readers don't trust the reviews then they stop reading which not only removes their revenue from the mag, but shortly after the advertising revenue too - no one's going to pay to place adverts in a mag with no readers.

So, really, this is not big news. It's not even news at all for anyone who's read any magazines (bike or others) regularly - a firm starts spending on adverts, products get featured - have none of you spotted this before?

A bit of realism needed here. Mags need the advertisers and the readers to provide income, and if they lose either then they're screwed. It's both common and reasonable that those who support the business with advertising spend will get editorial coverage, including invitations to submit product for either individual review or into group tests.

What's not reasonable, and isn't something supported by any evidence I can see in the linked material, is for the actual editorial coverage to be "bent" by the advertising spend, in this industry that would be a mag saying a bike was great that they thought was terrible. Not only would that be unethical, but it also wouldn't make business sense - if the readers don't trust the reviews then they stop reading which not only removes their revenue from the mag, but shortly after the advertising revenue too - no one's going to pay to place adverts in a mag with no readers.

So, really, this is not big news. It's not even news at all for anyone who's read any magazines (bike or others) regularly - a firm starts spending on adverts, products get featured - have none of you spotted this before?

^^At last, a voice of reason, away from the paranoia that prevailed.....

It's pinkbike and they're on about bontrager

A bit of realism needed here. Mags need the advertisers and the readers to provide income, and if they lose either then they're screwed. It's both common and reasonable that those who support the business with advertising spend will get editorial coverage, including invitations to submit product for either individual review or into group tests.

What's not reasonable, and isn't something supported by any evidence I can see in the linked material, is for the actual editorial coverage to be "bent" by the advertising spend, in this industry that would be a mag saying a bike was great that they thought was terrible. Not only would that be unethical, but it also wouldn't make business sense - if the readers don't trust the reviews then they stop reading which not only removes their revenue from the mag, but shortly after the advertising revenue too - no one's going to pay to place adverts in a mag with no readers.

So, really, this is not big news. It's not even news at all for anyone who's read any magazines (bike or others) regularly - a firm starts spending on adverts, products get featured - have none of you spotted this before?

So given this logic we will get to a point where the only products that are reviewed are those produced by companies that can afford to pay ? Does this in itself not lead to a skewed outlook ?

I assume as you rightly state mags need advertising so they will be less inclined to come down hard on bad products for fear of adverts being pulled ?

Advertorial is fine when its presented in that manner and you can the make a judgement call on the content and how biased or not it is.

Censorship at it's worst. So he can say it's bike radar incorrectly but I can't say who it is?

edlong wins the internet today 🙂

That said, we actually make a point of featuring anything from anyone regardless of ad spend.. principally because the urge to try new stuff, wherever it's from is a more powerful force in our office than the sales team. That may or may not be a good thing depending on how you look at things. As the publisher I'm torn between the two - I like new shiny things but I also like to pay people 🙂

In most (poorly edited) trade magazines, if I read an article about a firm, let alone a review of their product and there is a commensurately-sized accompanying ad, my bullshit radar instantly registers 100%. I then [i]know[/i] to treat the article as a mere PR release from the company, rather than a piece of journalism.

The danger with crap journalism is it is still powerful, persuasive and pervasive. It is all around us and good, investigative, objective content is rare.

This was the initial reason for the creation of media studies - now derided as a slacker's subject - to enable people to spot truth in advertising, spin and propaganda.

I don't envy you your job Mark. Most of the other employees, yes! Damn I want their job! The balance between advertising vs honest reviews vs pissing off the wrong industry types vs retaining credibility with the readership vs remaining solvent is one I'd not relish keeping.

I agree with hilldodger:

Only a few of the investigative roadie press (in my most humble opinion) deserve to be called "journalists" the rest are product fluffers making a living out of their love of bikes, and best of luck to them, but don't try and pretend it's some sacred mission to get the world a-peddling..

Every time I read Fresh Goods Friday, I think, "which of you lucky buggers gets to take that home?" You're not changing the world, you're living the dream. Just remember that in STW Towers when you're working at midnight with a printing schedule looming 😉

So I guess as its no surprise too many that this practice happens and its no big deal then why not indicate which products within a piece of editorial are actually paid inclusions and we can then weight our own interpretation of the outcome ?

At what point does journalism just become another arm of an advertising team ?

At what point does journalism just become another arm of an advertising team ?

How about when they delete posts about yet to be released kit from their forum for fear of upsetting the manufacturer ??

So I guess as its no surprise too many that this practice happens and its no big deal then why not indicate which products within a piece of editorial are actually paid inclusions and we can then weight our own interpretation of the outcome ?

I'm pretty sure (at least in print media) there is a code of practice that this has to be titled "Advertising Feature" or similar.

It's very easy to get drawn into the paranoia of internet forums and think that there's some kind of mad Illuminati style cabal running all aspects of the media - jesus, if you were going to get into that sort of game as a publisher, you'd pick an industry with more cash than bikes........

At what point does journalism just become another arm of an advertising team ?

When it is product reviews it always was surely?

It's not just about the cash either; having mates scratch each others backs is good also, think of the overly favourable press that On-One / Planet-X used to get for everything in all mags Brant had previously been involved with. This kind of thing happens a lot in the fashion / life style mags.

I'm pretty sure (at least in print media) there is a code of practice that this has to be titled "Advertising Feature" or similar.

It's very easy to get drawn into the paranoia of internet forums and think that there's some kind of mad Illuminati style cabal running all aspects of the media - jesus, if you were going to get into that sort of game as a publisher, you'd pick an industry with more cash than bikes........

Advertorials are a different offering ... they are very transparent in their nature. What we seem to have here ... and people are openly accepting this happens .. is the purchase of 'Editorial' not 'Advertorial' so there is no paranoia as its happening.

What we seem to have here ... and people are openly accepting this happens .. is the purchase of 'Editorial' not 'Advertorial' so there is no paranoia as its happening.

Do we have empirical proof of this?

"Seem" and "people accept" is very different from solid proof.

Without proof, this is purely rumour.

Do we have empirical proof of this?

"Seem" and "people accept" is very different from solid proof.

Without proof, this is purely rumour.

The OP link to the costed document seems fairly self explanatory that editorial is for sale .. admittedly we do not know if anyone actually buys editorial in this manner though the 'no big surprise' posters on here maybe add weight to the belief that its happening.

The main uk mountain bike magazines are in the pockets of a handful of companies. If a mag were to give negative reviews of their products and one of them removed their advertising that magazine would fold. Although difficult to spot, I counted 37 pages of adverts from one such company in one issue in dirt.

It's no coincidence that this particular company never receives a negative review in this publication. Magazine reviews are bought and paid for, this is a fact.

Said company was mentioned 40x in the last year according to a search.

I find the idea of editorial quotas tied to ad spend quite disturbing.

It's a step too far IMO, though a bit of informal back scratching is inevitable obvs.

Does ST sell review space then mark?