Forum menu
So many comments so far from the OP point ..
Being offered advertising to run in the issue that features your product isn't the issue here .. what this is about, as per the link in the OP, is a pre packaged years worth of editorial for a fee.
It just fundamentally feels wrong that something that should be impartial has a monetary value attached to it... due to limited test slots I assume this then invariably means that companies who can't afford to buy editorial then get bumped for those that can.
Also I think when questioning the legitimacy of the OP source we should accept that it was posted by a journalist not a disgruntled forum member or small bike company owner with insufficient marketing budget to buy editorial.
It also works from retail side, when I look at getting a "brand" I also have a look in the mags/website to see what adds they have, as it about brand awareness and make my life easier to "sell" that brand, as most people look at mags/internet, it be easier to see something they seen been advertised than something that hasn't. (I also look to see if the brand is heavily discounted on line a lot of the time)
And even better if "brand" get a good review!
paul78 - Memberdue to limited test slots I assume this then invariably means that companies who can't afford to buy editorial then get bumped for those that can.
That's a bit of a leap. Remember the example's a website- so like I said up the page, it'll be resource limited not size limited. So it's possible that the money paid enables them to produce and carry more content as well as the Trek/Bontrager paid for stuff. Not a given either way I think but generally websites want to increase traffic and they can do that with more quality content. But then again they might just want to release X number of banner articles per month.
You can get a good idea of how accurate magazine reviews are by comparing them with any forum thread on the same product.
Egg Beaters are probably the extreme example. Any thread on them will bring up countless tales of collapsed bearings, snapped spindles and walks home, yet as far as I know, no magazine review has ever questioned their reliability.
Of course, in common with any other product review, the new model offers an improvement over the old one, although they never mentioned it needed improving when it was the current model. 🙄
"...the longevity of the bearings can be variable.
They were okay on this test pair as we pumped fresh grease into them but we've frequently experienced bearing failure and even pedal bodies falling off axles on previous 'Beaters."
Score: 2.5/5
"Magazine reviews are bought and paid for, this is a fact"Well, I am ****ing minted, obviously.
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/bike-magazines-selling-editorial-content
My mate who works atr a bike mag's someone sarcastic response to this thread on Facebook...
Countless adverts and editorials in a variety of trade magazines over the past ten years, and i've written every one of the editorials myself. Even wrote a 2 page spread once about our product area with all the mag did was slap their writer's name on it and change a couple of words round but leave in all the references to us.
I saw that too Munrobiker, do you reckon he's just not getting cut in on the action?
😉
Where do the likes of CRC/Nukeproof/Vitus or Evans/Pinnacle etc fit in? Similar sort of setup perhaps?
Who cares, in the big scheme of things, any site or mag that runs adverts is less that objective, same for us, we all have favourites for reasons other than quality of product. t's a nice talking point but honestly...
Have you seen Guy Kesteven;s review of Canondale's new Trigger?
I'm pretty content with most reviews of stuff, most are as honest as they can be within the confines of time and long term lifespan. they're only ever part of the buying process anyway.
I think you're assuming that the majority of the people who comment on threads about bike mags have actually read them in the past decade to form their opinion nickc 😉
If you don't work with your advertisers you are dead in the water!
No mag!
hey were okay on this test pair as we pumped fresh grease into them but we've frequently experienced bearing failure and even pedal bodies falling off axles on previous 'Beaters."Score: 2.5/5
So multiple failures including the pedals falling off and still it hits the midway point on the scale
Does the product need to kill someone to be rated as crap then?
IMHO that reviews is inflated by at least 1.5 if not 2 stars
tenacious_doug - MemberSelling 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 have no issue with adverts supporting websites in principle as I recognise that servers and bandwidth cost money, however the advertisers and advertising networks take the p1ss.
Ever sat there on a slow-marginal connection while a page slowly spooled up the big showy ads before even thinking about giving you the content you wanted? Never had driveby redirects to annoying/dubious/unsafe sites while you were reading something because the ad network is, shall we say, unprincipled? How about the popunders rendering animated ads for gambling you finally discover when closing your browser after wondering why something was a tad unresponsive? Let's not even go near the need for internet security software to deal with the various attacks perpetrated by malicious code hidden in adverts and the damage they can cause.
Personally, if a site becomes too annoying, I don't bother blocking ads, I just don't go there anymore.
If the advertisers play nicely, people might interact or at least not actively block them. However, we are where we are, and that's it til the next thing comes along. I'm glad some people still publish nice magazines! 🙂
Product of the year *strokes beard*
Fancy pump yeah? With a pop bottle and that.
Crackers.
Not that I'm suggesting that this was a paid for award.