[Closed] Future Publishing pull PX bike because they aren't buying adverts?

Ewan- say what you like about Future, they've panned some products by big manufacturers/big advertisers.

Ewan- say what you like about Future, they've panned some products by big manufacturers/big advertisers.

Define panned (6/10 isn't panned), and had the advertiser just reduced their spend?

I've been told by three different publishers (not Future) in the last month that my clients won't get editorial unless they advertise. There's always been a 'consideration' but it's become so blatant now. Unfortunately, most consumers don't see it and trust articles that are little more than poorly recycled press releases.

Ewan is on the money (pun there?), surely people can't be surprised by this?

From my own experience on several fronts the 'cash for comments' thing is an accepted mode of business for many mags, and I have even been told firsthand of a 'crap' review one month becoming 'great' review the next with the booking of a few one pagers.

I know for what we do, sending kit in for review to pretty much most mags is a total waste of time as we don't have advert $$ to back it up. I'll insert here that STW has been the exception and Chipps has done the odd review with no commitment of any sort, which I guess is why STW is respected the way it is after all these years.

For the sake of the industry on the whole, I would like to see a different mode of business, one where subs and magazine purchases pay for the magazines and not advertising. While the cover price will more than likely jump, the quality and impartiality of reviews and the like would be light years from where it is now for many. That in turn would lead to truly better products rising to the top, rather than those which gain the mantle because of the current 'cash for comments' system - a system that determines how and what you ride in more ways than you can imagine.

I’m shocked people are surprised by this – surely people aren’t naive enough to think that advertising spend with a magazine won’t have at least some impact on what products get reviewed and in what light they’re viewed in?

You are probably right, but if that's the case magazines shouldn't be able to use cover strap lines like "The best £1500 bikes - hardtails vs full suspension vs 29ers" (taken from the front of a WMTB). It should really read "The best £1500 bikes from the companies that pay our wages", but that would not be quite so snappy!

To be fair STW reviews never seem to make that sort of claim but just review a few bikes that either try to do the same thing or are deliberately contrasting more as an interest piece and don't try to make the same definitive claims.

£15/issue with no reduction in sales. Then there would be no ads in the mag.
£30/issue with no sales fall off and then there would be no ads on the website either.

I couldn't do it. I had to say something.

Pretty lame comment though 😉

<currently searching forum for online camera shops>

What would the sub price be with no ads, roughly?

I'm not sure many people would expect an advertiser free magazine would they Mark? It's transparency (from a reader perspective) that needs to be there.

I'm not aware it's missing in Singletrack and testing products is not the meat and drink of your product in quite the same way as it is with others.

Brant is an entrepreneur; some you win, some you lose.

Despite the fact the Future appear to lack integrity, I'm not sure he comes out of this in a dignified manner, whining about it on Twitter.

The bike got pulled - deal with it. People like your products anyway, and they'll still buy 'em regardless...

The big problem here would appear to be that WMB has always, always blown it's own trumpet and traded on it's impartial reviewing policy.

They frequently take one or two editorial pages to tell us exactly how impartial they are and to remind us that they review and write about the best MTB kit, regardless of price.
The inherent implication is that they seek out, test and write about the finest kit available to the public, regardless of origin or any other external factors.

Well, this is has now obviously now been exposed as a crock.

Frankly, it's not really a surprise.
However, given the fact that they seem determined to boast about the impartiallity and inclusiveness of their review policy at great length in almost every issue, whilst the editorial staff are obviously aware of the views of the publisher, does make me doubt pretty much anything else they say.

I was equally annoyed at comments made by a STW contributor about the lack of cheaper lights in the recent STW mag review.
I sincerely hope that was purely down to snobbishness and nothing to do with advertising revenue.
Perhaps, yet again, I'm being a touch naive.

Define panned (6/10 isn't panned), and had the advertiser just reduced their spend?

Of course it is, the scale is generally 4/5 for everything, with the odd deviation from that, 3/5 seems as wild as 5/5 to be honest. 2/5 bikes usually don't seem to work and Specialized/Giant/Trek/all the big spenders don't normally make many of these.

Take the recent forks roundup in WMB, 19 forks from a few random brands, the lowest got 3, the highest got 4.

Anyway:

[url= http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/category/bikes/mountain/product/review-specialized-hardrock-se-12-45790 ]http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/category/bikes/mountain/product/review-specialized-hardrock-se-12-45790[/url]

[url= http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/category/bikes/mountain/product/review-scott-scale-29-comp-12-45952 ]http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/category/bikes/mountain/product/review-scott-scale-29-comp-12-45952[/url]

[url= http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/category/bikes/mountain/product/review-trek-bikes-top-fuel-99-ssl-11-42463 ]http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/category/bikes/mountain/product/review-trek-bikes-top-fuel-99-ssl-11-42463[/url]

[url= http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/category/bikes/mountain/product/review-giant-talon-2-11-40855 ]http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/category/bikes/mountain/product/review-giant-talon-2-11-40855[/url]

Any other brands you're after? It's not all a big conspiracy. They just ran out of space in a grouptest and decided to bench the bike from the smaller company that wasn't paying.

Having just flicked through the March 2012 WMTB, I can't find an advert for Scott, Spesh, or Trek. Giant have the inside cover but i'd hazard a guess they didnt' in 2011 when that review was written.

Pretty much my point really.

Just cause I'm a sad git. I just found the Jan 2011 WMTB. No adverts from Giant in the magazine.

Ewan - Member

Define panned (6/10 isn't panned), and had the advertiser just reduced their spend?

You don't remember the larks we had on here with their lights test? The Nukeproof one got (IIRC) 2/5, Brant spat the dummy, and the Singletrack Tinfoil Hat Brigade said it was because of the lack of adverts, when Hotlines actually had more ads in that issue than any of the competitors...

That's just one example of course, you can't really claim that they don't give good marks and coverage to companies that don't advertise heavily with them, or that they don't give bad marks to companies that do...

Christ you're right, 750 bike with darts, from the company with the biggest buying power in the world. Completely inconceivable, it must be fixed!

The whippet had a fantastic score in the latest wmb, this sounds more like Brant throwing his toys out the pram because he's not the centre of attention for five minutes. How does he react to not being in the test? Quote the private email and try to cause some damage. Wouldn't be hugely surprised if they just sacked off reviewing on one altogether.

Are we really talking about an ad-free magazine? Surely retailers would still want to advertise. And how far does this go? Articles on places to go, skills training, guided holidays perhaps? It's not just bikes that are advertised.

Northwind: I respectfully disagree, lack of impartiality means inconsistent reviews.
The c456 review was inconsistent in mbuk compared to wmb. This thread highlights that the performance of a particular product is the least considered criteria for their reviews

I canceled my subscription to wmb last year and rather glad I did now.

Doddy is not cheap to maintain.

I stopped buying mags for reviews a LONG LONG time ago. Back when I worked in a bike shop/importer who imported some goods and asked around the various magazines to see if they would review them if they were sent - most came back saying they'd give it a favourable review if we spent more in advertising with them and if not they'd either not touch it or mention it as a small note in a column somewhere.

jimmers - Member

Northwind: I respectfully disagree, lack of impartiality means inconsistent reviews. The c456 review was inconsistent in mbuk compared to wmb.

TBH that last C456 review was deranged... Inconsistency doesn't require a lack of impartiality, in that particular case I think it was lack of competence tbh.

For every peer review you can show me of a bloke trashing the bike he has bought, I'll show you 100 saying its the best thing they have ever swung a leg over,including his wife, ever.

There's always going to be varied opinions on any product, but the number of negative comments on STW and other forums about Egg Beaters or Fox forks says more than any magazine review.

I wasn't aware planet x did partake in any advertising anyway........ isn't that their raison d'etre, cut out the middle man and sell direct approach that keeps costs down?

Have to say i'm not surprised to hear what future have done but disappointed none the less. Brant i'm sure has his reasons for going viral, he never does something without an end game i'm sure but this may just blow up in his face?

pulls up a chair......

I have found my tests in Future mags to be more than fair and I do not advertise. I have asked other mags to reveiw the bikes I import and immediatly get calls from the ad guys to set up and ad plan. If I do not advertise the bikes do not get in the mags. Future are the only mag I contacted who always want to test the bikes, no strings attached.

Ajr, my experiences are similar.

It's not really any more shocking than the circumstances where a company gets nominated for an award and it's hinted that if they buy x tables at the award show or sponsor something, the CEO gets to go and collect some silverware. I'm fairly sure not all awards at events are suspect but there's usually a few throwaway ones in there to be bought. Mag reviews seem not much different tbh. Some good, some for sale, some bad.

And the pendulum swings back to fp.....it seems odd that brant, who i'm sure never thought such a tweet would never be picked up on and discussed on a forum where he seem omnipresent, has not made further comment.

has not made further comment.

I assume he is too busy patting himself on the back.

Having seen some of the correspondence between PX and FP I can see why I'd be a bit peeved if I were planet x. I wont quote directly as that wouldn't necessarily be fair on Mr schofields, but since he said he was happy for anyone in the industry and his readership to know it, he made it clear that advertisers get priority on products selected for review, but that preference wont influence the content of the review.

But, to pull a bike from publishing after it has been tested and written about is dangerously close to editorial manipulation. Not to mention turning a manufacturer's brand new product into a second hand one with nothing to show for it.

The inference then is that FP don't neccesarily see it as a duty to review ALL relevant products for it's readers benefit. A woolly get out clause about reviewing 'class leading' products doesn't really cut it in terms of transparency for the readership IMO.

I dont think PX would ever deny FP the right to their own choice of business model, but I think they would ask for transparency about their policies if PX think that through FPs actions they or the readership are being deceived a little.

Whatever it is though, this isn't an argument about buying a good review especially since mark's piss might vaporize!

Wonder how many Whippets FP sold for them last month.

I have to admit, I'd have really liked to see the Dirty Harry review, it's a shame they can't do a straight-to-website review, which would allow PX to link it if they wanted. Everyone would be happy?

The whole thing sounds like two drama queens blowing their ego-power-trumpets in each others face*. I think Brant's reaction to the situation was far worse than the out of context quote he put up to be honest.

*not a euphemism

[i]advertisers get priority on products selected for review, but that preference wont influence the content of the review.

A woolly get out clause about reviewing 'class leading' products doesn't really cut it in terms of transparency for the readership IMO.
[/i]

I think this is what I've been tryign to say - the reviews themselves are unbiased but the choice of which ones to publish is.

I do wonder if they've ever chosen not to publish a bad review of an advertisers product.

wwaswas ~ he specifically claims not

EDIT actually having reread it h doesn't say that.

fair enough - but then we're back to transparency. [edit] or maybe not 🙂

Maybe they could list all the products they considered when compiling the list of items actually included in a group test?

and then justify exclusions? 😉

I'd say the only contentious thing here is the review was pulled after the test, which to me is odd but perhaps it's fairly common practice?

Not accepting something for review as the vendor doesn't advertise and they can only review a small number of bikes makes sense to me though and not something you could really complain about (assuming you don't believe the 'bike of the year' type strapline bollocks).

Everyone just needs to know that the products Future test are not necessarily the best on the market, but the best available [i]from their advertisers[/i]
Makes WMB quite irrelevant though. Why anyone would buy it anyway is quite beyond me.

precisely, wrecker

Well, obviously not [i]precisely[/i], not even correct, as stated by si and ajr, FP are happy to publish reviews on items that aren't advertised. It sounds like, in this case, there was not enough space to run all the reviews they have done, and one review has had to be cut. Someone higher up in FP has chosen to do it on the basis of advertising, and to make that fact known. Maybe not such a great idea, but these magazines rely on their advertisers for their survival.

In the vast majority of cases they obviously find it hard to get enough bikes in to test, so this seems to be a pretty unusual case. There was even a recent MBUK/WMB? review on budget bikes where they went out to Argos and bought some bikes to review. I'd be pretty happy on the basis of manufacturers and journalists feedback that the reviews are impartial, as far as personal opinion can be, but that the items reviewed are constrained by what they can get hold of and by space in the magazine.

'tis a punters' mag no? We all started somewhere...

Wreckers statement is still correct pleaderwilliams, while FP might review non_advertiser products, they make no bones about not necessarily doing so.

£15/issue with no reduction in sales. Then there would be no ads in the mag.
£30/issue with no sales fall off and then there would be no ads on the website either.

You just told everyone your ad revenue broken down by off/on line

Well, obviously not precisely, not even correct, as stated by si and ajr, FP are happy to publish reviews on items that aren't advertised. It sounds like, in this case, there was not enough space to run all the reviews they have done, and one review has had to be cut. Someone higher up in FP has chosen to do it on the basis of advertising, and to make that fact known. Maybe not such a great idea, but these magazines rely on their advertisers for their survival.

In the vast majority of cases they obviously find it hard to get enough bikes in to test, so this seems to be a pretty unusual case. There was even a recent MBUK/WMB? review on budget bikes where they went out to Argos and bought some bikes to review. I'd be pretty happy on the basis of manufacturers and journalists feedback that the reviews are impartial, as far as personal opinion can be, but that the items reviewed are constrained by what they can get hold of and by space in the magazine.

Here here.

I work in magazines (not Future or cycling subject matter). There are so many reasons why PX could have been dropped.

Maybe the original feature was planned as 5 pages. An extra ad gets sold (probably not in this climate) and so a page has to be dropped from the feature. Someone has to go.

Maybe they already had a heavy steel framed 29er reviewed from someone who does advertise. So what, as stated it's a business. Doesn't mean the one that made the cut is going to get a good review. As long as the feature gets a good coverage (price point/carbon/steel/ti etc) of what's out there then I think it's doing it's job.

You cant review everything on the market in an issue. Actually what I think STW does well is the online side. The Fresh goods thing on a Friday is a great way of getting everything seen by the public, whether it's a bling frame or some niche beer! You should see the amount of tat that gets sent in to mags by PR's trying to gain a few column inches!

Personally if I was the publisher in question and I saw this thread and who created it, it would be bye bye On One/PX from any future reviews. Great bit of viral marketing there 😉

MM

Well, obviously not precisely, not even correct, as stated by si and ajr, FP are happy to publish reviews on items that aren't advertised. It sounds like,

In the vast majority of cases they obviously find it hard to get enough bikes in to test, so this seems to be a pretty unusual case.

The big problem here would appear to be that WMB has always, always blown it's own trumpet and traded on it's impartial reviewing policy.

They frequently take one or two editorial pages to tell us exactly how impartial they are and to remind us that they review and write about the best MTB kit, regardless of price.
The inherent implication is that they seek out, test and write about the finest kit available to the public, regardless of origin or any other external factors.

Well, this is has now obviously now been exposed as a crock.

On the other hand the rather a lot smaller (in physical A5 size and readership)[url= http://shred.cc/shredmag/ ]Shred Magazine[/url] were quite open about doing more or less just the same in a recent issue. The gist of it was 'we are a small mag trying to make a living, forgive us if we have a better relationship with our advertisers and consequently get lots of nice stuff from them to review.'

I find that openness quite refreshing. I also don't think this extends to giving crap products positive reviews: the things they have raved about recently genuinely are excellent, I can only guess that if an advertiser sends them something that turns out to be rubbish, they just don't write a review for it.

You just told everyone your ad revenue broken down by off/on line

Well not really. I guessed (educational). If it was a serious analysis I'd be plugging no end of sales numbers, paper price increases plus forecast sales data into a spreadsheet - but to be honest at 10:30pm while I'm sat in bed with my phone you will perhaps forgive me for not being that motivated to do that 🙂

As for breakdown comparisons of ad sales between mag and website that's really not top secret info, as far as we are concerned. I believe you can buy our accounts from Companies house for about a tenner.