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

Shocker that.
I thought most mags were limpartial.

Tell us something new - ha!

I have been able to guess the winner of magazine bike tests for years based upon who their 'favourite brand' was 😆

cycling plus (also future publishing) put the PX RT-57 near the bottom of its bike of the year test too, conspiracy theorist, moi? Haven't ridden one so can't comment whether it really is as unrefined as they say it is. Odly they talked it up as a stiff race bike, PX are marketing it as a sportive bike.

Advertising is the life blood of magazines, so advertisers get the good treatment. I got drunk with some journalists at a trade show in Frankfurt once, was quite interesting.

Isn't this just saying that advertisers are more likely to get their product reviewed, not that advertisers will get a good review. The reviews can still be impartial.

Isn't this just saying that advertisers are more likely to get their product reviewed, not that advertisers will get a good review. The reviews can still be impartial.

Magazine editor in not picking obvious comparative products shocker...

I use the likes of WMB and MBR for comparative purposes. It's surprising how often two competing magazines do the same product tests at the same, often without including some rather obvious brands.

Which is why I rely on you lot for a reality check.

Could be nothing more than a viral marketing move by Brant.

Magazines needs ad revenue to keep afloat. Advertisers expect products to be reviewed. product gets slammed in review. Advertisers stop putting big expensive ad's in the magazine. Magazine folds....

Not rocket science is it...

Maybe that's a bit flippant. I think for the bigger boys (Future) they have little choice, maybe less so for the likes of Dirt/ST. That said, MBUK seem to slate stuff they don't like so who knows....

Interesting.

With an interweb full of as much information and news as anyone could want and the "newer style" rouleur, privateer and dare I say it Singletrack magazines doing a better job of the "cycling lifestyle" reading; once the reader has no confidence in the reviews that fill a key part of a traditional bike mag content then really what is the point of them?

If a test of "the best race bike under £2K" or "best 29er hardtail" is not a genuine [b]unbiased[/b] test of the [b]best options available to the consumer[/b] irrespective of the past advertising history of the brand in that magazine then its not a true test and I'm not interested which means I won't buy it and everyone looses out. But then again I've been racing and buying bikes for 25 years so know enough to be cynical so I'm probably not the newbie key demographic they are interested in so don't really count.

I would be last in the queue for the Brant/PX/OO fan club but it stinks really. Looks like they supplied a bike, they tested it but won't put it in the mag.

If it wasn't as good as the big names surely they'd put it in to bolster the sales of the big companies and send a "don't buy from the online only companies" message. It looks like its probably better and/or better value than the big names so they daren't put it in.

[i]Could be nothing more than a viral marketing move by Brant. [/i]

1) not with a direct quote from a named individual

2) P-X had already provided the bike for the reviewer to ride

Does make you wonder how many really good bikes never make it into Future Publishings titles because of a lack of advertising spend.

Does the current inclusion of a lot of the European brands that are moving into the UK reflect a widening of choice or just a new revenue stream being satisfied?

no one else notice the a puff-piece and photo of STW-Sanny's Fargo...opposite an ad for Salsa's Fargo in Issue 72? Just me then... 😉

brant says he has it in writing so he's either being very stupid or stating fact.

http://www.twitter.com/shedfire

That said, I imagine the wording will be more about including advertisers' products than giving them good reviews but it's hard to believe in impartiality when there are stated favoured brands.

shedfire @robdob444 It's on
email.
shedfire @siernest Indeed.
We're certainly much better
organised than when I was
running that side of things!

shedfire @Velocentric We have
that in writing.
shedfire In Richard Schofields
own words "we are here to run a
business so those who support
us with advertising will get
preference"

shedfire Planet X Dirty Harry
bike has been "pulled" post-test
from a Future Publishing 29er
test, by Richard Schofield, Group
Publishing Director.

awh - Member

Isn't this just saying that advertisers are more likely to get their product reviewed, not that advertisers will get a good review. The reviews can still be impartial

"Pay us money or we won't review your bike" puts an end to impartiality.

Less journalism, more like pimping.

Didn't various mag tests gloss over/slag off/ignore DX lights for similar reasons?
Doesn't stop people buying them though.

I'd be interested to know how long this thread would last on one of the Future publishing forums 😉

Give stw their due they do tend to allow some fairly harsh criticism of the mag on the forum and just vent their frustration on social media

"Pay us money or we won't review your bike" puts an end to impartiality.

Least it's not 'pay us money or we'll give your bike a shit review'.

Poor showing to group test it then pull it from the published results.

So how would it benefit a publisher to give a product a negative review because the manufacturer doesn't advertise. It's hardly going to entice them to advertise in a future issue is it? And as for pulling a none advertisers product from review, it's likely they had too many bikes for the test and had to pull something, clearly in this case they have to support a brand that supports the mag with ad revenue. You guys do realise that the cover price alone will not sustain a magazine right?

I got drunk with some journalists at a trade show in Frankfurt once, was quite interesting.

😉

[img] [/img]

don't expect oo or px bikes to figure in future mags in the future... 😉

I have worked for a brand that doesn't pay for any advertising and has had full reviews and top marks from futures magazines.

Def a case of buying exposure not 10/10's

Brant must have been very surprised that someone would read his Twitter feed and then repeat it on the likes of STW.

If I was brant I'd send them a bill for the hire of the bike... 😉

This isn't really a surprise to anyone, is it?

I've stopped buying print magazines in favour of researching opinions about products online - which is a minefield in itself!

I now regard the whole magazine (ie: the articles too) as "advertising".

Pinkbike do ok at this I think.... like this article: [url= http://www.pinkbike.com/news/Devinci-Dixon-RC-Tested-2012.html ][/url]
Top half = blatant marketing guff about a new bike from a major adveriser on their site
Bottom half = Pretty good (if a little gentle) review, including it's shortcomings

I'm not a huige pinkbike fan, but at least they TRY to give some impartiality (I think) in their reviews, and even demark "Pinkbike's take" from the marketing guff that they are no-doubt required to print

You guys do realise that the cover price alone will not sustain a magazine right?

But they won't get my cover price if the reviews feel rigged (or at least so slanted to particular brands to make the reviews they publish worthless). And if I and others who feel the same and don't buy the mag then the advertising space becomes increasingly worthless. IMO if you are going to badge a review "the best xxx" or "best value xxx" it has to be exactly that, not a preselected subset of the market based on how much the brands will spend on adverts.

The problem is that the blurb they often spill out is that "our tests are independant, can be trusted etc" to sell the mag but they clearly aren't.
And for a a few people who buy the mags who do suspect this sort of thing goes on and treat the information accordingly there are tens of thousands who buy the mag to find out what bike to buy in good faith.

I think the issue is not the quality of the reviews per se - it's the selection of what gets reviewed?

Spesh always had (when I read it) the ads on the very first page/ inside the front cover of MBR every month

Their bikes always scored 9/10 or 10/10 in tests

Coincidence?

But they won't get my cover price if the reviews feel rigged (or at least so slanted to particular brands to make the reviews they publish worthless). And if I and others who feel the same and don't buy the mag then the advertising space becomes increasingly worthless. IMO if you are going to badge a review "the best..." or "best value..." it has to be exactly that, not a preselected subset of the market based on how much the brands will spend on adverts.

That's all well and fine but I have seen loads of PX and On One products reviewed in Future pubs. How would you deal with an advertiser complaining that their product doesn't get reviewed because the mag is full of On One products? It's massively frustrating when you have companies who will not even invest a minimum amount in advertising but will constantly push for free editorial coverage. Where is the support from their side? Perhaps the answer is for On One / PX to place some token ads. I believe Future to be as impartial as they come but something has to give, did you see their last financial results? They need to sustain the ad revenue and it's a precarious balancing act against being inpartial. One I think they do well at on the whole.

[i]Give stw their due they do tend to allow some fairly harsh criticism of the mag on the forum and just vent their frustration on social media [/i]

Just seen Mark's comment on twitter 🙂

No wonder the c456 got a rock bottom rating from MBUK...

not sure any of this means that Future are biased when reviewing, just that they choose which bikes to review based on certain criteria, i think its fair to say it works both ways.

Guess why you never see my stuff in the mags? Cos i don't have any money 🙂

[i]Hi Si, voice of Singletrack here with some reviews:

Chumba VF2

http://singletrackworld.com/reviews/chumba-racing-vf2/

Canfield Crampons

Reviewed in the Magazine (on two occasions as it happens) - and got a Recommended sticker.

For more, see:

http://singletrackworld.com/tag/progressive-bikes/ [/i]

Mag reviews are always hit and miss anyway. That said, when we have such a wealth of peer reviews, does anyone really give a monkeys what the mags say?

"Pay us money or we won't review your bike" puts an end to impartiality.

Just because you advertise doesn't guarantee a good review. That's where impartiality comes into play.

Brant, a man in the business of making money, uses moaning about the fact that another business in the business of making money that he had hoped to do business with to make some more money cast him aside in favour of those who make them more money, to himself make more money.

woody2000 - Member
Mag reviews are always hit and miss anyway. That said, when we have such a wealth of peer reviews, does anyone really give a monkeys what the mags say?

quite often bikeradar is the only place that will have a review of kit bikes you can easily google, id say they were pretty influential in that respect, mtbr can be very contradictory stw sometimes premier only

😆 @jackthedog

So mags promote the interests of the organisations with the deepest pockets. Like the tory party. 😀
Most of us know to take the review findings with a large pinch. I'd sooner get a bike which represents good value than a price inflated one because the manufacturer has blown a wedge on ads.

That said, when we have such a wealth of peer reviews, does anyone really give a monkeys what the mags say?

The sad thing about "peer" reviews, by which I guess you mean people reviewing or talking about what they own/ride, is that almost all of them are just justifications of what they have spent their hard earned on mixed with a little rehash of what they have read in a mag and compared against about 2 other bikes they have ridden in the last 5 years. 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.

Impartial reviews done by people who have not spent their own money and have ridden enough bikes and know enough to tell the difference really have a place. Cycling weekly used to be quite good at this IIRC. Haven't read for years so don't know now.

But a px bike made the top 20 bikes of the year in c+. Does brant want a px bike in every future publishing mag?

Non story if you ask me.

pebbelbeach - I think the issue isa far wider one about selection of product for inclusion in magazines - Future clearly use advertising spend as a differentiator.

Now it may make sense when you think about it but it's not somethign they've chosen to disclose previously.

I'd rather read a mag that reviewed a full cross section of the market than one that focused on it's advertisers.

tbh, if Future want to retain readsership (and thus advertising revenue) they ought to be careful about the sort of comments they make public.

wwaswas - Member
tbh, if Future want to retain readsership (and thus advertising revenue) they ought to be careful about the sort of comments they make public.

well, yes, there is that 🙂

I'll rephrase it - 'comments they make that might subsequently become public'

I'd rather read a mag that reviewed a full cross section of the market than one that focused on it's advertisers.

But they don't. As has been mentioned several times, both On One and PX have been reviewed on numerous occasions by Future. I have just had a look at a copy of MBUK I have on my phone and the breadth of brands reviewed in this particular issue is very broad. I'd say less than 20% of the reviews are for products by brands that advertise. I think this is a fair reflection of most, if not all UK cycling mags.

i wonder if the person that reviewed the bike knows that their hard work has all been for nothing

But they don't. As has been mentioned several times, both On One and PX have been reviewed on numerous occasions by Future

I'd say if this "news" was worthy of tweeting by someone in the business as long as Mr Richards I'd say it is because it was surprising or a new policy - i.e. previous history counts for nothing.

edit - or a cynical use of social media to pressurise a change of decision 😉

[i]both On One and PX have been reviewed on numerous occasions by Future[/i]

I'm not disputing that - the comments made do make me think that the thought process is "Any advertisers products availabel to fill n pages this month?" "No" "Oh, who else has got some new kit then".

It's about how kit is selected for inclusion and the lack of transparency, I guess.

But they don't. As has been mentioned several times, both On One and PX have been reviewed on numerous occasions by Future. I have just had a look at a copy of MBUK I have on my phone and the breadth of brands reviewed in this particular issue is very broad. I'd say less than 20% of the reviews are for products by brands that advertise. I think this is a fair reflection of most, if not all UK cycling mags.

Course we don't know how events have been distorted but...
I'd have thought that typically, if you pull stuff in for a group test then you should publish the results of all the participants- not just a subset that meet certain (non functional) criteria.

If it was a grouptest, one might expect to see some comparative comments throughout the article. Pulling one bike would mean the whole thing having to be re-written?

Future tend to write group tests 'stand alone' and only do comparative stuff at the beginning and end - I think it makes it easier for them to put stuff in multiple publications and online without having to re-edit them for context.

I think the issue isa far wider one about selection of product for inclusion in magazines - Future clearly use advertising spend as a differentiator.

I'd rather read a mag that reviewed a full cross section of the market than one that focused on it's advertisers.

As someone who sends products to magazines for test (different industry) I can confirm that it is quite normal for advertisers to be given preferential treatment when it comes to products selected.

It's no guarantee, as you mention, they have to test what is relevant to the readers.

Though if there is a choice between including product A or B which are both similar then the advertiser's product is going to be tested 9 times out of 10. And why shouldn't they?

If you want complete impartiality you'd need a mag that had no ad's. How does £30 an issue sound?

.

I'd have thought that typically, if you pull stuff in for a group test then you should publish the results of all the participants- not just a subset that meet certain (non functional) criteria.

Pulling one bike would mean the whole thing having to be re-written?

It would. I hope the freelance contributor (and it will be a freelance, they're all done by freelancers) gets paid extra for having to rewrite it.

IF the bike was pulled from the test after the test and feature had been concluded, that is in my opinion wrong. I am defending in general the review policy and impartiality of UK mags. We do however have to bare in mind we has one version of events from a source who is not exactly objective.

Future tend to write group tests 'stand alone' and only do comparative stuff at the beginning and end - I think it makes it easier for them to put stuff in multiple publications and online without having to re-edit them for context.

Mostly yes. Very occasionally WMB ones are done as one long narrative. If it happens to be one of those it'll be a right ballache for someone...

To the conspiracy theorists...

Have you considered that a journalist may have written an impartial review (in their individual opinion). The Business made the decision to pull the review from the test for their commercial reasons....

This does not mean Future write biased articles...

It means they are a business, and selling copies, or subscriptions don't pay the bills....advertising does.

We are their unique business value, so treating us like mushrooms makes no sense to me.

tbh, if Future want to retain readsership (and thus advertising revenue) they ought to be careful about the sort of comments they make public.

I don't see an issue with it really

After some initial evaluation with a few
We got a shit load of 50" monitors from a supplier to test prior to a roll-out of a seriously bigger shit load throughout the company.
We just cancelled and asked them to remove them as we've changed our mind and we're going to go with a company that's also a customer to us
That was a pretty much done deal with the salesman already checking out Porsche prices 🙂

The magazine/advertiser relationship has always been a tricky one. zilog6128 mentions Amiga Power, back in those days there was a huge row between a big games house and heavy advertiser (Ocean I think although I could be wrong) threatening to pull it's advertisements (a move that could potentially have sunk a magazine) when the mag in question slated one of its new releases. At the time it was the magazines complaining about impartiality.

Perhaps the boot's on the other foot now and the mags are having a go but at the end of the day it's the magazine buyer/magazine publisher relationship that counts. If enough people spend potentially large amounts of dosh on a bike pushed by a magazine that actually turns out to be pants, that mag's credability is going to suffer and buyers will leave. As others on here, I much prefer the peer-review process and no longer subscribe to any magazines.

the difference was that you probably didn't then present your choice of monitor to as being unbiased (even if functionally it was the same as the one you chose not to have)?

After some initial evaluation with a few
We got a shit load of 50" monitors from a supplier to test prior to a roll-out of a seriously bigger shit load throughout the company.
We just cancelled and asked them to remove them as we've changed our mind and we're going to go with a company that's also a customer to us
That was a pretty much done deal with the salesman already checking out Porsche prices

This might just about be relevant if you published a magazine reviewing 50" monitors. Otherwise it sounds dangerously like someone talking about the size of their penis. 😆

AndyRT is correct, this is the person pulling the review
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/richard-schofield/13/309/408
Not a journo at MBUK

Perhaps even more embarrassing than this gaff by Future, is that the TRADE publication Bike Biz has also indicated that they only review products from advertisers.

You lot will whinge about anything. Future Publishing aren't moral bastions you know. They aren't Jesus.

People still buy mags from those guys?! 😯

I've always smelt a rat as Exposure lights always win the tests. From experience I have a £20 light that is better than a Joystick.
Never a mention of the lights most of us use.
Fair enough they are promoting a British company but its hardly helping the readers.

They aren't Jesus.

This might just about be relevant if you published a magazine reviewing 50" monitors. Otherwise it sounds dangerously like someone talking about the size of their penis

50" penis?

anyway, we recommend what monitors our 15,000+ customers should use with our system [30 at a time] so some relevance there as we've binned a very good model and won't now recommend it

HTH you?

WMB gave the On-One Whippet a brilliant review this month. Why was that? Made me happy, I own one.

When STW were reporting on a show in the last few months they didn't mention On-One so Brant added a comment under the report asking why. Next day On-One had a report from the show all to themselves. Was that paid for? Chance?

Bike industry, it's like a soap opera. Sort of cross between Dallas and Emmerdale 🙂

Who's Jack Duckworth then? Orange?

While I am surprised by this, I've a horrible feeling it's just another symptom of an industry and business model in its death throws. Singletrack are ahead of the game in trying to reduce their reliance on print, and Privateer, in not reviewing product have removed the link between advertising and column inches. Old style mags from old style businesses like Future and IPC will be lucky to be around in any format in 10 years time unless they do something drastic. But this is not the sort of drastic that will save them.

[i]When STW were reporting on a show in the last few months they didn't mention On-One so Brant added a comment under the report asking why. Next day On-One had a report from the show all to themselves. Was that paid for? Chance?[/i]

No, it was because I hadn't got any photos of the bikes in my one day at the show. Matt got the chance to see them the following morning and we added another bit to our show coverage that we'd missed.

(Richard Schofield wouldn't let Matt and I into an industry-wide after-party thing that Fewtch put on at Eurobike a few years ago because it 'was a business decision'. We went out and had very nice pizza instead as it wasn't worth arguing the toss.)

Has anyone got a mint sauce keyring I could borrow for a couple of days?

How is this a shock to anyone?

How is this a shock to anyone?

Hot. Piss. Everywhere.

8)

[img] [/img]

I think its interesting that this all happens within 48 hours of the What MTB Editor departing for ventures new...

What tyres for backhand boardroom deals?