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

I would also point out that the email Brant has made public no doubt had something similar to this written at the bottom of it.

'The contents and any attachments to it include information that is private and confidential and should only be read by those persons to whom they are addressed.'

How very professional of him to tweet this on a public forum!

I believe you can buy our accounts from Companies house for about a tenner

You need better accountants if you're disclosing that level of detail in your stat accounts!

As I'm sure others have stated (sorry but can't be arsed to read through 4 pages of threads) - this has nothing to do with what actual verdict the bike gets at the end of the review. Its all about how many bikes they have to fit into a particular review - there's limited space, and loads of brands. Advertisers get priority. Big whoop.
Brant should know this more than anyone - its not like he hasn't been on both sides of the fence.

MountainMutant - This is the Future email footer

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please reply to this email and then delete it. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Future.
The recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. Future accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email.
Future may regularly and randomly monitor outgoing and incoming emails and other telecommunications on its email and telecommunications systems. By replying to this email you give your consent to such monitoring.

The email I copied it from is old so it might have changed.

You need better accountants if you're disclosing that level of detail in your stat accounts!

Go blow a tenner and find out 😉

wrecker,

First off I fail to see why you have quoted my first sentence and a small part of the second. If we are considering your original statement, that FP reviews are not the best products available, but only the best products "available from their suppliers", then look at what si and ajr have stated, then that is clearly not the case.

Beyond that I am indeed putting forth my opinion on this issue, of which we do not know the full details. We know that the review was cut after it was completed. If not reviewing non-advertisers products was a policy, then why do the review in the first place? You don't waste money and time reviewing and writing a piece unless you are planning to publish it, so (in my opinion) it must have been cut for other reasons. Now, the reason to remove the on-one section of the test was done on the basis of advertising, as we know.

I decided to see if this issue was mentioned on the bike radar forum, and it is, here: http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10002&t=12844562

In that thread, a WMB journo states that they generally find it hard to get hold of enough stuff to test. That is why I came to the opinion that this case is unusual, in having an over supply of bikes, and being unable to fit every test into the magazine.

I never said I was impartial, no one can be truly impartial, but this is my personal opinion, and I think its justified on the basis of evidence from those who are actually involved in the industry, as I have stated above. I can categorically state that I do not work in, or have any connection to, either the bike industry, or the publishing industry, beyond riding a bike and reading some magazines, which is what you seem to be implying?

From that Bikeradar thread

I have been with WMB for nearly 4 years, have wrote several articles

Go blow a tenner and find out

Have free access so might out of curiosity now!

First off I fail to see why you have quoted my first sentence and a small part of the second. If we are considering your original statement, that FP reviews are not the best products available, but only the best products "available from their suppliers", then look at what si and ajr have stated, then that is clearly not the case.

I have read the whole thread. The whole thread began based on evidence that Future chose to give preference to items from advertisers, at least in terms of editorial space. There is no evidence that I can see that Future provide biased reviews in that editorial space. There is also evidence that Future rarely have too many products to review, which would mean that they rarely have to give preference to one product review over another. There is evidence that they are very happy to review products from companies who do not advertise with them, and to review them favourably if they are good.

We know that someone higher up in Future had decided to exclude the on-one bike on the basis of advertising. Which is not great, but understandable in a way I suppose. I personally don't think that this means that the editorial is biased, these magazines are written by people who like bikes, that's why they got these jobs, and I'm pretty sure that if you asked the staff at your favourite publications (which also include adverts), they would have a lot of respect for people like Steve Worland and Guy Kesteven, who do a lot of the testing for WMB and MBUK respectively.

So long as the reviews themselves are impartial, then the way they choose the products they test is less relevant, at least to me as a consumer. It's not possible to test everything in a particular category anyway, so there always going to be products that don't get reviewed.

pleaderwilliams - Member
So long as the reviews themselves are impartial,

There is no evidence that I can see that Future provide biased reviews in that editorial space.

There is evidence that they are very happy to review products from companies who do not advertise with them, and to review them favourably if they are good.

So long as the reviews themselves are impartial, then the way they choose the products they test is less relevant, at least to me as a consumer.

Whilst I don't think it is that fair to have excluded a product because of a lack of advertising spend, I take far more exception to the lack of professionalism shown by Brant.

How cowardly to post a personal email up on twitter. If I was FP I would never deal with OO / PX again. If business and work emails have to exist in the realm of being posted on twitter/facebook, it changes significantly what you can write. Response from FP was honest, they are a business, Brant got the hump and posted a personal email.

Now....would I buy a bike from someone if I thought an email I sent to their company might find itself on twitter or facebook for a cheap points score? No, I don't think I would....

[i]How cowardly to post a personal email up on twitter.[/i]

except that the bloke from Future had said he was happy for the comments to be put in the public domain?

The tests themselves might be impartial, but headlining a test as "The Best £1,500 Trail Bikes" would be a bit of a lie if the choice of what is included in the test is determined by advertising spend.

Well its a silly headline for any magazine, the only way you could claim that with complete impartiality would be to test every bike available for £1500 or less, which would be hundreds.

The choice may come down to advertising spending, at least in cases when they have more reviews than they can fit in the magazine, but as has been pointed out in this thread, there have been a lot of reviews, mostly positive, of on-one products in future publications, despite no advertising spending, so it clearly doesn't have that much of an effect on content.

So, I take it Brant has stoppered writing his own reviews for future then?

This is the Future email footer

"This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed..."

You naughty boy, awh

I have been with WMB for nearly 4 years, have wrote several articles

First thing that jumped out at me too!

I did see the irony of what I was doing!

aracer - Member

This is the Future email footer

"This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended [b]solely for the use of[/b] the individual or entity to which they are addressed..."

You naughty boy, awh

[img] [/img]

wrecker - Member

Everyone just needs to know that the products Future test are not necessarily the best on the market, but the best available from their advertisers

This is demonstrably cobblers, I've already given examples with numbers earlier in the thread which prove it's not true.

Thing is, next time you read a positive review of a PX/OO product, will you believe it is truthful, or will you think it has merely been bummed up to prevent Brant from having another hissy fit?

[i]si_progressivebikes - Member
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/

Matt, I'm sorry if it looked like i was lumping in STW with that statement, STW have been VERY supportive of Progressive Bikes which i appreciate and have never once insisted on me advertising with you, even though i have done so in the past 🙂

Northwind - Member
This is demonstrably cobblers, I've already given examples with numbers earlier in the thread which prove it's not true.

YES Northwind. I demand you tell us how much you get paid to moderate on Bike Radar. I bet you allow more latitude to people who buy their mags.

It's very fair to say that he's not impartial, do you disagree?

wrecker - Member

No. You haven't.

Yes, I have. Despite the whining, On One have had a lot of (good) reviews in WMB and MBUK. How many adverts did they have to place to earn all those reviews?

Oh- Titus review in this month, that's the 3rd since PX took them over I think... Must be the ads.

[img] [/img]

Aye, I'm a mod on Bikeradar, do you think I'm an employee or something? 😆 I was asked to mod there because I use the forum a lot and I'm not a bellend. In return I get, er, nothing. Why on earth would you think that makes me less impartial?

If this was less ridiculous I might be offended. But some people just like to imagine conspiracies I guess. Who else is in it?

Yes, I have. Despite the whining, On One have had a lot of (good) reviews in WMB and MBUK. How many adverts did they have to place to earn all those reviews?

Oh- Titus review in this month, that's the 3rd since PX took them over I think... Must be the ads.

If this was less ridiculous I might be offended. But some people just like to imagine conspiracies I guess. Who else is in it?

Aye, you're absolutely right, "the products Future test are not necessarily the best on the market, but the best available from their advertisers". Except from all the ones that aren't.

But that'll just be me being corrupt I'm sure. You are some piece of work...

You are some piece of work...

What hard man stuff? Just so you know, the thread in your head doesn't seem to be the same as the one on the screen.

Haven't read the whole thread so some/all of this may have already been said.

Refusing to review a bike doesn't necessarily mean a test result is biased, just that the products tested doesn't necessarily cover the whole market. This is a conversation point covered by this very magazine recently with their lights test.

However, it would seem likely that there'd be no such thing as a 'bad review'. Advertising may not alter the winner but could taint the opinion of the loser.

My opinion is to treat everything you ever read with a pinch of salt. Don't just look at what's being said but always consider why it's being said and what hasn't been said. That goes for everything in life.

And you've clearly not read the thread.

On One have had a lot of (good) reviews in WMB and MBUK

[i]I have not questioned the impartiality of the reviews[/i].

How many adverts did they have to place to earn all those reviews

[i]Again, I've not suggested that they don't review products from non-advertising companies. What is in question is how they select the products, as druidh points out above[/i]

All of your points have been answered before you even asked them, but you still asked.

🙄

Surely now only a matter of time before someone mentions Hitler. ([url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law ]Godwin's Law[/url].)

Thanks for your input 🙄

wrecker - Member

Everyone just needs to know that the products Future test are not necessarily the best on the market, but the best available from their advertisers

Pick up this issue of MBUK, discover you are wrong, move on.

Now I appreciate you've tried to distance yourself from this post in later comments, but this is what you said, and as I said, it's cobblers.

There's a word in there; necessarily. I think you missed it.
Put the comic down, let go of doddys hand and move on.

It's all opinion innit the storys that fly around in any industry border on laughable.