Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
15 hours riding is what Rockshox used to say between servicing too when their forks were rubbish. Of course, no-one ever did it so they all failed.
I'm confused.
RS forks performance and build quality is now better but they need less servicing.
Are Fox Forks, although 'plush', no better than the shoddy old RS forks?
Anyone with more money than sense want to buy a pair of RS Psylos?
My '08 Toras advised 15 hr servicing intervals I believe...
Of course the scrotes had that bike before I could see if it was needed...
had my 04 van 32s pushed ( by tf tuned ) the other year they added a boxxer seal on top of the standard fox part so the fork now has oil seal and wiper much better.
Ive been riding Fox for years & never had a problem, never, not once ever. Its like all kit - just needs looking after. If you expect your equipment to go on forever with zero user input then go ride a fully rigid singlespeed!
1 question for all the people have have no problems with thier forks have you stripped them down? as when I killed my Vanilla's they looked OK until you stripped them down and then you could see the wear on the stanchion.
So while you think they are fine, you might have actually already knackered them, its just you haven't looked.
My SO has Fox Floats on her new bike, and if they have worn through she is happy to try and get them fixed under warranty as unfit for purpose.
[i]and if they have worn through she is happy to try and get them fixed under warranty as unfit for purpose.[/i]
Good point.
and if they have worn through she is happy to try and get them fixed under warranty as unfit for purpose.
Ah, warranty issues and Mojo. Always an interesting experience.
And yes, I'm aware that officially your warranty is with the place you brought them from and not the importer but thats not always the reality.
You go to shop -> shop send them to Mojo -> Mojo say "incorrect/lack of maintenance" - > shop says "no dice".
As richc has said most of the problems with worn stanchions occur at the bottom of the stanchion so you can't actually see it. I had a pair of Vans on my SS and had to replace the crown assembly after the stanchions wore out. The new ones lasted just over a year and the same happened again. Fox said (or at least the distributor in Germany)that having them fully serviced every six months was not enough to cover them under warranty which is why I now have RS but I have to say as far as pure performance (not including reliability) goes the Fox's are better.
Fox advertise their forks in bike magazines, a fair bit as well. Would you write negative reviews on Fox forks when they give you current and future money? Great to be impartial but not at the expense of your journo-job.
Oh for FFffff.....
I really should have learned by now not to let this regular type of made up conspiracy theory blox get me annoyed..
I've explained the system of journos and kit and stuff in huge detail in the past..
All I'll say now.. since this is a direct attack on mine as well as the integrity of the people Chipps and I employ (not to mention the professional journos we all know personally from the other mags)..
That's complete made up blox. Reviews are not influenced by advertising. I know this because I've been in the job of reviews for over 10 years.. across many magazines... To say otherwise is to call me a liar. Hora.. back it up with evidence or shut up!
Mark I don't want to question your integrity with respect to the advertising, but how come I have never seen a tested product been received as crap or rubbish. They must be one they can't all be perfect?
Possibly because manufactureres make damn sure that the products sent to magazines for review are going to work perfectly?
Mark, are the big magazines owned by international companies? Do they have teams of sales agents taking calls from advertisers, canvassing potential advertisers with rate cards at hand etc etc etc? Surely, its fair to assume that the Financial-types lean on certain articles to lessen a review etc?
I have seen reviews of kit with a fullpage ad from the same manufacturer in the same mag before. Surely coincidence or was a series of calls made saying the article on the latest kit will be favourable as you are running an ad etc???
Call me cynical but Im sure it does go on. If a certain bike/kit manufacturer doesnt advertise with a certain mag surely open to a more critical review? Sorry if its conjecture and pure pie in the sky cynicism from an industry outsider.
Ps. Im not insinuating everyone do this Mark. I know at STW you try to keep the advertising/content mix in the mag down for a start.. Just saying it must go on in the industry. 🙂
I don't think any such leaning goes on. I've never worked in bike journalism, but have been a hack for years and journo/PR relations just don't work like that.
For the record, the line that gets me suspicious in reviews (in any mag) is "we had problems with the fork and the manufacturer insisted we had a pre-production sample".
Of course were this about favorable Specialized reviews in MBR the tinfoil hat wearing masses would be out in full strength.
there have been poor reviews of things in stw, personally I think in general most items on bikes today are brill. slx shifters unheard of quality and performance 10 years ago, most bikes are good to ride people like certain systems more than others me horst link great single pivot not my cup of tea, vpp like giants but not santa cruz or intense, personal choice, disc brakes do what they are meant to, stop go stop go sometimes leak but great. So journos like some stuff more than others, so what I take it as an indication and then try before I buy wheer possible.
So I avoid fox forks why....bad experience when they first came out and now nearly £800 new sorry too expensive, been happy with old Mazs and newer RS, mind you my wife is still running a set of RS 100mm sids from the last century highly reliable and been chucked down several mountain ranges in the last decade. I ride with what I like and know so for me Maz, RS, Magura forks Shimano, Hope hubs, Magura brakes, easton, thomson, SDG, giro, dialled bikes bars,. all FAF stuff.
"One day PACE will make a freeride DH fork and we can all be happy. I'd kill for a PACE built Totem-esque fork".
you'll need a new mortgage to buy them.
Its weird reading this thread nobody has mentioned Magura forks, been running Durins and Thors for a while now and they have been great. They are both super plush but I do run the Thors with the Albert select on (all the time)with the threshold set on minimum.
Marzocchi were really good (slightly heavy) but since moving production to the Far East they don't work as well.
As for the reviews I'm with Mark on this one I feel the ones I've met at the shows are decent people, but I have been present when a certain MBR journo said to an importer while I was in his shop "the only company who know how to make forks is Fox", which to me seems a bold statement.
Surely, its fair to assume that the Financial-types lean on certain articles to lessen a review etc?
No! Hora.. how can I be any clearer! It is NOT fair to assume that when you have no idea.. no evidence.. no experience of it happening.. you are making a totally unfounded assertion that some of the people I work with or have worked with are corrupt. To write a review that is not true or does not reflect the honest opinion of the reviewer is corrupt and dishonest. You are ASSUMING that some of the people I have worked with and do work with are corrupt and dishonest based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever. I find that hugely insulting and I think you should either back up your accusations with evidence or withdraw it. If I stepped into your office and said out load that I assume that members of your staff were corrupt I'd expect a hell of a backlash and maybe a good kicking! Produce evidence for your theory or withdraw it!
Ad sales employees absolutely do NOT influence the editorial opinions of product reviewers in any UK magazine from my experience. And my experience is frankly quite comprehensive. I've been a freelancer for lots of mags as a product reviewer.. I've been a product reviewer on staff and I am now an employer of product reviewers. I have also been involved with ad sales and marketing of mags. I speak from a position of some experience where you do not. So you can imagine I take offence at this conspiracy theory that mag reviews are influenced by ad sales. It simply does not work like that. It couldn't work like that. It just would not be a viable or concealable option.
I've made this offer before and still no one has ever taken me up on it.. but if there is anyone who still thinks that there is some link between editorial opinion and ad sales then get in touch with me and I'll arrange for you to come and spend a day in our office and you can see how it all works for real.
but I have been present when a certain MBR journo said to an importer while I was in his shop "the only company who know how to make forks is Fox", which to me seems a bold statement.
There's a big difference between dishonesty and corruption and stupid arrogance.
Mark I never said you worked that way. I just said I find it wierd when a mag has say a big fullpage ad from say Specialized and a favourable review all in the same issue.
I apologise to you (please remember I did also add that I was potentially talking conjecture and pure pie in the sky cynicism) 😉
Forgive me?
Wow 'sootyandJim' you summed up my warranty experience perfectly.
6 months old, bugger all use and the shop just said that there is nothing they can do about i and I am left with a shitty fox fork that cost over £500
Mags would give a different review if they had to service them every couple of long rides or pay a hundreds to get the stanchions replaced every six months.
Advertisers will deliberately run ads in an issue that they know will have a review of their product in it. That's just a marketing strategy to backup a review. I took a call on Friday from KE Adventure travel. The conversation can be summed up thus...
'If I'd known you were running a piece that featured one of our trips I'd have told the marketing dept. to run and ad in this issue.'
This is common everywhere in all magazines across the world. That's a long way from suggesting that a company will lean on a journo to change his opinion based on whether or not an ad is going to be placed. The majority of mags also have a policy of not releasing a review to a manufacturer before it goes to print. We have been asked by some manufacturers if they could see the review before it goes to print. We always say no. As do the mags I have worked on in the past. To do that would just end up with the editorial team being cross examined on every point and nuance of the review. It's a bit like why we don't discuss moderator decisions on the forum - it just ends up in needless arguing and questioning.
Look... we are one of the least organised mag outfits out there.. I'll admit that.. but even we have a yearly plan that details what bikes we want to review in each issue. This list then goes out into the industry and brands will use it to plan their ad spend. They will target the mags that they know their product will be in but this is done well in advance of the bike even getting to the reviewer. That's how it works here and like I say, our level of planning and organisation is frankly shite compared to other mags.
So in short. Yes.. you will likely see an ad from a manufacturer in the same issue their product is reviewed. But this is just the manufacturer backing up a review with their own marketing to try and increase the awareness of the product or brand.
Ah right. Got it. I understand that now.
[i]Mags would give a different review if they had to service them every couple of long rides or pay a hundreds to get the stanchions replaced every six months.[/i]
MBUK etc do have longterm bike tests. There dont seem to be any issues arising though?
[i]Maybe a member of the ST editorial team could clue us in to how long forks are usually tested for reviews?[/i]
Anything between 2 months (for fork group tests - that we try not to do) and 4 months upwards for one-off "Grinder" reviews.
Although if we test them for much longer than 6-7 months then we run the risk of the review being obsolete by the time the mag comes out! 🙂
I hear Bill Odie has seen the Common Spotted Backpeddling Hora in the Manchester area.
I know this is OT but one of my gripes with car mags (Autocar etc) are the lack of real longterm tests (their fleet lasts 10,000-20,000miles) before they replace. Ben from above I guess inpart they have to stay relavent/uptodate and cover the latest cars. The only exception was the Merc E class estate they bought and ran. Anyway, this is O/T.
Is there a place for the second hand mark buyers or those who buy later in the year... the sales, so for those people tests that do last longer than 6 -7 months would be invaluable.
Intresting insight into the world of magazines though
hora, it's a review, it's designed to cover some of the operating aspects of the products, it's purpose is to help your decision making, not to be some sort of on-going testimony.
Fox stantions have been a well known "issue" since Fox first started making forks, surely there's enough info about to make folk aware of what they're getting when they buy a Fox fork. Even Mojo themselves tell you to store the bike upside down, enough of a give away to make even the slowest, dimwitted biker aware that this is something they need to pay attention to.
Why is it that the anodising wear problem does not seem to happen on Fox rear shocks? The anodising on the shock shaft is darker than on forks - why don't they put the same stuff on the forks?
Also, having serviced both Fox 36 and RS Pikes I consider the Fox forks to be much better made and for what it's worth the Fox forks have 10ml more lubrication oil in them.
As for the oil seal in the RS this prevents the foam ring that helps to lubricate the seal from rewetting with oil when the forks are stored upside down. The only worn stantion incident I have suffered is on a set of Pikes although friends have suffered wear on predominantly 32 series Fox forks.
There's a video of Tim Flooks performing this procedure on a Boxer and I think he advises a 10-15 hour interval so it's not just Fox. All "semi-bath" forks need some loving...
nickc why would everyone know that unless you read alot online or have already experienced problems?
The other thing that gets me is that you pay anywhere between £200-600 for set of forks (I know you can get them outside that range, but bear with me).
Then, you're supposed to do basic services every 15 hours (£35) and a full service once a year. Send away a set of forks to Mojo or TFT and you rarely get any change out of £100, and if you've worn anything it will be parts on top. So what I'm saying here is that you pay anywhere between 23% (ish) and 67% (ish) of the value of forks per year in servicing, and this is for a product less than three years old. Imagine paying that percentage for servicing on your new car? Do you think the public would put up with that? I strongly doubt it.
And before someone points out that we ride MTB's in awful conditions, what about your car? How often do you really clean the shocks/dampers? Think of the forces involved with supporting a cars weight at speed with potholes? What about a 4x4 such as a Land/Range Rover? They don't cost that much to service each year.
if fox think our riding conditions are too extreme for their forks and we have too much mud(winter mud,spring mud,summer mud,autumn mud) and they need servicing every 15 hours of riding (that would be once a week for me) shouldn,t they be stating this more openly or should they just say not suitable for uk,
Summary:
If you ride fox forks store your bike upside down, if you ride Marzocchi, Rock Shox, Magura or others you don't really need to worry.
With all forks its a good idea to clean them off with a hose not a pressure washer or with that "easy bike cleaner" stuff but just wash them off then run some oil around the stanchion, compress the fork a few times, wipe off the muck, repeat until satisfied.
anything to add?
mmmm.
I'm in charge of marketing at a little known US sporting goods company, which means I oversee the product that goes for review and who we advertise with. For anyone to claim total separation of advertising and reviewing is frankly utter bollocks.
If I couldn't exert some leverage over the magazine who reviews our kit you can be damn sure they'd not get kit to review or adverts placed with them.
Maybe if all the gear was sent for review under plain wrapper with no logos or distinguishing marks on it, magazines could claim this independence, but it isn't. Reviewers and magazine staff are glad handed, you get 'trade accommodation' pricing and a whole host of other benefits from the manufacturers. Hell we're just about to take 4 magazines out 'somewhere sunny' to review and test some of the upcoming season's kit. If I didn't think doing this somewhere sunny had a positive effect on the review I wouldn't do it.
Maybe Singletrack employs a double blind testing regime with reviewers who exist outside of the industry whom cannot be 'affected', but i don't think they do.....
None of which means that any company can 'buy' a good review of course, just that there are multiple ways and means of assuring the 'most favourable' possible outcome.
I guess your all "engineers" that are blaging service intervals ? or to tight/stupid to understand that high end stuff needs looking after, and spending some time looking after your stuff will prelong the life of it. which i'm more than happy to do for the performance gains of using a certain brand of suspension
That's total crap!
Yes, we get treated nicely by bike companies and we get offers of trips here there and everywhere but EVERYONE does that. We are not short of free kit and if one company doesn't supply it there are countless others who will. So there's no motivation to bend a review to suit a brand and you are deluding yourself if you think that works!
I'll state again.. I've been involved in the journo side of reviews for over ten years with numerous mags. I know pretty much ALL the journos in the UK bike industry very well and we have some of the most respected and experienced reviewers in the world here. I've had this discussion with many of them many times over.
And for the record...
If I couldn't exert some leverage over the magazine who reviews our kit you can be damn sure they'd not get kit to review or adverts placed with them.
Don't send it to us then, you'll be wasting your time.
I don't have a problem with looking after stuff, but if I go away riding for a weekend and void my warranty as I didn't service my forks mid-ride seems a little harsh.
15 hours is a joke, like I posted earlier my SO has some on her bike, if they are knackered in < 18 months, and Mojo refuse to replace them under warranty, then I guess we can see what happens whey they are taken to court, as she has zero issues with getting her trainee to do the litigation as 'experience' 😉
Personally, I prefer riding to stripping my forks down once a week, so I will be avoiding Fox and buying RockShox/Magura as you get the same level of performance for less cash, and they appear to be able to survive the harsh UK environment without needing to strip them down every other ride.
Lets be honest, whether its true or not, and I can't tell either way conclusively, any review magazine operator is going to deny it to their dying breath as it would present a bad image. I know for a fact that, having imported and developed a bike product, then tried to get it reviewed by one of the major magazines, we were informed by them over the phone that if we purchased more space we could expect that to be reflected in the review. Due to the fact that the business was working on a shoestring we couldn't purchase more space and the review never happened, we never even got a call back. Such is life, those who shout loudest tend to get heard.
I think the point that sq225917 was trying to make was that the things that companys' do to try to ensure more favourable reviews aren't necessarily things that you would notice. I'm sure a journalist will be in a better mood if he's in a nice hotel somewhere hot do do a review that in a tent in siberia (unless he's reviewing a tents perfomance in siberian conditions!). I also suspect that manufactures treat journalists differently when it comes to problems in long term tests comapred to us proles. So in short, you may not realise that you reviews are being influenced (thats the sign of a good marketing department), but they are.
Well, although I'll still disagree, I can see the logic in that.. But that is still a long way from a journo deliberately writing something that they know not to be true or even just bending the review to deliberately show the company in a light that doesn't actually reflect their true opinion on the product, which is the insinuation originally made. As for the 'if you advertise we'll write good things about your product' line, all I can say is that will have been an ad sales person you were talking to presumably and not the person reviewing the product.
The danger of a subconsiously biased review is greatest with new journos with little experience. They can suffer from the 'wow!' factor of getting something expensive for free. A good editor will spot that though and rebalance the review. Grouptests are a good way to 'break in' a new journo as testing a big list of similar products forces him/her to make relative comparisons that tend to reduce the 'wow! free stuff!' syndrome. But the majority of the journos in the UK are really quite experienced and some would say, 'jaded' 🙂 It's hard to impress or influence one of those with fancy trips and expensive kit. My first paying job as a journo was to test tyres. That's a great way to break new blood in as they are by far the most awkward and bloody annoying items to test, especially when you have 40 pairs of them like I did. By the end of that I wanted to burn the lot of them! 🙂
Now... for the conspiracy theorists, I will say that I have had experience of companies not having product featured or reviewed (so called 'black listed') at all in 'A N Other' mag because they DIDN'T advertise, which I think is quite atrocious, but even that is not the same as a journo writing something they know to be untrue or biased.
I know for a fact that, having imported and developed a bike product, then tried to get it reviewed by one of the major magazines, we were informed by them over the phone that if we purchased more space we could expect that to be reflected in the review.
Name and shame then.
If I was employing said ad sales person I'd have sacked them for that.
Done approx 30 off road miles a week for the last 6 years all year round on a mixture of 32's and 36's and never had any problem with them at all, never serviced them either (although I tend to sell them on after a couple of years and replace with a newer fork).
[i]with reviewers who exist outside of the industry whom cannot be 'affected', but i don't think they do[/i]
I reckon I qualify under that, as do several other Singletrack reviewers. I've always tested kit on home turf, not industry press launches.
And Singletrack never review any product after just riding it at a Press Launch. All our reviews are done on home turf over a decent length of time and (for bigger things like bikes/forks/etc) with a few different riders trying them out.
How magazines from other sports (eg. skiing/snowboarding) choose to do things I wouldn't know.
Name and shame then.
Well I can't claim to remember the persons name and it was about 8 years ago, so it doesnt seem fair to lumber the current magazine with the outfall when I've not experienced it since. I think it was THE biggest selling MTB mag in the UK at the time though, and for the foreseable future, so that should help.
Nice to know ST is done properly (not that I'd expect you to claim otherwise, but also not that I'd accuse you of lying either) - this is why I'd tend to trust smaller mags and word of mouth over any magazine review though. All I want my magazines to do is go to places, show me, inspire me and maybe sell me some bits by their tech specs alone. I'm probably odd though.
Diving- Friend of mine gets sized up and taken away by manufacturers/Magazines, dives then gives his opinions. They do this with a few such people the collate/discuss what each person thought then publish in their mag. The manufacturer gets realtime and good feedback to help develop further.
Seems fair really- and he assures me hes not a total ginea pig!
Sobriety, exactly..
Here's my response to Matt's email.
Matt, It wasn't a personal slight at Singletrack and I didn't question your or anyone else's integrity at the magazine. But in my experience, no matter how much a magazine claims otherwise it is impossible to separate the two. You are after all the Advert Manager and a staff writer...? 😉
I don't doubt your integrity for one minute, and that you truly believe that you have the separation in place, but the truth is, you probably don't, you really can't have, it's beyond the ability of human nature not to be influenced. It's simply impossible, unless you take no freebies that forget to be returned, no trips away, and all gear is reviewed externally by none staff members, outside of the industry and submitted under 'plain cover'. If you couldn't be influenced subtly then what the hell do we as manufacturers/distributors hope to gain from trying to influence others through advertising?
I'm sure you've thrown accounts because of reviews and I applaud that, but it's not what I was talking about. I was talking about the art of building relationships between the marketing depts of manufacturers and magazines; the subtle interplay between supplier and reviewer, not the crass, obvious stuff, but the subtle stuff, ie. way in which we prepare you for receipt of a new item, wind your springs, make you feel you've earned the right to review the product rather than just been supplied with it, and a whole host of other subtle psychological techniques that a marketing/product contact will use to ensure the most favourable review possible.
If you don't think you're being played, then there are two potential truths to this situation, you either hate everyone and everything and have no buttons to push, or you are being played.
Simon..
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=roMxTYVxj98
Wow. Who's deluding themselves now? You really overestimate the power that distributors have over journos! 🙂
sq225917:
I'm in charge of marketing at a [b]little known[/b] US sporting goods company, which means I oversee the product that goes for review and who we advertise with.
If I couldn't exert some leverage over the magazine who reviews our kit you can be damn sure they'd not get kit to review or adverts placed with them.
So, have you considered whether there's any relationship between the company that you work for being little known, and your demands for leverage before advertising, or allowing your product to be reviewed?
I'm not a fan of "quick look" reviews, you know the kind; pop photo, short copy full of pally soundbites. Yes its all well and good to have a "new products" update, I find it interesting but it would be more interesting if it just stuck to being factual, ie: sizes available, retail price, launch date, replaces which previous model, advantages over previous incarnation, etc yes it may be slightly duller than teen mags that give away stickers and alike but I think that (bottom) of the market is pretty much saturated 😀
Genuine reviews, like "the grinder" are a feature that I like, long term tests are great, but how about adding "long term rider reviews/service tips" even if its just a section on the forum? you could add a forum tab called "the shed"?? god knows, at the moment I hate everyone and everything so I'm probably not the best qualified to be driveling about this, I'm off out to shout at the snow!
Ben, I'm glad you no longer feel threatened because i clarified my position so that it didn't sound like i was casting aspersions on Singletrack, just a shame you couldn't be a little more magnanimous about it, without feeling the need to take the opportunity to try and be mildly offensive.
Vinnyeh, I was actually down playing it when I said 'little known', i see no need to justify my viewpoint by stating who i work for.
I'm not interested in who you are working for- it would be a touch unrealistic to expect you to name them when you've explained the marketing practices you use.
However you did use the phrase 'little known' - I took that to have the commonly accepted meaning, and merely enquired as to whether your approach was getting the desired results.
I'm not too sure what you mean by 'justify my viewpoint...' etc.
"I find it wierd when a mag has say a big fullpage ad from say Specialized and a favourable review all in the same issue."
LOL. It's neither conspiracy nor coincidence. Big successful companies tend to do two things: - make good products and advertise them.
Does anyone here really think Specialized (usually the ones cited in these arguments) makes rubbish bikes? Is it really that surprising that their bikes get good reviews? Is it really that surprising that they advertise a lot?
It might be weird or suspicious if they hardly ever advertised, but in the one month they did, their usually or obviously rubbish product got a great review, but that's just not the reality.
Thanks Dave that is why I like and buy singletrack because I feel that soem of the testing is done by ordinary bods, possibly better skill level than me but not full time journos, I feel it is a more honest approach possibly mixed with a touch of realism of where we ride, northern grit and so on, I also like the fact singletrack still responds online and has kept integrity in the 'product'. Long may it continue.
[b]WHY DO ALL THE MAGS RATE FOX FORKS?[/b]
.
.
.
.
.
TBH? If I could afford 2009 Fox forks I'd rate them to the max. As it is I can't afford them so I'm limited to pressing my nose against the shop window glass and staring in..Value for money - go for Pikes/Mazz pre-2007. Otherwise the future is ££$$££..
Vinnyeh, sorry, justify was the wrong turn of phrase, 'valiadate; might have been more accurate. It's not the marketing practices 'we' use, everyone does, at least the successful brands, regardless of their field.
Is sq225917 working in the US or UK? I've noticed things seem to be a bit different in the US. I bought a mag last time I was there and it featured a few bikes, but they weren't really reviews - just long adverts. There was patently nothing objective in them at all, and I found this quite shocking.
I would suggest that in the UK at least there are so few MTB magazines that the manufacturers need the ad space, rather than the other way round. You can only use something as a bargaining chip if the other party needs it more than you do. If you don't advertise in say MBR, then you are missing a massive chunk of the MTBing population, and probably most of the spending power.
Sq, I think you should keep quiet before you get a solicitor having a chat with you!!
I don't know how you have kept calm, Mark.
I would like to know what products sq225917 sells, so I can keep well away from them. Obviously they can't be good enough on their own merit and need bribery and coertion to sell any at all.
Hasn't anyone ever noticed a bike review which has rated the product as poor, with the manufacturers advert near it? I have, and always wondered why they bothered advertising when the review was unfavourable. Why did they? Because, as Mark says, there is no link between the advertising revenue and the review.
And I can back up his claim about ST being disorganized, their last place was a tip! Great coffee, cheers guys. 🙂
Sq, I think you should keep quiet before you get a solicitor having a chat with you!!
On what basis?
I don't believe Sq accused Singletrack Mag directly of anything.
Rob, Please try to a least read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote.
Please point out where I stated that bribery or coercion were required to sell any product or that I advised trying them.
I'll state it one more time for those at the back who are having trouble understanding.
There are a multitude of different, positive ways in which you can 'unduly' influence the outcome of a review, without having to resort to any 'negative' tactics. A good product manager will know the review staff on his magazines intimately and ensure that he does all he can to punch their happy buttons when they are reviewing his product.
Rob, companies will have an advert next to a poor review because they book spreads of adverts and get a lower rate for say 6 or 12 issues than they do by spotting ads on an ad hoc basis. You can't just pull a single advert from an issue when you have a 12 month contract. Well you can but you'd look like a dick, after a few poor reviews you'd be pulling your adverts anyway.
I wasn't talking about making shit products seem better than they are, I was talking about what makes the difference between the leader and the good also rans. It's What makes Specialized and Burton for example, different from say Trek or Nitro Snowboards, and why Fox gets so much press when their products aren't exactly built to last.
Molgrips, I'm UK based geographically, but work for a US company with a global reach.
splitting hairs there sq, sure you didn't directly state that bribery and coercion were used to sell your product. You did however state
If I couldn't exert some leverage over the magazine who reviews our kit you can be damn sure they'd not get kit to review or adverts placed with them.
To me the implications are (and please correct me as to what your intentions were, if I'm misreading):
that either you personally or the company you work for expect some positive return for providing review product and/or purchasing advertising, above and beyond an unbiased review.
If that's not the case, then what purpose does this 'leveraging' have but attempting to increase sales through bribery or coecion ie leveraging, unless of course you're receiving kickbacks yourself?
There are some amazingly naive people about if they don't believe gifts and trinkets bestowed in order to create a positive opinion of a company, though not to the extent of trying in affect specific outcome, doesn't go on in the bike industry. It happens in all industries.
Of course the term 'bribe' is too strong a word for what goes on as that in my mind conjures up images of brown envelopes stuffed with used notes but 'corporate hospitality' is a not insignificant industry for a reason. Keeping people you rely on happy is useful.
Vinney - there's a big difference between bribery and 'putting a positive slant on things'.
take someone sunny and have them experience your kit in that environment is going to produce a more favourable response than a wet, blowy thursday in the middle of the moors. not necessarily because the trip is free, but simply because human beings are generally happier when the sun shines. it's the same difference between surly bu66ers trying to sell stuff and a nice looking girl - 'he's a **** but their stuff is alright' or 'lovely norks and great kit too'.
which one makes you feel more positive? it's bound to come out in the writing.
oh, and FWIW i'm not about to spend 50 or a 100 quid a year servicing a fork which costs 2 or 300 quid. i'd rather bin and buy another when it starts playing up. my time is worth more than that.
jeezzz.... this has to be the most boring thread in a while. It's a fork, on a bike. Some work all of the time, badly. And others work well but only some of the time.
It's a fork.
move on, nothing more to see here.......
st - you've posted on our website basically questioning our professional integrity - you should have seen my pre-edited response! 😉
I don't think he's questioning your professional integrity, I'm sure most would agree that the reviews published in ST mag leave those of us mags a little in the shade (and no, thats not an attempt to suck up to the ST crew), its just that although you are reviewers you are also (I believe) human beings.
We humans (even the mighty members of the breed known as reviewers) are fallible creatures and can be coerced both consciously and subconsciously by others through a variety of means to look on those 'others' in a more favorable light.
I don't believe he is suggesting bike companies lean on you with the promise of more 'test camps' in exotic destinations for a favorable review but trying out a new products for the first time in Moab rather than a damp field in Droitwich may unconsciously lead to a better piece of coverage for said item. Admittedly though ST rarely (if ever) gives a comprehensive review on an item in such a honeytrap, perfering it seems to (rightly) hold the full report until you've introduced said item to some UK Slop and Grime.
[i]There are a multitude of different, positive ways in which you can 'unduly' influence the outcome of a review, without having to resort to any 'negative' tactics. A good product manager will know the review staff on his magazines intimately and ensure that he does all he can to punch their happy buttons when they are reviewing his product.[/i]
I'm starting to feel left out now.
I've never met nor heard from the product managers of any kit I've tested. And no one has ever punched my happy button (where is it anyway and am I missing out?)
A bribe would only work if say you had products that were more or less equal and it was a hard choice between 5 equal products. Then you could get away with it. However Manitou would have to provide a minibus full of Czech ladies of the night, a mountain of Coke, many bottles of Jack Daniels and $10,000 in cash. Even then Manitou would finish 4th? 🙄
Re: mark's point about KE advertising alongside the article about one of their adventures:
'If I'd known you were running a piece that featured one of our trips I'd have told the marketing dept. to run and ad in this issue.'
The gist of the article being "we didn't know the trail had been washed down a river 2 weeks previously, we had a miserable old 'ride' and had our arses saved only by the kindness of some locals we luckily chanced upon."
I can't say I am overwhelmed with confidence about a smoothly run riding trip. Were they not better off spending the money advertising in the following issue anyway?
Though oddly for reading the article I am quite keen on riding in Morocco now. Just not with them. 😆
I suppose that the problem is not everything can be tested over a year or so's hard messy riding. So durability is always likely to be missed in reviews.
A possible solution would be to pass on review kit to registered members of the public to thrash for a while and report back on reliability alone - not on riding issues that should have been covered by the experienced reviewer.
Let me be the first to put my name down 🙂
[i]It seems a shame that they just cant improve the manufacturing process to the same level of the competition. While I personally have never had a problem with my old vanillas (03/04?) Ive seen enough worn stancions on some of the air forks.[/i]
Why do you think quality problems are always manufacturing issues? A poor design with all dimensions manufactured to nominal will still make a poor product! Quality starts at the design.
A good product manager will know the review staff on his magazines intimately... ....with a global reach.
the lengths some folk will go to for a little praise eh! 😆
I know a guy who is a competitive rider, goes out with a bunch of superfit full on riders. They all ride hardtails and a few have switched to rigid forks due to failures. They get through so much kit it's astonishing. Some ride single speed too. The focus seems to be on weight saving. Loosing your high-end forks for a pair of Pace RC29's makes a big weight difference! So does loosing a rear cassette, shifters, deraileurs, associated cables and triple chainset. Less to go wrong and no fancy temperamental forks to maintain. They claim that a fully rigid bike is more challenging and yet more connected to the trail.I like the look - free of clutter. Frankly, reading this thread, i'm sold on the idea myself.
So whats the best fork to get then?
Fox