MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
I was chatting recently with someone about how articles get in magazines, who pays for flights, what's entailed and what's promised and I was shocked, which is probably my naivety.
However, it seems pretty strange that every year we have new marketing hyperbole spouted about the latest crop of bikes, shoes, pedals etc given that the changes are not actually that great (on the whole) and that if you were crap on a £2K bike, you will still be crap on a £10K bike and e-bikes don't really make you smile more.
What do you think, should there be greater transparency on how articles are put in front of us? Who paid for what trip? How many people went on a jolly for how long? How it was decided to feature brand a over brand b or location x over location z?
Is it even possible or desirable?
I was chatting recently with someone about how articles get in magazines, who pays for flights, what’s entailed and what’s promised and I was shocked, which is probably my naivety.
Yep naive, people review what they are given and when a launch trip is organised people go for a chance to review the goods. At the moment through there are not that many bad bikes though. Though were the lies and manipulation is I'm not sure - it could even be libellous 😉
I thought this was going to be about the "Brexit Dividend".
https://singletrackworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/declaring-an-interest/
So we’re taking the pioneering step of always stating (and thanking) where any help has come from when writing our features. Nothing has particularly changed; we’re just lifting the curtain more. Sometimes we’ve taken a flight, or been provided a hotel room – and often that’s the only way we can afford to travel to places. Sometimes a guide has shown us around. And often we’ve been bought meals. Just how free those meals are will probably depend on your point of view, but in the name of transparency, whenever we’ve had some kind of help with a feature (with transport or hotels or guiding or whatever) then we’ll tell you. And if a feature was provided for the magazine for free, or in exchange for adverts or coverage, we’ll tell you that too.
Given the standard, inconsistency and subjectivity of reviews, I give them **** all heed (not that I've bought a new bike for a loooooong time)
News articles, etc are useful for learning about new products - I wouldn't necessarily put any stock in whether they say the product is any good or not (for anything, not just bikes!) so in that sense, no transparency doesn't bother me. I just assume there are backhanders lol. Actual user reviews, mates recommendations, chat on here, Amazon reviews etc much reliable IME
I agree with most of what you have written there OP ...but as a non owner I can absolutely guarantee that ebikes do put a smile on your face .
Transparency ? Its never going to happen
I thought this was going to be about the “Brexit Dividend”.
Me too.
Given the standard, inconsistency and subjectivity of reviews, I give them **** all heed...
I think you have to apply what you know to the review. With that in mind, most reviews do contain worth, but also plenty of crap and filler.
Quite a few of the American biking sites put a comment at the end of the piece along the lines of: "XXX sent us this <insert item description here> free of charge for the purposes of the review". DCRainmaker says something like "As usual XXX sent this item for review. Once I've finished I'll ship it back to XXX and purchase one out of my own money".
The difficulty comes in deciding whether any particular freebie or loan of gear has an unwarranted influence on what gets written.
Just treat everything and everyone with a healthy level of contempt.
I thought this was going to be about the “Brexit Dividend”.
May your dog contract the gonorrhoea.
When I bum it.
Picked the first bike review I came across, can't see a disclaimer though?
The difficulty comes in deciding whether any particular freebie or loan of gear has an unwarranted influence on what gets written.
Two journos I know were vehement in their honesty and integrity. They don't work in the industry anymore, but I'd be interested on their take on paid trips etc.
The flipside is that products are generally very good now; fluffing is not such an issue it was 15 years ago.
I'm not sure it's desirable to aim for that sort of disclosure because no one takes them that seriously in the first place? I don't read mountain bike magazines, but isn't a review just a chance to look at some nice pictures and see what's going on in the industry? Hard to give much weight to a cycling journalist's review when you could post on here and get real viewpoints from 20 people who own the bike on their own terms.
That's not without its biases either, as obv we all have vested interests in liking the bike we just spent 3 grand of hard earned on, but it's a far, far more dynamic, informative and interactive way of talking about bikes. I can understand taking a bike review at face value in 1994 or something, we all did - gatekeepers of information and all that, but it doesn't have the same value nowadays.
Actual user reviews, mates recommendations, chat on here, Amazon reviews etc much reliable IME
When the torch battery burned out a room at Glenmore Lodge somebody found the amazon listing for the torch.
The review was something like worked out, battery caught fire while charging would buy again 4*
Some of the real life reviews come across as I just spent x it's awesome as I don't want to knock it as I'll need to flog it on 🙂
I've no experience in how Bike marketing works, but Cars and Tech I wouldn't believe much of what you read in some publications. At least some of the Car ones will offer follow-up pieces "well, we've told you how it drives on an all-expenses paid trip to the Pyrenees where they've just relaid the road and they got his drunk in a lovely hotel, here's what it's like in Lewisham on a rainy Tuesday afternoon".
As for fancy consumer Tech, they should perhaps put at the bottom "this lovely bit of white plastic and circuit boards we love so much? Well, yeah they don't ask for them back, and we're fairly sure anything lower than 4 out of 5 and they will"
actually that reminds me, one of the few news/reviews blogs I do trust is DC Rainmaker, partly because he stresses that he ALWAYS sends review items back, and buys it out of his own money if he wants to keep it.As for fancy consumer Tech, they should perhaps put at the bottom “this lovely bit of white plastic and circuit boards we love so much? Well, yeah they don’t ask for them back, and we’re fairly sure anything lower than 4 out of 5 and they will”
People read magazines?
Regarding the bike world I always find Guy Kesteven 's reviews to be good. Seems to tell it like it is and knows his stuff. Also a nice bloke.
and generally I like the detail and honesty in the pinkbike reviews
https://www.pinkbike.com/news/review-commencals-new-meta-am-29-team.html
“well, we’ve told you how it drives on an all-expenses paid trip to the Pyrenees where they’ve just relaid the road and they got his drunk in a lovely hotel, here’s what it’s like in Lewisham on a rainy Tuesday afternoon”.
lol, yes exactly!
I know what you mean about taking things with a pinch of salt but constant, subtle, product placement works or the movies would have packed it in years ago. I guess that this exactly the point of 'looking at the pictures' too. You don't even have to read the articles.
I know what you mean about the reviewers being honest and the bikes all being good. I agree but I think the bikes have been good for a few years now. However, I don't think I've never seen anyone say: "actually if you just sessioned some tech, practiced a bit more or got £200's worth of training you'd improve loads more than spending another £5K on this new bike.".
As for the e-bikes, I'm glad (kinda) that you're enjoying them. I hope you don't have the mechanical nightmares that my mates have had. Personally, they couldn't make me smile anymore than a regular bike... it's just not possible!
I’m not sure anything is really true any more :(. I’ve just looked at the site not logged in and seen adverts for something that pretends to be bike storage. I’m not sure the words premium and secure mean what I thought they did. Oh well...
One of the reasons that bike mags* have had their day. You can read more detailed, specific and honest reviews online. Same goes for route guides and riding tales.
*other subjects are similarly affected.
One of the reasons that bike mags* have had their day. You can read more detailed, specific and honest reviews online. Same goes for route guides and riding tales.
Yeah, I thought that too with all the user generated content about these days but apparently their demands have got even worse.
However, I don’t think I’ve never seen anyone say: “actually if you just sessioned some tech, practiced a bit more or got £200’s worth of training you’d improve loads more than spending another £5K on this new bike.”.
Pretty sure I have at various times over the years. That’s from around 1988 up to, mmmm, eight or nine years ago, when I cut back on my magazine buying, which was costing me a fortune. Please, don’t even think about asking for examples, the magazines, Bike (USA), Singletrack, MBUK and a bunch of others went long ago.