Brant just tweeted that the Planet X Dirty Harry bike has been “puuled” post test from a Future Publishing 29er test by Richard Schofield, the Group Publishing Director.
Brant says Richard Schofields own words were “we are here to run a business so those who support us with advertising will get preference”

Obviously I only have the twitter feed to go on that Brant has published, no other info than what I’ve typed above.

But if it’s true – blimey!

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.

Unfortunately impartiality & integrity has disappeared from magazine publishing along with their readership & profits. FP are a long, long way down from their mid-ninties zenith (Amiga Power).

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 unbiased test of the best options available to the consumer 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.

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

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.

Tweets by 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.

😉

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]
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.

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

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 🙂

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/

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