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

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.

Except they didn’t really make it 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 😉

both On One and PX have been reviewed on numerous occasions by Future

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.

Does the fact that this issue has even come up not suggest there is a little more to it than Brant has revealed?

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.

They SHOULD make all of the factors which affect their decision making public IMHO.
“Here at future, we are as fair as we can possibly be in our reviewing. Being a commercial interest, we must also ensure our future(!) and may sometimes give our advertisers priority in supplying bikes and kit for review although the review and rating will be awarded in a completely unbiased manner”
Why have these dirty secrets? be transparent and let us decide if we choose to take any notice of the reviews. We’re addicts, chances are we’ll buy the mag anyway………

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.

well, then again, who is ?

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.

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?

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?

because it was sufficiently removed from the “industry norm” to someone who has worked both sides of the fence that it merited a frustrated tweet?

Hot. Piss. Everywhere.

8)

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?