I think Mark did subsequent tweet that it was more that perhaps stw was implicated in this advertising for reviews type malarky that set him off?

Steve Worland appears to be upset too;

I’m pretty good at swallowing pride but I will never be hard-hearted enough to shrug off censored enthusiasm for a genuinely good product

?

Stoner

Sorry to blow the steam off yer poop but my quote about the Salsa Fargo in the current mag had nothing to do with Salsa advertising. I wrote what I genuinely believe. It’s a great bike and I’ve been delighted with mine which I paid full retail for. I did smile when I saw the advert but it had nowt to do with me or what I wrote.

Cheers

Sanny

jimmers – Member

No wonder the c456 got a rock bottom rating from MBUK…

Hah, what absolute toss… Future did give the C456 a (weird) low-ish review but they’ve recently given the Inbred 29er 4-and-a-half which IIRC was a grouptest win… And the Ti 456 got 4-and-a-half as well last year. The Carbon 29er Race, the Scandal 29er, the Summer Season and the original C456 review were all 4s.

But also- they reviewed 12 On Ones since 2010- compare that with 8 Oranges, 8 Boardmen, 11 Canondales… So are On One so hard done by really?

Just last week someone on here was accusing Future of pro-On One bias because they’re all BFFs with Brant 😉

meh
*retracted statement*
See, as with so many things in life, I aint so sure…

Advertising and cover price/subs pay for magazines.

My understanding is that Advertising pays for Adverts, and cover price/subs pay for good editorial.

If good editorial is going to be good, I’d love to assume that it is impartial, but it’d be very naive and utopian to think that. Money oils the wheels. If you read anything and think it;s the truth, I’m sorry, but you’re daft.

The ‘story’ here is that Richard Schofield @ Future Publishing has been silly enough to say that to someone with a market stake who doesn’t advertise.

“Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see” as Benjamin Franklin said. (If you believe me) (Or him)

More biased Dirty Harry nonsense here http://www.minnellium.com/2012/03/lancifornia-2012-the-dust-is-back/#.T3NvZDEgfng

sanny – I dont doubt the fargo is a great frame, and it’s on my fantasy list (and I really, dont doubt Mark et al’s integrity on this). Just next time, maybe the sub editor might want to stick the Salsa a ad a few pages down the block first…for appearances sake 🙂

just joshing, that’s all…

Mate of mine worked for PC Zone and gave a shit game a poor review and was asked by the editor to change it’s rating to at least 70% as the company had £15k of ads.in the mag. He wouldn’t and got sacked.Coincidentally the magazine was eventually bought by Future Publishing.His colleague at the mag. Charlie Brooker went on to better things …

The way I see it, what’s really poor about this story is the pulling it AFTER the test. I can handle that the mags are going to give first preference and attention to advertisers, and this informs who they invite to submit kit for grouptests. But inviting someone to submit a bike, testing it (so it’s costing, that’s one less new bike to sell) and then not printing it really stinks.

And that is where the editorial integrity is compromised, because you’d have to assume that if the tester(s) had said the bike was awful there would be no need to pull it, but if it out-performed high spending advertisers’ product, then that’s a different story.

I’m shocked people are surprised by this – surely people aren’t naive enough to think that advertising spend with a magazine won’t have at least some impact on what products get reviewed and in what light they’re viewed in?

Imagine the conversation – “Hi boss, you know that account that pays x thousands of pounds a month for the inside cover + rear page and keeps the magazine profitable?” “Yes I love them dearly” “Well i’m going to rate their latest product 1/10” “You mean 10/10 I think”

You don’t bad mouth your customers. And the advertisers are the customers of the magazine.

Ewan- say what you like about Future, they’ve panned some products by big manufacturers/big advertisers.

Ewan- say what you like about Future, they’ve panned some products by big manufacturers/big advertisers.

Define panned (6/10 isn’t panned), and had the advertiser just reduced their spend?

I’ve been told by three different publishers (not Future) in the last month that my clients won’t get editorial unless they advertise. There’s always been a ‘consideration’ but it’s become so blatant now. Unfortunately, most consumers don’t see it and trust articles that are little more than poorly recycled press releases.

Ewan is on the money (pun there?), surely people can’t be surprised by this?

From my own experience on several fronts the ‘cash for comments’ thing is an accepted mode of business for many mags, and I have even been told firsthand of a ‘crap’ review one month becoming ‘great’ review the next with the booking of a few one pagers.

I know for what we do, sending kit in for review to pretty much most mags is a total waste of time as we don’t have advert $$ to back it up. I’ll insert here that STW has been the exception and Chipps has done the odd review with no commitment of any sort, which I guess is why STW is respected the way it is after all these years.

For the sake of the industry on the whole, I would like to see a different mode of business, one where subs and magazine purchases pay for the magazines and not advertising. While the cover price will more than likely jump, the quality and impartiality of reviews and the like would be light years from where it is now for many. That in turn would lead to truly better products rising to the top, rather than those which gain the mantle because of the current ‘cash for comments’ system – a system that determines how and what you ride in more ways than you can imagine.

I’m shocked people are surprised by this – surely people aren’t naive enough to think that advertising spend with a magazine won’t have at least some impact on what products get reviewed and in what light they’re viewed in?

You are probably right, but if that’s the case magazines shouldn’t be able to use cover strap lines like “The best £1500 bikes – hardtails vs full suspension vs 29ers” (taken from the front of a WMTB). It should really read “The best £1500 bikes from the companies that pay our wages”, but that would not be quite so snappy!

To be fair STW reviews never seem to make that sort of claim but just review a few bikes that either try to do the same thing or are deliberately contrasting more as an interest piece and don’t try to make the same definitive claims.

£15/issue with no reduction in sales. Then there would be no ads in the mag.
£30/issue with no sales fall off and then there would be no ads on the website either.

I couldn’t do it. I had to say something.

Pretty lame comment though 😉

<currently searching forum for online camera shops>

What would the sub price be with no ads, roughly?

I’m not sure many people would expect an advertiser free magazine would they Mark? It’s transparency (from a reader perspective) that needs to be there.

I’m not aware it’s missing in Singletrack and testing products is not the meat and drink of your product in quite the same way as it is with others.

Brant is an entrepreneur; some you win, some you lose.

Despite the fact the Future appear to lack integrity, I’m not sure he comes out of this in a dignified manner, whining about it on Twitter.

The bike got pulled – deal with it. People like your products anyway, and they’ll still buy ’em regardless…

The big problem here would appear to be that WMB has always, always blown it’s own trumpet and traded on it’s impartial reviewing policy.

They frequently take one or two editorial pages to tell us exactly how impartial they are and to remind us that they review and write about the best MTB kit, regardless of price.
The inherent implication is that they seek out, test and write about the finest kit available to the public, regardless of origin or any other external factors.

Well, this is has now obviously now been exposed as a crock.

Frankly, it’s not really a surprise.
However, given the fact that they seem determined to boast about the impartiallity and inclusiveness of their review policy at great length in almost every issue, whilst the editorial staff are obviously aware of the views of the publisher, does make me doubt pretty much anything else they say.

I was equally annoyed at comments made by a STW contributor about the lack of cheaper lights in the recent STW mag review.
I sincerely hope that was purely down to snobbishness and nothing to do with advertising revenue.
Perhaps, yet again, I’m being a touch naive.

Define panned (6/10 isn’t panned), and had the advertiser just reduced their spend?

Of course it is, the scale is generally 4/5 for everything, with the odd deviation from that, 3/5 seems as wild as 5/5 to be honest. 2/5 bikes usually don’t seem to work and Specialized/Giant/Trek/all the big spenders don’t normally make many of these.

Take the recent forks roundup in WMB, 19 forks from a few random brands, the lowest got 3, the highest got 4.

Anyway:

http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/category/bikes/mountain/product/review-specialized-hardrock-se-12-45790

http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/category/bikes/mountain/product/review-scott-scale-29-comp-12-45952

http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/category/bikes/mountain/product/review-trek-bikes-top-fuel-99-ssl-11-42463

http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/category/bikes/mountain/product/review-giant-talon-2-11-40855

Any other brands you’re after? It’s not all a big conspiracy. They just ran out of space in a grouptest and decided to bench the bike from the smaller company that wasn’t paying.

Having just flicked through the March 2012 WMTB, I can’t find an advert for Scott, Spesh, or Trek. Giant have the inside cover but i’d hazard a guess they didnt’ in 2011 when that review was written.

Pretty much my point really.

Just cause I’m a sad git. I just found the Jan 2011 WMTB. No adverts from Giant in the magazine.

Ewan – Member

Define panned (6/10 isn’t panned), and had the advertiser just reduced their spend?

You don’t remember the larks we had on here with their lights test? The Nukeproof one got (IIRC) 2/5, Brant spat the dummy, and the Singletrack Tinfoil Hat Brigade said it was because of the lack of adverts, when Hotlines actually had more ads in that issue than any of the competitors…

That’s just one example of course, you can’t really claim that they don’t give good marks and coverage to companies that don’t advertise heavily with them, or that they don’t give bad marks to companies that do…

Christ you’re right, 750 bike with darts, from the company with the biggest buying power in the world. Completely inconceivable, it must be fixed!

The whippet had a fantastic score in the latest wmb, this sounds more like Brant throwing his toys out the pram because he’s not the centre of attention for five minutes. How does he react to not being in the test? Quote the private email and try to cause some damage. Wouldn’t be hugely surprised if they just sacked off reviewing on one altogether.

Are we really talking about an ad-free magazine? Surely retailers would still want to advertise. And how far does this go? Articles on places to go, skills training, guided holidays perhaps? It’s not just bikes that are advertised.

Northwind: I respectfully disagree, lack of impartiality means inconsistent reviews.
The c456 review was inconsistent in mbuk compared to wmb. This thread highlights that the performance of a particular product is the least considered criteria for their reviews

I canceled my subscription to wmb last year and rather glad I did now.

Doddy is not cheap to maintain.

I stopped buying mags for reviews a LONG LONG time ago. Back when I worked in a bike shop/importer who imported some goods and asked around the various magazines to see if they would review them if they were sent – most came back saying they’d give it a favourable review if we spent more in advertising with them and if not they’d either not touch it or mention it as a small note in a column somewhere.

jimmers – Member

Northwind: I respectfully disagree, lack of impartiality means inconsistent reviews. The c456 review was inconsistent in mbuk compared to wmb.

TBH that last C456 review was deranged… Inconsistency doesn’t require a lack of impartiality, in that particular case I think it was lack of competence tbh.

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.

I’d say it goes the other way.
I’ve never been shy about giving my opinions of Egg Beaters, Lynskey and Gary Fisher frames, NorthWave shoes Luminous lights or Continental tyres.

There’s always going to be varied opinions on any product, but the number of negative comments on STW and other forums about Egg Beaters or Fox forks says more than any magazine review.

I wasn’t aware planet x did partake in any advertising anyway…….. isn’t that their raison d’etre, cut out the middle man and sell direct approach that keeps costs down?

Have to say i’m not surprised to hear what future have done but disappointed none the less. Brant i’m sure has his reasons for going viral, he never does something without an end game i’m sure but this may just blow up in his face?

pulls up a chair……

I have found my tests in Future mags to be more than fair and I do not advertise. I have asked other mags to reveiw the bikes I import and immediatly get calls from the ad guys to set up and ad plan. If I do not advertise the bikes do not get in the mags. Future are the only mag I contacted who always want to test the bikes, no strings attached.

Ajr, my experiences are similar.

It’s not really any more shocking than the circumstances where a company gets nominated for an award and it’s hinted that if they buy x tables at the award show or sponsor something, the CEO gets to go and collect some silverware. I’m fairly sure not all awards at events are suspect but there’s usually a few throwaway ones in there to be bought. Mag reviews seem not much different tbh. Some good, some for sale, some bad.

And the pendulum swings back to fp…..it seems odd that brant, who i’m sure never thought such a tweet would never be picked up on and discussed on a forum where he seem omnipresent, has not made further comment.

has not made further comment.

I assume he is too busy patting himself on the back.

Having seen some of the correspondence between PX and FP I can see why I’d be a bit peeved if I were planet x. I wont quote directly as that wouldn’t necessarily be fair on Mr schofields, but since he said he was happy for anyone in the industry and his readership to know it, he made it clear that advertisers get priority on products selected for review, but that preference wont influence the content of the review.

But, to pull a bike from publishing after it has been tested and written about is dangerously close to editorial manipulation. Not to mention turning a manufacturer’s brand new product into a second hand one with nothing to show for it.

The inference then is that FP don’t neccesarily see it as a duty to review ALL relevant products for it’s readers benefit. A woolly get out clause about reviewing ‘class leading’ products doesn’t really cut it in terms of transparency for the readership IMO.

I dont think PX would ever deny FP the right to their own choice of business model, but I think they would ask for transparency about their policies if PX think that through FPs actions they or the readership are being deceived a little.

Whatever it is though, this isn’t an argument about buying a good review especially since mark’s piss might vaporize!

Wonder how many Whippets FP sold for them last month.

I have to admit, I’d have really liked to see the Dirty Harry review, it’s a shame they can’t do a straight-to-website review, which would allow PX to link it if they wanted. Everyone would be happy?

The whole thing sounds like two drama queens blowing their ego-power-trumpets in each others face*. I think Brant’s reaction to the situation was far worse than the out of context quote he put up to be honest.

*not a euphemism