Re: [APML]: Magazine reviews (was: Anyone Autoguiding a G-11 with a Pictor XT?)

[Wil Milan <wmilan@airdigital.com>]

The Astro-Photography Mailing List
------------------------------------

Chuck Vaughn wrote:
> 
> I think we've been through this before on the list but it's possible
> to write a review pointing out problems without trashing the
> manufacturer. Does anyone think that if S&T and Astronomy gave a
> poor view of a Meade product that Meade would cease to advertise
> in those magazines? I think not. Where else are they going to
> advertise and reach the majority of the market? It's a two way street.

It's a two-way street -- sort of. S&T is not the only magazine in
the field, and you can bet your bottom dollar that the editor and
publisher of S&T go out of their way not to offend a major
advertiser like Meade. 

This is not theoretical. I used to write a monthly column for a
national aviation publication, and I sometimes did product
reviews. Probably the most interesting story I ever tracked down
was that a GPS manufacturer was deliberately crippling their
latest low-priced GPS unit so it could not be used in aircraft
(by blanking the display at speeds over 100 miles per hour), then
selling the same GPS without the restriction for twice the money
as their "aviation" model. I researched this, got confirmation
from a programmer at the manufacturer, and wrote the story. My
editor thought it would be controversial and made sure I had
allowed the manufacturer to comment, which I had -- they'd
refused comment. Not an hour after my editor reviewing the story
I got a call directly from the publisher, who was very angry
because he'd called the manufacturer, showed them the story, and
the manufacturer didn't like the story one bit. The publisher and
I argued the matter for a while, and he made it very plain that
the story wasn't worth angering a major advertiser. He killed the
story and told me not to do "negative stories" like that anymore.
The cute part of that was that on a couple of occasions I'd
panned other products, but not products made by major
advertisers. But if it might mean losing some ad dollars, then no
story.

That's the way it works at every specialty magazine I know of
that accepts advertising from the industry it covers (and almost
all do). A review can make some mild negative comments in a
generally positive review, but if the product tested turns out to
be a lousy product, that review won't run. And yes, to some
extent the manufacturer does need to run advertising in the
publication, but the advertiser can still express strong
displeasure about a story, enough that it's much more attractive
for the publisher to kill such stories than to run them. An
advertiser, for instance, can shift the balance of advertising:
There's usually more than one magazine in the field (S&T and
Astronomy, for instance); the advertiser can simply pull some ad
dollars from one and put them into the other, or just hold out
for a while. If it's a major advertiser they don't have to do
that for very long; a couple months is enough to put a dent that
will make the publisher very nervous. Publishers know all this,
and therefore the push doesn't usually proceed to shove; they
just make it known to the staff that they are not to anger the
big advertisers.

There's another thing to consider about major product reviews in
magazines such as S&T. I just re-read the review of the Meade
LX200 that ran recently in S&T. That's a $3000 product, which is
a big chunk of change for any specialty magazine. Did you ever
wonder where that telescope came from? S&T didn't say so, but
it's almost a dead-bang certainty that telescope was supplied by
Meade specifically for this test review. And when the head of
marketing at Meade agreed to send S&T an LX200 to review, do you
think he sent them just any scope off the assembly line, or did
he make sure they got the finest sample they could turn out? You
can bet that test unit was selected and inspected with far more
care than the typical production scope, and is therefore probably
not representative of what the average LX200 buyer will get. 

And when a manufacturer knows that a sample product will be used
for a nationally published test, there's strong tempation to go
even farther than that. Some years ago Car & Driver magazine ran
a comparison test of radar detectors, something the magazine does
on a semi-regular basis. The test editors were very surprised by
the performance of a detector by a manufacturer not known for
premium products, performance equalling the top-rated model in
the test (an Escort detector). Curious about the amazing
performance, they took apart the overachieving detector and found
that the manufacturer had replaced the circuitry of the test unit
with the internal circuitry of the top-rated Escort detector, a
competitor's product, which is why it performed as well as the
Escort. That's an extreme case, but it does indicate the great
temptation manufacturers face when they know the unit they're
submitting will be used in a major nationally-published test. 

(And yes, Car & Driver did reveal the trick the low-end
manufaturer had tried to pull. But that manufacturer was not a
major advertiser in the magazine.)

> An honest but not trashing review can play a constructive roll in
> getting improvements in a product. My amateur radio magazine, QST,
> gave a poor view of a radio a few years ago. The manufacturer went back
> and redesigned it and now has a decent product. This magazine has
> refused to publish ads with claims of certain antenna characteristics
> because the claims were exaggerated and unprovable. With the advent
> of antenna computer modelling programs for PCs they are now accepting
> ads that include the previously banned claims as long as all the data
> for an individual to run the model himself is publicly available.

That's really not an appropriate example, because QST is not a
typical special-interest magazine. QST is the official journal of
the ARRL (American Radio Relay League), and therefore not as
dependent on its advertisers. If QST pans a product and an
advertising pulls some advertising, the large parent organization
(the ARRL) will back up the magazine, something that
non-affiliated magazines such as S&T and Astronomy cannot fall
back on. 

Magazines which are backed by large member organizations
typically do have higher editorial standards and can afford to
stand up to major advertisers. For instance, Sport Aviation
magazine (the official journal of the Experimental Aviation
Association) has specific rules analogous to QST's about engines
and aircraft advertised in the magazine. But non-affiliated
magazines in that field usually have no such rules.

> I would suggest that manufacturers be banned from making outrageous
> claims of optical performance in their ads unless they're willing
> to back up every scope with an interferogram. If S&T and Astronomy
> were to take a stand on this the consumer would benefit.

I agree. I also wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it, at least
not in the astronomy world, where both major U.S. publications
are completely dependent on advertising dollars.


Wil M.      
mailto:wmilan@airdigital.com
Astrophoto web site: http://www.airdigital.com/astrophoto.html
---
"When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, 
the moon and the stars which You have set in place, 
what is Man that you are mindful of him, 
or the son of Man that you care for him?"  -- Psalm 8