Re: [APML]: Magazine reviews

[Chuck Vaughn <aa6g@aa6g.org>]

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

Wil,

> > 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.

You didn't read my e-mail very carefully. I said "S&T and Astronomy"
because I suspect that both would have to start doing more honest
reviews. But I really don't believe that Meade would pull their ads from
S&T if they were to do it alone. First thing, Meade would lose access
to a portion of their target audience. Not everyone subscribes to
Astronomy - I don't for one. Secondly, could you imagine the bad press
that Meade would get if they pulled their ads from S&T because of an
honest but poor review of one of their products? You think Meade bashing
is bad right now on s.a.a?<g> Thirdly, amateur astronomy can survive
without Meade....Orion Telescope Center is living proof of that....
although I have no desire for Meade to disappear.

By the sounds of your story I guess you're saying magazines in general
are spineless slaves to their advertisers. If this is true then it's
not worth our money to buy the magazines. I wouldn't work for any
such magazine whose editorial content is controlled by its 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.

If you're right about this then there really is no point in paying
any attention to reviews in S&T or Astronomy. I can tell you positively
though that QST buys it's equipment for review from dealers around
the country anonomously. This is the only way to get an honest review.
After the review is published, the equipment is offered for sale at
a slightly reduced price with the buyer knowing exactly what he's getting.

> 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.

You're absolutely wrong on this one. QST could not exist without their
advertisers. They do not take in enough money from membership dues alone.
The entire ARRL operation is supported by membership dues, QST advertising
revenue and revenue from the sale of League publications. You take one away
and the whole operation collapses.

> 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.

I'm not. I know magazines have to make money to stay in business but
I get the distinct impression that quality is second to making money.
If you have a reputation of providing a quality product, revenues will
usually take care of themselves. When you put money first and let the
other two silde you're inviting problems.

Chuck  <aa6g@aa6g.org>