Re: [APML]: Magazine reviews

[Wil Milan <wmilan@airdigital.com>]

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

Chuck Vaughn wrote:
> 
> 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> 

I don't think I made myself clear. A company such as Meade -- a
big fish in a small market -- is unlikely to pull all its
advertising out of a magazine for a single bad review. But they
could make their displeasure known by pulling, say, 5 pages out
of their usual 20 pages. They would still have 15 pages of
advertising and probably few readers would notice the difference.
But the magazine certainly would; those 5 missing pages of
advertising probably represent at least $20,000/month in revenue
and probably over $30,000/month. The publisher of such a magazine
would take *very* serious notice of such a thing, and would do a
lot to prevent such a hit in the revenue department.

(I'm basing my estimates on aviation magazines, which I used to
write for and therefore know their business better. A national
aviation magazine such as AOPA Pilot has a circulation similar to
S&T or Astronomy, and last I checked a page of advertising in
such a magazine went for about $6000/page. That was some time
ago; it's probably higher now.)


> 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. 

No, I'm saying that, certainly not in the extreme terms in which
you're phrased it. Bear in mind, too, that in a given year most
special-interest magazines devote the great majority of their
editorial content to things other than product reviews, and I
think most people find those very useful. When they do review
products from major advertisers they'll want to do a good job,
but it's important to keep in mind that they are typically not
doing a rigidly impartial, coldly unblinking review such as you'd
find in Consumer Reports. This is a product from large supporter
of the magazine, a supporter which has a large stake in the
outcome of the review. 

It's not that the review will be a pack of lies, but that the
magazine *wants* to like the product, and if they find something
wrong will give the manufacturer every chance to set things
right. If they find something really bad that would require an
overall negative review, they're likely not to run the review at
all. They'll tell the manufacturer there was a problem and the
manufacturer may take it to heart, but the negative review won't
be printed for all the world to see. That's not lying, but it is
omitting bad news, for which the manufacturer is grateful. And if
because the bad news were never printed you, as a consumer, end
up buying one of those lemon products you may be unhappy with the
manufacturer, but not the magazine, because you don't know about
the killed review. The upshot is that the magazine makes enemies
(among advertisers *and* brand-fanatic readers) by printing
negative reviews, but makes no enemies by pulling such reviews.
Guess what a bottom-line-savvy publisher will be tempted to do?

> I wouldn't work for any
> such magazine whose editorial content is controlled by its advertisers.

I didn't say they're "controlled" by the advertisers, because
they're not (or at least usually not -- there are exceptions).
But certainly major advertisers wield some influence in that the
magazine will go out of its way not to offend them, and that
particularly includes not printing reviews that trash their
advertisers' products. If you don't think that happens in most of
the specialty magazines most people read then you must not have
been in the magazine business. 

> If you're right about this then there really is no point in paying
> any attention to reviews in S&T or Astronomy. 

That's not what I'm saying at all -- see above. But if Meade or
Celestron comes out with a truly lousy product, don't expect to
read about how bad it is in the pages of the astro mags. They may
review it *after* the problems are fixed and point out that the
product is "much improved," but that's a very different thing.

A case in point: When the Meade ETX was first released it had
*terrible* quality control problems. Many, many people reported
getting one bad one after another -- drives didn't work, were
fast or slow, screws were left loose inside the OTA, all kinds of
problems. This was a major, major problem in one of the most
popular scopes on the market, but did you ever read any frank
discussion of those problems in the astro mags? I heard
discussions of those problems all over the Internet and at every
astro shop I frequent, so I know the astro mags heard about them.
But the ETX reviews were about how cute it is and how wonderful
the optics (both true), but not much mention of the terrible
problems so many had with them. That's what I mean.

> 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.

QST probably could not afford to lose *all* its advertisers, but
the large membership backing of the ARRL means they can much more
easily afford to lose any one advertiser. QST's editors also
ultimately answer to the governing board of the ARRL, and that
imposes on them a different set of requirements than a magazine
which does not have such a membership group behind it.

> 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.

It's not quite like that, at least not at most magazines. But
without money all else is moot. 

> 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.

And when you start a special-interest magazine which accepts
advertising but does not take into account the advertiser's
interests, please let me know so I can come see it. I won't
invest in it, but I'd like to see it (as long as it lasts,
anyway). :-)


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