On Mon, 26 Apr 2004, RPhillips47 wrote:
5> The 300 is already starting to get praises from some of the auto mags.
4> The auto mags are already starting to get advertising dollars for the
4> 300.
3> Oh give it a f*ckin' rest, Dan!
2> Do you dispute that the auto mags are running ads for the Chrysler
2> 300C, and that DaimlerChrysler is paying the magazines for that
2> advertising?
Definitely not - but I take BIG issue with your implication that because
of this the reviews are going to be slanted.
Manish tanah halailah hazeh? (Why is this night different to all other
nights?)
It's an effort, but I'm going to assume for discussion that you're really,
actually as naive as you're making yourself out to be, and that you're not
just playing silly Usenet games.
Commercially published magazines exist for one reason only: To sell
advertising. The articles and pretty pictures are there to attract
you to the ads.
Think about it for a moment or two: You're in charge of North American
advertising and promotion for Nippon Kogaku, Japan Optics, the
manufacturer of Nikon cameras. You place very expensive multiple-page,
fold-out, full-color ads for your cameras in "Popular Photography",
"Petersen's Photographic", "Modern Imaging" and "Graphic Design".
Now, let's say Popular Photography one month has a 4-page in-depth
long-term-test report on one of your cameras. It's not a hack-and-slash
rip job, but they do conclude that your camera isn't as good as Canon's
competing camera. Two months later, they test another one of your cameras,
and report that it worked OK but had an annoying habit of freezing or
"locking up" randomly, which could only be solved by removing the battery,
waiting 45 seconds and reinstalling the battery, which would have been
dismissed as a fluke but the warranty replacement camera did it, too.
Meanwhile, the other three magazines are giving your cameras glowing
reviews. Not a thing wrong with 'em. Great products, much better than
their predecessors, and with lots of neat features. Definitely worth
buying.
Now think hard, Randy: One of these mags is not like the others, one of
these mags does not quite belong. With which of these four magazines do
you NOT spend further advertising dollars?
I have difficulty believing you really think auto magazines are guardian
bastions of truth and objectivity, that they'll gladly bite the hand that
feeds them if it means bringing Truth to their readers. It's not quite as
bad nowtimes as it was in the '80s and earlier, when the mags were overt
mouthpieces for the makers -- Motor Trend's "Car of the Year" was widely
known to be for sale to the highest bidder, and if you don't believe me go
take a tour of COTY issues from '91ish and earlier and explain to me the
Plymouth Volare and the Peugeot 404 -- but even in these "enlightened"
modern times, the auto rags print what will get them a steady diet of
crunchy, delicious ad dollars.
DS (in the late '80s, Nikons really did freeze up that way, one of the
magazines really did squawk about it, and that same magazine was promptly
driven to bankruptcy and absorbed by its competitor when Nikon pulled all
their ads. QED.)
