That's the ideal, of course. Having worked for smallish publications I'm well aware of that. However how else would you explain two tests with numerically quantified results, where the numbers are marginally on the side of one product where the reviewer's comments clearly favor that same product, where the recommendations favor the clear loser. This is of course a blatant example, and I have no examples to point to. However I've gotten a clear impression of this happening in a number of magazines I've read. In some cases the bias is more interesting, the non advertiser never gets into the mix at all.
Paul Stenquist wrote: >Most magazines maintain a very firm wall between editorial and >advertising sales. Not all, but most. Usually, the major publishing >houses tend to be more protective of their wall than the minors. >Paul >Paul >On Sep 3, 2006, at 3:12 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: > > > >>I think what he's saying is that if a company buys a lot of >>advertising >>space the conclusions will be biased in their favor. At least that's >>what I've seemed to notice. >> >>Jens Bladt wrote: >> >> >> >>>Peter, are you syaing that good "test" results are often or >>>genrally paid >>>for, by the avertisers? >>>Regards >>>Jens >>> >>>Jens Bladt >>>http://www.jensbladt.dk >>>+45 56 63 77 11 >>>+45 23 43 85 77 >>>Skype: jensbladt248 >>> >>>-----Oprindelig meddelelse----- >>>Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af >>>Peter Fairweather >>>Sendt: 3. september 2006 19:28 >>>Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>Emne: Re: Uk review of macro lenses >>> >>> >>>I've looked on the magazine website www.photographymonthly.com where >>>there is a discussion group. In fairness to Nikon (will that phrase >>>get me barred from PDML?) it was their old 200mm lens not the latest >>>VR xyz etc. Doesn't stop them charging £1000+ for it tho'! >>> >>>Peter >>> >>>On 9/3/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>In a message dated 9/2/2006 5:59:05 PM Pacific Daylight Time, >>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>The top lens was the Sigma 100mm with 88/100 which >>>>>ranked far above >>>>>the 150 and 180 offerings from this company. In >>>>>second place was the >>>>>Tamron 90mm, marginally ahead of the Pentax. >>>>>(86/100) >>>>> >>>>>One hopes the magazine does not fold as a result of >>>>>poor advertising revenue!! >>>>> >>>>>Peter >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>======== >>>>I have the Tamron 90mm, several on this list do, and it is very, >>>>very >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>nice. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Marnie aka Doe >>>> >>>>-- >>>>PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>>[email protected] >>>>http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>-- >>>PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>[email protected] >>>http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> >>>-- >>>No virus found in this incoming message. >>>Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>>Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/436 - Release Date: >>>09/01/2006 >>> >>>-- >>>No virus found in this outgoing message. >>>Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>>Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/436 - Release Date: >>>09/01/2006 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>-- >>Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler. >> >> --Albert Einstein >> >> >> >>-- >>PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>[email protected] >>http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> >> > > > > -- Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler. --Albert Einstein -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
