Re: [Paddlewise] Sea Kayaker Reviews [was Another batch of new kayaker questions/comments]

Ralph (and all),

I got a kick out of the fact that you and I posted, at apparently about the
same time, almost diametrically opposed views on the subject, each of us
also renaming the subject header.  Great minds don't think alike, it seems.
. . <g>.

I'd just like to further respond, briefly (for me), to your comment on my
post.  I said:

>>The >> reviews they [SK] publish seem to be to be about as good as any
reviews can get. >> Then again, they are, after all, a commercial
enterprise, with (as Wes
>> notes) advertisers. . .  That has to have an effect.  But I haven't seen
any
>> better alternatives out there.

And you said:

>Not so on two counts:
>
>1)  Sea Kayaker is a great magazine with lots of clout . . . [snip]
Manufacturers would be suicidal in >withdrawing ads from the publication
that is THE central source of
>information on seakayaking and that does this so well.  [snip]

I'm sure there's a lot of truth to that.  But I didn't suggest that SK
openly panders to mftrs in order to keep advertising.  Certainly, in my
view, that would be a simplistic understanding of the way *any* publication
functions within its industry.  I suspect the publicity that might follow a
withdrawal of ads would be worse for the mftr than any bad review could be.
. . .  What I meant was simply that any business must rely on some source
for its income.  SK presumably relies on two sources -- advertisers and
subscribers.  In most business, it is important to maintain friendly
relations with your income sources (and others in the industry).  Thus, the
editors and publishers of SK no doubt desire to maintain a good relationship
with the mftrs of kayaks.  Plain and simple.  It would be difficult to
maintain such a good relationship if SK decided to devote part of its
energies (and space) to really bashing any given kayak model(s).  So I
suspect as they determine their content they keep this in mind.  Frankly, I
think that's probably a good thing.  Perhaps keeps them from being unfair
(not that they would, but . . . whatever).  That's all I meant, and
certainly I didn't say more than that -- all I said was that SK is a
commercial enterprise, with advertisers, and that has to have some effect on
its content.  True or not?

In response to my point that I haven't seen anything better out there, you
commented:

>2.  The non-committee approach to reviewing that I mentioned in the
>posting under Boat Reviews is a viable alternative that should be
>tried.  And the advertisers should not be given their intro to hype the
>model and the closing word to exonerate it.  It is this aspect that
>reeks of advertiser influence.


I liked your suggestion -- particularly, I liked the idea of having people
like Matt Broze and John Winters reviewing boats.  Great idea!  However, as
I said, and at least as far as I know, that's not "out there" at the moment.
It's just an idea (albeit a good one).

BTW, I really can't agree with your objection to having the designer comment
on the review.  (And isn't it usually the designer, not the manufacturer --
or as you say, the advertiser?  I do think there is a substantial difference
(although admittedly in some cases they might in effect be the same).)  What
can that hurt?  I think interaction between the industry and the publication
is good for us -- the consumers.  And I always find it interesting to read
those comments.  I think most of us can tell if the comments are genuine. .
. .

So.  Just my further thoughts. . .

Mark

***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not
to be reproduced/forwarded outside PaddleWise without author's permission
Submissions:     PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net
Subscriptions:   PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net
Website:         http://www.paddlewise.net/
***************************************************************************