Originally Posted by
Chip
I was refering to Max Power not revs and not talking about a leads test specifically, I saw them test filters for example and they compared a secondhand standard one with new modified ones!
Ok, fair enough, it was just that the only mag test mentionend was the Revs one, so I jumped to that conclusion. It's just a subject that gets me wound up as I know how much time, effort and grief it is to put together a fair test. To then have someone cry foul play because the results didn't suit them gets me hulk-spec mad!
Originally Posted by
Chip
LOL, So advertisers are kicking up a fuss they didnt get the best results, which implies they think (from other mags they have dealt with) that they should do, shows how endemic it is then dont you think?
Not necessarily. Every company thinks their product is the best, and all hate not 'winning'. I can't speak for the smaller publishing houses, but I know that we've never fudged a test to show favour to advertisers (much to the annoyance of the ad teams).
Originally Posted by
Chip
you dont have to lie to show favourable results, just test a fucked old set of standard plugs against "new amazing splitfire plugs" and you'll get an honest result show they are awesome, just dont bother buying a new set of standard plugs to test against as well.
Conducting a test without a fair 'control' is just really bad, lazy journalism, rather than out and out 'fudging'. I suspect that's what happend in Max P's case.
Originally Posted by
Chip
If your revs test didnt include buying a NEW set of standard leads to compare to the NEW other leads you tested, then IMHO it was unscientific by default, although only in favour to the WHOLE set of modified leads not to one specific one.
I wasn't part of the test, and can't remember if a new set were included.
Originally Posted by
Chip
...I do know enough to know that advertisers often expect more than just their adverts in terms of getting value from mags.
Barton once told me that he had "a suit" (as he called them) come up to him once and say "here is a list of our top 30 spenders on advertising, what are we doing for each of them to ensure they get good value from the mag",
Bartons response was something along the lines of "We make a good honest mag that people enjoy reading, and thats all, we dont do anything individually for them, my loyalty is to the readers not the advertisers"
In a challenging market, any Editor who doesn't know how to keep the advertisers sweet is a very bad Editor - there are many ways of doing this without lying, misleading, or short changing the reader. That is one of the (many) reasons why Barton is no longer an Editor, and instead now runs a kebab shop in Dursley.