Originally Posted by
PF Ben
My only criticisms / things I have done differently would be:
1) not run it on a dyno paid for by millers
2) not had millers pay me to run the advertorial / feature
Like it or not, fact is people will construe the above could potentially skew the validity of the test / results. Not saying it has, but to eradicate the risk of the above and ensure the credibility of the mag I would have foregone the payment from millers and conducted tests on my own terms. Would the results have been different? Who knows, but it would have exonerated the mag from any perception of skulduggery by its readership.
Ben
Technically they didn't pay for the dyno, they exchanged their time in return for coverage so that's point 1 taken care of.
Point 2 - they paid for the advertorial, but not for the results.
There have been a number of instances where non-advertisers have come out better in tests than advertisers. It doesn't matter to me who wins, as long as I can stand by the results and conduct them in a fair and honest manner.
There's been several instances where existing advertisers have been pissed off with test results and even an instance where a long term advertiser (worth a LOT of money to Future) threatened to pull ALL their advertising from every Future magazine if we went ahead and printed the results of our test. We did, and they pulled their advertising.
It may have been the done thing at Unity, but the day i'm asked to fake test results for commercial gain is the day i walk out of the door.
Originally Posted by
PF Ben
I would have foregone the payment from millers and conducted tests on my own terms. Would the results have been different? Who knows
No, the results would have been exactly the same.