Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!van-bc!sl
From: sl@wimsey.bc.ca (Stuart Lynne)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: PC Magasine {sic} Testing Irregularities
Message-ID: <1991Apr27.091638.11273@wimsey.bc.ca>
Date: 27 Apr 91 09:16:38 GMT
References: <1991Apr24.184543.27339@looking.on.ca> <2355@wet.UUCP>
Organization: Computer Signal Corp, Canada
Lines: 28

In article <2355@wet.UUCP> roger@wet.UUCP (Roger Niclas) writes:
}brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes:
}> In article <1991Apr24.033643.3628@anomaly.sbs.com> mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
}> >Its real simple. Start taking out huge, multi-page mega$thousand$ 
}> >dollar ads, and you're reviews will instantly, mysteriously, shoot
}> >up to A-numero-uno.
}> 
}> That's unfair.  I've had two very positive reviews in PC Magazine without
}> every buying more than a classified at the back, as well as good reviews in
}> other Z-D magazines.
}
}As one who is associated with the magazine publishing industry, and who has 
}worked with a number of the computer-related publications (both trade and
}consumer), I have to say Brad has it (largely) correct:

There is a chicken and egg situation here as well. Companies that get a good
review in a magazine will often take advantage of that to pump up some good
advertising. 

This can lead to an appearance of collusion where none exists. But it may
simply be the advertisers taking advantage of the situation. I don't think
you can blame either the magazine or the advertisers unless you want to
support a Consumers Reports type magazine with your subscription dollars
(i.e. absolutely no advertising whatsoever).

-- 
Stuart Lynne	Computer Signal Corporation, Canada
		...!van-bc!sl 604-937-7785 604-937-7718(fax) sl@wimsey.bc.ca