Xref: utzoo comp.dcom.modems:9494 comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc:9160 alt.bbs:5248
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!hoptoad!wet!roger
From: roger@wet.UUCP (Roger Niclas)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc,alt.bbs
Subject: Re: PC Magasine Testing Irregularities
Message-ID: <2368@wet.UUCP>
Date: 30 Apr 91 00:08:18 GMT
References: <1991Apr26.162746.14355@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Followup-To: comp.dcom.modems
Organization: Wetware Diversions, San Francisco
Lines: 23

garygm@leland.Stanford.EDU (Gary Brainin) writes:
> 
>    By the same token, are you going to spend "$serious bux$" on an ad
> in a magazine that just gave you a lousy review?
> 
> 			-Gary

You will if the magazine's as influential as most advertisers believe PC to be.
Read the "Letters to the Editor" columns in nearly any major magazine, and 
you'll see all sorts of letters from advertisers squealing that they were 
"unfairly" treated in a review.

Oddly, however, there _are_ some advertisers who *mistakenly* believe that
their products won't be reviewed in PC if they don't advertise, or that they'll
be reviewed poorly.  They *are* wrong about that, but I suppose it's their
perception that dictates their behavior, rather than the realities.


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*  Email: roger@wet.UUCP    |                                                  *
*    alt: rogerd@well       |  witty remark designed to exhibit intellect goes *
* CompuServe: 72730,1010    |                    here                          *