Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!apple!agate!violet.berkeley.edu!ilan343
From: ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Why do magazine's review mail-order PC brands
Message-ID: <1990Mar9.062402.22830@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 9 Mar 90 06:24:02 GMT
References: <1990Mar6.024915.1295@cs.dal.ca> <1592@starfish.Convergent.COM>
Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator;;;;ZU44)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 19

>lane@cs.dal.ca (John Wright/Dr. Pat Lane) writes:
>
>
>>I suppose the obvious answer is that PC Magazine is giving free publicity 
>>to the same large U.S. mail order houses that advertise in the magazine.
>
In fairness to PC-Mag and the likes, this doesn't seem to be the case.
Last month I was shopping for a 386 clone. I went to clone-maker in So.
San Francisco which had their machine assigned the Editor's Choice in a
PC Mag round up of 20Mz 386's.  This company doesn't advertize in any
of the glossy pc magazines.  As a matter of fact, they send machines
for review as form of exposure.  Assuming that PC magazine returns the
test machines, they don't derive any direct benefit from the positive
review.

I agree with the main thread of the original posting.  Most of the
parts in these clones are generic components.  Other than price and
support, there is very little difference between "Joe's down the
corner" and the higher-volume mail-order houses.