[Leica] Learning a lens

[Mike Johnston <michaeljohnston@ameritech.net>]

>>>
OK Mike, now answer this one honestly based on your experience in the
photo
publishing industry.  How often does a particular lens or camera get
that
little extra nod based on the amount of advertising revenue that comes
in
from the manufacturer?  Do certain brands of equipment get more
information
published about them simply because more money pours in from ads?  As
you
pointed out, rating lenses with a numbering system is full of bias.
Isn't
it also true for what equipment gets reviewed or tested as well,
depending
on how well the manufacturer supports the publication? <g><<<


Well, George, that's my job. The Editor is the one who is supposed to
look out for the readers and not let the business interests run away
with the magazine. I sometimes wonder if I go the other way, I'm so
anxious not to let this happen--for instance, we just published two
articles on Olympus cameras, and when they advertise with us, well,
those pigs I mentioned earlier will be flapping past overhead. They're
not even reasonably a prospect. OTOH, Canon advertises regularly, and
we've never reviewed a Canon camera and we've been almost snide with
them a time or two in the "25 Best Cameras" writeup. (I really must
review a Canon, just for the sake of responsible balance.)

I can be too contrary, I think. I basically ignore the advertisers
altogether. I've even replaced the traditional (and ubiquitous) "press
release" sections with a written feature, "Recent News." (This may be
about to change again, though.) I get a lot of grief for this in-house,
because I really make it difficult for the ad sales people to operate.

It's very frustrating. My concept is that quality will sell. I'm not
entirely correct in that assumption. We publish a very stand-up,
by-the-book publication with serious content treated in relative depth.
We have published the LUG's own Erwin Puts, for example (and hope to do
so again). We don't pander to advertisers, we don't discount off the
rate card, we don't publish PR-written articles (I wonder how many
people know that some magazine "articles" are written by PR agencies
hired by the manufacturer of the product in question?), and we don't
trade editorial for advertising. I won't touch a manufacturer-written
article with a ten-foot pole...and by and large, people don't approach
me with them any more because they know I'm not receptive. But then what
do people buy? Not us. They'd rather buy some rag with a day-glo cover,
a handful of fluff pieces, and copious mail-order ads in the back. A
magazine like that may sell six times as well as we do. And their editor
gets paid more, I bet.  :-/

On the other hand, many manufacturers are more ethical than many readers
think, too. Ilford, for example, will not allow its ads to be placed
near a product review or mention, because they want to avoid even the
_appearance_ of trying to influence editorial. Also, advertisers
typically don't try to pull fast ones on me just because they know I
don't go along with that game (insofar as they care at all). Believe it
or not, by far the most manipulative advertisers are the smallest ones!
Nikon, as a for instance, has never tried to influence us in the
slightest--never even a hint of it. But some guy who buys a single
one-inch ad in the classified section in one issue will call me up
thirty times trying to get his press release covered in the editorial
content. One tiny advertiser kept sending his press releases along with
a blatant come-on, alleging that he was "considering" placing
advertisements and would be "watching" how we handled the press release.
I finally phoned the guy and just told him to cut it the hell out!

Magazines are basically purchased by shoppers--people who are looking
for what point-and-shoot to buy the kid for graduation or what kind of
film to take on vacation. Trying to publish a serious magazine on a
consumer subject is like a salmon swimming up a waterfall. Do-able, but
not at all easy. <s>

- --Mike