Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/08/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]LUGers, I'm retired now but have worked on both sides of the fence - editorial and public relations. Magazines aim for at least a ratio of 60% advertising and 40% editorial. Further, editors are often politely asked (lightly squeezed) by the magazines' ad reps or their ad agencies to run a specific item or to take a more kindly approach. It's a way of life and there's nothing you can do about it. Very few magazines, photo or otherwise, are 100% above board. There are some magazines that will not run your publicity unless you advertise (buy space). So, whether you're a Leica, 'Blad or Rollei freak, take those 'tests' with a grain of salt. The only thing that matter is that you, as the photographer, are happy with your equipment. Kurt Miska Ann Arbor, MI AppleMac97@aol.com wrote: > <<From: Nathan Wajsman <wajsman@webshuttle.ch> > I am a deeply cynical person when it comes to business. After several years > of reading magazines like Popular Photography and before that Modern > Photography, I am fully convinced that the editorial policies of these > magazines > are driven by the advertising. This suspicion is strengthened by the fact > that the subscription is dirt cheap (I used to pay $9.95 a year for Pop Photo > in the early 90s). Clearly, subscriptions do not pay the freight there, > ads do. I do not recall ever reading a review of any major brand which was > negative. Now, it could be that everything produced by Nikon, Pentax, Minolta > and Canon is just wonderful, but I tend to believe that the magazines > know which side of the bread is buttered..>>>> > > Nathan: > > Your suspicions are correct! Many years ago, Pop Photo or Modern Photo > responding to a reader's letter stated that they never publish negative > reviews of photo equipment for legal reasons, i.e. they were afraid of being > sued by the manufacturers. My personal interpretation is that they were > afraid of losing advertising revenues from those companies, because other > magazines such as Consumer Reports routinely evaluate products without being > taken to court by unhappy manufacturers. So if you never see a review of a > certain camera or lens, you can assume that their tests showed it to be a > poor quality product, and that they decided not to publish it. > > Muhammad Chishty