Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/08/22

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: Vs: R lens tests (was: Re: [Leica] Re: Why M is so popular?)
From: khmiska <>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 15:48:13 -0400
References: <>

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
Kurt Miska
Ann Arbor, MI wrote:

> <<From: Nathan Wajsman <>
> 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

In reply to: Message from (Re: Vs: R lens tests (was: Re: [Leica] Re: Why M is so popular?))