Originally Posted by
Alan Sircom
Part of the reason manufacturers advertise with magazines is we give wider scope than forums. The forums tend to be very narrow in outlook. Things that are in vogue in a forum are extremely well favoured; things that aren't just vanish off the radar. While we have our fads and trends too, a review-based magazine constantly needs new products to fill its editorial pages and that generally means a broader selection of products within that magazine's catchment area over any given year.
Just putting news in the magazine helps some manufacturers, even though the news items are usually very old by the time they hit the newsstand. The thing is, unless we give these products coverage, they don't get coverage.
The magazines and advertising is there to show there's more out there than the flavour of the month.
Reviewers get long-term loan stock in many branches of the media, because readers want reviewers to have the latest equipment that relates directly to their stuff. Is this ethical? I've been on journalistic ethics committees and there is no easy answer. Someone who reviews a Rolls Royce needs to have extensive experience of a number of Rolls Royce-grade cars, but no journalist earns that kind of money, so either you wait for interested millionaires with good writing skills and extensive driving experience to magically appear or you get a journalist living the champagne lifestyle on a beer budget. The first will be assumed to have made their money through nefarious means, the latter is almost guaranteed to be read as being 'on the take'.
As to the people actually on the take, if it happens, why doesn't it happen to me? Why, in 20 years, have I never, ever been offered a bung? There have been times those extra bits of cash might have helped and would have proved hard to resist. But I didn't have to resist. There were no manilla envelopes. No loudspeaker ports filled with used fivers. Nothing. And I'm pretty connected in this business, so I doubt I'm missing out on the payola. This business isn't big enough for big bungs, and a reviewer isn't likely to commit career suicide for a small one, so I guess these 'stories' are just 'stories' after all.
But this is getting very much off the point. Good luck to David and all the best to Dan in his future ventures. I hope it all works out for both of them.
