How do I cancel My PBO

[FlyingSpud]

“For many reasons, I no longer write 'knocking' copy. If I am offered a bad product, I send it back with suggestions for improvement. Other writers will do likewise. I do not see PBO et al as a sort of 'Which.”

I have to say I find this comment horrifying. What is the point of a title like PBO if it is not to warn its readership against wasting its money on bad or weak products?

I have a lot of time for your writings, but must I now assume that only products reviewed by you are good purchases?, and what are the ‘many reasons’?

 

[colin_jones]

I have to say I find this comment horrifying. What is the point of a title like PBO if it is not to warn its readership against wasting its money on bad or weak products

I have a lot of time for your writings, but must I now assume that only products reviewed by you are good purchases?, and what are the ‘many reasons’?


Hi Spud… calm down. We are in the season of peace and positivity where I, for one, still have no wish to contribute to the negative, interfering Nanny State of Thou shalt not, or be part of the mainstream media who will only report something if it is bad news.

This means that the answer to your question is “Yes”, but must be tempered with the understanding that whether a product is good or bad is often opiniative as in Liveaboards Diary of the current issue, where the products described are ones which I would/will buy when I can afford them, because they suit my style of boat and how I use it which, judging by the feedback, is typical of many of us who are not financially supported by a business , nor charter cruising on a magazine expense account, so pay our own way and spend all our spare money on the boat and its equipment. I enjoy the independence of this state of affairs.

That is also the hub of the “many reasons”. In the past, I have described something as a waste of space, only to be harangued by people saying “I love it”. Opinion!

If something is dangerous, I would say that IMHO it is but (1) the trade is now so regulated that dangerous products are rare and (2) when we have spotted what we think is a scam we have reported this to OFT and to local Trading standards (3) magazines frequently rant against rip-offs and over-high charges. Within our limited powers, we do our best to look after our friends.

You have legitimately expressed your opinion that “I do not see the point…..” OK! Accepted! On the other hand, my opinion is that I do not want another ‘Which’. This has been tried several times in the marine trade and has always failed. This is not for lack of advertising (My business mag has survived for 20 years and has no advertising at all, so it can be done.) but for lack of subscribers – not enough people wanted it..

Equally, if this interesting R to R debate has revealed anything it is that all mags mean all things to all men. None of them is perfect for every one of us and no publishing umbrella would survive if it was small enough to cover a particular niche. I would love to have a journal devoted to Colvic Watsons, or even motor sailer cruising, but this would not be commercially viable, so I go on subscribing to all boating publications, knowing that I am willing to pay for what does not interest me, in order to read about my personal boating passions.

I suppose it is all a matter of individual freedom to choose. Long may it continue.

Happy New Year to you all and hoping to meet some of you and enjoy your cockpit company again in 2003.

 

[kimhollamby]

Re: Sailing Today

Then please at least bring the boss around to meet us and see what kind and honest folks we all are /forums/images/icons/smile.gif Don't have the staff schedule with me but there will be people from the PBO and YM teams at the show each day.

kim_hollamby@ipcmedia.com

 

[kimhollamby]

Colin's comments are not representative of a PBO or IPC marine magazines policy but his choice as a valued freelance contributor.

When running a magazine there is a limit on pages and therefore it is one choice to sometimes deliberately avoid filling them up with lots of ranting and raving about a duff product in favour of highlighting the products that are worthy of review. But that is only an option, one that in my experience is rarely, if ever, exercised when conducting group tests, for example.

There is also another issue to be considered here and again it concerns the need to balance the interests of all readers. In a recent thread there was a question about whether magazines should carry regular 'I got horribly scared by that' stories and yet I know there are plenty of people who would complain about a 'everything at sea is not all sunsets and calm waters' approach to cruising reporting. Similarly one can fill a boating title with moans, groans, negative reporting of less able products and the like but that doesn't entirely address the overriding issue that we go boating for fun (don't we?) and plenty of people are looking for positive advice and pointers towards the best products, services and boats.

I don't think that our magazines are ducking difficult issues as a rule. Take the recent YM series on stability as an example of that. PBO has also been well-known for being particularly aggressive on many issues of concern to boatowners but to both magazines' credit (writing as someone who reads both titles) they have never developed these to the point of using them purely as marketing tools to try and push circulation, something which often sacrifices objective reporting for the good of all else.

kim_hollamby@ipcmedia.com

 

[kimhollamby]

Re: Not really helpfull!!

Thanks for the comments.

Yes, you are right to remind that it is a myth that owners with more expensive boats pay for all work and services. I was in exactly the same position as yourself when I owned a steel displacement motor cruiser a few years' back. And besides, what is boat ownership if it is not an opportunity to get out a cleaning cloth or a spanner? Strangely enough I fail to get the same warm feelings about polish and tools when in my house.

kim_hollamby@ipcmedia.com

 

[LadyInBed]

I can't say that I am reassured by Colin's response. The review of a new product is a totally different kettle of fish to a comparative group test.
A comparative group test carried out by a variety of people brings out positive and negative features, but allows for individual preferences. Readers then align themselves with the comments of the tester that has needs akin to their own.
When a new product comes to the market place it should be assessed, without bias, against the claims on the packet and the results published good and bad. Not publishing a review of produce that fails to live up to its claims is a cop out. How else will the consumer know if he is wasting his money.

 

[FlyingSpud]

Colin, Totally calm, believe me.

I cannot see how saying a product is duff is encouraging the Nanny state and I do not think you believe that. It is a red herring.

The crucial point is that you are saying that you would not report a bad product, but return it to the manufacturer with some suggestions as to how to improve it. Can this be right? I think not.

I value your opinions, my copy of ‘Cruiser management’ is dog eared from my digesting the sensible advice it contains. You have a lot more experience than I, and I suspect 98% of the readers of PBO. We NEED people like you to guide us to what we want, what we should spend our hard earn money on, and also what to avoid. Sure, others may have a different opinion to you, but I suspect I would take more notice of yours than I would many others.

I know it may be out of your specific area, but what do you think about the ‘mass produced’ boat issue I mentioned earlier in this thread, raised by Pat Manley? Would you have named the boat?

Accepted, a pure ‘Which’ Magazine would not work, because it would quickly run out of subjects, but I think most, no, all, readers of PBO do expect ANY review of new equipment to tell you if it is worth the money, otherwise, why review them?

The odd thing here is that I am on the side of the magazine here; I think it does a lot more right than it does wrong. I was a subscriber, but did not renew about a year ago, simply because I preferred to buy the magazine when I wanted. In fact, I don’t think I have missed a single copy. The one criticism I have is that the magazine has drifted too far to being the trades’ representative to us, rather than ours to the trade. I hope Sarah Norbury changes this. I think she did a great job with YM and got it away from its Solent Club bias that had previously dogged it. I hope she will shake PBO out of the stupor it fell into, but I still have to say that your comments are bizarre, and I think that the way Kim has tried to distance the Magazine from them suggests he may feel the same.

Anyway, Happy New Year and lets hope the Weather is going to get better this year

 

[FlyingSpud]

Kim. I accept all you say, and, of course, I understand that there is a limit to what can go into any magazine. I am sure Colin can look after himself!

But I am not quite sure that I follow your point about balancing the interest of all readers. If there is a product that is badly made, over priced or whatever, how can failing to report that be against the interests of any reader, except, perhaps, the MD of an importer or manufacturer?

I am also not sure about your point about ‘boating for fun’. It is not much fun to spend a few hundred pounds on gear (or even a few tens of thousands in the case of a new boat and the Pat Manley question I raised above), and then found you have bought a turkey. Saving us from this is hardly going to increase the store of human misery

Take another point, I looking for new Depth/Log/Wind instruments. I have been unable to trace any PBO review of the Simrad gear. What should I, or any other reader, take from this? Is the Simrad gear no good (could be if Colin looked at it) or is it just that you have never got round to reviewing it. I am not sure what to take from this.

Odd, all this. I was sitting reading this thread and agreeing with you. I now feel as if I am leading some sort of attack. Marks out of 10, I give PBO 7 or 8 – and, by the way, I think the forum is as good as it could be. I hope my comments are seen as constructive. Also, I am not sure why I am that bothered about which ‘modern mass produced boat’ has the engine problem – being part of the Westerly/Moody group. I think it is because of what it represents about the magazines position

 

[colin_jones]

Dear Mr Spud
I entered this debate with reluctance and continue with some sorrow as I really do hate squabbling with people. However, as you have libelled me as a liar by publishing that you do not believe that I actually send products back, I have set out below some facts and anecdotes, which I shall anyway be required to submit to your defending solicitor before the hearing and which you have my permission to verify with the Principals concerned.

My original decision not to write “knocking copy” occurred when I panned a NASA RDF unit by saying that it was so broadband tuned that it got Radio 4 clearer than RDF signals. This exaggeration infuriated the company but , as they are reasonable people, they talked to me about it, altered the spec and produced a very useful, fairly priced tool. I should have contacted them first but, luckily, it was only a minor magazine. Publicity in a major might have killed off what became valuable. More recently, as a result of this first contact, I had a lot of pleasure in discussing the pre-production development of NASA’s very impressive Weatherman and helping them as a radio enthusiast and boat user.

When JRC split from Raytheon to market their own radars, they were very keen to get reviews. I turned it down and sent the JRC 3000 back, partly because I could not understand the English translation of the user manual and it was so sloppy that I actually discovered that the radar had a couple of functions that the user guide did not even mention. It would have been easy to be the clever Dick and knock it, but we talked and the user manual was re-written and now, I hope, clearly explains how to operate a good series of radars.

A couple of years ago, MLR introduced a nice hand held GPS and trumpeted that it had some user configurable cartography. I liked the unit, but IMHO ( perhaps not that of others) the cartography was of marginal use and at £32 per small geographical area was ridiculously over-priced, so I would prefer not to be associated, so returned the package. There was some furious telephoning and the company immediately decided to offer all 8 map areas for the price of one. This I believed to be preferable to publishing a criticism and I had a lot of fun with the GPS when we had a second go.

Three years ago, quite unsolicited, I was sent about £1000 worth of iPAQ PDAs and an incredible amount of software. It seemed to me to be a toy, so it all went back with some suggestions about development as a marine tool. A couple of the companies came back to discuss this and so much has changed that we shall be looking at PDAs quite soon. Not all is perfect, but the idea now has much to offer, so I feel that we did some good rather than being a carping smart arse.

At LIBS, I shall be handing back a Silva electronic hand compass which was very grabby when I saw it on land, but a no no on the boat. It will be accompanied by a satellite Space Radio, which offers little in English and a very pricey wx service which is no better than stuff I can get for free. I also have a bulky Navtex and an overpriced chart plotter sitting here for despatch and have recently sent back two security systems because one was too expensive for my ordinary sort of boat and the other was not sufficiently marinised.

Your solicitor, will of course, be able to verify all this.

That is the past. The march issue of PBO talks about charts for France. In the talks with Navicarte, I mentioned that I like their website, but would not report it because the French to English translation is laughably incomprehensible. M Coatseliou has asked me to retranslate it. This will be fun to do and should be ready for when readers log on in late Feb (try www.grafocarte.fr if your solicitor wishes to have a before and after verification)

We shall meet Mr C and others soon when Rita and I go to France by car to sort out all the problems of internet and PDA internet etc use, which we prefer to do and to get it right, rather than try it and knock it because it does not work. (As a note to the cynical, we have a monthly commitment to 4 marine mags , but do not charge any of them expenses, so this is not a paid holiday jaunt)

I could go on and on in similar vein, but Rita occasionally scans this forum and will be horrified at how much it costs us to send all this back. I do not mind, because I have an interesting job and hope that my editors will continue to allow me the privilege of sourcing interesting, often under-publicised, projects and acting as a bridge to bring them to the attention of my cruising friends. There are plenty of other writers who can do the knocking. It is just not my bag and I am sorry that this personal philosophy had to be aired in such an egotistical fashion on a forum.

Here is a final thought before I see you in court ( Earls of course) This forum is often brilliant and I learn much from it. Unfortunately, IMHO, it is too often dragged down to a lavatorial level of unnecessary juvenile smut and occasional hurtful personal attack. As tonight is party night, the regulars should use the forum as a chat line and play that game where the aircraft ( call sign Romeo Two Romeo) will crash unless it sheds some load. Who will they chuck out and why?

Alas, I shall not be able to watch the fun as I have to go away and - unfortunately – am not a candidate for “heave-ho and farewell” because when I have put the full stop at the end of this long letter, written with some regret, I shall pull the ‘eject’ handle.

 

[John7]

Kimhollamby said in an earlier post “is one choice to sometimes deliberately avoid filling them up with lots of ranting and raving about a duff product in favour of highlighting the products that are worthy of review.” To my mind this could be where there is a problem. As a reader for some years I have had problems with a number of firms and products. From the Honda 2BF (which had some coverage in the end but its remaining defects (rust etc) are not commented on, to firms that are appalling in there service. Those I know in the marine trade make no secrete of the very poor service the customer gets along with grossly over high prices in almost all areas of marine products. It goes right through the trade and most accept there are few other areas such poor service and value would survive. In other countries where there is competition process and service is better. In some cases economies of scale play an important role , chandlery, in others not, marina prices and service.

For example I have had items sent faster from West’s products my local retailer couldn't get supplied to him in the same time from the UK suppliers at a much lower price, even after VAT etc added (one even originated from the UK!). Many of us have spoken to sailors from other countries who express there views on marina costs here and all to often lousy facilities etc. Few camp sites provide the poor wash and toilet facilities many marinas provide. Pontoons that have poor lighting, obstructed and at times down right dangerous.

In this yes PBO has leaned at times towards the reader/consumer but has tended to gloss over the problems by “highlighting the products that are worthy of review”. If its the reader first more aggressive reviewing of products and services is needed. The new group reviewing is a step in the right direction but where there are ongoing problems with products/services these should be highlighted as many are a substantial investment when bought. In the trade there are accepted problem products/firms and feed back on these would be of value. When a problem is found with a product the marine trade is poor at recalls (I had a radio reprogrammed (well much of the hardware had to be changed as it was not re-programmable) its early software was bugged (this is an example of poor design in general. Computer programming is at the hart of much marine equipment yet most products make no allowance for firmware up-dating, why?)).

 

[FlyingSpud]

Colin
Where have I called you a liar? I can only assume you misread my earlier posting, when I said

‘The crucial point is that you are saying that you would not report a bad product, but return it to the manufacturer with some suggestions as to how to improve it. Can this be right? I think not.’

I meant, and I think this would be clear to anyone, that I did not think it was right to send items back, but felt that you should report the defects you have found. I disagree with your approach, but you are entitled to your opinion.

What puzzles me is that the tenor of my earlier posts to you makes it clear that it is because I respect your views (and others like you – working for PBO), I want you to give me the good and the bad. This is hardly the comment of someone making a personal attack.

I found the rest of your post rather interesting, and frankly I would think it may have been worth reporting at the time. After all would, for example, NASA complain if you said in a report that you had received some weak equipment, and that following discussions, they had agreed to improve it? I would think they would see it as good publicity.

It also suggests that you perhaps should set up a consultancy to advise manufacturers and importers on products before they sell.

I am sorry you seem to have flown off of the handle here. I am not a Steve 101 or whatever, I am just making a point about the way that PBO review new gear

By the way, I do not need a solicitor! (that is not a threat, in case you think it is /forums/images/icons/smile.gif).

So can we metaphorically ‘shake hands’ and agree to disagree here?
Patrick

 

[kimhollamby]

To clarify...

...as with any black and white exchange the danger is that there will be intepretation and misintepretation that takes us beyond the boundaries of what was intended.

Your support and interest appreciated and no offence taken at any of the comments. In turn please understand that, if anything, Colin and I have both been guilty of laying out the facts in such detail that it might seem there are unpleasant truths beneath. In an age when everyone expects that there are deeper secrets lying below ones revealed this is always a dangerous tactic!

Our hearts are all collectively in the same place. The reality is that boating magazines are complex things that use a blend of different methods, approaches and policies to achieve the best result, all within a set number of pages (we could usually fill them twice over given time, money et al).

Specifically answering your question about the Simrad gear, there could be any number of reasons why it has not been reviewed, access to it or lack of being number one on the list of general (not manufacturer-specific) reasons. But that's a guess - if you are visiting the show why not pop by the stand and ask?

Bottom line is we all want the same thing I suspect. Namely good boating, boating equipment, boating services and boats. You can expect all of us here at IPC marine media to do our level best towards that aim in 2003, as before, through objective reporting and hands on involvement.

kim_hollamby@ipcmedia.com

 

[FlyingSpud]

Re: Readers are valued

Kim, did you get a definitive reply on the ‘Modern mass Produced boat’ not being named despite Pat Manley’s comments, at your meeting with the PBO team on the 2nd January ?

 

[kimhollamby]

Re: Readers are valued

Sorry, I've been run off my feet here with other things and haven't caught up with the right people yet. But I haven't forgotten...

kim_hollamby@ipcmedia.com