MBM Westline review

Quite right, my own experiences with Sailing Today (sorry IPC your ad reps just do not move enough for my budget) reflect what you say.

I have placed an ad in their December magazine an edition which also has a photo of a boat I put together for a local charity, I asked if my ad might be able to go on the same page or facing - they said nope. Fair enough too, but I had to ask.

People buy the mags for honest reviews, why would they risk the honest part?
 
Would be quite worrying if any boat builder never got anything less than 3 out of 5 as they were good advertising revenue sources. Would hardly be worthwhile buying the mags....apart from looking at pictures of great boats that most peeps can only aspire to that is...that sunseeker predator comes to mind.....
Anyway I'm sure nobody ever bought a boat basis a mag review alone..it's a good pointer though and I am sure those that might be interested in a w34 will judge it in the flesh & not on the basis of some glossy pics & review..be it good or bad.
Jon.
 
I thought long and hard before adding my tuppence to this post, and, probably unwisely, I've decided to have a say.

I'm sorry to tell you that there is absolutely no pressure brought to bear by the advertising team at IPC over the MBM editorial staff.

We do not know ahead of time what adverts are going in the mag, and, frankly, don't care.

The Westline got a good write up because it is a good boat. However, there were some things we didn't like, which were noted in the review.

The thing is, I can say this till I'm blue in the face, but I know in six months' time I'll be debating whether to wade into a similar post on the the same subject.

So just for the cheap seats I will say it again.... advertising has NOTHING to do with what content the editorial staff include in MBM.
 
I can believe that this is the case for individual boats as relates to individual adverts.

However, I find it harder to believe that there isn't a general ethos of not putting the boot in too badly on boat tests, as in the general case, builders wouldn't put forwards boats for review, or buy adverts, or even talk to you any more.

I remember a French boat that actually started to disintegrate under test, but the review said that "we've been assured this movement will be rectified on future models..." and it still got reasonably high marks!

dv.
 
Hmmm, well you would say that wouldn't you and that is probably why you are an assistant to the ed not the ed (yet) (no offence intended) you probably haven't been around in the ed's office when the head of ad rings him on the qt and says 'listen ere, we need to hit our targets this month (our bonus is at stake) and Sunlinecess have agreed to do triple page pull outs on all our mags on condition they get some good coverage see' the ed says 'don't worry i'll sort it out' ed comes out of office and says to assistance ed 'I think we should do an impartial review and main feature on the Sunlinecess latest 50m boat' You think this has had nothing to do with the advertising, I say you haven't been around long enough in life yet. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Its nothing to be ashamed of, this is how niche, vertical mags survive.
 
yup

I used to be well into my enduro/trail bikes & there was a n ( at the time ) get-it by post only A5 mag called trailbike magazine ( TBM) they rightly slagged a Yamaha 4T for being a pita to start from hot ( like when you fall off, and really really want an easy starting bike).

Now, unless they made it all up.... they reported Yamaha as trying all sorts of things, including err removing all their ads. as I recall, the mag stuck firm.

Of course, the Ed team may well take the view, and perhaps rightly so, that yer average mbm/mby reader doesn't wanna read critical articles & just wants some glossy thing to leaf through. In terms of sales - likely they are right


regarding umm actual faults, rather than hmm to my taste, x shoulda been this colour & the seat's a bit hard type stuff..... while it's maybe interesting to hear what ,say Trader had to say about their wet-wet-wet 42 - I don't think fairness should enter into it at all - Boat builder/dealer X provides a supposedly finished model ( or a pre-production, in which case make that very clear, as the mags do actually ) and the review should say what they find. Surely someone who likes boats works for the maker/dealer & noticed the very same issues?
 
well, I don't know whether anyone's really interested in the perspective of an old journo - but: the problem here is that we tend to see mags and papers as all of a kind - and they aren't. Papers - I was actually a news agency reporter to start with - sell on the basis of news. Be it Reuters or the Mail, doesn't matter. No-one buys them for the ads. But with mags, specialist mags in particular, it's a bit different. At YW I wanted to give the readers lots of Which-type testing, comparative stuff. Of course that was great for those companies that come off top - less good for those that came in for informed criticism. We used independent juries and were quite punchy. Many in the trade did not like it, and the flak came back to me through the Ad Manager and the publisher. Nothing overt, of course, but the message was unmistakeable. Who's paying your salary?

Delighted to be assured it's not like that any more - I'm really reassured......I think...............
Nick
 
That's not exactly what an esteemed past editor of your organ once told me although, to be fair, I think MBM are more tell it like it is these days rather than tell it like the advertiser told us. But it would be commercial (and professional) suicide to piss off advertisers so I can't believe that the editorial team at MBM don't have at least one eye on individual manufacturers advertising spend
 
conclussion!!!!
the only way for mags is not to accept advertisement from the builders like this there is no conflict of interest, as is the case with ads vs boat reports
i think the tests should be more subtle and less over criticing sometimes
I have seen boat reports where some boats have been 1) batered for small defects and others who should have been 2) where not
the difference was that 1) placed little ads 2) placed a lot of ads
what I really hate is the different measures taken in the ads for those who advertise the most where everything is very subtle and 2 those who dont advertise much where little problem is of big concern...
 
Ok
Here is my two pence worth.

I read the review today - it was a good review and I am really pleased for Jez. He is a small business working hard and I say the best of luck to him

I have been closely involved in magazines for years and seen it all - that includes IPC and having had that experience I have to back up what Stewart writes - I do not think for one second that any pressure was brought into writing the review.
I think Stewart is telling the truth and I think the cynicism on this thread has taken something away from what should have been a good discussion about the product.

It was sad to watch the cynics take over.

May I suggest the pros and cons of the boat are discussed rather than the ethics of the mags - if you want to do that start another thread.
 
Have to agree, its the actual boat I am interested in. Thats why I buy the mag.
If an advertiser influences (allbeit behind the scenes) the inclusion of a boat for test, so what? Without advertising the mag would probably cost around £25 if it existed at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top