RIB Int - Rayglass Protector A serious question

[Phil]

The current issue of Rib Int carries an article (advert?) for the new diesel 10.5m Protector written by "New Zealands most experienced marine journalist.."

"I have driven..Protectors in everything from glassy smooth water to horrendous seas...."

"I doubt there is a better RIB in the rough...."

"If you thought the 850 Protector was a great boat then you are going to love the 10.5m"

well fantastic ,looks just the boat for me -extended cruise in Europe (yep still planning) BUT, BUT

Rib Int Issue 84 contains a review of the 850 out of Poole by Simon Everett and Hugo MS and I quote

""A big RIB like this,with all weather protection should be able to deal with such conditions with easae. The truth is,she didn't"

AND"At one point the bow tube was bending back,and I had to be quick to ease the power fearful of tearing the tube off the bow...."

So explain to me what to make of these two conflictimg reports. OK my quotes are taken out of the 2 reviews but read them and you will not fail to see the obvious

Should RIB Int have commented on thier previous review?

[jwalker]

Take em all with a pinch of salt imho Phil.

[RJH]

I know I'll probably never buy one but I did look forward to reading the "test" as advertised on the front cover. Disappointed to see little more than a shortened version of a brochure with hardly any critical appraisal as one would expect from a test.

Should have been entitled "advertisment" as you see in some publications that produce similar sorts of articles.

[biffer]

thats rib international for you, glad to see they haven't dropped there standards!!!!!

[two stroke mick]

I think RI used to be a good mag. But I feel that in the last 18 24 mths the standard has slipped. Thus I did not renew my subs

TSM

[jambo]

I feel I must agree with TSM in relation to RI. I rec'd my latest copy yesterday and I am again sadly dissapointed, I agree some two years ago it was still a good publication with some good articles, mbut lately the content apart from going down the toilet is also dissapearing as it seems to be about half the size!
I also would like to agree with Phil in that I thought it really funny reading the advert in the current issue and remembering well the very strong article penned by HS in RI. Where is the honesty especially when you are suposedly writing a publication for 'users' of the end product who will use the said subject in adverse conditions where lifes could be at stake.
J

[biffer]

never did think it was good, too biased towards the people who advertised in it.

[Ian M]

Originally Posted by biffer

never did think it was good, too biased towards the people who advertised in it.

Unless your name is Laurence

[Cypman]

I have copies of RIB International going all the way back to 2003. It is my view that the current and more recent editions have gradually moved away from being an "informative" product to what is now almost solely an "advertising" glossy .
Indeed, it has been indicated to me that RIB Manufacturers may have to pay to get Boat Tests of their products included in the magazine. If this is true then it would explain the apparent bias and move away from informative journalism.
It really is a great shame that the magazine has changed, RIB International has been the foremost RIB magazine for many years and I for one would wish to see it return to the old style. I realise that HMS has to run a commercially viable publication but maybe he can take note of our views.

[Polwart]

Originally Posted by jambo

I also would like to agree with Phil in that I thought it really funny reading the advert in the current issue and remembering well the very strong article penned by HS in RI. Where is the honesty especially when you are suposedly writing a publication for 'users' of the end product who will use the said subject in adverse conditions where lifes could be at stake.
J

In fairness though can people not have different opinions? For example, I've heard people claim Delta are some of the best sea boats out there, and then other equally respected people say they are a rough, wet and unpleasant ride in poor conditions. Then I hear people rave about Redbay's and others tell me that the details aren't as good as the reputation would suggest, and others have commented that their famous canopy can be "diesel fumey" at low speed. If the person has a brand association (and the blurb in the article makes it clear that the author of the latest article does have an affinity for Rayglass Protectors) then they are more likely to write a "loyal articel".

It would be no different if you asked Codders to write a review of a landrover... someone else might right a review that is "surprised" that its doesn't actually deliver as much as the reputation would suggest, then codders would come along a few months later and say "if you though the old one was good - this is even better".

Of course all magazine editors need to think carefully about how they balance what the reader / subscriber wants to see with what advertisers want. I would say that ALL magazines are suffering from a fall in advertising revenue which means that advertisers can be a bit more demanding... but they also seem to be suffering from lack of real content which I don't understand as the proportion of the cost for each page must be tiny?