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.
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?