Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/10/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19961021062228.22bf3444@mailhost.primenet.com> > It wouldn't surprise me, Dave, to learn that in the U.S., it is de > rigueur > for advertisers to be made aware of test results before publication. Not > saying that this is so, but with our predilection for breaking the > established rules here, who knows? I've written reviews for one US publishing house, and this most certainly wasn't the case. This was for the UK edition, but given that they're corporate with a side order of corporate, a piquant corporate sauce, and a small corporate side-salad, I suspect that their US arm operates the same policy (or tries to). The one problem with them was that their stated policy was often dramatically at odds with their actions. For example the publication in question makes huge claims to be 'Labs based', and that all results are based on extensive testing. They may do the testing, but the Technical Editor concerned (me) never saw the results...not *ever*. I was supposed to write the editorial copy after I'd seen the test results. What actually happened was that the results were late, and I got shouted at and threatened until I wrote it without the results. That was in Autumn 1993 (published January 1994), I only saw the benchmarks when I went out and *bought* the magazine in December. I haven't worked for them since. dmorton@cix.compulink.co.uk | "The loss of an old man david@cassandra.compulink.co.uk | is like the destruction 104707.2434@compuserve.com | of a library"