RE: [Leica] magazine lens tests thread

[Alan Ball <AlanBall@csi.com>]

Lucien, Bruce,

You are right Lucien, and I did not quite follow Bruce's CV: was that the 
photographic press you were working for ? Or for a specialised technical 
magazine in another field ? As a freelancer ? As a full-time editor ? In 
what country ?

My personal experience as an editor with specialised media (IT in 
Belgium/Luxemburg) does not let me come to the same radical conclusions as 
Bruce's. Though I must admit that there is always 'some' level of 
interaction between the editorial staff, the commercial staff of the 
magazine, the publisher, the PR agencies, the advertisement agencies and 
the advertisers, of course.

These interactions might sometimes be welcomed by the editor, it is not 
always a case of resisting pressures or not: proactive suppliers who go out 
of their way to pass data through will be looked upon with sympathy of 
course. For example, if company X provides test material long before the 
magazine's deadline, if it provides a direct phone line with its engineers, 
it it provides full data sheets and great pics of the product, it it gets 
all the information material translated into the language spoken by the 
editors, etc, well, that company will of course stand a better chance of 
extensive coverage than a competitor that acts inversely. That seems normal 
to me, especially in the smaller magazines (narrow market niches and narrow 
national markets usually entail small editorial teams with little time for 
research). The events of last night (GMT time) on the available news 
channels do also show the information advantage entailed by efficient PR, 
even for the richest media's editorial work.

But certainly in my experience, it is exceptional that I have witnessed 
anything as blatant as what Bruce describes. I also believe that the degree 
of influence of the suppliers on the editors varies a lot depending on the 
markets addressed by the magazine and on the quality/quantity of its 
readership: the successful magazines would not want to put their good 
reputation at stake and risk loosing  highly priced readers, if only 
because that, in turn, would entail lower global advertisement returns. 
Even if it sometimes means 'displeasing' individual advertisers.

OTOH there are magazines that do not care about credibility and bluff their 
way through advertisement agencies by very aggressive distribution 
strategies: these are usually the magazines that are distributed free of 
charge through mailings or niche distribution segments (airports, shopping 
malls, closed vertical industry segments, etc). I have zero a-priori 
confidence in magazines that are given to me for free, though there are 
cases of freely distributed media that have gained well deserved 
credibility. Quite a few of those on the Internet BTW. Could we not 
consider Erwin's site as a niche non-profit making technical e-magazine 
with high credibility?
 ;-)
Regarding the photo press, I have grown to build my own pantheon regrouping 
the magazines that give to me the best image of independence and who have 
proven to me, through the years, that they counter-balance the potential 
advertisement blackmail by the way they process information. I think this 
explains the 'godly' status of CdI in our environment...

Alan

On mercredi 24 mars 1999 20:19, Lucien [SMTP:lucien@ubi.edu] wrote:
>
>
> Bruce Feldman wrote:
>
> > Nonetheless, I don't doubt that Leica, too, has its (fewer) favored, 
mostly
> > Europe-based lens testers, publications and freelancers, to whom they 
loan
> > or "donate" all their new products to.  Should any of these parties 
come up
> > with a disappointing or "incorrect" finding, then I would fully expect 
that
> > individual or publication to begin having problems with access to the
> > company and its favors.
>
> Bruce,
>
> I have to disagree with that part of your statement.
> I'm certain it's not true.
> Do you have any proof of it ?
>
> Besides, Leica don't need to do that.
> They have the best lenses.
> ;-)
>
> Lucien
>