Posts
I have to wonder if they actually even used the item for what it was intended.
Not only that but I paid just under $20 cash for two hard copies of the annual "gear guide" that are total BS for content. Ads were good though. And manufactures pay $3 to 5K for a color cover? What are they thinking?
An incredible 7K meter peak down jacket reviewed for bouldering comes to mind. (no really that was the review!) Or one of the best skimo/touring skis I've been on, written up as a total looser when used as free ride ski? No, really, who would have thought.."free ride lift ski"? (me rolling my eyes here)
Do the stars, moon and freaking Sun have to align with a hefty wad of cash for the FREE gear to get a decent/honest review in hard print? The more I think about it and see what does get published the more pissed off I get.
10 comments:
Ha. Chalk me up on that one, too.
and all the gear guides are all the same, or rather have the same basic content
thanks for keeping it real, Dane!
And of course the opposite...gear that sucks, reviewed as great.
Bruno......hate to get started on the flip side :) But you are right, no question.
Common Dane. You know that all the gear reviews that are published in magazines are directly tied to the advertiser's dollars and have nothing what so ever to do with the actual product said reviewer is writing about. The more favorable the review the more money the magazine gets.......
Dane, You KNOW that the gear reviews are directly tied to the advertising dollars and that only favorable write-ups of gear get published because negative ones mean less money to the magazine........................
It's ALL BS!!
Its all about the Features and Benefits.
RIght as usual, Dane.
Too many mag 'reviews' are based on manufacturers' product descriptions, not actual usage. Or improper usage. Or a combination of both.
Sure I "know". But the disconnect between print advertising and reality continues to surprise me on a daily basis.
Post a Comment