Publications have been very wary not to give negative reviews not just
because of jeopardizing advertising revenues, but because of the threat of
lawsuits. The defining case came several years ago when a big hi-fi stereo
magazine did an extremely negative review on a set of Bose speakers. Bose
successfully sued under a business defamation cause of action which left a
'chilling effect' on the consumer technical review business. Reviewers have
had to reign in their negative opinions unless fully supported by documented
facts that can be easily explained to a jury.
At the end of the day, I'm sure it's more a matter of ad revenue for QST.
Rule #1 in the advertising business: Don't piss off the client!
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 2:31 PM
Subject: Re: [TenTec] QST AD
> For whatever reason, QST reviews follow Winnie the Pooh's advice: "If you
> can't say something nice, don't say nothing at all." (At least, I think
> said that). You really have to read between the lines and watch for
> "condemnation by faint praise" to be able to make much sense out of the
> reviews. If
> they don't praise some aspect of the equipment it is probably because it
> awful. QST is definitely not Consumer Reports.
> That is a step better than Scuba Diver magazine. They never saw a piece
> equipment or dive destination that wasn't fantastic. CQ magazine reviews
> like that. I think they are written by the manufacturers.
> I'd like to see harder hitting reviews with some critical discussion.
> only place you can get the ugly side of things is by reading the comments
> eHam and they are not very scientific.
> K4ia "Buck"
> Fredericksburg, Virginia USA
> TenTec mailing list
TenTec mailing list