I think the review is one piece of information. The
test data is another and the expanded review is the
best if there is one for a rig. The testing is
standard and you can't gloss over that. Some
marketing guy probably reads the text part of the
article to sure there is no offense but the ARRL Labs
measurements are all telling.
73,
John NA9U
--- Ron Castro <ronc@sonic.net> wrote:
> 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!
>
> Ron
> N6AHA
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <K4IA@aol.com>
> To: <tentec@contesting.com>
> 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
> > Pooh
> > 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
> > is
> > awful. QST is definitely not Consumer Reports.
> >
> > That is a step better than Scuba Diver magazine.
> They never saw a piece
> > of
> > equipment or dive destination that wasn't
> fantastic. CQ magazine reviews
> > are
> > like that. I think they are written by the
> manufacturers.
> >
> > I'd like to see harder hitting reviews with some
> critical discussion.
> > The
> > only place you can get the ugly side of things is
> by reading the comments
> > on
> > eHam and they are not very scientific.
> >
> > K4ia "Buck"
> > Fredericksburg, Virginia USA
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TenTec mailing list
> > TenTec@contesting.com
> >
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|