At 02:09 PM 8/22/2006, R. Kevin Stover wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Pete Smith wrote:
> > Both New Product announcements from September QST -
> >
> >
> > I thought the August QST was pretty good, but this ... horrific!
> >
> > 73, Pete N4ZR
> > The World HF Contest Station Database
> > Full details on 3165 contest stations
> > at http://www.pvrc.org/WCSD/WCSDsearch.htm
>
>One word, ADVERTISERS!
>Lessee if they've got the guts to do a couple of objective reviews.
>I doubt it. They'll just continue to take the advertising money and let
>unsuspecting (probably new) Hams do the beta testing.
>
>73
>R. Kevin Stover, AC0H
Well... not to really pick on you, Kevin, in particular, but since you
mentioned it...
I'm pretty sure that if you called up the QST editor and offered to do the
review of the antenna they'd take you up on it. You'd also probably be able
to get a loan of the antenna from B&W. (although ARRL has some funky
policies about how you get review items, to prevent mfrs from sending you a
ringer) You'd also even get paid for it ($65/page). (which is a heck of a
lot better than in most professional journals, where YOU have to pay them
page charges)
You could probably get B&W to loan you the antenna for 30 days or so, just
on spec, if you claimed you were doing a review in general, and seemed
reasonably credible.
My wife made her living doing, among other things, product reviews of
computers and software back in the late 80s (for mags like Entrepreneur and
Consumer Guide), and getting the product to review is the easiest part of
the process. Writing the darned review is the hard part.
http://www.arrl.org/qst/aguide/#qst
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|