[TenTec] QST AD

[Ron Castro]

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 at aol.com>
To: <tentec at 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 at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
>