[Nobody]

Good points.
Macworld magazine's (and previously MacUser magazine's) hardware and software reviews/comparisons are no longer what they used to be. Next to the side by side reviews/comparisons from the "good ol' days", todays headlines seems to be that - headlines. Sellable headlines and content to not offend corporate advertisers.

[Jon Seff]

Quote:

---

Sellable headlines and content to not offend corporate advertisers.

---

There's a difference between questioning our opinions and questioning our journalistist integrity and credibility. The former is valid, and the reason we have online forums. The latter is a cheap shot. If I felt any pressure to alter my opinions and contributions to Macworld because of 'corportate' concerns, I would not be working here--and I don't think the rest of the staff would either.

[Nobody]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Sellable headlines and content to not offend corporate advertisers.

---

There's a difference between questioning our opinions and questioning our journalistist integrity and credibility. The former is valid, and the reason we have online forums. The latter is a cheap shot. If I felt any pressure to alter my opinions and contributions to Macworld because of 'corportate' concerns, I would not be working here--and I don't think the rest of the staff would either.

---

My points were not meant as cheap shots. Not directed at any one individual. I am simply stating a matter of fact that Macworld - just like every other publication on the market today - is corporate driven. The bottom line and shareholders profit margins rules. Just like any media outlet and government agency as well. The corporate culture in general (Sony, HP, Apple, etc) is not open anhonest regarding neutral, fair and open information on product quality, reliability, and comparability. And that is understandable in itself.
Macworld used to be IMO only 2nd behind the former U.S. based MacUser print magazine before the takeover of said mag. The ratings, charts, comparisons, reviews, etc, etc of all Mac related products was good. (I see MacUser U.K. is still live and well). Today Macworld is almost a ghost of its former self - specially the print edition. I have been reading Macworld and MacUser since 1992, and I feel that the contents have deteriorated over the years from a my perspective. There may be others who disagree with me, but that is how I see it.
What is really missing today are the comprehensive comparison and quality testings. 'Consumer Report' style. Independent and open ratings of all products. Forexample - what happened to the all inclusive testings and ratings of all major hard drives, optical drives, laser and inkjet printers, monitors, graphics cards, software, etc, etc? A dozen or two products at a time tested regularly. Monitor tests rated side by side - inspecting screen, color, contrast, quality, build, angles, etc. What happened to all this? That is what I mean.
Further - the fact is that if Macworld write bad reviews about a certain product - let's say the Kodak products presently advertised on this site - there is the chance that Kodak could pull its future advertising from Macworld. You guys probably don't want to bite the hand that feeds you, so the articles will generally and inherently be soft and maybe not totally neutral because of it.
None of my scribbles here are full frontal on anyone specific at Macworld, but rather a finger pointing at the publication's direction regarding reviews/ratings/charts/comparisons. Macworld may be on a different path today compared to the past (financially and otherwise), but a shift did happen in the past and product 'reviews' started to get that 'glossy look and presentation'.
I personally wish your parent IDG would make Macworld grow back its original roots (including the U.S. MacUser magazine version) on testing and comparing results, and thereby get even more customers who are looking for honest answers before emptying their savings for that latest greatest product release.
My 0.1 cent.

[jmincey]

I've been reading Macworld and the old MacUser since the mid 1980s and I tend to agree with a number of your points, but there is a forum dedicated to discussion of both this web site in general and also the print edition of the Macworld magazine. Granted this thread has in a natural way moved into this subject and I understand your wish to clarify, but before pursuing it in much more depth, I suggest you transfer your posts to the other forums.

[Dan Frakes]

Quote:

---

My points were not meant as cheap shots. Not directed at any one individual. I am simply stating a matter of fact that Macworld - just like every other publication on the market today - is corporate driven. The bottom line and shareholders profit margins rules. Just like any media outlet and government agency as well.

---

Except that when it comes to Macworld's content, you're mistaken. When it comes to reviews, we call them like we see them, good or bad.

Quote:

---

What is really missing today are...Independent and open ratings of all products.

---

Which is exactly what we provide. Our editorial side is completely independent of our business side. As Jon pointed out, none of us writing reviews has ever been pressured to, or has even heard a suggestion to, treat a product favorably or unfavorably for any reason. It just doesn't happen.

Quote:

---

Further - the fact is that if Macworld write bad reviews about a certain product - let's say the Kodak products presently advertised on this site - there is the chance that Kodak could pull its future advertising from Macworld. You guys probably don't want to bite the hand that feeds you, so the articles will generally and inherently be soft and maybe not totally neutral because of it.

---

Wrong. If a vendor doesn't like a review and pulls advertising because of it, so be it. But it's notable that this rarely happens with reputable publications and reputable advertisers. In fact, the fairer and more independent a publication is with its reviews, the less likely vendors are to "blacklist" that publication for a poor review, and the more likely companies will want to advertise with that publication -- something people who make accusations of "advertiser favoritism" don't really seem to understand.

[Nobody]

There tends to be an inevitable natural balance between opposing interests-- if for no other reason than self-interest and need for survival. One has to assume that publications serving a targeted small market have to be quite accutely aware of the obvious consequences. Too much veering off to either extreme could be lethal... in one direction through the loss of advertising $ and in the other direction through loss of readership, loss of $ in subscription, leading to loss of $ in advertising money.
If your impressions are correct, chances are good that number of subscribers must have gone down; find those numbers and you would have a better idea of reality.

[Jason Snell]

If you are very clever and spend the time to analyze our reviews and our advertisements (in print is easier than online, but either way) you will definitely find examples of negative reviews we have written that are followed almost immediately by the disappearance of that advertiser, at least for a while.
It happens quite often, but it doesn't change our editorial approach. Not only do our editors understand this, but our business people understand it too. Although they are sometimes frustrated by editorial content making one of their clients angry, they also understand that without an independent editorial staff nobody would want to read their magazine/web site, which would make it very hard to sell ads.

[Jason Snell]

Quote:

---

The bottom line and shareholders profit margins rules.

---

Just as a point of clarification, Macworld and its parent company, IDG, are privately held. There are no shareholders in the commonly used sense.

Quote:

---

Macworld used to be IMO only 2nd behind the former U.S. based MacUser print magazine before the takeover of said mag. The ratings, charts, comparisons, reviews, etc, etc of all Mac related products was good. (I see MacUser U.K. is still live and well).

---

As a former MacUser editor I do agree that the magazine was good. I can also tell you that our approach isn't really any different than it was back then. Do we have the budget and staff that those mags had back then? Sadly, no. But our approach is the same -- and this is coming as someone who was there, then, and is here, now.

Quote:

---

Today Macworld is almost a ghost of its former self - specially the print edition. I have been reading Macworld and MacUser since 1992, and I feel that the contents have deteriorated over the years from a my perspective. There may be others who disagree with me, but that is how I see it.

---

My perspective is that many readers believe that back in the old days, MacUser/Macworld wrote gigantic, in-depth articles the likes of which we never see today, and they published it in an ad-free magazine that cost ten cents. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif Or to put it another way, to some degree I think people's memories are a bit more generous to those halcyon days than perhaps is deserved.
If you look at the quality and volume of the content we're presenting today, both in print and especially on the Web, I think you would have a hard time arguing that things were better back then. (With a few exceptions -- we can't do reviews of 40 hard drives every month, like we used to, owing almost entirely to our much smaller editorial staff.)

Quote:

---

Forexample - what happened to the all inclusive testings and ratings of all major hard drives, optical drives, laser and inkjet printers, monitors, graphics cards, software, etc, etc?

---

See above -- I can't argue with you, at one point we had a lab of six or eight people. We have a couple now. However, we are working pretty hard to find ways to increase the amount of hardware testing we do.

Quote:

---

Further - the fact is that if Macworld write bad reviews about a certain product - let's say the Kodak products presently advertised on this site - there is the chance that Kodak could pull its future advertising from Macworld.

---

See my previous post -- this happens all the time. I know you won't believe me when I say this, but as editors we really don't care if an advertiser pulls their ads because we reviewed their product fairly and panned it. It has happened, continues to happen, and everyone who works here -- in sales as well as editorial -- understands that's how it works. Generally most vendors understand that you don't pull your ads over bad reviews, because then not only have you gotten a bad review but you've also cut off your last avenue to independently communicate with potential customers!

Quote:

---

a shift did happen in the past and product 'reviews' started to get that 'glossy look and presentation'.

---

Got an example?

Quote:

---

I personally wish your parent IDG would make Macworld grow back its original roots (including the U.S. MacUser magazine version) on testing and comparing results, and thereby get even more customers who are looking for honest answers before emptying their savings for that latest greatest product release.

---

You want to know how Macworld will grow? The Mac market has to grow, and the number of advertisers in the market have to grow. The more advertisers, the more money, and eventually that means more editors and lab staff members. This isn't a matter of someone writing a check; the moment we become unprofitable, we go out of business. For Macworld to increase its staff, the Mac market needs to become healthier. And isn't that something we'd all wish for?

[People_Eater]

Quote:

---

There's a difference between questioning our opinions and questioning our journalistist integrity and credibility. The former is valid, and the reason we have online forums. The latter is a cheap shot.

---

So, it's not valid to question your journalistic integrity? Why not? I don't think any journalist is above criticism. As far as your forum goes - those don't seem to be too useful, as you delete any posts that say something you don't want to hear, and shut down discussions as soon as they get interesting.

[People_Eater]

Quote:

---

Which is exactly what we provide.

---

So, where are all the side-by-side reviews of a whole range of LCD displays, for example? Do you realize how hard it is to find a comprehensive review of LCD displays that includes the Apple displays, and includes factors other than just resolution and response-time for gamers?

[Jason Snell]

Quote:

---

As far as your forum goes - those don't seem to be too useful, as you delete any posts that say something you don't want to hear, and shut down discussions as soon as they get interesting.

---

I'd suggest that any of our forum users who have been here for any length of time (for example, more than four days) will tell you that's completely untrue. Unless you define "interesting" as "off topic and against the site's community guidelines."
Criticism of Macworld is welcome here, actually. We won't delete it, but when people start suggesting that we're in the pocket of our advertisers, you will see us push back at you forcefully, because it's simply not true and we won't let bogus statements like that stand.

[People_Eater]

Quote:

---

I'd suggest that any of our forum users who have been here for any length of time (for example, more than four days) will tell you that's completely untrue. Unless you define "interesting" as "off topic and against the site's community guidelines."

---

Hmmm. You do understand that people can read these forums before they register to post, don't you? Just because I recently registered, does not mean I have not been reading the forums for a long time. One would think that you would know how your own forums worked.
Anyway, it;s interesting that you allow many off-topic posts to stand, while deleting others, for no apparent reason. For example - you deleted a ton of my posts from the iTV forum - which contained some off-topic discussion, as well as some pertinent discussion. Meanwhile, you allowed Jeff Mincey's posts to survive, even the ones which were totally off-topic, and had no on-topic content whatsoever.
Also, if you are not following a discussion carefully, it can be hard to see how comments actually relate to the topic. They may be tangential, but still related. But it seems your preference is just to blindly delete, rather than see where there might be insight.

[Nobody]

Jason
I appreciate your comments above in general. I truly do.
For this post . . . at the outset . . . I am not picking on anyone. I am just bashing my own head a little if anything. Clear? Clear! /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
. . . and for those who read the following . . . apologies for the overall length . . .

. . . follow the money trail . . . into the pockets . . . . . .
Macworld is a company that has to be profitable and answer to its shareholders and owners - whether public or private. Every company has employees on salary in some form or another. No employee (whether as a contributor or editor) will "cut" the hand that feeds without a serious response from the top . . . in this case whether it be IDG and IDG's self imposed responsibility toward its advertisers.
Let's call apples apples and oranges oranges.
Macworld is in the business to make money. Perfectly understandable. And acceptable. However, a large part (if not the greatest) of its revenue comes from advertising. If the big "Tech Corps" grumble, the IDG board may jump. The potential loss of revenue is negative in any boardroom. No major corporate advertisers - no revenue, no Macworld, no IDG.
Good stories means more revenue. Good marketable stories should not only please the readers, but also the advertisers. If the product is too bad? Choice? Product not featured at all? Macworld is not independent and neutral (like e.g. the U.S. based 'Consumer's Union's' work through 'Consumer Reports' - they do not accept any form of advertisements - just donations and subscriptions to their magazines and online services). Macworld (through IDG) claims to be the leader in its field. Quote: "International Data Group (IDG) is the worlds leading technology media, events, and research company".
However - many readers look to a publication like Macworld to find "facts, real world truth, tested reviews and serious research and in your face comparisons". Well - at least that is what many of us readers hope and expect from a publication that proudly claims to be the "world's leader". This is why so many are involved in forums and such because they believe. At least they want to believe. Others, like myself, throw a load of salt over everything written by anybody, because of the potential agenda behind it. Whether it be from private people, organizations, corporations or governments. Many seemingly do not know or don't want to know about the agenda rolling in the background of about every story - even in the general news. But I do.

IDG chairman McGovern states the following (in good tradition by any corporate standard following the money):
"As the IT industry continues to evolve and new technologies emerge, one thing will remain the same. We'll continue our corporate commitment to be the most qualified global marketing partnership for you. We look forward to helping you strengthen and extend your relationship with IT buyers worldwide".
http://www.idg.com/w...nForm&region=WW

This is of course a short clip that does not describe the whole picture. The point is: IDG derives its income from advertisers, events and resale of the very stories (research) committed from within its ranks. Writing "bad" product stories about lets say Intel's, HP's, Fujitsu's, etc. that may be large advertising contributors - would be totally contradictory to IDG's goals and business models. That would make no business sense.


Some more basic IDG statements (following the trail):

IDG
- has more than 300 magazines and newspapers in 85 countries.
- is read by more than 120 million people worldwide.
- has more than 400 IT/Business focused websites worldwide.
- 's subsidiary IDC (International Data Corporation) provides computer industry research and analysis through offices in 45 countries.
- IDG produce more than 150 events in 35 countries, and has the most comprehensive conference & event series focused on the Internet, e-business and IT for the life sciences.

IDG sounds like a big big operation overall, and it probably means big, big revenue as well.


More of IDG's business solutions (paving the way):
http://www.idg.com/igs
"IDG Global Solutions providing:
Total Access to the Strongest IT Media Vehicles in 85 countries
Delivering Audience and Solutions
Non-Commission Based Transactions
Campaign Tracking and Media Consulting
Serving Over 3,000 Customers Worldwide"
"Working closely with international media agencies as well as directly with the vendor, IDG Global Solutions has developed a client base which boasts some of the worlds leading IT Vendors: HP, Dell, Cisco, Intel, Fujitsu Siemens Computers and Acer."

Further - following the money trail:
http://www.idgglobal...f/contents/home

"IDG Global Solutions - IGS (IDG subsidiary)
Working closely with international media agencies as well as directly with the vendor, IDG Global Solutions has developed a client base which boasts some of the worlds leading IT Vendors."

"IDG Global Solutions Client Services team work closely with marketing professionals within leading IT companies, providing bespoke projects tailored towards their marketing strategies."

Tailoring the services for the advertisers . . . yes - excellent business practices and obviously exactly the way any serious business should run the ship.


Further - a very recent study by IDC (IDG subsidiary) . . . and running for the money:
http://www.idg.com/w...52571E9004B4F98
"Tech Marketing Investment Projected to Increase by 7.5% in 2006, The Fastest Rate of Increase in 5 Years, According to IDC.
SEPTEMBER 14, 2006 - The IDC CMO Advisory Service projects that IT vendor marketing budgets will increase by 7.5% for the full year 2006, the fastest rate of increase over the past five years.
IDC's fourth annual Technology Marketing Benchmarks Survey provides insight into the management techniques and investment strategies based on IDC's unique access to the world's largest and most influential technology marketing leaders.
This study is based on 95 interviews conducted with senior marketing executives of the leading IT hardware, software, and services vendors, including Adobe, Cisco, HP, Intel, SAP, and Symantec, representing over $360 billion in IT revenues and over $12 billion in marketing spending.
The IDC CMO Advisory Practice provides marketing executives and their operations counterparts with critical insights and fact-based information to plan program and people investments, prepare marketing operations, mobilize resources, and measure results."

Jason - your statement that Macworld is not in the pockets of its advertisers does not hold water. I say that with respect. I can only assume you meant it to a degree and not 100%.
With such an influence and grasp from the technology market and corporations in general, it is obvious and logical that the potential opportunity to tap into the 12 billion worth of marketing/advertising dollars, certainly trumps any notion of not being in the advertisers pockets.
Like the saying goes . . . if one wants the whole inside story to be told . . . just follow the money trail.

As far as reviews goes . . . I know of course it is wishful thinking on my part bringing back comprehensive and totally honest, neutral, side-by-side comparisons, ratings and in-depth reviews is exactly that. Wishful thinking. The corporate entities prevents that from happening. I - as a measly particle-sized carbon-based sub-humanoid terra-member - living on this third rock from the sun - can at the very least hope that most of the "MacUser format" and content comes back into the fold - and hopefully even better than it was.
I love technology - but I am no expert, and like for many of us "dumbnecks" - the consumers in general who need guidance more times than not - we can only beg and hope you guys will conquer within and eventually find the extra resources to make it happen once again. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
. . . but then it is the issue of those pesky "little" advertisers influence . . . grrrrrrrrrrr . . . /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif
Bjorn

[jmincey]

Bjorn, it could be me, but I don't think it will be necessary for you to continue to point out to Jason that Macworld depends largely on advertising for its revenue.
Also, I ask once again that further posts on the subject of Macworld as a magazine be relocated to the forum designated for that purpose, (the existence of which illustrates that Macworld is open to hearing constructive comments about itself as a publication).