[Nobody]

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.
Jeff, you are right about not having to go on about the 'advertising revenue' and 'independent journalism'. But I believe I made my point. Otherwise the "change of venue" would not have happened. Jason of course knows best how his internal landscape looks like. Although many of the gulled readers may not. I personally have the utmost respect for the sometimes thankless work that the MW staff commits on a daily basis. I certainly could not do now what they do day in and day out. But they must love it - otherwise they would not be there.
Below are some quotations on this subject which are not likely to go over well with the Macworld staff, but I include them here "just for fun" and out of intellectual and historical interest.
I am happy you brought these quotes to the forefront, and you pre-emptied my "strike" by including the very quote by John Swinton I had ready for the next round. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif All excellent quote(s) from true insiders. Can not be described better, and makes the very points I have tried to make in much more eloquent ways.
Hey, won't anybody defend my honor?
Hey - don't you see me over on that other hill waving the flag ready to defend? /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Bjorn

[Nobody]

Jason
You and I agree on the perceived better quality of the now "dead" MacUser mag. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif I have not tried to change your viewpoints. Just expressing my own. Further, I don't think the question should be which other publication is like the independent CR, but rather how to improve the "living" MW.
I - of course - understand as well the balance that has to exist in this commercial world - your publication included. I perfectly understand. I am a former chairman myself, and I have been on other boards as well. I do know what is at stake here for all included.
My issues as a reader, however, are with the claimed 'independence' from the overall IDG company policies and strategic goals, and the lack of a more comprehensive and comparative product rating system. Evidently your department has had funding cutbacks, and I as a reader can only hope for future changes financially (as you also have indicated), and further continue to push a little "air" with my points through a forum or two to hopefully help that process with only a penny each time. But the advertisers will still be there breathing down your necks regardless of additional funding or not.
MW would not truly change unless it started again under new name and ownership, and with a totally different strategic goal. But as we all understand, that won't happen anytime soon /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Bjorn

[Nobody]

(As a side note, keep in mind that whenever you make such accusations about our editorial coverage being based on advertising dollars, you're not only criticizing Macworld's editorial policy -- which is fine -- but you're calling into question the integrity and character of those of us who work hard to produce objective, independent reviews of products. I realize we live in a cynical world these days, but some of us do take seriously our responsibilities to be fair, independent, and objective. So if some of us seem to take offense to your accusations, that's why /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Dan
I am not accusing any of you at MW for doing sub-par work. I believe strong heartedly that you all work very hard and take your work very seriously within the IDG guidelines you naturally have to work under. As stated before - I have read your publications since 1992. 14 years as a reader should also give me some knowledge and insight regarding the MU and MW published words, and the changes or IMO the "softness" that has been implemented over time. Maybe also for lack of funding in the "testing" department? Possibly by design? Since I am not an insider, I can only guess by logic. But still - something is amiss that used to be.
I am simply pointing a finger at the - now - worldwide IDG influence, and whether the content of reviews and ratings are truly 100% independent and neutral. I also know from experience that it can not be, because of the commercial implications. I also know of journalists from "trustable" mainstream media who have taken money for writing good news on behalf of corporations. It is actually not uncommon. However, before anyone attacks me for having made this statement - I am not saying that you or your colleagues have done anything like that. Not at all. But the business of any publishing venture is to make money, and not to necessarily inform facts or truth. Facts and truth can also potentially hurt a publisher in more ways than not.
Bjorn

[Nobody]

MCJ
How are things in Johannesburg? Do you have an "independent" IDG Macworld publication there, or do you rely on the U.K. or U.S. format news? It is unclear from the IDG website regarding South Africa.
Actually I don't underestimate the intelligence of the MW readership. As I have pointed out previously - I do include myself in the "tech-dumb" camp regarding the inner workings of technology. I believe though that many, many of the 350.000+ U.S. MW magazines shipped each month goes to readers who want to know more, and learn more simply because they don't have the answers they need. If they already had the answers they would not seek the answers and follow up on forums. One could instead say that the general knowledge is overestimated based on the readership response. E.g. many forum members post questions that in my head sounds "tech-dumb". So there could obviously be many who want and need better answers, but have a hard time finding truth from within the advertising jungle.
Whether readers will abandon the publication or not if the quality of reviews are not there I am not so sure about. There really is not a lot of choice out there in the mag jungle for "independent" news and "reviews".
I have noticed over the years through my travels overseas is that often the mags in European are more to the point than the U.S. mags. Though not necessarily IDG publications. Why that is? I personally know - having European roots myself - is that Europeans in general have a distaste for glossed over writings and product reviews. They are much more direct in tone, thinking and behavior. Both publisher, reviewer and reader alike. Europeans are more distrustful of major corporate influences, but relies more on government for truth. Americans on the other hand trust government less, but more quickly gobble up corporate words and products. Americans are also more careful with what they say publicly (even to family, friends and neighbors), and also perhaps more afraid of loosing business and getting letters from attorneys.
I wonder how Asians, Africans, Australians, South Americans respond to the same?
Creating revenue without advertising? Well, in the U.S. there is this magazine called Consumer Reports run by Consumers Union - a not for profit organization testing products and services based on quality, reliability and price. They get their revenue from magazine subscriptions and online membership and some donations. No advertising what-so-ever. It can be done. The organization was established I believe in the mid 1930's. That is pretty successful I say. The guys running that ship are not rich - well off, but not rich. That is of course the name of the game in the rest of the publication industry - to strike it rich. Nothing wrong with the notion of making big money, but what follows is no independence.
There is another U.S. based magazine called PC Magazine by Ziff Davis publications. PCmag is truly "independent" compared to Macworld or PCworld - the latter two both IDG mags. At least PCmag used to have - seemingly - a good lab-based comparative reviews service. Like everything else out there - IMO - they also have dropped the ball somewhat lately.
IMO - the general trend in the loss of independence is the large corporations that buy up smaller publications, and further impose stricter guidelines so not to offend the hands that feed the fat stomachs.
Bjorn

[Chris Breen]

Bjorn,
Your prose is pretty but, honestly, you're talking through your hat.
Take it from someone who's written for both MacUser and Macworld, never, ever, EVER have I been pressured to write a piece a certain way to please a vendor -- and that includes Apple. Nor has my work been edited in such a way as to make it more palatable to an advertiser. Were that the case I'd ask for my byline to be removed (and that's yet to happen in 18 years of writing). I have an enormous amount of leeway in my pieces and if I say something's so, my editors verify the accuracy of my claims and, once verified, put it in print.
Could there be pressure at a higher level? I'm sure that advertisers and vendors make their displeasure known if they feel they've been unduly criticized. But that displeasure has never affected what I write or what ends up in the pages of Macworld or on Mac Publishing's websites. The same goes for IDG. The "influence" you cite simply doesn't exist at the "this goes into print" level.
Quite simply, what you know from "common experience" is, in this case, complete twaddle.

[Nobody]

Quite simply, what you know from "common experience" is, in this case, complete twaddle.
Your personal experiences obviously are yours to keep and valuable at that. And so are mine. I have not accused any one of you guys of any wrong doing what-so-ever. I have merely pointed fingers at certain MW features that seems to me to be lacking in content and neutrality.
However, you can keep the twaddle to yourself. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif Public criticism comes with your job description. Take it like a man. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif MW has the forums open for a reason - right?

[Chris Breen]

Quote:

---

Your personal experiences obviously are yours to keep and valuable at that. And so are mine.

---

True. But, unlike you, I'm actually a witness and participant to what goes on. You, on the other hand, are building castles in the air.
I'm sure that everyone who works for Macworld is happy to take informed criticism "like a man" (though many of MW's employees are women). It's the uninformed criticism that rankles.

[Nobody]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Your personal experiences obviously are yours to keep and valuable at that. And so are mine.

---

True. But, unlike you, I'm actually a witness and participant to what goes on. You, on the other hand, are building castles in the air.
I'm sure that everyone who works for Macworld is happy to take informed criticism "like a man" (though many of MW's employees are women). It's the uninformed criticism that rankles.

---

And I was actually a witness sitting on the other side - the corporate side. Corporations lean on media and publishers more than you obviously are lead to believe.
Like I said - you have your experience, and I have mine.
As far as taking it like a man? I was speaking to you directly.
And to be clear - I am not fighting with you either Chris /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
I am sure the women at MW are doing an equally, or perhaps, even better job than the men. Studies show that women are better at multi-tasking. Publishing stories while at the same time keeping the head cool could technically fall under that category. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
Bjorn

[Dan Frakes]

Quote:

---

There is (on my part at least) absolutely no implication intended here.

---

Considering that the main point of discussion in this thread is the independence -- or, as at least one reader claims, the lack thereof -- of Macworld's editorial content, what purpose, other than implication, could posting a bunch of famous quotes questioning the independence of the press serve? Nice try /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Dan Frakes]

Quote:

---

Jason of course knows best how his internal landscape looks like. Although many of the gulled readers may not.

---

Which is why Macworld staff are participating in this thread -- so that our readers can understand how Macworld actually works rather than be "gulled" by uninformed cynics /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Quote:

---

But the advertisers will still be there breathing down your necks regardless of additional funding or not.

---

For something to "still" happen, it must be happening in the first place. Like Chris, I've never been pressured to review a product a certain way, nor have any of my articles ever been edited for such a purpose. And although I suspect that I've caused a number of advertisers to complain to our ad/sales department over the years because I've written a negative review about one of their products, the beauty of Macworld is that our editorial department is also logistically independent from our sales/ad department -- so assuming such feedback occurs, I don't even hear it. (Heck, my contact with sales/ad employees is basically limited to the yearly holiday party, where I have to ask who's who each year /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif )

Quote:

---

I am simply pointing a finger at the - now - worldwide IDG influence, and whether the content of reviews and ratings are truly 100% independent and neutral. I also know from experience that it can not be, because of the commercial implications.

---

You don't know, because you don't work here. Rather, you suspect, based on your experience with other companies. And when it comes to Macworld, you're mistaken.

Quote:

---

I also know of journalists from "trustable" mainstream media who have taken money for writing good news on behalf of corporations. It is actually not uncommon.

---

That may very well be the case -- in fact, I've read about it, as well -- but that doesn't mean it happens here. To be clear: It doesn't.

Quote:

---

There is another U.S. based magazine called PC Magazine by Ziff Davis publications. PCmag is truly "independent" compared to Macworld or PCworld - the latter two both IDG mags.

---

Question: How is PC Magazine "independent" given that, like Macworld, they rely on advertising revenue? You've contended repeatedly that editorial independence and advertising revenue cannot coexist, so how do you reconcile these two opinions?

Quote:

---

I have not accused any one of you guys of any wrong doing what-so-ever.

---

I call bull /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif Your entire contention here is that our reviews cannot be objective and independent because they're necessarily influenced by advertising revenue. No matter how you sugarcoat such assertions, you're basically accusing us of not being independent, objective reviewers. That's "wrongdoing" in my line of work.

Quote:

---

Public criticism comes with your job description. Take it like a man. MW has the forums open for a reason - right?

---

We take criticism readily and regularly -- you should see our Inboxes /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif However, there's a difference between valid criticism -- for example, disagreement with a review opinion or with the methodology used in a review -- and calling into question our integrity. I take a lot of personal pride in being an objective reviewer, as do my colleagues, so such accusations -- which go beyond reasonable criticism, in my opinion, given that they aren't based on facts -- bother me. Sure, as journalists, we have to accept that a few people will make such baseless accusations or insinuations. But that doesn't mean we have to like it.

Quote:

---

And I was actually a witness sitting on the other side - the corporate side. Corporations lean on media and publishers more than you obviously are lead to believe. Like I said - you have your experience, and I have mine.

---

To reiterate the point, we're not talking about other publications; we're talking about Macworld, and your experience with other publications and media are, quite frankly, irrelevant when it comes to how we work. The fact that the reality of Macworld's editorial policies differs dramatically from your suspicions bears that out.

Hopefully, after reading this thread, at least other readers will better understand how we work. If you personally choose not to believe our explanations, that's your right. But I do wonder why you're putting so much effort into convincing other readers of your incorrect theories about Macworld's editorial policies.

[jmincey]

"Europeans in general have a distaste for glossed over writings and product reviews. They are much more direct in tone, thinking and behavior. Both publisher, reviewer and reader alike."
And are not these Euroepans publications nonetheless supported by advertising revenue? Indeed, during the early years of MacUser and Macworld, when the magazines contained the detailed "comparative reviews" which you praise, was advertising revenue not still present?
"Europeans are more distrustful of major corporate influences, but relies more on government for truth."
Given the last century of European history, surely you don't mean to suggest that Europeans see governments as an independent source of unbiased information with no agenda but to serve and inform the people.
"PCmag is truly 'independent' compared to Macworld or PCworld - the latter two both IDG mags."
What leads you to this conclusion? After all, advertising revenue sustains Ziff-Davis as well. What makes it independent and what is your idiosyncratic threshold for "independence" that you would characterize some commercial publications in this way and others not?
"...the general trend in the loss of independence is the large corporations that buy up smaller publications, and further impose stricter guidelines so not to offend the hands that feed the fat stomachs."
I think media consolidation is a valid concern and the trend seems to have no end in sight. I think, however, that the danger is less about the influence of advertising revenue than about choking off a diversity of voices and points of view.
I'm not unmindful of the hazards of corporate power -- to the contrary. I tend to agree that Americans almost have a pathological veneration of the corporation. It's truly bizarre. And in a different forum I would be happy to discuss this very interesting topic. But if we bring this down to earth in its application specifically to Macworld, I find your argument unconvincing.
Yes, I agree with you conceptually about the influence of advertising on editorial content. But where you lose me is in connecting the dots between this general concept and its application to a specific publication. Unless you contend that all commercial magazines are corrupted by this influence, (and you don't seem to be doing this inasmuch as you actually laud some commercial mags), it's not enough merely to point out a theoretical influence of advertising revenue; you must show how it plays itself out here.
Can you show me a quid pro quo? Do you know of examples in which a negative review was followed by the pulling of advertising which in turn was followed by a reversal of position by Macworld?
I agree that the print publication of Macworld was once much richer (in the mid-to-late 1980s and early 90s). I have authored a thread about that very topic, in fact. But there could be many explanations for this. You do acknowledge this, do you not?
"I was actually a witness sitting on the other side - the corporate side. Corporations lean on media and publishers more than you obviously are lead to believe."
Do you mean to suggest that because some corporate executives lean on publishers that therefore they ALL do? Do you allow for no exceptions? Since you cite PC Magazine, a Ziff-Davis publication, apparently you DO allow for exceptions. Well, since it's results that matters here, why not leave the theory behind for a moment and let's talk about where the rubber meets the road. Do you have evidence or good reason to believe that Macworld articles are toned down on account of advertiser influence -- even if this influence is unknown by the writers themselves?
Do you think this manifests itself in the selection and omission of certain subjects?
Or do you think the Macworld staff itself is chosen precisely because they are known to conform to the IDG standards by their very nature such that it is then unnecessary after the fact for the long arm of the board room to reach down to them?
If in fact you hold with such views, what is your specific basis for them?
For my part, I have no reason to mistrust what the staff (and Macworld contributors) are saying here, that they write what they will and that any editorial decisions are free of advertiser influence. Their reputations are on the line here and they have more at stake than you do on the sidelines.
Also, you have yet to respond to Jason's point that if Macworld is perceived as the handmaiden to its advertisers, its credibility will suffer and ultimately its readership and circulation. And as circulation goes down, so does advertising revenue -- so one could suggest that this correlation you draw could just as easily operate in favor of an independent voice as not.
"Like I said - you have your experience, and I have mine."
Oh? You have experience with IDG or Macworld?

[MCJ]

[indent]Quote:

---

How are things in Johannesburg? Do you have an "independent" IDG Macworld publication there, or do you rely on the U.K. or U.S. format news? It is unclear from the IDG website regarding South Africa.

---

[/indent]
It's spring right now and we are all looking forward to the summer!
Sadly we do not have a local version of Macworld (the overseas versions are very expensive). Until recently I subscribed to the electronic version of Macworld (US version) which is a lot cheaper and occasionally I buy the UK mag. However I get most of my Mac news from this website.
[indent]Quote:

---

I have noticed over the years through my travels overseas is that often the mags in European are more to the point than the U.S. mags.

---

[/indent]
As mentioned I occasionally read the UK version of Macworld. There is certainly a different editorial style from the US Macworld - for instance the former often employs a satirical tone in many of its pieces. However I believe that, if anything, this would indicate that there is in fact no overarching editorial policy imposed on the respective publications by the parent company.
[indent]Quote:

---

Creating revenue without advertising? Well, in the U.S. there is this magazine called Consumer Reports run by Consumers Union - a not for profit organization testing products and services based on quality, reliability and price. They get their revenue from magazine subscriptions and online membership and some donations. No advertising what-so-ever. It can be done.

---

[/indent]
To implement a similar business model Macworld would have to increase its cover price significantly. I suspect that most readers would not be willing to bear this cost. They "put up" with the advertising because of this. Businesses also need publications like Macworld to make consumers aware of their products. Granted, the quality of the publication will deteriorate if too much advertising is allowed to creep in or if independence is compromised. Personally I believe that Macworld has struck the right balance between the two and see no reason to doubt its journalistic integrity.

[griffman]

Just to chime in as yet another voice from a staffer, let me repeat what Chris, Dan and others have said: there is absolutely, positively, zero pressure applied (either direct or indirect) to slant a review or write-up in any way. If there was, do you think I would have been allowed to take Apple to task over Spotlight? Or to point out annoyances in Office? A quick skim through the magazine will show you that Apple and Microsoft both spend a lot of money with us, yet not once was I ever asked to address the tone or content, or remove anything, from either article (nor from any critical article I've ever written here).
As Chris mentioned, the first time that happens to me will also be the last: I would simply leave, as I have no desire to be part of anything like that. And as I think you've seen, neither do the other writers. Thankfully, since the company overall shares the same beliefs, this isn't something I worry about at all.
I believe strong heartedly that you all work very hard and take your work very seriously within the IDG guidelines you naturally have to work under.
Funny, I must have been sick the day they passed out those guidelines. For the record, the only guidelines that I've ever seen are a set of rules about how to format our writing to make it easier to publish (how to mark it up, in other words). That's it. Beyond that, we're all encouraged to share our opinions and actual experiences with the products we use. That's it, consipiracy theories or not. There's no hidden agenda or backroom editing that goes on (except to clean up my completely awful use of the English language!).
-rob.

[jmincey]

"To implement a similar business model Macworld would have to increase its cover price significantly."
It did that already some years ago. It used to be (as I recall) $3.95 or $4.95 per issue and the issues were typically 200 - 400 pages, (yes, I saw a few issues as large as 400 -- especially for MacUser). And even allowing for more advertisement coverage, subscribers got more content. Then the price leapt to $7.95 -- a monstrous increase in terms of percentage -- which was compounded by a dramatic shrinking of the print edition.
Yes, these are new times -- what with the internet and so on -- so we must make allowance for that. But I myself ceased use of the print copy altogether because I was unwilling to accommodate such a large increase in price for even the same content -- to say nothing of reduced content.
So the point is that an increase in price may be accompanied by (and indeed bring about) a reduction in circulation -- resulting in a net loss.
Fortunately, the web supplements the print edition to some degree.