We all knew they did it, but... (Alienware/Dell)

[430752]

I've been trolling computer forums recently to build a rig after I was unhappy with a recent computer mod, and I saw this:
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=7113

Its a public notice to people and trade pros regarding Alienware's (Dell's) heavy handed (threatening) tactics in obtaining favorable reviews of their products. All I can say is wow!

I mean, I suppose we all kind of suspected that magazines/sites give favorable reviews for hoped-for advertising, but I guess I was naive enough to think that it was a hoped- for arrangement with no spelled out quid-pro-quo. That is, I hoped reviewers gave the benefit of the doubt where close calls to be made in hopes of reciporication. I didn't actually think that the manufacturers demanded it outright otherwise engaged in possible blackmail!

Well, I guess it only makes sense since, for example, which car magazine can afford to buy all new cars for testing in order to stay objective? Especially pre-release cars. I wonder if this tactic is used in the woodworking mags and reviews? Pro'lly.

Anway, this thing is starting to spread in geekdom and some other sites are outright calling Alienware on it. Monumentally stoopid if you ask me, Alienware is, I'm not buying them now (and I did consider them before I started by build).

Curt J.

[JR]

Curt, that guy Bettinson is a moron, as he was correctly described by Crabtree. He's a moron for the reasons that Crabtree mentions and others as well.

Firstly, Crabtree did a great job of describing the kinds of conversations an advertiser will have with a publication responsible for reviewing his products. There may be a broad reference to the publisher, over coffee or lunch, regarding the relationship between advertising spend and editiorial content. The publisher will smile and sell and do everything he can to keep the ads, but he will not say anything about influencing the editor. If the advertiser says anything remotely like what Bettinson said to an editor he risks a punch in the nose.

Secondly, Bettinson is a moron for interpreting his managers' admonition so wrongly. It is the marketing manager's job to get good reviews, which Bettinson failed to do. He's supposed to do it by influencing the editor to craft the bake-off in such a way as to highlight the best capablities of the product. In that way the editor does due diligence in reporting fairly, but Alienware comes out looking better.

As to the "threat" to keep "free" machines from the publication in the future, what a laugh! Can you imagine, as Bettinson apparently does, that Dell threatens PC Magazine with withholding $3000 product? All it would mean is that your latest, greatest machine doesn't get written up in an important article.

I don't for a minute believe that large manufacturers can demand a good review, particularly from an established publication. The result would be exactly what happened at Hexus: public humiliation. Smaller publications, whose scramble for survival is a bit more immediate, might work harder with a good advertiser to find a way work together. The mfr. could be given more latitude to define the test parameters, or offered the opportunity to place an editorial article describing "major industry trends" that can only be realized by buying the mfr's product.

My 2c.

JR

[LCHIEN]

Therein lies the problem with virtually all magazine reviews (except for Consumer Reports which is 100% subscriber supported, accepts no advertising and buys all product samples from retailers).

When a magazine accepts advertising from the people who it reviews, there is a basic conflict of interest. Sure you can claim you advertising sales dept and the editorial dept are sparate and claim there's no editorial bias which I believe in the most case there is a stong attempt to maintain this independence.

But in the long run the editor's liveihood (salary) are paid for by the advertisers.

The editors dilemma - if he pisses off the advertisers then they won't advertise. But if the public thinks he's just a mouthpiece then they won't read and the advertisers will flee too. I used to read HiFi magazines and one magazine referred to the other magazine's reviewer as the "guy who never met a piece of audio gear he didn't like".

The advertiser's dilemma - you have bucks to spend, why don't you spend them with the guys you like? And I can't necessarily fault them for liking the guys who give them good reviews - those are the guys with the same value systems, or, perhaps are willing to deal good reviews for advertising (hard to tell in the end). The marketing guy in the story referred to tool it personally. After all, he's the one who told engineering the features he needed, at the production price, and then set the sales price and profit margins according to what he thought would sell. When the reviewer says, not good value for the money, then it's a direct slap - that says the marketing guy made a huge mistake. Like it or not, the review is a validation or repudiation of the marketing guys' decisions.

[cgallery]

As someone that has personally observed the "brick wall" between editorial and advertising departments, I can tell you that it is about one course high and easily stepped over.

[dlminehart]

I suspect there's no simple pattern here. If a magazine is flush with ads, the sales people don't have time or motivation to put pressure on editorial. If ads are really tanking, and everyone's job is looking shaky, sales people probably don't need to point out the consequences of bad reviews to editors. In between, it can vary all over the map, depending on the industry and the cast of characters, particularly the publisher (who usually comes up through sales rather than editorial).

[ElRay]

Therein lies the problem with virtually all magazine reviews (except for Consumer Reports which is 100% subscriber supported, accepts no advertising and buys all product samples from retailers).

I hope that you are not using this fact to allude that CR is unbiased. It is far from it. Even if we ignore any obvious bias (not comparing Apples to Apples, etc.) there is still a fair amount of unintentional bias in their reports. Especially the reader survey results. They are essentially worthless.

Ray

[LCHIEN]

I hope that you are not using this fact to allude that CR is unbiased. It is far from it. Even if we ignore any obvious bias (not comparing Apples to Apples, etc.) there is still a fair amount of unintentional bias in their reports. Especially the reader survey results. They are essentially worthless.

Ray

Every review is biased towards the reviewers weighting of importance of factors. But I do have respect for CR's methods. And often balance their recommendations but often just use the feature discussions and the feature charts to help me decide.

And I do find the reader surveys useful - especially the reliability ones. I have been buying vehicles and appliances and electronics in some cases based upon the reliability surveys and have found them to be quite useful.
Case in point I bought an early HiFi VCR back around 1987 that cost about $350 and it failed twice under warrantly and the third time I scrapped it. It ranked near the bottom of the VCR reliabilty, I bought a HiFi VCR ranked at the top (and it's failure rate bar is about 1/5th the size of the other one) in 1989 and that stupid VCR is still working although this year I took it out of daily service and put it upstairs for my home theater and put a combo VCR/DVD in its place in the living room.

[bfrikken]

Every review is biased towards the reviewers weighting of importance of factors. But I do have respect for CR's methods. And often balance their recommendations but often just use the feature discussions and the feature charts to help me decide.

And I do find the reader surveys useful - especially the reliability ones. I have been buying vehicles and appliances and electronics in some cases based upon the reliability surveys and have found them to be quite useful.
Case in point I bought an early HiFi VCR back around 1987 that cost about $350 and it failed twice under warrantly and the third time I scrapped it. It ranked near the bottom of the VCR reliabilty, I bought a HiFi VCR ranked at the top (and it's failure rate bar is about 1/5th the size of the other one) in 1989 and that stupid VCR is still working although this year I took it out of daily service and put it upstairs for my home theater and put a combo VCR/DVD in its place in the living room.

CR generally gives you the Info needed to make an informed choice. Such as This is the Top Pick, but if you want X, Y and Z only, you'd be better off with That at it is better over those 3 categories...

I've felt that with any CR report. (I hope that made sense).

[dlminehart]

My main gripe with CR is that, for certain products, they needn't have bothered doing more than describing the criteria to take into consideration. Often, they'll examine a dozen of a product for which there are many dozens in the market. Cordless phones and DVD players, for instance. And it seems that the products I find at Costco seldom show up in their lists.

[messmaker]

I think if you weed through CR, you can get some very helpful info. I almost always feel I make a better purchasing decision when I have looked there first.

[LCHIEN]

My main gripe with CR is that, for certain products, they needn't have bothered doing more than describing the criteria to take into consideration. Often, they'll examine a dozen of a product for which there are many dozens in the market. Cordless phones and DVD players, for instance. And it seems that the products I find at Costco seldom show up in their lists.

I think that the reasons that you don't find the exact model they tested at your store is because the stores and the manufacturer don't want you to.

Many times you'll find that a manufacturer has a 9300 series (fictional example) and models 9321 9322 9323 9324 9325 9326 9327 9328 and 9329

Target will sell 9321 and 9324
Best Buy will carry 9322 and 9327 and 9329
Wal Mart 9323 and 9326
etc.

Each store contracts a specific model and it has unique combinations of features. THis way each store can offer a price match guarantee and never actually have to match anyone else because no one carries that exact model. And it makes comparison shopping very hard.

They do it on purpose.

Anyway that's my story and I'm sticking to it.