[Subscribe to Daily Digest] |
[Profile/Gallery]
, Tue, 16 Jul 2002 08:53:52
Members do not see ads below this line. - Help Keep This Site Online - Signup
Obviously, magazines are businesses, like any other, and the first objective is to pay the bills and turn a profit. Magazines in Britain are considerable more expensive than they are in the USA, and the disparity gets even larger when you get to the subscription rates. Most of us know that US magazines offer discounts of 50-75% typically for subscribing - that's why I have so many subscriptions, because I only have to like 3 or 4 copies of the magazine in the course of the year in order for the subscription to pay off. British magazines on the other hand often cost more by subscription, even to British readers, you even pay a premium for delivery. Obviously, the reason our US magazines can offer such generous discounts is because when 500,000 (or whatever number of us) take the bait, their advertising sales department can then go to potential advertisers and say, "Look, we have half a million people who will see you ad every time you run it with us for the next six months". Then, the revenue from advertisers becomes more significant than the revenue from sales, and the editorial focus is controlled by advertising revenue (car makers, mostly) rather than sales revenue (consumers). It's very simple.
If we were prepared to pay a premium for a magazine that offered uninfluenced editorial policies, would we actually do it? I don't think ENOUGH people would, for the magazine to be viable. I remember throughout the 1980's the British magazines continually rubbished Volvo for being dynamically appalling, but that did not stop Volvo from advertising in them. They knew that people would buy then cars based on what they were good for - safety and durability. And, they guy reading about the Alfa Romeo he wanted to buy, would see the ad for the 940 wagon, and even though he didn't want it for himself, he could figure out that it was a good choice for his family car.
Of course, car manufacturers do what they can to schmooze writers, and present their cars in the best possible light, though I don't honestly think that flying them to Spain to test the M3 at Jerez had much influence over the US writers who wrote the reports - the car is fantastic anyway. Personally, I would consider constant long haul trips an inconvenience, but that's just me. Before they became part of the FIAT Group, Alfa Romeo gave away leather coats to journalists at every new model review, even though the company had been bankrupt since 1923...
Of course, most magazines are written by enthusiasts, for enthusiasts, and driving pleasure ranks high in how they rate the car. That's why the Focus does so well. This is an entirely different issue, but I have long suspected that part of the reason the Focus gets such a battering in other areas is because there is a UAW vendetta against the car because it was designed by Ford of Europe, and as such is not a hime-grown car in the US. I'm not saying it doesn't have reliability issues, but it's not alone in this regard. Back to how magazines rate cars based on driving pleasure, I remember reading in CAR a few years ago, if consumers only cared about reliability, "... you would all be reading 'What Car', and we'd all be out of jobs...". Would a magazine that wrote, "the Camry is great because it will last forever and never break down, but we can't think of anything to say about the driving experience, because we can't remember driving it" appeal to many people?
posted by 141.154.11...
, Tue, 16 Jul 2002 08:53:52, Tue, 16 Jul 2002 13:56:50
No Site Registration is Required to Post - Site Membership is optional (Member Features List), but helps to keep the site online
for all Saabers. If the site helps you, please consider helping the site by becoming a member.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
