begin oe_protect.scr
Sinister Midget <phydeaux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> On 2007-01-02, Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> posted something concerning:
>> On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 08:57:23 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>>> Guest Post by Tony Healy: Microsoft sprung
>>>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>| Microsoft and PR firm Edelman have been sprung in an embarrasing
>>>| pseudo astroturf operation intended to promote the forthcoming
>>>| operating system Vista.
>>> `----
>>>
>>> http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/01/02/guest-post-by-tony-healy-microsoft-sprung/
>>
>><snort>
>>
>> Every day I read reviews on various web sites like Anandtech, or Toms
>> Hardware about free hardware that gets sent to these people. Sometimes
>> it's required they send it back, but most of the time it's not, as these
>> people continue to run the hardware in various ongoing tests and
>> comparisons against other brands. This is more common practice than not.
>
> The ones you mention at hardware and review sites are in the business
> of reviewing products and hardware, not blogging favorable/unfavorable
> reports about a company and its products. The former make a living
> reviewing things. The latter are writers of opinion, which may or may
> not be based in fact.
>
> These laptops were sent to the latter.
>
>> No reviewer bears any responsibility to the manufacturer for a favorable
>> review, whether the product was given or not. This "social obligation"
>> argument is ridiculous, and only excuses bad behavior on the part of
>> bloggers and tries to shift the blame elsewhere.
>
> Microsoft tried to cover their blatant attempts at bribery by pulling a
> Funkenbusch: they redefined the word "is".
>
> http://www.apcstart.com/4889/microsoft_offers_2_000_ferrari_gifts_to_bloggers
>
> And in some cases they tried to cover it all up by demanding them back.
>
> http://marshallk.com/microsoft-wants-its-laptops-back
>
> Attempted apology accepted. But try a little harder next time, hmm?
>
This behaviour has been well-known for as long as I can recall. Many
years ago, I wrote software for an electronic piano, and got the
wonderful job of taking it to a certain wellknown keyboard player for
his opinion of it.
Well, I stayed with him whilst he played it, and dutifully took his
remarks back to base. I passed via a magazine, as instructed, and it
was made very clear to me that the quality of review would be directly
proportional to the amount of advertising to placed in the magazine.
This was in the very early 1980s, of course, but I know that almost
nothing has changed. For Mr Funkenbusch to claim this is "standard
practice" is, whilst correct, brutally dishonest, as it attempts to hide
the simple fact that this is corruption in action. The magazines claim
to offer unbiased reviews, but in reality, their reviews have no basis
in product quality, and every linkage to advertising revenue.
In the UK, a magazine called "Which" existed, specifically run to avoid
this problem. It was funded by its readership, and provided genuine
unbiased reviews. Of course, it lacked the multi-million advertising
budgets of its glossy counterparts, and never got a mainstream audience.
I've no idea if it still exists, but the thinking was 100% correct.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Victory or defeat!
|
|
