At the first OR show after I was hired as gear editor for Rock & Ice magazine (it was still in Reno, you were probably in diapers), I was schooled by the head of PR for Patagonia (blanking on name, she was awesome) on how important my job was to give honest reviews for both readers and brands. With a long background in specialty retail (Neptunes), I had a good insight into the industry and what consumers wanted.
This was a time where I could write a 4,500-word article on carabiners and an opus on climbing ropes. And the industry was smaller and more intimate so I knew a lot of the designers, PR folk, and head muckitymucks at many brands. For about a decade (expanding into Trail Runner, which I founded) my reviews were honest and more comprehensive than typical these days.
I took the job seriously and didn't pull punches. Sounds like fun from the outside but reviewing ten sleeping bags, or a dozen tents, or two dozen climbing shoes gets old after a while. A butt load of boxes, piles of gear everywhere taking up space, figuring out how to make honest real-world comparisons, then sending most of it back because I really don't need it. Yeah I got some really nice press trips and some swag but ultimately it got old.
My reviews did lose advertisers when I didn't praise the product; one a prominent back cover regular. And Dan McHale left a long, ranting phone message because my expedition pack review was so bad that I should "fall in a crevasse and die."
But honest reviews were important to the industry in that era. Today it's mostly pithy crap where they don't do their homework. Wirecutter has really gone pathetic after NYT bought them. Almost none of the Outside media titles are reliable for gear reviews anymore--not because of insider connections, just poor research and writers with limited experience.
Never paid attention to car reviews until I shopped for an SUV a couple years ago. Even there, most mainstream weren't very good (Car & Driver stood out as best) and Youtubers were more important in my buying decision.
Just call me an old curmudgeon who liked reviews that gave readers enough information to make a truly informed buying decision.
I'm not in journalism, but I make purchasing decisions with six-figure budget each year. I'm not going to risk my reputation or career because some sales guy bought me dinner at Applebee's or comped a hotel room.
It's in a journalist's best interest to tell the truth in an interesting way rather than be bought off by brand because that's what draws readers. A consistent paycheck is way better than free gear that you almost certainly didn't need anyway.
Are you already working on an essay about affiliate links?
Great read, of course. One of the pitfalls of today's information age falls squarely in the reader's lap: lack of research. We don't drill down; go beyond our own self accepted POV. Get our eyeballs moving on to the next page. See what truth we can scrape off Twitter or. . .
Well I do like the butt on that model! Truethy I hope!
An awfully appealing post, I am Intrigued. Lot. Net is an ultimate destination that bridges the gap between buyers and sellers without hassle. Visit https://www.lot.net/ for more .
In the off road/overlanding community, I really appreciate when people are very clear about how they came into possession of a vehicle or item. DrivingSportsTV is very clear if he paid as a regular customer, or has a long term loaner. Matt Swartz (Expedition Portal) is clear if he used an industry discount. I realize the ethics are different depending on if one is an influencer (youtube/instagram) or a journalist. But I do want to know if the reason they now have XYZ vehicle, or bought a particular lightbar/camper/fridge/etc., on their vehicle is because they were looking at options and that's the company willing to make a deal with them; it was provided to them for free; they bought it with their own money; or they wanted that specific item and asked the company if they'd be willing to make a deal based on providing exposure in a video or blog.
This was a really interesting perspective to read. Several readers likely go into the a gear review hoping to find the answer to 'is gear X worth the money?' and then perceive a conflict of interest when the author got the item for "free." It is usually an unrealistic expectation from readers, and it would be a rare gear review that would attempt to answer such a subjective question.
Interesting article. It cannot be easy being a journalist. Hopefully it's fun, notwithstanding the occasional flak from readers.
My question is actually a digression. You just got a Ranger XLT, without the LED headlamps in the Lariat. Are you planning to do anything reasonably economical about that? (Separate from the matter of adding additional driving lights, ditch lights, or whatever other kind of extra lighting).
At the first OR show after I was hired as gear editor for Rock & Ice magazine (it was still in Reno, you were probably in diapers), I was schooled by the head of PR for Patagonia (blanking on name, she was awesome) on how important my job was to give honest reviews for both readers and brands. With a long background in specialty retail (Neptunes), I had a good insight into the industry and what consumers wanted.
This was a time where I could write a 4,500-word article on carabiners and an opus on climbing ropes. And the industry was smaller and more intimate so I knew a lot of the designers, PR folk, and head muckitymucks at many brands. For about a decade (expanding into Trail Runner, which I founded) my reviews were honest and more comprehensive than typical these days.
I took the job seriously and didn't pull punches. Sounds like fun from the outside but reviewing ten sleeping bags, or a dozen tents, or two dozen climbing shoes gets old after a while. A butt load of boxes, piles of gear everywhere taking up space, figuring out how to make honest real-world comparisons, then sending most of it back because I really don't need it. Yeah I got some really nice press trips and some swag but ultimately it got old.
My reviews did lose advertisers when I didn't praise the product; one a prominent back cover regular. And Dan McHale left a long, ranting phone message because my expedition pack review was so bad that I should "fall in a crevasse and die."
But honest reviews were important to the industry in that era. Today it's mostly pithy crap where they don't do their homework. Wirecutter has really gone pathetic after NYT bought them. Almost none of the Outside media titles are reliable for gear reviews anymore--not because of insider connections, just poor research and writers with limited experience.
Never paid attention to car reviews until I shopped for an SUV a couple years ago. Even there, most mainstream weren't very good (Car & Driver stood out as best) and Youtubers were more important in my buying decision.
Just call me an old curmudgeon who liked reviews that gave readers enough information to make a truly informed buying decision.
Oh man, I'm going to link to this so many times.
I'm not in journalism, but I make purchasing decisions with six-figure budget each year. I'm not going to risk my reputation or career because some sales guy bought me dinner at Applebee's or comped a hotel room.
It's in a journalist's best interest to tell the truth in an interesting way rather than be bought off by brand because that's what draws readers. A consistent paycheck is way better than free gear that you almost certainly didn't need anyway.
Are you already working on an essay about affiliate links?
Great read, of course. One of the pitfalls of today's information age falls squarely in the reader's lap: lack of research. We don't drill down; go beyond our own self accepted POV. Get our eyeballs moving on to the next page. See what truth we can scrape off Twitter or. . .
Well I do like the butt on that model! Truethy I hope!
Sean MacDonald reminded me that there is one well known incident of advertiser money causing a journalist to be fired: https://jalopnik-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/jalopnik.com/how-the-truth-about-motorcycle-helmets-got-a-journalist-5582380/amp?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a6&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#amp_ct=1634997714925&_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16349977077936&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fjalopnik.com%2Fhow-the-truth-about-motorcycle-helmets-got-a-journalist-5582380
David Tracy can run?
An awfully appealing post, I am Intrigued. Lot. Net is an ultimate destination that bridges the gap between buyers and sellers without hassle. Visit https://www.lot.net/ for more .
In the off road/overlanding community, I really appreciate when people are very clear about how they came into possession of a vehicle or item. DrivingSportsTV is very clear if he paid as a regular customer, or has a long term loaner. Matt Swartz (Expedition Portal) is clear if he used an industry discount. I realize the ethics are different depending on if one is an influencer (youtube/instagram) or a journalist. But I do want to know if the reason they now have XYZ vehicle, or bought a particular lightbar/camper/fridge/etc., on their vehicle is because they were looking at options and that's the company willing to make a deal with them; it was provided to them for free; they bought it with their own money; or they wanted that specific item and asked the company if they'd be willing to make a deal based on providing exposure in a video or blog.
This was a really interesting perspective to read. Several readers likely go into the a gear review hoping to find the answer to 'is gear X worth the money?' and then perceive a conflict of interest when the author got the item for "free." It is usually an unrealistic expectation from readers, and it would be a rare gear review that would attempt to answer such a subjective question.
Interesting article. It cannot be easy being a journalist. Hopefully it's fun, notwithstanding the occasional flak from readers.
My question is actually a digression. You just got a Ranger XLT, without the LED headlamps in the Lariat. Are you planning to do anything reasonably economical about that? (Separate from the matter of adding additional driving lights, ditch lights, or whatever other kind of extra lighting).