Paul B
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.11 #17 · Galbraith Update: MK III Not Improved | |
rscheffler wrote:
Regarding the fact he generates advertising revenue: What about other sites like DPReview, which is now owned by Amazon and has significant advertising. Were they critical of the Mark III? No, they didn't even review it! Yet they reviewed the 1D, 1Ds, 1DII, 1DsII, 1DsIII... IIRC they had some issue getting a sample from Canon, or were snubbed by Canon? But they do actually have a 1DIII, or at least access to one because they have sample comparison files from one in the D3 review. So then, why not publish those in a standalone 1DIII review? Taking the cynical view, where is one going to find impartial reviews since everyone is making money and therefore must have an agenda? Nothing has changed from the era when magazines provided the reviews, which were supported by ads from the very brands they reviewed. What gets me though is some seem to be extremely critical of RG simply because his reporting is generating traffic. Considering the amount of time and effort he has invested in this, to the benefit of us readers, he should be allowed compensation.
Ron
...Show more →
Well, not to prolong another MkIII discussion (because I do agree it's time to wrap this one up  ) but I've always been kind of tickled by the allegations that RG is benefiting financially from all this. I bet if one compared the increased traffic on his site to the loss of Canon advertising they'd find that this has been a significant net loss for him. I assume that at some point Canon had advertising on his site but with the MkIII issue they decided to pull it. The reality is that large companies like this can and will use their influence in various ways to sway reporting on their products. In this game/relationship, the reviewers are using their "muscle" (publicity, their claim to "objectivity," and ready access to the buying public) and the firms are using their "muscle" (their dominant position in an industry, various financial means, and access to information about what they've got on the drawing boards.) In addition, it may have become just became too uncomfortable for a company like Canon to continue advertising because it appears to lend credibility to what the reviewers are saying. They probably just got tired of having to answer questions from various interested parties (Canon execs and even Canon customers) who were asking whether Canon's continued advertising was in effect saying that RG had a point about the MkIII.
You see this same thing going on with pretty much any research regarding products and services in the IT, software, hardware and telecom industry. It's almost unheard of for one of the reviewers (whether it's larger research studies put out by the syndicated research firms, or industry magazines, or whatever) to really bare all when they review products. Instead, there's a lot of bobbing and weaving and a lot of "grey areas" in asssessing what's what even when a product clearly has problems. The reason: seriously pissing off the largest firms in an industry, when the analyst covers that industry, has pretty severe consequences for one's career (the firms may provide financing in one form or another such as advertising, or simply provide access to information that can be cut off.)
As you say, Ron, there are other sites/publications that have not reviewed the MkIII even though they've had ample chance to do so and there's undoubtedly a good reason: who in their right mind wants to wade into the MkIII hornet's nest if they will proabably have to conclude that it's got issues? Particularly when it became clear that Canon itself was having issues figuring out what was going on and there was no clear timeline for when things would get resolved. I'm not saying I believe everything RG has said is accurate (I'm not even a MkIII owner so can't do my own testing) but it's always been amazing to me that he's been as blunt as he has about the MkIII's performance. I've spent a lot of time reading research reports on various industries/firm/products and that rarely happens in IT/telecom world (instead, we're all left to read between the tea leaves and try to figure out where the real problems in a product or company lie.) I strongly suspect this whole thing has cost him and his operation dearly. He'd have been far better off financially just saying the MkIII had a few blemishes but did the job just fine.
|
