You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
As a rule of thumb, ninety percent of the content on most major bike outlets - road.cc, Pinkbike, GCN, singletrack, enduro-mtb, velonews (the list goes on) is a thinly veiled advert. Press releases from manufacturers copied post so as to appear as news (same wording used across multiple sites).
How come James may can get away with saying x car is garbage, and 44teeth berate the latest awkward bike - but nothing but vomiting garbage praise comes when we talk about the human powered interests?
Because "Free Member"
If you want writers to have the ability to go against potential advertisers, start paying for the content.
S'not just bicycles though - go on a tech website or pick up Stuff magazine, or some house/home magazines - they're even worse. I think you've picked out the exceptions to the rule with your examples above. I get Top Gear magazine and I can't think of the last time they scored a car less than 6/10.
James May can get away with it because he doesn't need to rely on advertising revenue. I don't know anything about 44teeth to be fair.
You have an option, walk away.
Its not a new thing. Was it MBR who years back had a Trek on test which actually snapped and they still gave it a 7/10 followed by a double page advert for Trek?
Because “Free Member”
If you want writers to have the ability to go against potential advertisers, start paying for the content.
Fair point.
At least some magazines highlight what freebies or inducements have changed hands.
Or maybe there aren't as many rubbish bikes nowadays? There shouldn't be, given the prices. They may not be suited for a particular type of riding, but that doesn't make the a bad bike.
I seem to recall the mag associated with this here forum testing a prototype that was built with the incorrect geometry due to manufacturers error and gave it an appropriately stinking review.
Isn't stuff generally pretty good and more or less works pretty well these days? There actually aren't that many properly bad products and if there are they they aren't the products from the mainstream companies that are getting reviewed. Couple that with these channels basically being mouth pieces for the cycling industry. I'm not totally against that. I don't go and look for press releases to read so I don't mind them reading a curated set to me.
Or maybe there aren’t as many rubbish bikes nowadays?
I think that definitely applies to the car world cited above. Theres the odd exception it must be far more difficult to buy a bad car today than a good one.
I actually find Pinkbike relatively fair in some of their reviews. They certainly don't hold back with some of them but I never read their reviews of bikes from major companies, it tends to be the smaller niche players who I guess generate zero ad revenue etc.
nothing but vomiting garbage praise comes when we talk about the human powered interests?
This is bullshit, plain and simple.
****ing drama queen.
**** drama queen.
You need to add 'freeloading' to that.
Why don't you start your own online magazine where you're brutally honest about the shortcomings of modern MTB components. Let's see how much product gets sent your way.
Or maybe there aren’t as many rubbish bikes nowadays?
Isn’t stuff generally pretty good and more or less works pretty well these days?
There's definitely some absolute stinkers out there. It's infinitely better than it was in the 90's and 00's but there's so much crap that hits the market accompanied by an avalanche of marketing waffle and bro-science.
I don't believe there's any single piece of a bicycle which couldn't be improved but we still get forks and shocks and brakes full of fragile plastic internals.
I don't watch Guy Kesteven videos but has he ever really slated a bike? I imagine his career would come to an abrupt end if he did.
As above, most of the things described in the op have developed to a stage where they are almost all pretty good, and the different manufacturers model ranges are generally pretty similar. I am in the market for a new enduro / trail type bike at the moment. In common with most enthusiasts I have too high a budget, look at all the intricacies & specs of everything available, look for advice from other riders, do some demo days etc. However I could fairly safely ignore all that, walk in to any boutique bike shop, pick something I liked the look of and it would be a really good bike suited to my intended use.
Also true of cars. James May etc can call a car terrible because it isn't much good for hooning around an airfield or closed road, but in reality any normal person* would be hard pushed to describe a car as being genuinely bad as a vehicle. Boring perhaps, or not something that interests you but not bad.
*In the west at least. No doubt there are still plenty of actively dangerous, ill conceived but cheap locally made vehicles available in less developed parts of the world.
Basically bike/stuff journo's are just influencers really. If you're gonna sell people's shit, you better make it sound decent otherwise you ain't getting paid.
Even if every member on here was fully paid up, they still wouldn't be able to review and be totally honest as they wouldn't get anything to review!
Because they want to be invited to the press camps in the future.
From another angle… even bikes and bike kit that “I don’t like”, or isn’t my preference, are in the main more than acceptable, they’re damn good. Journalists that just rubbish a product because they prefer the alternatives, rather than being objective about the quality and merits of what they are reviewing, and which riders might appreciate what they as a reviewer don’t in the product, aren’t worth reading.
And press releases used for a daily news feed are fair game as well. Not pretending to be reviews of course, just telling us what’s being announced and going on. Seems fair to me. Mixed in with original content as well, of course. Plus some reporting from press camps and trade shows and events (we’ve had less of this in Covid times, and more reliance on at a distance PR, for obvious reasons). And the odd sponsored story if labelled as such, they can be a good read/scan/look as well.
I think it's a mix of lazy journalism (how many times have you come across "articles" regarding a new product that sound identical to the press release which accompanied them), and as others have said, how the bike industry works. FWIW I find Seth (he of the bike hacking) manages to strike a decent balance of bike industry patsy and honest journalist.
This is a big part of why I subscribe to STW and why am also considering geting signed up to Cranked as well. I know what products I need, and have a pretty decent idea of the ones I want. I don't need a magazine to tell me what's what, which I guess this explains why I have an old Kona in the garage for towpath duties, and not gravel bike laiden with custom-fit bags for all the bikepacking that I'll never do. I'm more interested in the stories that make up our sport than the shiney-shiney.
In the main you need product to review and that's not exactly easy.
Say shimano launch a new xtr tomorrow. First thing you see about it is the press release and photos.
Maybe in a few weeks/months you go to a press camp with 30 other journalists trying the same kit in the same day, you get half an hour to play with it, really the only thing you can come away with assuming it didn't actually explode in a ball of fire is "the shifter felt good" "the one mechanic for two bikes meant everything was working really well" and shimano told us this so maybe 50 of your own words plus a lot of paraphrasing.
If you're lucky, six months later you get a loaner set to review, if you're unlucky it's 12 months, it's been in shops for three, and yours has been ragged to death by 6 other testers first. At this point you can actually review the kit but...
you've only got it for a month,
you've deadlines to meet
there are 6 other publications ahead of you with that review of exactly the same kit, except the chainring hadn't done 3000mi of being ridden like it was going on the canal or being burned at the end of every ride so your audience has likely seen it already in better nick
The kit isn't ground breaking.
the stuff it supercedes is already bloody good.
It didn't break or misbehave.
What do you actually write?
Fwiw I think that the folks here do a bloody good job of not just copy pasting and actually finding something to write.
Hell huge amounts of actual news these days, in a world where things happen are just syndicated or cribs of twitter.
Why don’t you start your own online magazine where you’re brutally honest about the shortcomings of modern MTB components. Let’s see how much product gets sent your way
Yet to see "Fresh Goods Friday" dry up.......
What do you actually write?
More to the point though, does anyone really want to read it. You see thread after thread on here about constantly changing standards. Better kit's good, and all. But I mostly just ride my kit until it wears out, explodes - at which point I'll replace it with more of the same (see above re: standards). Or, if I feel it's not keeping up with the sort of riding I'm doing I'll probably seek the wisdom of user forums on what might suit my needs rather than rely on reviews from the mainstream.
Why don’t you start your own online magazine where you’re brutally honest about the shortcomings of modern MTB components. Let’s see how much product gets sent your way.
I think someone capable of doing this could do well and would get enough product in. You'd need to be able to back up your claims thoroughly - test the objectives and be both a skilled rider and have the ability to separate out what's going on to work with the testing done to talk through the subjective stuff. I think there are far more with the former skills than the latter ability and to some extent the latter can make up for the former. You'd keep a 2-way dialogue going between you and the product designers and managers at the brand. Then slate the junk because you can say why it's junk, and praise the great products. If sparing with that praise your reviews become valued and only the confident brands send anything your way to begin with.
Making a business plan from that could be a challenge but I expect many would pay for that content and advertising needn't be excluded from the format.
Say shimano launch a new xtr tomorrow. First thing you see about it is the press release and photos.
Maybe in a few weeks/months you go to a press camp with 30 other journalists trying the same kit in the same day, you get half an hour to play with it, really the only thing you can come away with assuming it didn’t actually explode in a ball of fire is “the shifter felt good” “the one mechanic for two bikes meant everything was working really well” and shimano told us this so maybe 50 of your own words plus a lot of paraphrasing.
If you’re lucky, six months later you get a loaner set to review, if you’re unlucky it’s 12 months, it’s been in shops for three, and yours has been ragged to death by 6 other testers first. At this point you can actually review the kit but…
When you read about Shimano etc on here it was released to trade and press for months before and ridden and tested to some extent under embargo. Press can get brand new kit around the same time as all but the larger OEMS, some is pre-production, some production spec. Not saying they can all get whatever they want whenever they need it but the media release is just as well-planned as the OEM release.
As a rule of thumb, ninety percent of the content on most major bike outlets – road.cc, Pinkbike, GCN, singletrack, enduro-mtb, velonews (the list goes on) is a thinly veiled advert.
Perhaps fair to say product review media is part of the marketing and sales cycle of any brand and some media and journalists manage that dilemma better than others like some seem to have 10x the technical appreciation of others, etc. The more mainstream the less I'd trust them initially, like any media (edit to add, I realise there's no logic in that - and anti-msm attitudes get us conspiracy theory idiots), but that doesn't mean a mainstream review can't be good or trusted.
Why don’t you start your own online magazine where you’re brutally honest about the shortcomings of modern MTB components. Let’s see how much product gets sent your way.
I think this already exists in YouTube form: https://www.youtube.com/c/hambini
Because not enough people buy the magazine/subscription to website and they need to make enough money to pay the staff, etc.
As long as they say it’s sponsored content and the reviews are unbiased then fair enough
There seems to be a few YouTubers who have a Patreon for buying stuff to review and then the ads on the video are for stuff unrelated to the product. Not sure if the cost of bike bits would make this approach realistic or not (I've only seen it for coffee stuff and computer stuff).
The best reviews come out of the field test/group test type arrangement. Enduromag do it, pinkbike do it in video form, STW do it for components but can't recall it being done for full bikes.
Basically telling manufacturers that they want a trail bike that retails for less than $5k, which then goes head to head with other bikes thath fit the same criteria. If someone sends you a 2k enduro bike that comparitivley climbs like crap and has cheese wheels it gets called out as such.
To paraphrase what someone said above, there are no bad bikes, but there are many wrong bikes
How much stuff that Hambini gets sent comes from pissed off punters and how much is from distributors/manufacturers?
Paul Aston has started posting YouTube videos where he's reviewing bikes that he's bought. He's very honest and was when he was at Pinkbike too (see Enve wheels review).
I actually find Pinkbike relatively fair in some of their reviews.
I find the trick with Pinkbike is to actually read the review, not skip to the final remarks (which are almost always very positive).
They'll often say things like: "This bike gets to the top of hills without too much fuss, though it's no race thoroughbred. The suspension remains active at all times but a small flick of the pro-pedal lever tames the bob. Meanwhile, on the downhills, it's very lively. It's not one for just ploughing through chunder, you have to work hard to stay on line. It rewards the skilful rider with a poppy character which makes for a lively ride. This is not a bike that will flatten your local trails.
9/10"
Which is translated as: "This bike is a bit rubbish up hills, it bobs all the time and relies on the shock to keep things controlled. Then when you go downhill, it's hard work and it isn't even that fast."
Bike reviews =/= journalism
It's nothing new. I think my eyes were opened when MBUK rated a Pace suspension fork as being better than the Bomber Z1.
the trick with Pinkbike is to actually read the review
But why do that when you can spout naive, ill-informed bullshit on the internet instead?
That's much more fun.
But why do that when you can spout naive, ill-informed bullshit on the internet instead?
That’s much more fun
It's also the only bit anyone reads isn't it? After all, the articles on pinkbike are really just headers for the comments aren't they.
Yeah, perhaps they think that by writing truth in the full body of an article they are maintaining a degree of journalistic integrity while still pandering the bill-payers by gushing in the TL;DR section.
I suppose it's better than straight-up lying the whole time.
To be fair I think that some journalism is better than others. However, mags need to sell to make money but a few (like singletrack) tell you what features/reviews have been 'benefited' by a company/someone so you know it could be a skewed angle of print.
If I really want a honest(ish) review I'll look up the forum and what that says, loads of different views that I just have to sort out for myself (and again, I know not all of them will be honest)
I think someone capable of doing this could do well and would get enough product in. You’d need to be able to back up your claims thoroughly – test the objectives and be both a skilled rider and have the ability to separate out what’s going on to work with the testing done to talk through the subjective stuff. I think there are far more with the former skills than the latter ability and to some extent the latter can make up for the former. You’d keep a 2-way dialogue going between you and the product designers and managers at the brand. Then slate the junk because you can say why it’s junk, and praise the great products. If sparing with that praise your reviews become valued and only the confident brands send anything your way to begin with.
Making a business plan from that could be a challenge but I expect many would pay for that content and advertising needn’t be excluded from the format.
This makes me think of DC rainmaker's site testing GPS watches/headunits, power meters and indoor trainers. Of course the stuff he tests is much more conducive to objective review than bike components/frames, but he certainly has the 2-way dialogue with the designers and has both credibility and things to test in spades.
I think this already exists in YouTube form:
Telling the people who make the stuff you have in your hand to go kill themselves isn’t great for building a relationship.
The correct answer to OPs question is of course the “free member” response. Independent minded critical journalism is expensive. If you “really” want it, stump up some hard earned or STFU
The correct answer to OPs question is of course the “free member” response. Independent minded critical journalism is expensive. If you “really” want it, stump up some hard earned or STFU
Strangely enough a lot of the advertorial reviews are open access
Go figure
Could be that I'm the product
Telling the people who make the stuff you have in your hand to go kill themselves isn’t great for building a relationship.
He needs to clam down as it makes him more interesting
Peak Torque is similar but without the swearing and frame repairs
The counterargument to the "free rider" accusation has already been widely debunked on here with examples of good, critical tech journalism - DCRainmaker is a perfect example.
That said, I think it's a funny perversion of reality to think that someone being advertised to and sold things should pay for the priviledge of honesty - but maybe you work in advertising.
Strangely enough a lot of the advertorial reviews are open access
We don't do advertorial reviews.
The reason is freemarket capitalism.
I once paid for an ad in a bike mag then the following month they did a 6 page feature on a competitor - looked amazing, lucky bu88ers!
Why don’t you start your own online magazine where you’re brutally honest about the shortcomings of modern MTB components. Let’s see how much product gets sent your way.
I did & a lot of the reason why was being bored of the usual formulaic reviews you see online or in the press. Mostly you only need to read one because they are all the same. Singletrack I feel has moved away from this.
I get sent stuff to review. I don't get paid to do it but it also doesn't pay my mortgage so I'm able to warn anyone who sends me stuff that it'll be an honest review and I'll say if the bike/component/accessory/clothing is good or bad. I am always constructive though
Affiliate link sites are worse.
Reviewing a product as poor/average won't result in revenue generating click throughs.
There also does not seems to be much decent. I cannot be the only one that thinks some trends are retrograde. For example gear inflation. If I can climb with a 1x9 setup then I am pretty sure a lot of other people would benefit from not having a dinner plate on their back wheel for example. More complexity, lighter weight and technology might be better for the few months or year when it is new but most people and the planet would benefit from something that is simpler, more longer lasting and repairable. But I suppose that is not how profits are made and something people get excited about.
DCRainmaker is a perfect example.
is it really though? I mean yes the reviews are insanely in-depth, but often times I just find myself running out of steam (boredom) after a couple of paragraphs. They’re comprehensive foshure but I wouldn’t say they’re critical or interesting necessarily.
the reviews are insanely in-depth, but often times I just find myself running out of steam (boredom) after a couple of paragraphs. They’re comprehensive foshure but I wouldn’t say they’re critical or interesting necessarily.
Not interesting I'll give you: there are some reviews I skip over, mainly as it's clear I'm either not the target market, or it's something I've already got and not planning on replacing. But I'd argue they are always critical, where necessary. If something seems to be a bit beta or bug-ridden he doesn't hold back on mentioning it. DC Rainmaker is a bit of a special case, though - he doesn't have that much competition, and he's the acknowledged expert in consumer sports electronics.
Sadly, it isn't just bike journalism that has this problem. All journalism does, if a publication isn't repeating the words of a press release as if its own, it is doing so with the Reuters or AP feed. Doing actual journalism is time-consuming and expensive, so mostly journalists are story-mongers sat in an office.
If something seems to be a bit beta or bug-ridden he doesn’t hold back on mentioning it.
Yes, good point. I'd argue that STW does allow it's reviewers that freedom also.
DC Rainmaker is a bit of a special case, though – he doesn’t have that much competition, and he’s the acknowledged expert in consumer sports electronics
Yes, I wouldn't disagree with that. I would say say it's not "journalism" in the strict sense of that word either though, DCR is "just" a review site
DCR is “just” a review site
And he knocks out one review every few days, by the looks of it. This kind of content is relatively straightforward to package - you have the item to be reviewed, you can take internet-quality pictures of it at your home, you upload onto a fixed web template. He's good at what he does, but it's a very specific type of journalism.
STW produces a physical print magazine to deadlines, and it's obvious this requires a lot more travel, photography and production. It's also obvious that day-to-day web articles are not going to all be that resource-heavy unless the consumer is prepared to pay for it.
Can't see what the OP is complaining about
https://singletrackmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/scott-launches-the-all-new-patron-eride/
"Cough"
Free for all to access
#1. Reviews are only one part (the dullest part IMO) of bike media.
#2. You know and have identified that the journalists have this constraints so the easy fix is take the review with a pinch of salt and look at reviews on people blogs etc who have bought the product.
Can’t see what the OP is complaining about [Links to news item on new Scott bike]
But that's not a review - it's a news item explicitly quoting a press release. It's tagged 'News' not 'Review'. Are you seriously suggesting you thought that was STW's opinion of the bike; or that anyone else might think that?
One of the things I read these sites for is to be updated on the latest stuff, without having to search out press releases by all the individual manufacturers and brands. I think the difference between something being declared as existing, and STW's opinion on it, is perfectly clear.
Why would anyone want to be a journalist?
https://cyclingdigest.wordpress.com/2016/01/20/6-tips-for-cycling-journalism-success/
I wonder if something similar to The Athletic is going to come along to cycling soon - subscriber only access and thus ad free. The Athletic is football/US Sports & MMA centred so no reviews of product just news, interviews and opinions etc but I find the format works as its revenue is paid subscribers - they also went round and basically stole the best journo's in their respective field before the launch.
ignore.
Bike related journalism is an absolute saint compared to the sheer amount of utter bullshit and spurious foo-foo claims regurgitated by the upmarket Hi-Fi press/publications.
the reviews are insanely in-depth, but often times I just find myself running out of steam (boredom) after a couple of paragraphs. They’re comprehensive foshure but I wouldn’t say they’re critical or interesting necessarily.
does anyone read them all, just for something to read?
or will they zero in on articles about the specific gadget (or a few competing options) that they are considering purchasing?
conversely, I find a full bike review from any of the main free sites to perfectly fit a daily bowel movement, so I have probably read them all.
I think the difference between something being declared as existing, and STW’s opinion on it, is perfectly clear.
Here’s a look at the new Patron eRIDE.
To be fair it's fairly obvious it's a rehash of a press release when you read it
So arguably I'm highlighting advertorial news rather than reviews
Steve Worland was a bike journo that was held in high regard and his reviews were well worth reading.
Back in the day he reckoned the SC Superlight was the best all round xc bike and I bought mine on the strength of his wisdom. Still got it 15 years on.
Cant think of any current journo with that sort of trustworthy reputation.
Trouble is today, theres too many journos because its so easy to put out content for any Tom, Dick or Harry. Back in the day when there was just print media there were less opportunities. And you had to be decent otherwise people wouldnt buy your magazine.
a lot of it is related to how un-shit everything is these days.
It's rare that a mainstream product is actually shit.
all cars for sale currently are reliable and have modern conveniences for example.
Most bikes are serviceable and have good qualities.
Fashion is the only issue now.
a lot of it is related to how un-shit everything is these days.
It’s rare that a mainstream product is actually shit.
This crops up a lot on here and I'm staggered by how many people seem to believe it.
I can’t see why a review can’t be sponsored by a company but not a review of the sponsors product. Happens all the time on YouTube, especially the PC channels and a lot of them are quite strict. They might be sponsored by manufacturers to do things that might not be a review as such but are good content. Eg I know one you tuber who did a video about how custom loops for cooling are done and was sponsored by a company who sells them but it wasn’t a review, it was a “how to” and he spoke about other manufacturers at the same time.
Problem with having a strict no sponsors or paid for editorial is that the only money you get for doing it is if the article words on their own sells.
It does seem that a lot of reviews of bike stuff are just too positive. I don’t know if that’s because they are used for long enough to find issues or whatever but I’ve gotten bored of them in any magazine as, mentioned above, no one ever gets their ass handed to them for a poor product, and I know I’ve bought a few recently!!
“ This crops up a lot on here and I’m staggered by how many people seem to believe it.”
+1
There’s a lot of niche stuff I’ve been looking at recently for bike packing where I can’t find bad reviews at all but the text might say “this might suit a person different to me” rather than just saying “it’s crap” as it’s a small outfit making it. Lots of overpriced tat being sold on the strength of it being made in small numbers by artisans!!
I like The reviews that Hardtail party does because he actively compares what he’s reviewing to previous bikes he’s reviewed.
This crops up a lot on here and I’m staggered by how many people seem to believe it
What, genuinely, shit products are you about? I don’t mean a tiny percentage failure rate either.
I think Pinkbike are generally pretty good (& STW, obvs)
their problems with enve wheels were funny
https://www.pinkbike.com/news/review-enve-m735e-wheelset.html
tho in this one they got flack for removing the pics of the destroyed rim after theyd ridden it to destruction, even tho youd be mad to ride a crack carbon rim like that
https://www.pinkbike.com/news/Enve-Composites-DH-Wheels-Tested-2013.html
Id also agree there arent many really crap bikes/products around
all reviews struggle with long term reliability tho, I keep a bike for several years, which reviewers cant
I did a thread on this a few months back.
I only buy mountain bike mags now if I'm drunk on the way back home on the train.
Unfortunately, like with a lot of media, you have to be able to read between the lines a bit with reviews. I like Pinkbike's approach of having a good qualities, bad qualities element.
Often in the field tests Mike Levy will say "for riding ABC it's just not that bike, but for XYZ it is" which helps you to understand if you are getting the right tool for the right job.
A rating system isn't really helpful, for a big purchase. If I'm buying a car, you can't compare a 4/5 for a BMW M5 with a 4/5 for a BMW X5 - because even though they might be luxury, desirable cars and pricey, they are for different audiences.
I also liked this off road cc review;
https://off.road.cc/content/review/marin-rift-zone-2-2020-5275
Basically they decided that they liked the bones of the bike, but that it was pretty heavy in that spec [tyres I imagine, those are real carvers!]. This is helpful because it lets the potential rider think about their priorities:
I'm well heavy, so actually a few pounds isn't much to the system weight. For me, anti-squat values are more important for climbing, because out of the saddle I'm more of masher. If I was same height, but 20-30kg less, my priorities might be reversed.
Is it getting worse, probably. Some publications have really gone downhill - MBR I used to rate, not its just buy-Ebikes. MBUK I think has always been pretty rubbish - trying to sell the average rider a 45lb freeride bike back in the day, whatever the equivalent nowadays.
Singletrack is an odd one. My mate said there were never any negative reviews. My sense is that they only put things in the mag that they would recommend. Its not really a reviews focussed magazine, though, is it.
At least with the Scott it says it is a press release. It's the advertorial that tends to upset people, as you start reading it in good faith and then feel like you are being conned part way through.
Who on the STW staff rides bikes day in day out above all else? I’m not convinced they have the staff to write objective reviews as they are all getting old/married/safe. It feels to me like the whole industry needs a massive yoof injection
At least with the Scott it says it is a press release. It’s the advertorial that tends to upset people, as you start reading it in good faith and then feel like you are being conned part way through.
It quotes the press release but that is in a different font. In the rest of the article it talks about Scott in the third person and claims to be written by Lauren who is a staff member at stw. How is not an advertorial?
It quotes the press release but that is in a different font. In the rest of the article it talks about Scott in the third person and claims to be written by Lauren who is a staff member at stw. How is not an advertorial?
It's a bit confusing. My initial response was to consider only the bits in italics as direct quotes, but other than the sentence "Scott has announced the launch of their* all-new Patron eRide." all of the rest of it seems to have come direct from the Scott literature.
* my bold
"no bad products are released at the moment"
Find me a <5/10 review for the new canyon aeroad, despite the fact that it shits its own Seatpost apart through bad design? Frankly find me one that has been updated to not recommend the bike until they fix the bars?
How about a reverb review that warns you you'll need half the price again to rebuild it after it starts sagging through shit design?
What about a Shimano brake review that warns you they bleed oil onto your calipers just at the end of warranty - in my case putting my girlfriend in hospital?
Politely **** off.
Aw, I wanted to bring up Reverbs!
Sorry to hear about your girlfriend, hope it was a speedy recovery.
It quotes the press release but that is in a different font. In the rest of the article it talks about Scott in the third person and claims to be written by Lauren who is a staff member at stw. How is not an advertorial?
It appears to be the STW house style for the product release "news" articles
As they are open access, you are the product being sold
As for advertorials
Its pretty obvious what they are, no one is going to mistake it for a review
As for shimano brakes reverbs etc, I think it's those longer term problems that reviews will always struggle with
As for shimano brakes reverbs etc, I think it’s those longer term problems that reviews will always struggle with
That, and you don’t hear about the 10s of thousands that work fine.
Frankly find me one that has been updated
Cycling Weekly article talking about the issues with Aeroroad seat posts
Well, I can only speak for myself, but an review of a bike I did for STW I said the front tyre needs swapping with something better and it was left in word for word as I wrote it. AFAIK, no-one at the bike company concerned ever said anything to STW about it, and continues to send them bikes to test, and no one at STW indicated to me that I was to write a particular review (ie good or glowing)
I think the bit of this puzzle that lots of folk miss is that the people that work in companies like Shimano and Trek, and so on are bike enthusiasts themselves who really do try to make decent products that are well made and last. They're clearly not going to get it right all the time, but there's no great omerta between bike journo and the companies they write about, there just isn't. Personally I think most reviewers try to do a good job, If you think they're garbage, do a better job yourself, or don't read them. No one is forcing you to be on the site, and your (and my) contributions are pretty worthless If after all, forum posts were worth anything, presumably Mark would be cycling in to STW towers on a solid gold Brompton by now.
I think both Pinkbike and STW try their best to do critical investigative journalism, when its needed or worthwhile Hannah on here has written critical articles about riders, bike companies, and faulty product. I don't think STW are afraid to put stuff out there, but unless you want to pay the salaries of people to do that job, it simply won't happen in the way you want, and given just my own limited exposure to the business side of leisure cycling, you'd get bored pretty soon.