[spooled1]

I've just read the latest copy of Fishing World and I've noticed it happening more and more.

Is this ethically right? Are anglers getting unbiased and impartial information that help them improve thier fishing or are they being indirectly led to buy the featured product?

This months examples:

Pages #8-12 - New Age Lizards, Four page feature article with numereous mentions and images of Berkeley Gulp and The Berkeley Gulp 3' Pogy by David Green
Page #31 - Full page ad for Berkeley Gulp
Page #44 - Rigging Softies Right, two mentions of Berkeley Gulp by Mark Phillips
Page #46 - Bait or Lure? 2 page feature article by David Green promoting Berkeley Gulp
Page #94 - 1/2 page New products category, Berkely Gulp 3" Pogy by David Green and a Berkeley Gulp competition.

One thing is certain, somebody has a lot of real estate this month! Does David Green have a professional affiliation with the distributor of the product? Was this feature article written as part of an advertising package or is it a strange coincidence that Gulp is the product in focus this month?

Whatever! Who cares as long as the writer/ publication inform the reader.

 

[HiRAEdd]

I think if the writer or magazine is getting a kick-back from a manufacturer or supplier, the readers have a right to know. Otherwise, or we're really buying is an infomercial. *runs off to find my abdominator*

 

[simond11]

Hi Dan
A very valid point and one that has come up quite a few times in fishing mags. In fact a couple of months back I remember reading an editorial on one of our fishing magazines that addressed just such an issue. The editor was saying that any articles that were written featuring a particular product were not affiliated with the product blah blah blah.....
I don't really know much about advertising and product placement, but I think that another sneaky way of marketing your product is to send free samples to people who have "the power of the pen" and ask them to evaluate your product. If it's good, you are assured of good press and "free" advertising. With the plethora of fishing products flooding the market today, it is no wonder mags are finding themselves more and more forced to do tests on such products and bring the results to the reader. The companies are investing a lot of money to ensure that when fishos go to buy a product they only buy that brand, because they have heard of it over and over again. Besides, if Starlo uses is, then it's got to be good :wink:
Cheers

Simon
Prowler 15

 

[Les Lammers]

'Over here' marketing has permeated just about everthing, including fishing. Just call me skeptical.

 

[JT]

September NSW Fishing Monthly page 52. Article entitled "Tried and Tested". This months fair and balanced review is of a newly released Alvey side real the Rock Hopper Special. The tester gushes praise on the product declaring it to laugh off the tough conditions of the sea and basically be the best thing since sliced bread, holding aloft a couple of big jewfish that he claims to have caught with it.

I thought the Alvey T-shirt and the Alvey cap he weas wearing in the photos with the jewfish was a little obvious and over the top. Infact, it can't be construed any other way other than blatant advertising :twisted:

JT

 

[spooled1]

I was a copywriter for a commercial radio station. Often, the station would have an advertising promo. This turned out to be called, "cash for comment'.

As you say, DISCLOSURE is all anyone can ask for or expect. Starlo always discloses.

This product is not 100% unique. There are other scented, moulded protien/ starch baits available in this country and they probably are just as effective. The spin doctors are turning GULP into a generic name to gain ownership in its category. Think about it, the big red bass boat, the free DVD's, sponsorships, stickers, cool packaging. There are a lot of $$$ being spent right now but the reward is huge.

Same goes for soft plastics where there are literally hundreds of different brands. It's easy to rant and rave about a specific brand. I've caught fish on lots of them and I have my favorites not because someone told me but because I tested them myself. Imagine the royalties Starlo and Bushy are probably getting. Squidgies have now been #1 in this country for over 5 years. They work but so does everything on the right day.

 

[Dodge]

Fellas this has been happening for 40 years and not new by any means, older akffers will remember Outdoors and Fishing, and Anglers Digest all plugging their gear in the articles [although not every bit of kit].

Might add the same articles have popped up dozens of times just new authors and pics, and of course the current lure fad.

I rarely buy mags for the above reason, and you learn more from AKFF, another fisho or any fishing club than will ever been seen in the print media.

The only print that is useful is the tide and moon charts

 

[Davey G]

as one who is currently involved in the magazine publishing world (not fishing mags - i work on a golf magazine) - I agree that reviews/road tests of various products are now commonplace within the magazine world.

And Dan is right - the majority of articles are intended to make the featured product look like the best thing since sliced bread. However its HOW it's presented to the reader that makes all the difference.

Unfortunately too many mags don't disclose that the article is in fact an 'advertorial' or an 'equipment review' - hence why the readers do get a bit suss of the whole publication.

Others (and the mag i work on does this), have regular 'product reviews', 'road tests' and 'equipment features' which are clearly shown to be product reviews. Yes, the results are usually written to highlight the positives of the product and make the product sound attractive, but at the end of the day every magazine is a commercial business and does rely heavily on the mighty advertising $$ to survive. These reviews are usually 'value added' services to give the advertisers some exposure in a different format (ie editorial)

Unfortunately, without ad $$, there wouldn't be too many magazines around - its the same as commercial TV - you're happy to watch it, but it wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the advertising..

I agree with all that mags should disclose whether the article is in fact a promotion for the product or not - it's the only way to maintain credibility with readers (and at the end of the day, the readers are the ones who determine whether the mag is a success or not).

Just my 2 cents worth..

 

[Shoey]

I'd be interested to hear from someone in the advertising side of things regarding this matter. Rumour has it one of our own is now involved in this area for a national fishing mag, but he may be too shy to comment on such an issue :roll: .

 

[spooled1]

It looks like the mathematical formula might look something like this:

INITIAL PUBLICATION INTEGRITY
minus
ADVERTISING SALES INCENTIVES
minus
ADVERTISER DEMANDS
equals
PRINTED MATTER THAT LOSES CREDIBILITY WITH READERS.

 

[Guest]

The recent article on Kayak Fishing in Freshwater Fishing was a good example of this.

There were only three brands of kayak featured in their 'Comprehensive Guide' to fighing yaks, Viking was the only brand which is one I would call a major player in the Australian Market.

The only other two brands represented were Condors Pluss, and an obscure Pelican kayak which I had never heard of before reading the article. As fas as I know no one in the forum has ever really considered these models let alone owned one.

All the other brands, a couple of which are among the biggest major brands did not even rate a mention in this 'Comprehensive Guide' :roll:

 

[Guest]

I've worked as a journalist and editor for about 10 years, and part of that was as a stint as an editor for an outdoors rec mag. I can speak with a bit of authority on this subject and I'm not happy to say that yes, it is as it appears.

I do think the problem has worsened over time, even if it has been with us for a long time. This is due to the emergence of the Internet, which has resulted in much tougher times for print publications. To be honest, Im surprised that there's as many fishing mags as there is. I haven't picked one up for some years.

The problem of editorial integrity lies largely with advertizing sales staff, who have no idea what the word integrity means. Desperate to rack up sales (the pressure is on, believe me) they'll say almost anything to get a company to sign up for advertizing (this happens on web publications as well mind you, but no where near as much). In any publication where you see favorable comment about specific products in an article or review, 9.5 times out of 10 you can bet a weeks wages that there's an add for that product, brand or company somewhere.

I don't know how many times the add guy who was working on the outdoor mag I edited would come in and say 'I'm this close to signing X. What if we agree to write a full page review on product X?' or 'what if we talk up product X in a specific article?'

In my experience, whenever I said no, the guy would look at me like I'd just cut his lunch and often wouldn't speak to me for the rest of the day. And often in these cases, I got a little visit from the boss who tried to change my mind. As you can imagine, I didn't last in the position very long, and this is exactly why.

Having said that, sometimes I did say yes, and that's because I knew said product was infact good. And I had no problem saying nice things about good products if I knew for sure they were industry leading. After all, I'd rather readers be influenced to buy certain brands/products that I was positive would do the best job for them. The problem was that it didn't happen enough, because it was the companies/brands that lagged behind that were desperate for favorable comment, and thus more willing to advertize in conjunction with it.

Best advice I can give is to be discerning. Do your homework, get a 2nd and 3rd opinion and read user reviews online. Never ever trust anything you read in print at face value. It used to be that you'd be ridiculed for believing what you read on the web. Having worked in both mediums (I still do actually, but only as freelance for print media), I can safely say that now it's the other way around. You're far more likely to get the real picture on the Internet. And it's a hell of a lot cheaper.

 

[PeterJ]

Good pick up there .

Hmm I wonder. Maybe they paid for it.

 

[fishbrain]

Hi Guys just read this thread after arriving home from my job in one of those national fishing magazine groups as Davey G said no advertising no $$$ no magazine the cold hard facts. As for author, writer & editor I think would quickly lose any credibility if they just wrote stories for kickbacks. Anyway if there were no ads how else would find out what's new on the market if your tackleshop doesn't stock it ? Happy Fishin fishbrain

 

[spooled1]

Hey Fishbrain,

I think tha majority of readers believe editorial disclosure is the only real solution to the systemic corporate greed cylcle that permeates the publishing industry.

If you are paid by a client to spin thier product, respect the people who buy, read and subscribe to your magazines and disclose all affiliations.

Who gives a toss if advertising finances a publication, if it weren't for the loyal readers and subscribers, the advertiser wouldn't have an avenue to sell to.

 

[Les Lammers]

I've worked as a journalist and editor for about 10 years, and part of that was as a stint as an editor for an outdoors rec mag. I can speak with a bit of authority on this subject and I'm not happy to say that yes, it is as it appears.

I do think the problem has worsened over time, even if it has been with us for a long time. This is due to the emergence of the Internet, which has resulted in much tougher times for print publications. To be honest, Im surprised that there's as many fishing mags as there is. I haven't picked one up for some years.

The problem of editorial integrity lies largely with advertizing sales staff, who have no idea what the word integrity means. Desperate to rack up sales (the pressure is on, believe me) they'll say almost anything to get a company to sign up for advertizing (this happens on web publications as well mind you, but no where near as much). In any publication where you see favorable comment about specific products in an article or review, 9.5 times out of 10 you can bet a weeks wages that there's an add for that product, brand or company somewhere.

I don't know how many times the add guy who was working on the outdoor mag I edited would come in and say 'I'm this close to signing X. What if we agree to write a full page review on product X?' or 'what if we talk up product X in a specific article?'

In my experience, whenever I said no, the guy would look at me like I'd just cut his lunch and often wouldn't speak to me for the rest of the day. And often in these cases, I got a little visit from the boss who tried to change my mind. As you can imagine, I didn't last in the position very long, and this is exactly why.

Having said that, sometimes I did say yes, and that's because I knew said product was infact good. And I had no problem saying nice things about good products if I knew for sure they were industry leading. After all, I'd rather readers be influenced to buy certain brands/products that I was positive would do the best job for them. The problem was that it didn't happen enough, because it was the companies/brands that lagged behind that were desperate for favorable comment, and thus more willing to advertize in conjunction with it.

Best advice I can give is to be discerning. Do your homework, get a 2nd and 3rd opinion and read user reviews online. Never ever trust anything you read in print at face value. It used to be that you'd be ridiculed for believing what you read on the web. Having worked in both mediums (I still do actually, but only as freelance for print media), I can safely say that now it's the other way around. You're far more likely to get the real picture on the Internet. And it's a hell of a lot cheaper.

I don't mind ads at all. What we have here in the US are guides and tourney anglers sponsored by boat/tackle industry. I pay little attention
to the paid spokes people.

 

[Guest]

I dont think anyone was criticizing the type or amount of actual advertising in these mags.

I think the thing most people were referring to were articles which appeared on the surface to be the opinion of the writer, when in fact they are really just paid advertisments in disguise......

The Kayak Fishing article was a perfect example.....what other reason other than a 'cash for comment' type arrangement explains the absence of major brands like Ocean Kayak, Wilderness Systems, Hobie, Perception etc? Yet this article was advertised as a 'Comprehensive Guide'........

 

[fishbrain]

Hi dallas, Sorry mate I don't know why none of the articles mentioned are ours I do know Gulps are pretty awesome and greater percentage tournament anglers use them.cheers brad

 

[Davey G]

At the end of the day, (as has already been said) magazines are there to sell product for the publisher. This product is copies of the publication plus advertising space within. They are also a sales tool for the various companies that do advertise to enable them to promote their products to a targeted audience of (in this case) fishos who you would imagine WOULD have a fair interest in these types of products.

Apart from working in the industry I am also a magazine consumer and subscriber to a few sports and fishing titles. I can put up with a bit of product placement within a magazine as long as it's RELEVANT - however I hate seeing magazines where they go off topic and do a feature on something that's not related to why I bought the magazine. (eg Golf Magazines doing pieces on "Hot Cars" or "Travel in Mexico" )

Yes the sales teams and the editorial teams are both trying to do their thing (sell ads / write interesting editorial) to meet the needs of both their core customers (readers and advertisers). In the majority, I feel that MOST magazines do a pretty good job of catering for the needs of everyone quite well (of course theres exceptions to this). I'm lucky in that I work on a magazine where sales and editorial both work together really well and share ideas etc (not like some previous magazines/newspapers I've worked on where it's an 'us versus them' mentality - not a good working relationship)

Heres another take on the whole 'product placement thing' - take the womens mags for instance (highest circulating mags in Australia) - I would say that close to 100% of the content of these mags is made up of supplied advertorial/product reviews. 200 odd pages of bloody shoes, clothes and makeup. Not my cup of tea. But for the ladies (and men) who buy these mags, they are obviously interested in it.

At the end of the day it's the readers choice how they spend their hard earned $$ - if they like the articles/ads/editorials and want to go out and buy that product -great. If not, they also have the choice NOT to buy the product featured/advertised or even to buy the magazine itself. Nobody's twisting anybody's arm to force them to buy anything.

A motto (personal favourite of mine) - you can't please everyone all the time.

Another Motto (probably applies in this case) - IF you don't like it, don't buy it... :roll: 8)