Originally Posted by Snore
There does not appear to be any reason any magazine that reviewed sailboats could not add the relevant objective
criteria to their review.
Just appears to be an absence of fortitude.
As to review of the boats themselves, you can easily be critical without malice. Honestly, I think it would help greatly to give the pros and cons, to tell what a boat's strengths and weaknesses are. And if you tell me a boat has no weakness as most reviews
tend to do, then I know it's a puff review. What is wrong with saying something like this: "Their 29' is a great day sailor and great for long range cruising by a couple. However, the guest accommodations are very tight and we would not recommend this boat for a family
of four. We'd suggest their 34' in that case." And what is wrong with something like, "Overall a well performing boat. However, we've heard of many problems with their Brand ABC autopilot
and would caution readers in that regard."
And I don't see sailboat manufacturer's being offended by such as that. Then the magazine serves as a better tool for buyers. As to something like the autopilot
comment, if the manufacturer changes vendors or can convince you there's been improvement then post something like this: "As a follow up to our Brand Z 29' review in November and our criticism of the Brand ABC autopilot, we have been notified by Brand Z that they have switched to Brand DEF autopilots now. We have not tested their boat since the change."
It's not just fortitude. It's business savvy. The review isn't going to completely condemn a boat in all likelihood and, if a manufacturer is that bad, does a quality magazine really want them as an advertiser.
When it comes to equipment
, I see no reason not to be honest. But then I think magazines should have the fortitude to dump unethical or dishonest vendors pushing bad products and not standing behind them. You do have that right. In fact, maybe that's where you find out more about a magazine, by the advertisements they've turned down.
Of course all this is simply my opinion and the publishers aren't going to change. The publisher of the small magazine we own was threatened verbally and in writing by a seller of a male erectile dysfunction supplement for refusing his ad which made outlandish claims. Well, he's now out of business. The FDA found the supplement illegally included prescription drugs. They were claiming it worked just as well as Viagra. Well, duh, it included the same medication as Viagra.
My views differ with many. Perhaps if I tried to hold to them publishing a major magazine I'd fail miserably and be out of business quickly. That we'll never know.