Magazines - Important - Sales vs. Editorial

[scameron77]

Just been reading a few posts and noticed a lot of people refer to the three main magazines quite a bit, namely (Pilot, Flyer and Today's Pilot). I'm going to share some info now with you all as a result.

I used to work in London for a publishing company as an event manager. We put on events relating to our publications as we already had the main players advertising with us in our publications it wasn't too hard to get them to sign up to pay £2k to £6k for an exhibition stand. We could also advertise the event to our target audience for free effectively.

Right, the above should qualify me to advise you what I learned in this job before changing my career path:

a) Magazines by and large are not editorial driven, they are sales driven by those who advertise.

b) On average subscriptions and shop sales cover the printing and distribution costs. The advertising pays the wages and is where the profit comes from.

c) You can't sell two pages of advertising facing each other, you need one of articles with a facing page of adverts. Also you'll pay more for a right-hand page than a left because you see it more easily.

d) The biggest problem with publishing is finding enough new topics to write about each month to fill up the pages so you can sell advertising. As a result we’d write any old crap, re-gurgitate old news, to fill up column inches so we could sell space opposite it.

e) Every week my previous company would have a strategy meeting and determine that certain sectors weren't spending any money. We would then ask the editorial team to write a juicy article to sell advertising around it. The sales team would then flood them with calls. I may direct your attention to the current edition of one of the magazines where headsets are reviewed or another magazine with a GPS system article at the moment. Look at the amount of related advertisers on the surrounding pages.

f) We would also not write anything too close to the bone as to alienate our principal revenue source.

g) It appears to be Oxford Aviation, Cabair, Ormond Beach, Transair etc. who appear to spend the most in UK magazines.

h) We'd also have advertisers ring us up and advise us of new products or services and attempt to get an editorial written. We'd do so based on how much they had spent in the previous year, if they were taking any ads alongside and if we wanted to throw the cat amongst the pigeons with their competitors.

Might be me being cynical, but just remember to tread carefully when reading through the magazines, don't treat them as gospel truth.

Stephen

[0-8]

In my current occupation I’m constantly in contact with advertising and editorial staff across a range of magazines. I have found that what Scameron says to be generally true; despite magazine’s insisting that they always maintain “independent journalistic integrity”.

If you spend enough money with some you can even get a copy of the article before it goes to print so you can correct any “technical” inaccuracies.


P.S.
Scameron, have you recently celebrated a birthday?

[scameron77]

20th October, so yeah . . . pretty much, why do you ask? Your not going to get all feamle and suggest that people with certain star signs are more sceptical are you? :)

[0-8]

No nothing like that!

Check you PM's and all will be explained...

[Send Clowns]

There is a fundamental flaw in the argument though. All the organisations mentioned (my employer's competitors) tend to advertise in the classified section of the magazines mentioned and of Flight International. These do not have written articles in the facing pages, and in fact are a stack of pages with only adverts. Check out the magazines.

The exception would be the newspaper-style "Flight Training News", which is the closest thing we have to a trade press so I think the editorial slant is acceptable and expected.

[0-8]

The general argument was that many magazines’ editorial policy is strongly influenced by the companies who spend not insignificant sums on advertising with them. This is certainly not “fundamentally flawed”.

In the first post Scameron was simply describing a common industry technique used by many. Whether or not this particular method is used by certain magazines should not be used as a barometer of a magazine's “editorial independence”.

[Send Clowns]

Well it is, as the string of argument is broken at (c) and (d), and with respect to the industry at question (flight training) (e) is also wrong. Since you don't need to have the adverts opposite an article, the pressure is not to write articles. Since advertising in this sector isn't contained in the main editorial section, and knowing the people who make the advertising at two companies in different sectors of this industry, I don't think the companies generally buy advertising around articles that they like.

This also shows that scameron cannot claim the expertise he does, as he has clearly shown he does not know this sector by using flawed arguments. He might have expertise elsewhere, and he might relate his expertise to, for example, avionics manufacturers, who may well advertise in the way he describes in the aviation press, but not to commercial flight training organisations.

Remember that the main market of these magazines (apart from Flight International, whos market is huge, and includes all sectors so the argument still applies) is club fliers, 95% of whom will never take any commercial flight training courses. Therefore the thrust of this argument which relates (I assume, in this forum) to the commercial side of flight training is drastically diluted. We are considering here edititorial independnce from the commercial flight training industry, not overall.

[0-8]

Send Clowns,

I really have no interest in debating the particulars of scamerons post with you. If he wishes I’m sure he’ll take it up with you in person.

My simple point is that I believe, as someone who’s in daily contact with many publishers, editors and media sales people, that many magazines’ editorial policy is strongly influenced by companies who advertise with them.

If you believe otherwise, then so be it.

But let’s please not get into a pointless argument on a public forum. The signal to noise ratio in these forums is getting bad enough with ronchonner/skyman/newname100/etc.

[PPRuNe Towers]

I wouldn't push it any further than that SC. Your argument is deeply and obviously flawed - the commercial schools, especially spectaculary failed ones such as you began working at, have avoided even post mortem, forensic discussion in the mags. There is simply zero, skeptical or rigorous coverage of FTO's as mags and schools are cottage industries utterly dependent on each other.

For newcomers Send Clowns picked holes in specifics to blindside you on the essential truth in Scameron's post. SC worked for one of the most egregiously offending schools in living memory taking large amounts of money from students with one hand while trying to silence this site with the other.

The top table here at the Towers goes back to schools such as Avigation in the '70's. We know exactly how the industry works with the Mags for the last 35 plus years.

Like it or not the truth is simply this. It is a total pain in the arse for us, especially legally, but PPRuNe is the only place where schools, funded or bust, good, average or bad get discussed anywhere near openly.

Sad innit?

Regards
Rob

[no sponsor]

I regularly write articles for magazines within my industry (Telecoms) and we have arrangements with a number of magazines that a certain advertisement budget will get us various article spaces throughout the year. These often appear to be objective insights into the way the industry operates, why certain products are good (ours), and why others are bad (all our competitors). It is nothing more than you pushing your own ideals.

I also spend an awful lot of time speaking with journalists, at conferences, and writing papers - these are all designed to get us noticed, and serve as a means to influence thinking. Journalists don't tend to know what their talking about, and are quite happy to regurgitate anything you feed them.

I would hardly think that the flying mag fraternity, nor their business models, are any different.

[Send Clowns]

For those new, I would point out that I was a student at that same school, then became for just 5 months a simple ground instructor (and still a customer, who lost money in the event), with nothing to do with the management. For that to be relevant here, Towers, you have to be suggesting I had something to do with the "silencing" or with the collapse of the school, neither of which was the case, and it is rather unfair for someone in PPRuNe management to hint at that! Until the comment above, I had no idea that anyone had been trying to silence the debate on this site on behalf of the school.

Towers, you cannot come from a result (the lack of critical investigation of commercial flight training) to allege the cause (the lack of independence of the media) without an argument to connect the two. Your post actually argues against your conclusion: you point out that such discussions are published here on PPRuNe as you state, yet still many of the schools advertise with you.

I was not "picking holes". I was pointing out the part of Scameron's argument that does not apply in this sector. Why should it be left to stand when it is clearly wrong, as anyone who reads the aviation glossies regularly must know? It makes the whole thread look ridiculous, and is not a sound basis for a balanced discussion, makes the whole argument look dodgy and reduces its impact. My correction means we now have a basis for a discussion of the issue that is actually the truth. I haven't said anywhere that the aviation press is unbiased, but if we are going to discuss bias we cannot do so meaningfully from a premise that is quite simply wrong!

[Genghis the Engineer]

Although it's never been my day job, I've written for magazines for about 18 years, and flying magazines for about half of that - I enjoy it and the extra beer money is nice.

The point about advertising is well made, but it need not interfere with editorial independence too much. I've had editors make it clear that they wanted me to write about subject X because it would sell advertising, or that if I'm going to criticise product Y I'd better show the editor in advance my clear reasoning for when I got the irate phone call he could defend it - both of those are fair enough. I've even lost a monthly column (after about 4 years) in a flying magazine because they were rebranding and the type of flying I tended to write about wasn't in keeping with the new intended market - irritating but fair enough.

There have been cases where writers have been sacked or their work refused because it criticised something by a major advertiser; I'm not going to name them, but those in the business know where it's happened. That is unacceptable (to the readers and writers anyhow) but thankfully very rare and does tend to find itself out. So, I don't think it is, or need be, a major problem with the integrity of aviation journalism.


I did write a flight test for one of the big 3 UK magazines a while ago where I was quite critical of several aspects of the aeroplane. The editor asked that I confirmed I really meant what I said and could prove it - then happily carried the article. About a fortnight after it came out, I got a private Email from the aircraft company, very polite saying "you are quite right, and here's what we're going to do about it".

So, not all is bleak.

G

[scameron77]

Right time for my two cents worth. I had typed a reply at roughly 1pm today and then my computer hung and I lost it. So I had double the rage. But I now kinda feel vindicated by what has been written by other people on here (2 of which are moderators).

Firstly I think I should point out to everyone reading this that I've had a clash with Send Clowns before, I started a thread and I had to rebuke Send Clowns in it for taking it off topic and advertising his own employer. So not really sure if he has an axe to grind.

As for the pages and pages of adverts mentioned by Send Clowns, I apologise I meant to mention the classifieds in my original post but I assumed it went without saying. I was relating to the main body of the magazine and the advertising policies of selling space round about them.

However the same rule permiates the classifieds, if someone is taking more space the sales teams then contact everyone else with the "you should see what he's doing, you can't afford to be left behind" pitch.

I am also critical of how you seem to assume that 95% of the readership are flying regularly. I certainly bought my first issue to compare the prices and get a list of all the schools offering courses. I'm pretty sure a fair number of each months sales are to people starting out and needing a reference tool a kinda flying yellow pages. That was the purpose of my post originally and to point out the pit falls.

I'd also bring to your attention a certian flying school held in a sticky thread at the top of this forum, I don't think anyone can disagree that there has been a lot written about them and not all of it good. Can anyone enlighten me to when they seen any of this mentioned in the flying press? Maybe something to do with the fact they take 2 full colour pages (I'm guessing rate card being £4k-5k per page depending on the circulation), however no ABC figures in the magazine I'm looking at, so conservative estimate £8k for both pages, discounts for ad campaign length, size of ads and regular entry brings it down to maybe £5k an issue at a guess? Which editor is going to question them when they are receiving this in revenue every month?

As to quesiton my suitablity for starting this post, I know the publishing industry very well, the rules relating to advertising and editorial transcend no matter the industry covered.

Finally Send Clowns you wrote this earlier "you point out that such discussions are published here on PPRuNe as you state, yet still many of the schools advertise with you." The difference being ANYONE on PPRuNe without vetting can write a post and have their say WITHOUT outside intervention. These advertisers know this and choose to advertise despite that fact. Magazines have an editor to determin if the copy written will cause problems further down the line.

I'll assume Send Clowns teaches pedantics 101 and there was a low cloud base over Bournemouth today hence his posts.

[hotprop]

I think Scameron is spot on.
As a purchaser of adverts in magazines targeting the telecom systems industry we certainly look for editorial and often provide the same in order to create an interest in our type of products. As a matter of fact we're often approached to provide cover images of our products, it comes down to how much we are willing to spend in the ad section.
It is common practice in the world of magazines, television and just about anything media related.

As pointed out advertising really pays the salary. If you don't believe that, try running a magazine and you'll soon find out, I have...

Slightly off target, if you haven't seen The Big Kahuna with Kevin Spacey, be sure to check it out. You'll find out just how sales oriented and advertising oriented we really are.

What am I trying to sell here ? :uhoh:

[Genghis the Engineer]

But I now kinda feel vindicated by what has been written by other people on here (2 of which are moderators).
Just in case it's not absolutely clear already, although I am a moderator - I'm not in this particular arena. Unless I state otherwise, I post as myself, represent nobody but myself, and hope that whatever I've said is judged purely on the merit of what I've said and no other grounds.

Just in case anybody reads it, I'm also (as Genghis) a forum moderator on Planetjitsu (http://www.planetjitsu.com/forums.php) a martial arts equivalent of Pprune - and the same applies there :cool:

G

[scameron77]

Genghis,

It wasn't the intention to use you out of context, and I hope you don't feel that I did. I do value the input of two people at bit long in the tooth in the airline industry and also this website to set the record straight with respect to Send Clown's posts.

Not very nice getting comments like what was thrown in my direction. Especially when I feel the aforementioned contributor hasn't grasped and understood what I tried to put across in my original post. Certain comments made were unwarrented and from what I can see from every other contributer on here so far is on my side of the fence.

With respect to mentioning you, I suppose all I can say is that I'd rather have an off duty policeman in the neighbourhood than just an ordinary member of the public if you see what I mean in a roundabout sort of a way.

Stephen

Now please don't kick the sh1t out of me with judo chops and alike :)

[Send Clowns]

Scameron

When I corrected your misconception I expected a mature response, an accurate basis on which to discuss what you clearly believe is an important issue. I thought the stage might be illuminated. Instead you obscure the issue with a petulant, broad personal attack and attack on my posts, with wildly inaccurate comments.

How can I advertise my employer who I don't mention? How can I be taking a thread off topic by pointing out a flaw in the first post, that defines the topic? Why is it pedantic to point out a completely flawed argument that you are making? Why is some past slight you have taken at a disagreement relevant?

I can't see how you feel vindicated when the only person with actual experience of the issue you put appears to disagree with you. Genghis's post at the very least suggests your conclusion is too strongly put (correct me if I am wrong, Genghis).

Why should advertisers demand editorial influence in one medium in which they advertise, when they keenly advertise in another and do not? The existence of an editor is irrelevant to that issue if he is as those Geghis mentions, and simply wnats to ensure criticsim is correct.

Why do you make up things to attack me with? I never said anything about 95% of the readership flying. Is your whole argument this dishonest? I don't believe it is, but you do yourself no favours trying to discredit me that way.

This is all starting to look very personal. You say we have disagreed before. That may be the case, I don't remember, but that is not a reason I would disagree with you now - I often support people I have disagreed with on different issues. You may have taken it personally, I have not, and do not even remember specifically any issue you might have posted on.

Right to put it simply, and try to get back to the potentially interesting topic of hte thread: the issue was not that you failed to mention the classifieds, that, as you rightly say, goes without saying. The issue is that you do place great emphasis on adverts among the articles of certain magazines for the industry in which I work. My main point is that they very rarely place adverts in that section of the press, so those argruments are given far too much emphasis. Nearly all advertising for this business is in the classified section.

Our potential clients don't make decisions based on a chance find of an advert while reading a magazine. They look for the adverts, even (as I did on the only occasion I bought any of thoise titles) buying the magazine primarily for the adverts. Why would we pay a premium for space in the main section?

What you mentioned wasn't "...the same rule" at all, please do me the courtesy of reading my argument. The rule you had been talking about and I had been arguing against was the requirement for articles opposite an advert, not that people try to sell advertising space (not sure how that is not legitimate :confused: ). This cannot apply in the classifieds, as there are no articles there in the magazines you mentioned!

OBA is a different issue entirely. There are legal issues that we all know have taken up a lot of time for the PPRuNe management, the reluctance may have little to do with advertising. Writing an article implicitly backed by the editor is a lot different from having a forum member post his or her own thoughts. Knowing the school, and noting the comments of others, I don't even see it as a special case for a critical article, so see no strong pressure for the magazines to risk legal action. I would not criticise it beyond any other school that wished to teach people for a UK licence outside the UK with a similar course structure. Personally I also believe they are one school that would not remove the advert anyway. Do you think they leave it there just to stop adverse comment? They must be getting business out of it, and they do a lot of business.

[scameron77]

Jesus, I'll unholser my violin and play you a tune shall I? For God's sake dry your eyes, you are a grown man.

How can I advertise my employer who I don't mention? How can I be taking a thread off topic by pointing out a flaw in the first post, that defines the topic?

This is the quote to which SC is referring

I've had a clash with Send Clowns before, I started a thread and I had to rebuke Send Clowns in it for taking it off topic and advertising his own employer

As I mentioned earlier, please take particular notice of the word "BEFORE" meaning in the past. I can remember the post quite vividly, it was in a thread discussing ab-initio training overseas. he suggested paying Bournemouth a visit, checking it out and that the woman in the cafe made a rare cup of tea.

Why is it pedantic to point out a completely flawed argument that you are making?

Mate look at the rest of the posts, do you see anyone agreeing with you? You mention Genghis, he said he had been exposed to editorial interference based on advertisers. I'll also draw you to the following which will possibly explain why I used the word "pedantic":

Send Clowns picked holes in specifics to blindside you on the essential truth PPRuNe Towers

I really have no interest in debating the particulars of scamerons post with you 0-8

Right next point raised by Send Clowns

Why should advertisers demand editorial influence in one medium in which they advertise, when they keenly advertise in another and do not?

Because they are aware of the huge amount of traffic (mostly considering flying in one guise or another) that bounds through this website every day. They are also wise enough to know you can't influence a forum, magazines are much easier to control if you spend the money with them. PPRuNe isn't a profit making enterprise, its ethos is bringing together people interested in a particular industry to exchange ideas without agenda. Its simply too good a market too miss for some of the schools.

Why do you make up things to attack me with? I never said anything about 95% of the readership flying. Is your whole argument this dishonest? I don't believe it is, but you do yourself no favours trying to discredit me that way.

I'll hold my hands up here, I mis-read Send Clowns original post and misunderstood it. NOTE: This is what an apology looks like when you kinda know you've made a mistake. However you took that far too personally and made quite a bit more than was really necessary.

The issue is that you do place great emphasis on adverts among the articles of certain magazines for the industry in which I work. My main point is that they very rarely place adverts in that section of the press

This thread was set up to advise wannabes to be aware that not everything they read in the the magazines is gospel truth. Also equipment is very relevant to those starting out on this long road as well as the schools. People buy on the influence of what they think is impartial advice. Funny that the most respected name in the UK for comparing products and services is Which? Magazine. You subscribe to it and they don't allow advertisers.

I merely mentioned that magazines used all sorts of techniques to increase selling space. To think otherwise is niave. Don't be surprised if there is an article about flying in Florida within the next 12 months in at least one of the three magazines originally mentioned with copious amounts of US flying schools advertising around it.

What you mentioned wasn't "...the same rule" at all, please do me the courtesy of reading my argument. The rule you had been talking about and I had been arguing against was the requirement for articles opposite an advert, not that people try to sell advertising space (not sure how that is not legitimate ). This cannot apply in the classifieds, as there are no articles there in the magazines you mentioned!

I never argued that buddy, I merely pointed out some basic publishing facts. One of which you decided to hone in on and make something of that there wasn't.

Now with respect to OBA

Personally I also believe they are one school that would not remove the advert anyway. Do you think they leave it there just to stop adverse comment? They must be getting business out of it, and they do a lot of business.

I agree with you 100% that they would leave it there. Its done to pick up the swathes of wannabes who buy the magazines and are unaware of PPRuNe and the sticky thread at the top of this forum going into more information of their past dealings.

[Send Clowns]

Scameron

You're just muddying the waters again, and it does your argument no credit.

If you had bothered to take in my posts rather than immediately leaping to the defensive, you would notice that I had initially specifically argued against your comment that there was pressure to write articles because advertising needed to have an article, with specific reference to commercial flight training in the monthly glossy flying magazines. Nothing else. I did not address "...all sorts of techniques to increase selling space". I "honed in" on that one because that was the one you got very obviously wrong. The rest may be right, I claim no expertise.

Do me and Genghis the courtesy of reading our posts. I said that at the very least his meant your conclusion was too strong.There have been cases where writers have been sacked or their work refused because it criticised something by a major advertiser; I'm not going to name them, but those in the business know where it's happened. That is unacceptable (to the readers and writers anyhow) but thankfully very rare and does tend to find itself out. So, I don't think it is, or need be, a major problem with the integrity of aviation journalism.Which, to my reading, says exactly that.

Just because Towers thinks I was picking holes that doesn't make it true. Just because he claims to know my motive, doesn't mean he is right - in fact he just made that bit up, and his "truth" was not justified by any argument or evidence, it was simply asserted.

You did argue "that".However the same rule permiates the classifieds, if someone is taking more space the sales teams then contact everyone else with the "you should see what he's doing, you can't afford to be left behind" pitch.That is not the same rule at all. That is nothing to do with not being able to sell adverts opposite adverts! That is the main issue I raised. I still don't know why you object to magazines trying to sell space by saying that other people are buying more, or what that has to do with editorial independence. Muddying the waters?

You are wrong about me advertising my employer. Since I know no "woman in a cafe" here, and since I have never had a cup of tea at the airport not made by me, a colleague or a student you must be thinking of someone else. Since there are 7 commercial training organisations and 4 RTFs in Bournemouth that is not very specific, and I think advice that any prospective student visit is fairly sensible. I don't specify my employer unless there is some definite reason to do so, not related to advertising.

I pointed out to Towers that PPRuNe doesn't lose advertisers, but that was simply an additional consideration in the wider argument, that could have been discussed calmly if you had chosen to do so. By the way, although anyone may write a post without outside intervention, it cannot stand if a moderator decides it must not. This is not my argument though: my argument is that the advertisers do not, as far as I can see, leave even when their product is criticised here. Therefore even if editors are influenced by advertisers, perhaps they need not be. The existence or not of intervention is irrelevant to that point.

Your final comment on OBA mystifies me. You are trying o argue that there is no expose of them because they would withdraw the advert. Then you say that you are more certain than I am that they would leave it there :confused:

[scameron77]

Mate, this is turning into a Greek tragedy, and to be honest I'm bloody bored. Really bloody bored.

Go back and read the first post and every subsequent one again, maybe get hold of a colleage and ask them to do the same and see if they come to the same conclusion as you.

And learn to apologise when you know you are in the wrong. With these life lessons I'm sure you'll grow into a better person.

I'm off to lie down in a darkended room, without any magazines and rock too and fro.

My shrinks bill will be in the post.

Stephen

If fact lets do a staw poll, anyone who thinks Send Clowns is justified in his argument please post a response supporting him and anyone who thinks he missed the crux of the argument also let it be known.

[Flypuppy]

scameron,

if you have beaten one of his arguments SC is always quick to tell you you havent read his posts properly and accuse you of :

a) personal attacks
b) putting words in his mouth
c) making things up
d) all of the above

[High Wing Drifter]

I think we all know that conducting an argument on the internet is an utterly fruitless activity.

Edited for spelling.

[ChocksAwayUK]

I think we all know that conducting and argument on the internet is an utterly fruitless activity.

It's been such a test of willpower all morning to not post *that* picture. Not sure how well it would go down round here.

[scameron77]

Dear All,

A few days ago I posted a response to Send Clowns:

I've had a clash with Send Clowns before, I started a thread and I had to rebuke Send Clowns in it for taking it off topic and advertising his own employer I searched through a great number of my previous posts and a number of threads trying to find the exact one before typing this. After receiving his reply I decided to do it again with that little more vigor based on what he said. After an exhaustive search I found the thread in question. One of the moderators must have removed the post as it was a blatent self advertisment for a certain school who I will not give any more publicity, not really in keeping with a forum.

I am now adding to this original thread to apologise to Send Clowns as it was FlyingForFun who posted the ad (I found a reference to the post further on in the thread). All I can do I apologise and hope he at least accepts my humble apology and recognises the effort and endeavour I have made since to at least clear the air and his name with respect to this issue.

In my defence I was sure 100% it was a flight instructor from a school on the South Coast (which was correct) but let me stress again it was not Send Clowns.

However, back onto the topic of this thread, I do believe very strongly that Send Clowns took a general fact (namely the two pages thing) and with a bit of conjecture and assumption made an argument which wasn't really there in the first place to be made.

There is nothing else on this thread I regret typing and stand by everything else. Just didn't want anyone to think any less of Send Clowns because of my post.

[scroggs]

This could have been an interesting topic. However, it was hijacked for personal reasons which has pretty much negated its value.

I'm probably wasting my time, but how about doing the personal stuff by e-mail or PM, and letting the thread continue on its intended path? No, forget it - I'm asking pigs to fly I guess!

Damn shame, because I was an advertiser in magazines in a different industry and I could back up scameron's revelations 100%. Even now, 3 years after I closed that business, and even though I was a very small (classified ad) player, I am still pursued by the magazines each time they intend to run an article that may have been relevant to my business - and therefore revenue-earning for them.

I have to say that the worst 'offenders' (though perhaps understandably) were the regional and local trade association-type rags that apply absolutely no editorial rigour at all! They spout pure, unfiltered, uncritical drivel fed to them by their biggest advertisers. These rags do exist in aviation...

The point is, even the best magazines are purely commercial enterprises that exist with the intent to make money, therefore they are at risk of being influenced by their larger advertising clients. Though they may have the best of intentions, they can't often afford to upset their advertisers - unless they are in the rare and privileged position of being able to turn away less reputable (or even any) advertisers. As Pprune is... well, usually!

Scroggs


This message has been brought to you by The Moonraker Narrowboat Company with absolutely no commercially ulterior motive whatsoever!

[Genghis the Engineer]

Just as an aside, there is a particular UK aviation publication which is widely regarded as being totally advertising based. I've only ever written for them once, in slightly odd circumstances. I read an article that I felt was complete airbollox, so I rang the editor and told him so. His response was "well, you'd better write a correct article then, and I'll publish it in the next issue".

I did, and he did- without any amendment - he even stated that it was correcting the previous.

I think all editors would prefer to be as honest, complete and truthful as they can - it's just not always all that easy for them.

G

Completely mystified about some of the background politics to this thread.

[scameron77]

With respect to the personal and background politics here is my take on how this thread has went so far:

I start it up, suggesting the practices I've came across in the publishing industry and how I'd be surprised if they weren't carried through to the flying industry.

Few posts, general agreement

Send Clowns has a go, claims I'm in no position to say what I did and I was fundamentally wrong.

Few posts, saying they didn't agree with him.

I suggest that Send Clowns might have an axe to grind with me becasue I had disaplined him in another thread I started.

Send Clowns get upset (and rightly so as it turns out as I got this one bit of my argument wrong) but melodrama sets in.

I decide to research my claim more rigorously and discover I was wrong in my acusation regarding his post in another thread and I apologise and publish that apology. Correct me if I'm wrong Moerators, as common on here as pigs flying or people refering to the "IMPORTANT - Please Read First" Thread at the top of the forum.

Scroggs and Genghis - I felt the need to post the reply on the forum rather than by email as I admitted I had a mistake and I needed to ensure that everyone reading the thread didn't associate the particular claim with Send Clowns. It just wasn't fair on him.

Out of about 26/27 posts on here I think there are 6/7 of merit, the rest have been embroiled in a tangent which I must admit I was partially guilty of as after reading his posts was like a red rag to a bull.