A Sako rep posing as a gunwriter (paid shill)

[LittleLebowski]

I picked up a magazine entitled "Accuracy Secrets. Shooting Times Guide To Precision Shooting" at my local supermarket because it had an interesting article by David M Fortier on competing in NRA High Power matches with a Swedish CG-63 6.5mm (great article, by the way!).

In this mag was an article entitled "Realistic Rifle Accuracy by one Scott E. Mayer, purportedly about what sort of realistic accuracy you can expect from factory rifles. After a paragraph explaining MOA and one following detailing his expectations and experiences with factory rifles, he launches into a Sako/Tikka spiel. Chief selling point is Sako/Tikka's 1 MOA guarantee. In the article, he mentions a antelope/prairie dog hunt where he shot a Sako and then a Tikka. And guess who was with him on the hunt? A Sako representative. I wonder who paid for the hunt........ The pictures accompanying the article show Mr Mayer wearing two different Sako hats. And not one other brand was mentioned. Guess the other rifle makers didn't foot the bill for a hunting trip, eh?

This sort of thing chaps my hide. Fluff marketing piece disguised as an independent article. Mr. Mayer, that was a sorry job.

 

[ilbob]

you would be amazed at how little real reporting is done in most magazines these days. a lot of the product pieces are rewritten press releases from the company selling the product.

magazines exist to sell advertising. major advertsiers rarely get much in the way of anything negative in articles about their products. just the way it mostly is these days, and probably always has been.

i think it is getting worse though. most periodicals are cutting editorial staff to save money. they just can't afford them anymore, but they still have to put out the same amount of copy each issue.

 

[LittleLebowski]

I thought the two different Sako hats and antelope hunt were over the top. Pretty damned obvious of him.

 

[Zak Smith]

A Sako rep posing as a gunwriter

So Scott E. Mayer is employed by Sako? Cite?

Would you have objected if the title was, "Sako on the Hunt - Do You Need 1 MOA?"

-z

 

[JWarren]

So Scott E. Mayer is employed by Sako? Cite?

Its not quite so simple as being a paid employee. The arguement is that the writer essentially materially gained compensation from Sako if they paid for the trip.

That creates a conflict of interest in terms of objectivity.


There are many, many fields of employment where legislation has been passed to prevent this exact type of thing from occuring. My field is one of them.

In many industries, activity such as this blurs the line between being a "broker" of a product and being a "agent" of the company. Real Estate and Insurance Industries as well as my own-- Investments-- often have to toe certain marks in order to avoid crossing that line.

Maybe I am just a simple man, but as I see it-- when actions materially similar to this are considered unethical and/or conflicts of interest in my field-- as well as several others-- I figure that it's unethical and/or a conflict of interest in the rest of them as well.

He could avoid this with the proper disclaimers. But if Sako paid for the trip (and I don't know if they did or didn't) and he doesn't mention it, he DOES have a conflict of interest and his objectivity is tarnished.

I guess what I am getting at is that in MANY industries, you don't have to be a paid employee to get in this situation. All you have to do is materially benefit from the actions of the entity in question.

So, there really isn't anything to cite. The question just remains as to who paid for the trip/equipment/travel/etc. And we don't know that. But anyone is entitled to speculate if NOTHING is said.

-- John

 

[frogomatic]

That creates a conflict of interest in terms of objectivity.

Kinda like a bunch of lawyers making laws.

 

[CNYCacher]

You think that you are the customer and the article is the product.

In reality the advertiser is the customer and your eyeballs are the product.

 

[Wild Deuce]

Have you tried reading Gun Tests magazine?

 

[LittleLebowski]

Yes, Zak, that title would be a little more clear cut rather than the seemingly objective title he laid out with the marketing to fill it.

 

[LittleLebowski]

Also, I don't believe Mayer is an employee of Sako. That was sarcasm on my part.

 

[ceetee]

Conflicts of interest are inherent in the hobbyist-magazine publishing industry, by it's very nature. How much advertizing revenue could Road and Track magazine (for example) expect to raise if every review of every car came out emphasizing all the negatives, and none of the positives of each car tested? Not only that, but the car magazine writers are car enthusiasts. They LIKE cars. They like to drive them, and sit in them, and wash them, and wax them. You' dbe hard pressed to find a car (any car) that a true car enthusiast didn't like. The same goes for gun writers.

Add in the fact that they're not paid to be scientists. They're not paid for their ability to conduct double-blind random sample tests. They're not even paid for their ability to be free from product loyalty. Their paid per word, to write articles that make gun enthusiasts want to read them. When you get right down to it, it sort of foolish to expect total objectivity, when the income of the publication (and therefore, your own income) is on the line. Read the magazines, and look at the pretty pictures, but come to an unbiased source (such as THR) for unbiased reviews.

 

[JWarren]

When you get right down to it, it sort of foolish to expect total objectivity, when the income of the publication (and therefore, your own income) is on the line. Read the magazines, and look at the pretty pictures, but come to an unbiased source (such as THR) for unbiased reviews.

Exactly. This is why I haven't bought a gun magazine in years. There are too many outlets to getting the information you need and from a better perspective.


-- John

 

[Avenger]

I ran into this a couple years back with the car mags. I actually dropped most of my subscriptions. A couple months back, I happened to find a copy of the magazine that I HAD viewed as the most egregious of the "press-release" types....and discovered they had performed a total 180 and were now doing totally objective tests on all their project cars, complete with dyno tests, and actually were going so far as to be critical of products from paid advertisers. And their subsciption circulation rate....had doubled since they changed to a "testing" format.

Don't give up hope on getting objective opinions, but be aware that when somebody is handed a product to evaluate, there is a natural reaction to look for the good points of that item, ESPECIALLY with a PR flack standing right there. It's all part of our natural human social-bonding process.

 

[Zak Smith]

I agree that there are no shortage of articles that read just like marketing copy.

However, let's get real for a second. One could argue that any person that goes to a marketing/PR event sponsored by the manufacturer or gets use of a demo unit for a period of time is getting "material gain compensation" of a type as JWarren describes. Those car magazines ceetee refers to get "long-term" magazine-loaner cars for evaluation. Pretty much any field where the item being reviewed needs to be "used" for evaluation and the cost of the item isn't trivial (e.g. cars, guns, cameras), the reviewer is going get a demo unit to use and sometimes an opportunity to use it. The motivation of the manufacturer is publicity. The responsibility of the writer/reviewer is to maintain objectivity, fair judgement, and perspective. Realistically, if manufacturers did not supply editorial samples, reviews would grind to a halt because the budget isn't there to buy a bunch of guns for every issue.

Heck, when a company is trying to figure out what widget they are going to buy to help them do business, it's common for vendors to supply loaner units for the purpose of evaluation in the company's environment.

-z

 

[LittleLebowski]

I do not think he was fair or objective in presenting to the reader a brand-agnostic view of factory rifles that have "realistic accuracy."

 

[milo z]

Yes, Zak, that title would be a little more clear cut rather than the seemingly objective title he laid out with the marketing to fill it.

The author didn't write the headline. Some editor, maybe even some guy doing layout, possibly someone he had no contact with whatsoever, wrote the headline.

 

[LittleLebowski]

His first two paragraphs quite clearly backed the article's title.

 

[Jim Watson]

The gun and accessory companies routinely run seminars, hunts, and range sessions for writers to try their products. This usually generates laudatory magazine articles. That's just the way it is. Learn to filter out the payola.

 

[LittleLebowski]

I understand, Jim. Just amazed by how blatant this was.

 

[Cosmoline]

It would be difficult for gun magazine writers to be unbiased. They operate in a very small world of industry reps and publishers. It's not a world most of us have any direct access to. These guys work together, hunt together, shoot together, go to conventions together and give each other awards. We're just the great unwashed that foots the bill.

 

[jpcampbell]

Back in 89 and again in 97 I had two gun writers offer to do story's on our guns, I explained we weren't taking any orders right then but if they told me what they wanted I would give them a price and a date i could start, they acted surprised that I wouldn't jump right on the gun for them and even more surprised that I expected them to pay for the gun. I got the "you'll sell more guns then you can make after my article is written", I explained I already had a waiting list over a year long so I didn't need their article for that. I never heard from either of them again. But I have always wondered about the articles they wrote on guns, and accessories.

 

[jpwilly]

I'll sell out...take me on hunting and shooting trips and I'll write great things about your guns wear your hats, t-shirts, underwear, etc! PM me if your interested!

 

[Soybomb]

Realistically, if manufacturers did not supply editorial samples, reviews would grind to a halt because the budget isn't there to buy a bunch of guns for every issue.

I think there's a big difference between a sample product and sending someone on a trip. The same article could have been done at a local range with test samples from several manufacturers and some sort of battery of tests. That test would benefit the reader. Were all the sako rifles shot capable of moa? Were all the other rifles? Who was the best, who was the worst. As a reader thats what I want to see in articles, not "this company sent me on a trip with their gun, I had a blast, buy their gun."

I got a free subscription to guns and ammo from a place I buy from. I will most certainly never pay for it. I still haven't figured out why there is a truck review in every issue of the magazine.

 

[LittleLebowski]

Soybomb, I could have said it better myself.

 

[TimboKhan]

I think there's a big difference between a sample product and sending someone on a trip

Not I. Zak is right: It's the writers responsibility to be objective. A sample product is fine, but going on a hunting trip to see the actual performance of a particular cartridge or rifle isn't? To be honest, I wish that more articles were based on these sort of real life experiment, because some dude pounding away at a ransom rest really isn't all that interesting, and doesn't really tell me much about the gun. For that matter, accuracy tests PERIOD don't do much for me. I am not a super great handgunner, and if I can get to within three or 4 inches at 25 yards, I am happy. I can't think of any handguns off the top of my head that won't do that all day long, and thus accuracy tests mean little to me. To less of a degree, the same is true of rifles. Learning that a gun jams up from dust immediately, or that the new super-bullet did or didn't do what it was supposed to do when it hit that deer is more useful.

Moreover, you can't get a consensus opinion anywhere of a particular guns performance. Wilson is good, my wilson sucks, I like Taurus, Taurus sucks, I love Ruger, Rugers are ugly blah, blah, blah. My guess is that most of the time when writers get guns they write nice things about them because they work pretty well, and I have seen plenty of articles where the writers say they sent it back to the factory or that whatever problem they experienced is being addressed in production. I don't think that every article is objective every time, but I think that most of the time they are OK.