Is Print Dead? Has the Time for Magazine Tests Passed?

[Philpug]

The final straw for the "mainstream" magazine was at the end of winter 2015, when Ski or Skiing (was there a difference) had a big corral at the bottom of Empire Canyon at DV, and I asked one of the testers if there was a concensus on something really outstanding for next year, and his response was - "wait until September to find out". Well, thank you, but no thanks, I'll go online and find out, and not bother to find your reviews in the autumn - made your own bed dude.

I will give them a pass on that. He doesn't know who you are, you could have been from one of the manufacturers. They tell the testers not even to talk amongst themselves bout the skis. IMHO, I like it when our testers talk. Wh have had situation where a tester's view was completely different, off the charts different, we all went back and retested the ski. There were other times where we found a diamond in the rough, a ski that was not on the test list, we went to all the testers, and told them to get on it. I have no problem with a tester telling another tester, "This is what I found..let me know what you think..."

 

[snofun3]

Welllllll - being on a set of Ski Logic Rock Stars that had been out of production for a couple of years, with boots that likewise were a couple of seasons old, I think it would be a major stretch that I was from "one of the manufacturers".

Right - skis are like women - not everybody wants the same thing (thankfully), but there's usually a concensus when something is either great or not-so-great.

 

[Philpug]

Welllllll - being on a set of Ski Logic Rock Stars that had been out of production for a couple of years, with boots that likewise were a couple of seasons old, I think it would be a major stretch that I was from "one of the manufacturers".

He didn't know who you were. I used that as a possible example I said "could have been..." It could be viewed from the other end of the spectrum you are on out dated gear and not even keeping up with the current gear ....The rest gets into what I said above...the information hasn't been compiled and there really isn't much to say. He gave you the answer he was supposed to give you, granted he might not have given it to you the way you wanted, sorry.

 

[DanoT]

Welllllll - being on a set of Ski Logic Rock Stars that had been out of production for a couple of years, with boots that likewise were a couple of seasons old, I think it would be a major stretch that I was from "one of the manufacturers".

Right - skis are like women - not everybody wants the same thing (thankfully), but there's usually a concensus when something is either great or not-so-great.

I always thought women are like electricity, something a guy doesn't really understand, even if he thinks he does or says he does.

 

[KevinF]

Welllllll - being on a set of Ski Logic Rock Stars that had been out of production for a couple of years, with boots that likewise were a couple of seasons old, I think it would be a major stretch that I was from "one of the manufacturers".

Right - skis are like women - not everybody wants the same thing (thankfully), but there's usually a concensus when something is either great or not-so-great.

I'm going to agree with @Philpug on this one. You can't judge a book by its cover. VP of company X could send his secretary down on beater gear to ask around.

I'm in the tech industry and I've had to visit customer sites from time to time. Generally while I'm there I can't say who I work for, what project I'm working on, etc. -- unless it's in a closed conference room where the only attendees are people who already know or who I've verified have clearance to know.

You don't know who is listening, who they might talk to, etc. Loose lips sink ships and all that.

 

[quant]

The New York Daily News was sold for $1 plus the assumption of the liabilities. At one time two million people subscribed. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/04/business/new-york-daily-news-sale-tronc.html Print is on the way out.

 

[BMC]

I like the ski magazine tests. I take them with a grain of salt. Same as I take on line reviews with a grain of salt. Even the most stringent of tests can be skewed by the composition of the tester group and their preferences. Sometimes they appear to be biased by advertiser spend. Sometimes brands don't feature at all. I know all those things but I'd still prefer to read imperfect ski reviews than no ski reviews.

Obviously there's been rationalisation of ski magazines but hopefully that process has ceased. I'd love to see Ski, Powder and Ski Canada sail serenely with strong sales and advertising revenue indefinitely into the future.

 

[oldschoolskier]

Digital poses several difficulties for me as I have no physical tactile reference for a near photographic memory. Also scanning and understanding takes longer in digital. My biggest is the ease at which information can be changed and altered from the original. IMHO this is the most important as this opens the doors to ease of mis-information.

Advantages of digital is the ease at which a variety of views can be shared in the case of ski gear reviews does give better information, provided it comes through a vetted source that is not easily changed (PUGSKI), be it right or wrong.

 

[Philpug]

I like the ski magazine tests. I take them with a grain of salt. Same as I take on line reviews with a grain of salt. Even the most stringent of tests can be skewed by the composition of the tester group and their preferences. Sometimes they appear to be biased by advertiser spend. Sometimes brands don't feature at all. I know all those things but I'd still prefer to read imperfect ski reviews than no ski reviews.

Obviously there's been rationalisation of ski magazines but hopefully that process has ceased. I'd love to see Ski, Powder and Ski Canada sail serenely with strong sales and advertising revenue indefinitely into the future.

I am a firm beleiver a high tide rates all ships. I support what Blister does, I support Realskiers. IMHO their reviews are purer than what is in the magazines, because there is more accountability with what we are doing on line than the what the old world order is still doing. Are the magazines biased towards their advertisers? Absolutely, when you have a "pay to play" platform it happens. Are beiased towards our preconceived experiences? Absolutely also, something I address in the "Unbiased Biased Review" .

 

[LKLA]

My $0.02 -

Ideally you have both - print and electronic - as each one has its pros and cons. If the option is there, I will pay-up a bit and get both the print and electronic versions of a magazine/newspaper.

Electronic is more accessible (computer, tablet, smartphone,...) and easier to "leverage" (data mine, search, view past articles,...). It is also easier to share with others (email, share link,...) and it takes up less space and has little if any wear and tear to worry about. It also offers a richer experience at times when videos or graphs/charts are available (the NY Times is a great example of this).

On the other hand, print just has that something about it - that tangible sense - that makes it "more real". Perhaps that is why study after study shows that people retain information better/longer when reading print, myself being one of those people. I also tend to find it to be easier to navigate my way around a print version of something than an electronic version (some website are just awful).

Unfortunately print is not always an option these days. It has become more and more of a luxury. But the same can be said for just about any other medium, including music, books, movies...it is often much easier to download a song from iTunes or a movie from Netflix than to purchase the actual CD or DVD.

The internet has lowered the barrier to entry across many industries, including journalism / literature / music / movies..., so magazine and newspapers that had no competition before are now faced with an onslaught of competitors operating exclusively online whose business model is based on a much lower cost basis yet who can reach just as big (or bigger) of an audience and often so as good of a job (if not better).

One thing that does not seem to be dying as it relates to print is junk mail. I still get dozens of catalogs, often over a 100 pages thick. Trees are being cut down left and right

 

[Ron]

it will come down to ROI. If enough consumers want to pony-up and pay for the print version then it will continue but I think a lot of what you are seeing is a result of consumers not wanting to pay for ANY REVIEWS. I don't read/see many folks here (for instance) saying they are paying for their subscriptions. You have BlisterGear and Realskiers who charge for full reviews but both also offer simplified versions at no cost. There is always a core group of consumers who are willing to pay but that's the 1%. I am sure Phil could shed some light on the willingness of readers to pay for anything. The internet brought the expectation that everything is free.

 

[markojp]

The lack of info regarding testers in the current ski mag review feels like a simple oversight. They DID introduce their testers last year, and many are the same this year. I only know two of the ski testers and last year, a couple boot testers. FWIW, they're both very good at evaluating gear, very strong skiers, and are completely different physiques. The lack of nuanced content has the feel of lack of staff and production hours, etc.., and deadlines remain the same.

IMHO, print doesn't have to die, but it must change. Magazines like Ski Journal, Peloton, Roleur, are beautiful 'lifestyle' publications that are much more deeply rather than broadly focused. 'Monocle' is another example of a print publication that's an interesting model... It's like the ultimate in flight magazine with a clearly refined vision of their take on commercial, material, and current lifestyle trends. In their case, more broadly than deeply, but very carefully edited and crafted. What these all have in common is their link to the rise of experiential retail. I see this in the cycling world more than in ski brick and mortar. IMHO (again), ski brick and mortar are missing this trend at their peril. Other interesting trends seem to be a return to more illustration, heavier, richer paper stock, tonal/textural photo manipulation to create a physical package that distances itself from digital as it's own art form. Clear haptic, graphic, and editorial vision... The last best chance? I hope so.

 

[squill]

I really liked the old-school blind ski test when the topsheets were white/black/or blank and the testers were not influenced by graphics and/or brand recognition but I understand that was a difficult thing to organize and execute in short period of time.

I can no longer give any print magazine review any weight after working for Brand X and learning that most ski tests have become simply a pay-to-play advertorial marketing endeavor where a brand pays an upfront fee to have a ski featured in their Buyers Guide with additional discounted ad rates both in print and online. You never really see a real negative review of any one model, there might be a few demerits for performance in certain conditions—like a 120mm on a bulletproof—but many still receive the coveted trophy of "Editors Choice" followed by full page ads with the same badge of honor extolling the testers remarks. I think many brands—big and small—shifted into the Social Influencer/Athlete/Ambassador model in order to affordably validate products and encourage more "authenticated/aspirational" purchases rather than paying six-figures just to be remain present. How long that model last is unknown, but I think most consumers are no longer easily fooled by glossy pages and fancy stories.

 

[Ron]

I get what you are saying and certainly agree to a point but the blanked-out tops sheets don't do much to prevent anyone who knows ski's from knowing what manufacturer the ski is from. Most have their logos on the bases. Also, many of the testers are reps or pro-form'd skiers. Its just not possible to keep testers from knowing this. Keep in mind that in the case of "ski" magazines tests, the manufacturers submit their skis for each category tested so it explains why a kastle FX85 ends up as a "womens" ski. In the case of other tests, each manufacturer is responsible for hosting their own skis which includes tuning them and having info about the ski to make the tester better informed.

As a tester there's no need to trash a ski. I really mean this when I say there are no bad skis. The only time I had a bad ski was one time and I politely and diplomatically stated so. Otherwise, its really just a matter of who is the ski for and where does it ski the best.

 

[squill]

I get what you are saying and certainly agree to a point but the blanked-out tops sheets don't do much to prevent anyone who knows ski's from knowing what manufacturer the ski is from. Most have their logos on the bases. Also, many of the testers are reps or pro-form'd skiers. Its just not possible to keep testers from knowing this. Keep in mind that in the case of "ski" magazines tests, the manufacturers submit their skis for each category tested so it explains why a kastle FX85 ends up as a "womens" ski. In the case of other tests, each manufacturer is responsible for hosting their own skis which includes tuning them and having info about the ski to make the tester better informed.

As a tester there's no need to trash a ski. I really mean this when I say there are no bad skis. The only time I had a bad ski was one time and I politely and diplomatically stated so. Otherwise, its really just a matter of who is the ski for and where does it ski the best.

I get your point, but for the reader/subscriber it was an added assurance that they were playing fair. And in all truth I was a wide-eyed naive teenager... but you also reminded my of a quote by the late Doug Coombs:

"There is no such thing as bad snow, only bad skiers."

 

[Ron]

I get your point, but for the reader/subscriber it was an added assurance that they were playing fair. And in all truth I was a wide-eyed naive teenager... but you also reminded my of a quote by the late Doug Coombs:

"There is no such thing as bad snow, only bad skiers."

LOL, Yes! Well-put.

 

[DanoT]

I get your point, but for the reader/subscriber it was an added assurance that they were playing fair. And in all truth I was a wide-eyed naive teenager... but you also reminded my of a quote by the late Doug Coombs:

"There is no such thing as bad snow, only bad skiers."

I like what Ski Canada magazine does: They list each tester's age, weight, height, qualifications, where they learned to ski, where they work now as a instructor or coach, and most importantly who is their sponsor.

After most tests the tester lists their 3 favourite skis in the category so you can tell if they are favouring their sponsor or not.

 

[markojp]

I get what you are saying and certainly agree to a point but the blanked-out tops sheets don't do much to prevent anyone who knows ski's from knowing what manufacturer the ski is from. Most have their logos on the bases. Also, many of the testers are reps or pro-form'd skiers. Its just not possible to keep testers from knowing this. Keep in mind that in the case of "ski" magazines tests, the manufacturers submit their skis for each category tested so it explains why a kastle FX85 ends up as a "womens" ski. In the case of other tests, each manufacturer is responsible for hosting their own skis which includes tuning them and having info about the ski to make the tester better informed.

As a tester there's no need to trash a ski. I really mean this when I say there are no bad skis. The only time I had a bad ski was one time and I politely and diplomatically stated so. Otherwise, its really just a matter of who is the ski for and where does it ski the best.

FWIW, skis are pretty easy to tell which is which unlike the old straight ski days. Many of the ski magazine testers are business owners who would like nothing more than to have a bunch of great hardgoods that people will come into the shop for. Even if associated with a particular manufacturer, it's really not hard to say nice things about others' products. I'll toss a few of mine out there...

2017-18's all:

Rossi E-84 and 100
Blizzard Bonefide and Bodacious
Volkl RTM 84 and 90Eight
K2 Pinnacle 95

There are a few others, but there we go for starters. Every once in awhile there's a really crappy ski worthy only of scorn. Last spring there was one. It wasn't the tune. It's just a crappy horror show noodle for anyone over 165 lbs. It's perfect though for a young, light guy/gal or tweener who wants to ski something 10~20+cm over their head because it looks cool. Nope. I'm not going to mention it by name, but won't recommend it to anyone, ever.

 

[squill]

I like what Ski Canada magazine does: They list each tester's age, weight, height, qualifications, where they learned to ski, where they work now as a instructor or coach, and most importantly who is their sponsor.

After most tests the tester lists their 3 favourite skis in the category so you can tell if they are favouring their sponsor or not.

Well that's refreshing.

 

[Ron]

I like what Ski Canada magazine does: They list each tester's age, weight, height, qualifications, where they learned to ski, where they work now as a instructor or coach, and most importantly who is their sponsor.

After most tests the tester lists their 3 favourite skis in the category so you can tell if they are favouring their sponsor or not.

I also like Ski Canada but I do want to point out that as a tester, we tend to like certain traits in ski's so for instance, I am a Stockli, Renoun, Head and Kastle fan, I like the feel and traits of those skis not because they are Kastle, Renoun, Head and Stockli, but its the feel, traits and characteristics that I appreciate. that doesn't make me biased towards those brands, it will make me like skis that have those characteristics. But a good tester will appreciate a ski that may not have those characteristics but still performs well especially for a different sized or skilled skier.