[HOME]
Technical perspective on recent popular publication articles.
Ever since there has been high performance
vehicles, there has been industry publications writing about them. The
information in the magazines is considered by most readers to be the gospel
truth. That is...until that information conflicts with the same subject matter
in a different magazine. At that point, the reader is not sure what to believe.
The advertisers in each publication are keenly interested in getting their
products tested and evaluated by the magazine editorial staff. These
editors regularly write articles that evaluate the performance and technical
qualities of all the various PWC's and PWC modifications. Each month these
magazine editors must walk the fine line of being critical enough to satisfy the
reader's need for information, yet positive enough to satisfy the manufacturers
desire for a favorable write up. This makes "reputable magazine
editor" one of the toughest titles in the industry to hold. Since it's
impossible to make everyone happy, the magazine editor usually ends up with
every one a little bit mad at him. It comes with the job.
Theoretically, the technical information and test results in all the PWC
magazines should be identical. Simply put, inconsistent information among the
magazines is the result of different levels of commitment to technical accuracy.
Some publications intentionally avoid tests that yield definitive performance
numbers.
Conducting consistent, accurate, and definitive performance tests requires
expensive equipment, not to mention expensive hours of staff traveling and water
time. Sometimes, after all this effort and expense, the editors find performance
figures that are not what the advertiser had hoped for. The publisher is then
faced with the choice of printing the unfavorable test results (which angers the
advertiser), or writing an evasive article that ignores the results of a very
expensive (and time consuming) test session. Some publishers simply choose
evasive writing (known as "fluff") from the get go, so as to avoid
having to make the choice at all.
Group K believes that if magazine editors are qualified to write articles
that evaluate the technical qualities of a given product, then product
manufacturers are certainly qualified to evaluate the technical quality of those
articles. That is what BETWEEN THE LINES is about. There are as many high
quality, trend setting tech articles as there are illusive ones. BETWEEN THE
LINES hopes to point out some of the differences that separate them.
The technicians at Group K openly acknowledge that we know nothing about the
job of producing a popular industry publication. That's why we build engines not
magazines. We also acknowledge that not every editor needs to be a gear head
with tunnel vision on technical detail. However, like it or not, the PWC
industry is rapidly becoming much more technically oriented. This means that the
technical quality of every one's work is under much closer scrutiny.
As technicians, we believe that all good tech copy must meet at least 2 of 3
requirements:
A) Explain the complexities of a subject in a simplified way that most
readers can comprehend.
B) Offer information that helps the reader to make a more educated buying
decision, or better understand the importance of a kind of maintenance.
C) Offer enough information so that the reader can confidently make a cost
vs. benefits decision.