S & T uses low end paper

Tom Polakis wrote:
All of the practical considerations are well covered in MacRobert's
article. What do you folks want, anyway? Specifically, how would you
improve the magazine? Be prescriptive.

Impartial, specific, and *consistent* reviews. I think most of the
time, that's what we get. I seem to recall a few softballs thrown in
there every now and then. That consistency thing is why I prefer an
Ed Ting to Cloudy Nights (although things may have improved since the
installation of the editorial board).

The only thing that really rankles is when a head-to-head is declared
a tie. ("Again?!?!") I remember the sidebar from the N5 vs ETX125
"duel." One of the participants was ready to declare in favor of the
N5, but Dennis DiCicco (I think it was Dennis) decided to drag out the
Dreaded Tie Verdict. There seemed every reason laid out in the review
(which was otherwise OK, I think) to avoid the DTV, but there it came
out, anyway. That left a rather yucky taste in my mouth.

Regarding the whole "insulting the advertiser" thing, don't Sky and
Telescope and either Meade or Celestron need each other? If Meade
were to sever their advertising relationship with Sky and Telescope,
wouldn't they be slicing proboscis to spite face? That's half their
magazine reach to North America. (That's not a purely rhetorical
question. I'm sure I don't understand the vagaries of the marketing
industry, so if someone wants to educate me, I'm listening.)

--
Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt

John Steinberg wrote:
Brian Tung wrote:


The only thing that really rankles is when a head-to-head is declared
a tie. ("Again?!?!") I remember the sidebar from the N5 vs ETX125
"duel." That left a rather yucky taste in my mouth.


Mine too, although probably because I owned both and was also privy to
some unpublished info on that very review. It took a lot of Listerine
bourbon and recreational drugs to lose that taste.


Regarding the whole "insulting the advertiser" thing, don't Sky and
Telescope and either Meade or Celestron need each other?


Absolutely. But advertisers can often maintain a primus inter pares
relationship, even in a specialty publication with little competition.

For example, and I'm neither confirming or denying this ever happened,
but if Meade's CEO happened to phone S&T's publisher for a little
"reality check" after a less than glowing review, you might be
surprised at how compliant said publisher might become if things like
lawsuits, pulling or reducing their advertising, lawsuits, etc, were
discussed in this conversation.

True enough, especially in the current environment in which advertising
is easily the largest source of revenue for magazines.

I was Astronomy's ad guy for a while long ago, and I've kept up with
some of the happenings since then.

If the CEO had prior knowledge of the review some influence might be
wielded. Once it's been published he would need to prove malice or sheer
negligence in the review process in order to sue successfully, and
that's tough. Freedom of the press has been very broadly interpreted and
media have wide latitude.

In Meade's case, the former CEO (and founder) was "aggressive" in this
area, very sensitive to the nuances of a review. Ahem. The only case I
know of an advertiser taking retribution happened when Al Nagler pulled
his ads out of Astronomy over their testing methods.

But yeah, some of the reviews have been pattycake efforts. Remember
those "interviews" with major advertisers that S&T was doing just before
the last editor left? John Diebel saying that at heart he was just an
amateur astronomer? S&T also published a very gentle piece about Tom
Cave which implied that his back order situation--the cause for my
banning him from Astronomy-- was just one of those things.

M & C may not have alternative outlets that offer the same bang for the
buck as S&T, but both have demonstrated a willingness to use other
advertising vehicles in the past. At least M has, I'm not sure about
C. And we all know just how much litigation we've seen with these two.

At one point Meade tried a number of different media, popular scientific
magazines, the Edmund catalog, etc. The approach was less than
successful. The magazines remain the largest source of business for
them. Fortunately, the demographics on amateur astronomers are
impressive--HH income about twice the national average, plenty of
disposable income, technologically informed, and of course with raging
acquisitiveness. Me too.

Further, a publisher might see his first dibs on new test samples going
to a competitor first. And then there's payola, which is only illegal
in the radio biz but quite common in the business world. I know that
sounds ugly to some, but it's a fact of modern business life. And there
are other tools manufacturers can utilize to shape things to their
satisfaction.

Knowing the editors of both the magazines, I suspect that this is not
applicable.

I'm not saying this is or has ever been the case with S&T, but you
might be a bit surprised to see the kinds of leverage that can be
exerted, and here I'm not talking about a visit from Johnny Bagodonuts,
although that can happen as well.

Goes both ways. Rumor has it that an editorial staffer of one of the
magazines was released in part because he was actively trying to put a
major advertiser out of business! He and the CEO just didn't get along.

Bob

John Steinberg wrote:
Bob Schmall wrote:


True enough, especially in the current environment in which advertising
is easily the largest source of revenue for magazines.

N.B. that advertising is my former career. I am now a seer and sage,
with parsley.
Actually both of the Astro mags seem to be relatively free of the kind
of pressure discussed in this thread. Not that it's missing entirely:
some of those reviews are...um..."considerate." At a star party last
year, I checked several 8" dobs and found rather more differences than
the reviews had led me to expect.

(snip)

Absolutely, but even without prior knowledge our hypothetical CEO can
engage in some unpleasant ex post facto behavior. This needn't involve
the legal trump card either. Tongue lashings from a large advertiser
can be like drinking a six-pack of Jolt Cola.

Wouldn't know--I've never had Jolt, although I've done the tongue
lashings. In the first week of my ordeal at Astronomy a major advertiser
with that very same hypothetical DEO was demanding huge reparations for
his last ad. It was a two-page spread with a bind-in card in the middle.
The bind-in was someone else's...


Indeed. Although Judith Miller may be wondering just how wide that
latitude is right now.

....as does that dude from TIME who was left out to dry.


In Meade's case, the former CEO (and founder) was "aggressive" in this
area, very sensitive to the nuances of a review. Ahem. The only case I
know of an advertiser taking retribution happened when Al Nagler pulled
his ads out of Astronomy over their testing methods.


Can you speak to what happened at Astronomy as a result?

Both parties appear to have survived. Frankly, I sided with Al on that one.

(snip)

Goes both ways. Rumor has it that an editorial staffer of one of the
magazines was released in part because he was actively trying to put a
major advertiser out of business! He and the CEO just didn't get along.


Biting the hand that feeds you. Not good.

Same person who devised Astronomy's testing criteria, IIRC.

Bob

John Steinberg wrote:
Bob Schmall wrote:

True enough, especially in the current environment in which advertising
is easily the largest source of revenue for magazines.


I apologize if this was already addressed in this thread - with larger
more mainstream publications advertising may be the largest revenue
source, but Astronomy, like many niche titles is a circulation driven
magazine. That's not to say advertising isn't an important driving
force, I just want it to be clear that advertising is not their largest
source of revenue.

wrote:
John Steinberg wrote:

Bob Schmall wrote:


True enough, especially in the current environment in which advertising
is easily the largest source of revenue for magazines.


I apologize if this was already addressed in this thread - with larger
more mainstream publications advertising may be the largest revenue
source, but Astronomy, like many niche titles is a circulation driven
magazine. That's not to say advertising isn't an important driving
force, I just want it to be clear that advertising is not their largest
source of revenue.

Hmmm, interesting. Please tell me the source of your knowledge. I was
their ad guy and remain fairly close to a couple of people there.

Bob

Tom Polakis wrote:

Right! Here's another message thread on s.a.a. about how the magazines
write only softball reviews, and right under everybody's noses is Alan
MacRobert's accurate (and often scathing) review of JMI's unwieldy 6"
binoscope. One did not need to read between many lines to see that the
binoscope is a mechanical nightmare...

Thank goodness; I had given up hope that MacRobert and the
other S&T equipment reviewers would ever say anything
truly scathing again.

...What do you folks want, anyway? Specifically, how would you
improve the magazine?

I would enjoy a return to a more scientific, less salesy/omigosh
tone in many of the articles. I would like to see a return of the
magazine that so effectively and clearly summarized the findings
of the scientific journals. I really have had enough of how
various authors have celestial objects "kissing", "sporting",
"flirting", "gracing", "cavorting", and otherwise too-colorfully
interacting with other nearby celestial objects, or inhabiting
their respective areas of the sky.

In the reviews, I want something unambiguous, so we don't *have*
to read between the lines. I would like the unjustified hyperbole
removed, so that newcomers to the hobby and to the magazine are
not mis-led, as happens with some frequency in my experience.

So, as you say, let's be "prescriptive" and do a couple
of re-writes:

MacRobert: "The case is big, 36 by 28 1/2 by 13 inches
(91 by 73 by 33 centimeters) including
external hardware, and it weighs 72 pounds
with the RB-66 in it, more than some people
can carry."
Re-write: The case is 36 by 28 1/2 by 13 inches (91
by 73 by 33 centimeters) including external
hardware, and it weighs 72 pounds (32.66 kilograms)
with the RB-66 in it. This is far too heavy for
any but a strong adult to manage for transport,
and is also an unwieldy size and shape.

MacRobert: "Omigod, what a view."
Re-write: A very nice view presented itself, commensurate
with the many such views I have had through
good binoviewers.

MacR: "The little Ring Nebula, the globular cluster M53 --
it was as if I were up there looking out of a window
cruising by."
The planetary nebula M57 and the globular cluster M53
displayed themselves clearly in a fairly sharp, wide-
field (about 1.4 degree) binocular view.

MacR: "The light beams are sent, by way of reflection, to
a pair of eyepieces as show here." (No diagram, just
salesy photos shown).
It's basically two six-inch Newtonian tube assemblies
with two star diagonals attached, as shown here. (Clear
diagram with light paths shown).


Keep in mind, the tenor of this article was generally negative
to begin with, so these re-writes are not as serious as
many I would make on many other, less-critical articles.

For those interested, pick up a copy of Stephen O'Meara's
collection of articles published by Walter Scott Houston
over many years in his column in S&T, and see if you can
detect the voice in those reprints. Contrast them with the
current stuff, or even O'Meara's comments. Scotty's
voice was, in many ways, the voice of Sky and Telescope,
the sort of voice that was also spoken by people like
Leslie Peltier.

I *really* miss the old S&T of 30+ years ago, paper
and all.

Gregory

I happen to know someone there at S&T, and it seems the paper
supplier's employees went out on strike and the regular paper was not
available.

It's not a permanent thing.





On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 13:35:50 -0700, "Doink"
wrote:

Did anyone else notice the Sept 2005 issue of S & T switched to CHEAP
coated paper. The black backgrounds are horrible. The Gallery in the
rear of the issues has really bad printing results. The great pics by
the amateur photographers are not in any way done justice with this bad
reproduction.

Joe


I noticed that too and I'm not really pleased.

Thankk goodness that Nationl Geographic doens't do that.

Milton Aupperle
www.outcastsoft.com