DVMag, it's just a shady business?
 

Latest issue of PC World was in the mail today. It was nice to see someone with a voice rip into these terrible camera stores that seem to plague NY. I also couldn't help but notice 2 of the stores that they "exposed" were CCI (CameraCity Inc) and Regency Camera. Just thumbing through the latest issue of DVMag I see ads for both of these retailers.

Yeah I know business is business, but being the forum for the DV community DVMag is, I cannot believe they would let places like take up space in their mag. I don't think either of those retailers have ever had a good rating on resellerratings.com and going off of memory as of lately, bizrate.com and pricegrabber.com, they weren't rated even mediocre.

When you sell ads or have sponsors, I would assume it should be based on their reputation somewhat, not just how much kick-back you're going to get out of it. And seeing the way these places do business, I find it hard to believe they hold up their end of the contract when placing these ads.

So I believe places that are sponsoring or placing ads in a magezine, online forum, etc. should reflect that operator's own image. As you can see Chris didn't find any joeshmoecamera.com for sponsors, and his selection reflects his own reputation and judgement.

How many people do you think will get dupped into buying from one of these places because, "Hey, they're in DVMag, they must be good". I almost fell victim to that mindset, CCI has pretty good prices on digital cameras, but after looking around resellerratings and other sites, I quickly changed my mind. DVMag just lost a subscriber for the past 3 years.

Actually, they have sales people that are in charge of selling these spaces. Sales people, sometimes are the lowest form of life aside from politicians, and generally live on commission. Therefore, they will sometimes sell to anyone they feel will write a good check.

Editors and the like, are more concerned with meeting the deadlines and article content, than who is buying ad space.

When I buy a magazine, I buy it for the actual content, not the ads. In this respect, DV is a fine mag. Not necesarily geared towards me, as I don't have the major finances some of their other readers do, but I still get alot of useful info out of every issue.
Keith

I was on one of those best prices sites a few days ago, comparing some prices on a digital camera for my father. I noticed that at least 4 of the cheapest places were all based out of the same building in NY. Coincidence? I think not. They all had high ratings, spotted with the typical complaints that we hear about the "scam" sellers. I assume they fake alot of their own positive feedback.

I'd cut DVmag some slack. It is hard enough to run a magazine these days without going broke. Asking them to also be the arbiter of the quality of their advertisers seems a bit much.

Admittedly, it is a fine line. Nevertheless, Broadway Photo and the like are operating in a state with some pretty tough consumer protection laws and they are still in business. I like DVmag. All I ask is that they put out a good magazine. I don't want them to have to act as a policeman too.

Rick

Unfortunatly most of the magazines on the market are packed so full of advertising from "scam" companies they aren't worth buying anymore. I can't even remember the last time I bought a video industry magazine (besides Cinefex) because of this. I don't buy magazines for the 50%+ ad space, especially with $7 an issue plus price tags. New York may have tough consumer protection laws but they only protect New Yorkers, if you don't live in NY you must file your grievence or suit from the state in which you reside. Besides, most people won't take it that far, just like most people won't stop buying magazines that choose to promote sleezy vendors. I will and I hope you will too.

besides there is so little new content of value in them anymore I can read all the mags at the bookstore in an hour or so.

Thanks for your views guys. I just figured with the reading base DVMag has, they would opt for the best, most respected vendors to be in their mag (and have those vendors wanting to be in it). This wasn't the main reason for me not subscribing anymore though. Have to agree with rhett, as the amount of ads have gotten out of hand. I felt that past few issues were lacking anything worthwhile. Just about all this stuff has been talked to death on the net already. I'm sure there are still many that really enjoy reading DVMag and such. I apologize, I just had to vent a little.

Why can't a magazine have ethical standards? Other magazines have rules for advertisers, rules set up to protect their subscribers and readers from unscrupulous vendors. Popular Photography is one such magazine that has a set of standards for it's advertisers. Before you say, big deal they never enforce it, wrong. They even had an article about kicking two companies off their pages. Why? Because of all the reader complaints. Here is their Check Rated Program http://www.popphoto.com/HowTo/Articl...?ArticleID=191 Advertisers found in violation of the policy will be refused. I see nothing wrong with policing crooks and thieves. Why look away and say Oh, Well, it's just advertising?

Jeff

On one hand, you can police your advertisers, limit them, and charge $10 a copy and sell half the number. On the other, you can sell ads to everyone you can find and sell your mag for $5, and sell 4x as many.

It's a business decision.

Everyone has to eat, send their kids to Harvard, and drive Porsches. My family once owned and ran a magazine (about bicycling in Canada). It's a hard business to be in. I didn't get to go to Harvard and my first car was a 1980 Rustang. I don't fault any mag for selling as much advertising as possible, but I tend not to buy anything that overdoes the ads.