USA Today likes JVC-HD at DVinfo.net

Vladimir Koifman · May 22nd, 2003, 06:55 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...5702&printer=1

Finally, somebody likes it! This is the only positive review so far, isn't it?

Vladimir.

David Mintzer · May 22nd, 2003, 12:44 PM

AS I suspected-a consumer report---I wouldn't buy based on this---wait until the pros get it in their hands---

Rick Spilman · May 22nd, 2003, 02:43 PM

So does the New York Times. The review is a good example of what happens when enthusiasm exceeds experience.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/22/te...ts/22stat.html

Joseph George · May 22nd, 2003, 03:47 PM

It's all JVC's PR work. They distribute press releases, have their ad agency talk to the magazine's advertising department, remind them how much Matsushita spent on advertising, the ad department talks to the chief editor, then an editor gets invited for a private demo. They send a limo to get him, then do their demonstration under controlled conditions, may not even play the recorded tape, just feed the camcorder to a tweaked up HD monitor. Most of the time it's wining and dining, PR bull, then a short demo. They may even have a Sony tweaked-up-the-other-way camera for A-B comparison. The editor knows what to write so he gets the next job. Did you ever notice how the digital cameras, speakers, or cars with the most advertising get better reviews, then Consumer Reports says the opposite.

(a little exaggerated)

Yang Wen · May 22nd, 2003, 09:32 PM

Hey the clips I downloaded looks pretty damn good. It was a shot of a jelly fish and the sharpness is great.

Heath McKnight · May 23rd, 2003, 02:43 PM

I disagree WHOLEHEARTEDLY! I work in the media, and here's a little story.

We sell ad time to a phone company (not a major, one of those "you'll save money going with us"), a lot of time; then, one day, our consumer reporter does a story on them. They're being investigated! Do you honestly think that company called us up and reminded us how much money they spent on ad time? NO! I think their problem was settled and they began advertising again. I don't remember all the details, but that proves, ethically speaking, NO advertiser can tell the media what the media should do. Unless it reveals some big secret, like, "An inside look at how the new JVC HD camera works." That might piss off JVC. :-)

heath

<<<-- Originally posted by Joseph George : It's all JVC's PR work. They distribute press releases, have their ad agency talk to the magazine's advertising department, remind them how much Matsushita spent on advertising, the ad department talks to the chief editor, then an editor gets invited for a private demo. They send a limo to get him, then do their demonstration under controlled conditions, may not even play the recorded tape, just feed the camcorder to a tweaked up HD monitor. Most of the time it's wining and dining, PR bull, then a short demo. They may even have a Sony tweaked-up-the-other-way camera for A-B comparison. The editor knows what to write so he gets the next job. Did you ever notice how the digital cameras, speakers, or cars with the most advertising get better reviews, then Consumer Reports says the opposite.

(a little exaggerated) -->>>

Joseph George · May 23rd, 2003, 03:44 PM

I said "a little exaggerated" :)

Heath McKnight · May 23rd, 2003, 04:16 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Joseph George : I said "a little exaggerated" :) -->>>

All the free video magazines have one thing in common: a lot of ad space and mostly large previews of equipment, not full-on reviews. Videomaker has tiny previews but major reviews of new gear in their mag. And last I checked, they don't give subscriptions away of that.

heath

Joseph George · May 23rd, 2003, 08:31 PM

We are not talking about Videomaker magazine but USA Today.

This is not an ideal world and unfortunately reports do get biased -- favorably for the biggeer advertisers.

Frank Granovski · May 23rd, 2003, 08:53 PM

This is not an ideal world and unfortunately reports do get biased -- favorably for the biggeer advertisers.

Joseph, did you just figure this out and now you just had to share this with us? Thanks for this insightful bit of importance.

Joseph George · May 24th, 2003, 02:23 AM

Frank, most people who would read the whole thread would understand the meaning.

Yang Wen · May 24th, 2003, 05:51 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Heath McKnight : <<<-- Originally posted by Joseph George : I said "a little exaggerated" :) -->>>

All the free video magazines have one thing in common: a lot of ad space and mostly large previews of equipment, not full-on reviews. Videomaker has tiny previews but major reviews of new gear in their mag. And last I checked, they don't give subscriptions away of that.

heath -->>>

DV magazine is free and that's prolly the best video-related publication out there.

Rick Spilman · May 24th, 2003, 06:15 AM

The problem with both USA Today and the New York Times in reviewing the new JVC HD camera has nothing to do with advertising.

The folks doing the reviews are the same folks who review the new sound systems and computers and any other electronic gadget that comes down the line. They have limited experience in what they are reviewing and their readers are primarily shooters of home video. Nothing wrong with any of this, of course. Nor is it surprising.

Peter Moore · May 25th, 2003, 12:09 PM

" don't remember all the details, but that proves, ethically speaking, NO advertiser can tell the media what the media should do. "

So one incident involving your own publication proves that all of them are unbiased. I don't think so.

Boyd Ostroff · May 25th, 2003, 12:26 PM

I've got to agree. Some publications are more objective than others, but it's very naive to assume that advertising dollars don't influence coverage, especially in the current economy. How often have you noticed a big ad spread from a company in the same issue that reviews one of its products?

In my own very limited experience, a theatrical publication did a nice write-up about our facilities several years back. Immediately after I was interviewed I was contacted by their marketing department asking whether we wanted to buy advertising, and promising placement on a page next to the story. And of course they also were happy to offer us reprints (at a 'reasonable' cost) which we could use for our own marketing purposes.

I enjoy reading many trade publications, but don't have any illusions about their bias. It's tough out there anymore with advertising revenue way down, so everyone does what they must to survive.

May 22nd, 2003, 06:55 AM	#1
Vladimir Koifman Regular Crew Join Date: May 2003 Location: Israel Posts: 115	USA Today likes JVC-HD http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...5702&printer=1 Finally, somebody likes it! This is the only positive review so far, isn't it? Vladimir.

May 22nd, 2003, 12:44 PM	#2
David Mintzer Rextilleon Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Pleasantville, NY Posts: 520	AS I suspected-a consumer report---I wouldn't buy based on this---wait until the pros get it in their hands---

May 22nd, 2003, 02:43 PM	#3
Rick Spilman Major Player Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Jersey City, NJ Posts: 366	So does the New York Times. The review is a good example of what happens when enthusiasm exceeds experience. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/22/te...ts/22stat.html

May 22nd, 2003, 03:47 PM	#4
Joseph George Permanently Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Los Angeles, California Posts: 265	It's all JVC's PR work. They distribute press releases, have their ad agency talk to the magazine's advertising department, remind them how much Matsushita spent on advertising, the ad department talks to the chief editor, then an editor gets invited for a private demo. They send a limo to get him, then do their demonstration under controlled conditions, may not even play the recorded tape, just feed the camcorder to a tweaked up HD monitor. Most of the time it's wining and dining, PR bull, then a short demo. They may even have a Sony tweaked-up-the-other-way camera for A-B comparison. The editor knows what to write so he gets the next job. Did you ever notice how the digital cameras, speakers, or cars with the most advertising get better reviews, then Consumer Reports says the opposite. (a little exaggerated)

May 22nd, 2003, 09:32 PM	#5
Yang Wen Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 991	Hey the clips I downloaded looks pretty damn good. It was a shot of a jelly fish and the sharpness is great.

May 23rd, 2003, 02:43 PM	#6
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	I disagree WHOLEHEARTEDLY! I work in the media, and here's a little story. We sell ad time to a phone company (not a major, one of those "you'll save money going with us"), a lot of time; then, one day, our consumer reporter does a story on them. They're being investigated! Do you honestly think that company called us up and reminded us how much money they spent on ad time? NO! I think their problem was settled and they began advertising again. I don't remember all the details, but that proves, ethically speaking, NO advertiser can tell the media what the media should do. Unless it reveals some big secret, like, "An inside look at how the new JVC HD camera works." That might piss off JVC. :-) heath <<<-- Originally posted by Joseph George : It's all JVC's PR work. They distribute press releases, have their ad agency talk to the magazine's advertising department, remind them how much Matsushita spent on advertising, the ad department talks to the chief editor, then an editor gets invited for a private demo. They send a limo to get him, then do their demonstration under controlled conditions, may not even play the recorded tape, just feed the camcorder to a tweaked up HD monitor. Most of the time it's wining and dining, PR bull, then a short demo. They may even have a Sony tweaked-up-the-other-way camera for A-B comparison. The editor knows what to write so he gets the next job. Did you ever notice how the digital cameras, speakers, or cars with the most advertising get better reviews, then Consumer Reports says the opposite. (a little exaggerated) -->>>

May 23rd, 2003, 03:44 PM	#7
Joseph George Permanently Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Los Angeles, California Posts: 265	I said "a little exaggerated" :)

May 23rd, 2003, 04:16 PM	#8
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	<<<-- Originally posted by Joseph George : I said "a little exaggerated" :) -->>> All the free video magazines have one thing in common: a lot of ad space and mostly large previews of equipment, not full-on reviews. Videomaker has tiny previews but major reviews of new gear in their mag. And last I checked, they don't give subscriptions away of that. heath

May 23rd, 2003, 08:31 PM	#9
Joseph George Permanently Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Los Angeles, California Posts: 265	We are not talking about Videomaker magazine but USA Today. This is not an ideal world and unfortunately reports do get biased -- favorably for the biggeer advertisers.

May 23rd, 2003, 08:53 PM	#10
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	This is not an ideal world and unfortunately reports do get biased -- favorably for the biggeer advertisers. Joseph, did you just figure this out and now you just had to share this with us? Thanks for this insightful bit of importance.

May 24th, 2003, 02:23 AM	#11
Joseph George Permanently Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Los Angeles, California Posts: 265	Frank, most people who would read the whole thread would understand the meaning.

May 24th, 2003, 05:51 AM	#12
Yang Wen Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 991	<<<-- Originally posted by Heath McKnight : <<<-- Originally posted by Joseph George : I said "a little exaggerated" :) -->>> All the free video magazines have one thing in common: a lot of ad space and mostly large previews of equipment, not full-on reviews. Videomaker has tiny previews but major reviews of new gear in their mag. And last I checked, they don't give subscriptions away of that. heath -->>> DV magazine is free and that's prolly the best video-related publication out there.

May 24th, 2003, 06:15 AM	#13
Rick Spilman Major Player Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Jersey City, NJ Posts: 366	The problem with both USA Today and the New York Times in reviewing the new JVC HD camera has nothing to do with advertising. The folks doing the reviews are the same folks who review the new sound systems and computers and any other electronic gadget that comes down the line. They have limited experience in what they are reviewing and their readers are primarily shooters of home video. Nothing wrong with any of this, of course. Nor is it surprising.

May 25th, 2003, 12:09 PM	#14
Peter Moore Trustee Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Arlington VA Posts: 1,034	" don't remember all the details, but that proves, ethically speaking, NO advertiser can tell the media what the media should do. " So one incident involving your own publication proves that all of them are unbiased. I don't think so.

May 25th, 2003, 12:26 PM	#15
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	I've got to agree. Some publications are more objective than others, but it's very naive to assume that advertising dollars don't influence coverage, especially in the current economy. How often have you noticed a big ad spread from a company in the same issue that reviews one of its products? In my own very limited experience, a theatrical publication did a nice write-up about our facilities several years back. Immediately after I was interviewed I was contacted by their marketing department asking whether we wanted to buy advertising, and promising placement on a page next to the story. And of course they also were happy to offer us reprints (at a 'reasonable' cost) which we could use for our own marketing purposes. I enjoy reading many trade publications, but don't have any illusions about their bias. It's tough out there anymore with advertising revenue way down, so everyone does what they must to survive.