PDA

View Full Version : Deceptive advertising???



Bob
12-09-09, 4:39 pm
Page 276 in the new Muscular Development has a regular article written by MuscleTech. Not an ad-report either, a regular feature article, called Bodybuilding Q&A. Is MD owned by MuscleTech now or are they part of their editorial board? Anybody see that as a conflict of interest?

7
12-09-09, 4:53 pm
Is it antithetiical to the goals of the American Society of Magazine Editors? If so, I doubt the editorial boards of muscle magazines really care at this point. Bodybuilding, the collective sport, is withering on the vine--women's bodybuilding is all but gone now. The current economy is taking a toll. The state of the magazine industry has been in decay for years now and many titles are going under on a seemingly daily basis. Even storied magazines have shuttered their doors. We are in a perfect storm. If it's revenue, how can you turn it down? What is the true cost? Those who suffer, who are victims, are the fans of bodybuilding itself. Us. Then again, do these magazines really matter? What are we truly deriving from them? News? Facts? Information? Or saccharine, entertaining drivel? At the end of the day, we all bow down to Commerce.

G Diesel
12-09-09, 5:09 pm
Gotta pay to play, right?

If MuscleTech is throwing huge bucks at these magazines and controlling the content in them, the consumer needs to know that going in. I wouldn't say they "own" the magazines, but are more like major shareholders. They influence editorial choices and content cuz they put up the skrilla to do so. Like special interest groups in congress--the ones with the bank get taken care of first.

The only issue I have is with the new, uninformed consumer that reads the magazines thinking they are getting unbiased straight info and taking it as gospel. That ain't right.

Peace, G

NJC_Manhattan
12-09-09, 5:14 pm
Page 276 in the new Muscular Development has a regular article written by MuscleTech. Not an ad-report either, a regular feature article, called Bodybuilding Q&A. Is MD owned by MuscleTech now or are they part of their editorial board? Anybody see that as a conflict of interest?

Hi Bob,

Plenty of companies do this. It is a thinly veiled info-mercial. These are forms of advertising.

As we all know, you need to do your own due diligence. That is one source. I don't know any successful people that rely on only one source to guide their reasoning.

daninarmy
12-09-09, 6:09 pm
I agree the one with the big checkbook gets what they want.

IronWilson
12-10-09, 12:51 am
Don't buy Cell-Tech, it gives you mad roid rage!

BCent
12-10-09, 2:27 am
I've actually seen that article in there for a couple months now, typically i dont even read it. If im not mistaken though i believe it at least says at the top of the page that its sponsored by Muscletech. At that point i can't understand how anyone would think that it is unbiased... i mean if it says at the top of the page that a company sponsors something obviously they are going to push their own agenda. That's my two cents at least

G Diesel
12-10-09, 10:43 am
Hi Bob,

Plenty of companies do this. It is a thinly veiled info-mercial. These are forms of advertising.

As we all know, you need to do your own due diligence. That is one source. I don't know any successful people that rely on only one source to guide their reasoning.

Doesn't look like he's talking about the infomercial-like ad reports. He's referring to actual editorial.


I've actually seen that article in there for a couple months now, typically i dont even read it. If im not mistaken though i believe it at least says at the top of the page that its sponsored by Muscletech. At that point i can't understand how anyone would think that it is unbiased... i mean if it says at the top of the page that a company sponsors something obviously they are going to push their own agenda. That's my two cents at least

Right but since when are standard editorial articles sponsored? An ad is one thing, but ads don't look exactly like every other regular article in the magazine.

Peace, G

Bob
12-10-09, 10:56 am
Hi Bob,

Plenty of companies do this. It is a thinly veiled info-mercial. These are forms of advertising.

As we all know, you need to do your own due diligence. That is one source. I don't know any successful people that rely on only one source to guide their reasoning.

The problem is that it's not one of those typical 4-6 page ad-reports. This actually appears to be an actual editorial column. In the most recent MD it's page 276 so that you can reference it.

Bob
12-10-09, 11:00 am
I agree the one with the big checkbook gets what they want.

That does appear to be the way the world works most of the time. Having money on your side typically is what get things done.

Bob
12-10-09, 11:12 am
Doesn't look like he's talking about the infomercial-like ad reports. He's referring to actual editorial.



Right but since when are standard editorial articles sponsored? An ad is one thing, but ads don't look exactly like every other regular article in the magazine.

Peace, G

G, this is exactly what I was trying to bring up. I have never seen this done before in a magazine and was just curious if others were aware of it.

GJN5002
12-10-09, 11:21 am
MD is a deceptive piece of trashy reading. They pervert studies and findings and whore out the magazine to anyone willing to pay enough. It essentially a 300pg catalogue with a few ghost written articles thrown in.

Firefist
12-10-09, 11:29 am
MD is a deceptive piece of trashy reading. They pervert studies and findings and whore out the magazine to anyone willing to pay enough. It essentially a 300pg catalogue with a few ghost written articles thrown in.

i wouldnt go that far bro....true, theres a shit-ton of ads in there, maybe even more-so then the other big name mags, but there is alot of good stuff in there.

i really like thier ads and interviews. another thing i like is that they use peer-edited sources in writing, from the nsca and acsm, etc, not just what "so and so guru" decides whats right. im a really big fan of their pro's sections, talkin bout thier lives, there training, and thier thoughts.

mags are expensive to produce. ads are a nessesity. though i will agree that that those mtech ads are the biggest crock of rubbish ive seen.

7
12-10-09, 11:58 am
Per ASME:

For magazines to be trusted by consumers and to endure as brands, readers must be assured of their editorial integrity. With that core conviction in mind—and the overwhelming support of its members—the American Society of Magazine Editors for over two decades has issued guidelines to make sure that the difference between advertising and editorial content is transparent to readers and that there is no advertiser influence or pressure on editorial independence. In this latest edition, we have aimed to make the guidelines easier to understand and to distill them into ten basic statements of principle and practice. ASME will continue to advise editors and publishers about how to interpret the guidelines. Repeated and willful violations will result in public sanction and disqualification from the National Magazine Awards.

DESIGN
Advertisements should look different enough from editorial pages that readers can tell the difference. To avoid confusion, any ad that looks enough like an editorial story or feature that it could be mistaken for one should be slugged Advertisement or Promotion at the top of each page in type as prominent as the magazines normal body type.

LOGOS
Advertiser logos should not appear on editorial pages except in a journalistic context. A magazines logo should appear on advertising pages only in connection with advertisements for the magazine and its promotions or when an advertised product is touting editorial awards that it has won.

SPONSORSHIP
Sponsorship language (ie, sponsored by, presented by, etc.) should not appear in connection with regularly occurring editorial features. Such language may be used in connection with editorial extras (special issues, inserts, onserts and contests) as long as the editorial content does not endorse the sponsors products and any page announcing the sponsorship is clearly an ad or is labeled Advertisement or Promotion in a type size as prominent as the magazines normal body type. Single-advertiser issues that dont include sponsorship language do not have to be labelled, but should include an editors or publishers note disclosing the special arrangement to readers. Advertisers may sponsor out of book events such as awards shows and conferences, and that sponsorship may be acknowledged without labeling on either advertising or editorial pages.

ADVERTISING SECTIONS
Editorial-looking sections or pages that are not produced by a magazines editors are not editorial content. They should be labeled Advertisement, Special Advertising Section or Promotion at the top of every page in type as prominent as the magazines normal body type.


Repeated violations? No National Magazine Awards? Whoop dee doo.

7
12-10-09, 12:01 pm
but there is alot of good stuff in there.


Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

IronWilson
12-10-09, 12:21 pm
MD is a deceptive piece of trashy reading. They pervert studies and findings and whore out the magazine to anyone willing to pay enough. It essentially a 300pg catalogue with a few ghost written articles thrown in.

I think it's fishy how MD used to extoll all the glories of keto diets and healthy fats. And then after Dave Palumbo and John Romano left or got fired or whatever, suddenly every month's issue has at least one article stating how keto diets either don't work or are dangerous to your health.

I have lost respect for MD for this. I would just ask MD to stick with the facts and not let their agenda get in the way. It just proves how subjective magazines are.

Beowulf
12-10-09, 12:25 pm
Magazines will always reflect the voices of the editors, promote a specific agenda or agendas. Sometimes, that agenda is obvious, as with political magazines, for example. Other times, it's less obvious. No matter what though, you can't get this bias or agenda out. It's in everything we read. Also, so many bodybuilding magazines change their direction and agendas, it makes my head spin. I think the issue raised in this thread is, how much are these magazines in the back pockets of the supplement industry? What information can we trust?

GJN5002
12-10-09, 12:34 pm
[QUOTE=The Anti-Asian;859889]

i really like thier ads and interviews. another thing i like is that they use peer-edited sources in writing, from the nsca and acsm, etc, not just what "so and so guru" decides whats right. im a really big fan of their pro's sections, talkin bout thier lives, there training, and thier thoughts.

QUOTE]

peer edited just means a bunch of people who agree with you read the article for the most part so there will be no criticism.

The pros section, at this point, is just recycled information using the same photos from last year. The only thing I can appreciate in MD is that they actually address steroid use and dont pretend like these guys are natural.

[QUOTE=IronWilson;859919]I think it's fishy how MD used to extoll all the glories of keto diets and healthy fats. And then after Dave Palumbo and John Romano left or got fired or whatever, suddenly every month's issue has at least one article stating how keto diets either don't work or are dangerous to your health.

QUOTE]

The last issue said something about keto diets causing heart problems on the cover, if you read the study it doesnt prove this at all, it actually only proves that it happened in one unreplicated study in mice that were not given proper nutrients or adequate fat intake.

Beowulf
12-10-09, 12:39 pm
The last issue said something about keto diets causing heart problems on the cover, if you read the study it doesnt prove this at all, it actually only proves that it happened in one unreplicated study in mice that were not given proper nutrients or adequate fat intake.

You mean these magazines are selectively quoting studies and and using science to promote a specific agenda, whatever that might be? No!!!!!!!!!!!!

Big C
12-10-09, 2:17 pm
Don't buy Cell-Tech, it gives you mad roid rage!

It never gave me that, but it did offer massive stomach cramps and nausea way back in the day when I bought a giant jug lol.

GJN5002
12-10-09, 3:35 pm
You mean these magazines are selectively quoting studies and and using science to promote a specific agenda, whatever that might be? No!!!!!!!!!!!!

haha, I know, hard to believe isnt it?

Universal Rep
12-10-09, 3:37 pm
One of the great benefits of a place like this is that you get to talk to the IFBB pros themselves. They speak using their own words. No one is writing their posts, let alone editing 'em... It's straight from the tap.

RK
12-10-09, 9:04 pm
You mean these magazines are selectively quoting studies and and using science to promote a specific agenda, whatever that might be? No!!!!!!!!!!!!

hahhahahahahaha thank you man. was waiting for someone to say it

Razor
12-11-09, 9:33 am
It's exactly like G said. Money conquers a lot of things and unfortunately lots of times ppl take it as the final word. It's unfortunate that with a lot of mags you have to take everything with a grain of salt and look for additional sources. That could be a good thing or bad thing depending on how you look at it.

Bob
12-11-09, 1:37 pm
Check this one out about Men's Health--

"Editor-in-chief Dave Zinczenko got busted yesterday for running exactly the same cover, almost word-for-word, as the October 2007 issue. Today he tells the New York Post's Keith Kelly that it was intentional."

http://gawker.com/5424140/mens-health-editor-says-running-the-same-cover-lines-twice-was-deliberate

What does everyone think of that?

g_mau18
12-11-09, 1:51 pm
I think Im going to go eat a tuna sandwich and hit the weights.

Beowulf
12-11-09, 1:58 pm
Check this one out about Men's Health--

"Editor-in-chief Dave Zinczenko got busted yesterday for running exactly the same cover, almost word-for-word, as the October 2007 issue. Today he tells the New York Post's Keith Kelly that it was intentional."

http://gawker.com/5424140/mens-health-editor-says-running-the-same-cover-lines-twice-was-deliberate

What does everyone think of that?

We meant to do that....

Lol. Do they think consumers are fools? Rehashing the exact same things?

Bob
12-11-09, 2:00 pm
We meant to do that....

Lol. Do they think consumers are fools? Rehashing the exact same things?

That's pretty much as bad as it gets...

Beowulf
12-11-09, 2:06 pm
That's pretty much as bad as it gets...

Editor in chief: "it was part of overall branding strategies that we wouldn't share for magazines, books, international editions, mobile applications or anything else"

Beowulf: "you made no sense whatsoever"