TenTec
[Top] [All Lists]

[TenTec] CQ Magazine review of Omni-VI+

To: <tentec@contesting.com>
Subject: [TenTec] CQ Magazine review of Omni-VI+
From: cshinn@connect.net (Charles D. Shinn)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 21:05:45 -0600
Great Idea....The internet is free. Wonder how long it would take to get
quality input to a Owners Report Reflector? Or as a feature of an existing
reflector as a monthly / bimonthly feature....Hmmmm
-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph Koppi <jkoppi@pclink.com>
To: tentec@contesting.com <tentec@contesting.com>
To: <tentec@contesting.com>
Date: Thursday, March 05, 1998 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: [TenTec] CQ Magazine review of Omni-VI+


>>>Charles D. Shinn writes:
>>>I agree. It would appear that virtually all equipment reviews are
>>>tainted by the inability of the reviewer to express themselves because
>>of real >or imaginary "Loss of Advertising Revenue". Business is poor
>>these days.
>>>Cutting out those advert bux to an unfriendly rag might be a good move
>>>for some that might be on the edge.....Chuck
>>
>>I couldn't agree more. Reviews by CQ are not worth the expenditure of
>>time. I've found QST to be much more thorough in evaluations of
>>equipment.
>>
>>Loren W7BWI
>
>I've always thought "Owners' Reports" would be useful to the amateur
>community.  An Owners' Report (notice the plural possessive) is a review of
>a piece of equipment based on solicited comments from people who own the
>rigs.  Basically, a publication sends a questionnaire to owners of the rig.
>The editor identifies owners by getting the registration list from the
>manufacturer, or by soliciting users in another way.  (How the
>questionnaire is developed is another debatable matter.)  The resulting,
>gathered information--together with a QST-style technical review--is an
>opportunity to provide really useful information to the amateur community.
>
>Ain't gonna happen, Folks!  Too much money at stake.
>
>Having been trained as a reporter and having worked on daily newspapers,
>trade press publications, a consumer magazine, and in corporate marketing
>communications, I somehow found the audacity to suggest an Owners' Report
>section to none other than Wayne Green and 73 Magazine.  (Good grief!  I
>must have been on drugs.)  This was sometime in the mid-80s when I had
>already notched 15 or 16 years as a writer, and I thought it would be a
>worthy pursuit to try freelancing a few articles to a magazine that serves
>the world's greatest hobby.
>
>That's when I found out how stupid I was.
>
>First of all, I should have never gone directly to Mt. Olympus.  W2NSD
>could not muddy his fingrtips by personally replying to my query.  Instead,
>in a most condescending fashion, I was taken to task by a young staffer
>whose last Pampers were still in his parent's trash can.  He proceeded to
>lecture me on the relationship of advertising to publishing, taking
>particular time to point out that owners might say something the
>manufacturer didn't like, and the manufacturer might be unduly injured
>before a fix could be implemented.  This, of course, would have possible
>adverse ramifications on future advertising revenues.
>
>Alas, my thinking was flawed.  All along I had thought that manufacturers
>wanted to get user feedback as a means of improving their products.  All
>along I had thought that a manufacturer that fixes a bug only serves to
>enhance its reputation, not diminish it.  All along I had thought that a
>publication had some obligation to be responisble to its readers.
>
>Not so.  Such was the way things were at 73; I suspect it is similar at CQ.
>
>But we're lucky.  We can get owners' reports on demand.  All we have to do
>is drop a note to the reflector (actually, any appropriate reflector
>depending on the subject), and say:  "Hey, Guys, what do you think of the
>Omni VI's SSB filters?"  And an Owners' Report will follow!  That's what I
>will do when I am able to once again acquire an Omni VI.
>
>I've taken too much space.  I'll be quiet for a long time, now.  73,
>
>Joe Koppi, W0SU
>W0SU@pclink.com
>St. Paul, MN
>
>
>
>--
>FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/tentecfaq.htm
>Submissions:              tentec@contesting.com
>Administrative requests:  tentec-REQUEST@contesting.com
>Problems:                 owner-tentec@contesting.com
>Search:                   http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
>


--
FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/tentecfaq.htm
Submissions:              tentec@contesting.com
Administrative requests:  tentec-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems:                 owner-tentec@contesting.com
Search:                   http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>