I know it was cheeky of me. OK, I was being an asshole. But I am genuinely perturbed by media outlets who accept airfare, accommodation, food and booze (not to mention gas and insurance) from car manufacturers without declaring this financial contribution. So when I saw The Car Connection live blogging their Pontiac G8 test drive (General Motors Death Watch on the G8 tomorrow), I couldn't resist adding a comment challenging Mart Padgett to reveal GM's financial interest in the Pontiac review. Within five minutes, the comment was removed. I reposted, trying to be a bit more subtle (as you can imagine). Gone in sixty seconds. (TCC later removed TTAC info provider Michael Karesh's car-related comment.) The last time I chided The Car Connection for their undeclared junketeering, I also took a swipe at Edmunds for the same sin of omission. Edmunds now publish this little ditty at the bottom of their junket-sourced editorial: Edmunds attended a manufacturer-sponsored event, to which selected members of the press were invited, to facilitate this report. Notice the note of self-congratulation. And the lack of any specific mention of the fact that the carmaker PAID FOR THE TRIP. Once again, I challenge The Car Connection and Edmunds to come clean on their relationship to the people making the cars they review. It's high time the automotive media cleaned-up its act and started serving the people who count: the readers.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Mr Farago!
Was that a snort when you were laughing…..? ;O)
Accepting airfare, rooms, meals, etc doesnt quite rise to the level deceit and scandal you suggest, at least in my book.
They are there to drive the car under controlled conditions. All the media outlets drive the same cars, on the same track and hopefully can report objectively. I find it seriously doubtful that any publication worth a darn would stake its reputation for a plane ticket, hotel room and a lobster dinner. Its a freebie, but it is hardly quid pro quo. Now, if you caught a publication accepting advertising dollars for positive reviews, then I would say you are on to something.
This is more along the lines of making something of nothing.
gamper :
This is more along the lines of making something of nothing.
If it’s “nothing,” then why not disclose the arrangement?
Remember: before we got on their case, Edmunds didn’t have any disclosure.
I can see what you are saying RF, they should just list it was a manufacturer sponsored event and list what was covered by the manufacture (airlines, food, lodging, etc). I don’t think this color’s Edmunds reviews however. They have been hard on manufacturers if they produce crap. They might not say “This car is a total crock of shit” but you know that it doesn’t measure up. Is this pulling punches or just writing reviews that your mother could read?
Strictly out of curiosity, what were the comments?
In a way, does it really matter if a publication only discloses the fact that the manufacturer paid for the trip (as well as the gas and insurance)?
To a certain extent, it is simply more logistically feasible to have a bunch of journalists show up from around the world at a single location to sample a newly launched motor vehicle. That manufacturers pay for this doesn’t really concern me. The salient question in my mind is one of degrees…
If Automaker A flies reviewers to Indiana and puts them up in the Ramada in, I don’t see there being such a big deal. Gas and insurance seems like a logical thing to throw in as a matter of convenience.
Now, if Automaker B flies journalists first class to Madrid Spain where they get over the jet lag at the 5 star Hesperian tower over the weekend before they are flown by charter aircraft to Catalunya where Formula 1 drivers provide them personalized lessons around the F1 track in factory fresh cars during the morning – short lunch of day-caught seafood Paella, Tortilla de Patatas and Flan – and then they spend the next 2 days driving high-end luxury cars around the track and countryside while Automaker B insures that payoffs to the local government allow for unlimited hoonage… THAT makes a big difference.
Simply telling me that a trip/gas/insurance is paid for does not provide the color necessary for anyone to understand how the junket might have effected the review.
A prime example would be Consumer Reports – they don’t accept free trips to test a car. They go obtain the car (or item) in question and test on their terms which are probably much closer to the real world circumstances that the general consumer will experience than said controlled tests.
If you want a prime example of how obtaining a car to test just like your average John Doe would be, look at the Dodge Journey review – there’s no way in heck that a model like that would have knowingly been allowed into the hands of a journalist if it was a “paid” trip to test the vehicle. The sad fact of the matter is that particular vehicle had a faulty sun roof in it from Dodge and it was on a dealer lot. That is more representative as to what the consumer can expect.
Don’t get me wrong – I realize in manufacturing that things sometimes slip through the cracks and out the door and this was probably (hopefully) a one off issue.
lprocter1982 :
Strictly out of curiosity, what were the comments?
I didn’t keep a record. To paraphrase, I asked TCC to declare GM’s financial interest im the article. Something along the lines of “Perhaps your readers would like to know the manufacturer’s contribution to this editorial.”
gakoenig :
Simply telling me that a trip/gas/insurance is paid for does not provide the color necessary for anyone to understand how the junket might have effected the review.
Usually the writers describe their junket’s highlights enough in the body of the piece to communicate the level of luxury involved. In any case, I’m asking for a simple base line, not an expense report.
And it’s not a matter of degree; it’s a matter of principle. I’m thinking of that punchline “We’ve already established what you are; we’re just haggling over price.”
Bravo, RF!
This is a no-brainer. Anything financial should be disclosed.
Of the people chiding Robert, I wonder how many wish they knew who’s payroll their doctor was on. Is it purely coincidence that the company that took your Dr. away on a week’s paid vacation to the Caribbean also manufactures the pills you take? Are you certain that it is truly the best medication for your condition?
I’d like to know. I think disclosure is a good thing. You have to wonder about those who are so opposed to transparency. Typically, they have something to hide.
Maybe cars aren’t as important as health. But if a car is dangerous, will that danger be disclosed by the writer who just got back from a week in Monte Carlo, courtesy of that car’s manufacturer?
Doubt it. Usually it’s folks like Consumer Reports, who, like TTAC, procure their own vehicles for review, not factory specials.
Talking about which, it seems a few of my comments didn’t make it on TTAC, and I’m not sure whether it’s a glitch or if they were removed. Robert, do you e-mail posters when you remove their comments?
I don’t think I was offensive, but if I stepped over the line, I’d rather know. it’ll help me identify said line.
The fact that the manufacturer being scrutinized is treating their supposed critics like nobility is one problem, the fact that the products being reviewed can so easily be doctored without them knowing is even worse. But making the media provide full disclosure is like putting the cart in front of the horse. They first need to believe in the value of their own editorial independence, and then the disclosure should follow.
AKM : Talking about which, it seems a few of my comments didn’t make it on TTAC, and I’m not sure whether it’s a glitch or if they were removed. Robert, do you e-mail posters when you remove their comments? One thing we are not is/are hypocrites. In every case, we send an explanatory email whenever we edit or delete a comment. The email goes to address used to register, obviously. Our spam filter has its ways. It will trap comments that have a layout that looks like spam (talk to the WordPress guys). If you don’t see your comment it might have been caught, awaiting manual release (our resident Mexican ballplayer).
I find it interesting how the automotive media is allowed to take advantage of these junkets to write car reviews, while nearly every good newspaper (and some blogs) refuse to allow their movie reviewers to attend the press junkets for new releases on the studio’s dime. Perhaps car reviewers are treated more like the TV or entertainment writers that go on the press junkets regularly, which would mean that the papers assume that a person’s second-largest purchase should be given the same dose of hard-hitting journalism as what you’ll find in People magazine (or the buff books, in this context).
Here’s a column describing the experience of one movie reviewer/humor columnist who went on a press junket and then wrote about his experience in detail. The final result? No more Paramount screenings for him, of any sort, and even some regular press screenings from other studios are now off-limits. Perhaps comparing movie reviewers to car reviewers is a bit apples-to-oranges, but as everybody who has followed this site knows, there is retribution for any perceived biting of the hand that feeds you (Tribeca, anyone?).
Thanks for keeping up the fight, RF.
RF:
Our spam filter has its ways. It will trap comments that have a layout that looks like spam (talk to the WordPress guys). If you don’t see your comment it might have been caught, awaiting manual release (our resident Mexican ballplayer).
Ooooo… manual release…. oh wait… you weren’t talking about that. Never mind.
AKM, the things that trip the spam filter the most are posts with several web links or with lines of numbers (it seems to think they’re ads of some kind) or certain words that may be offensive. As soon as we find a quarantined comment we’ll either release it or kill it (or if it only needs a minor edit, edit it). If we kill it, we’ll let you know. If you notice a comment you made disappeared or didn’t show up, let us know so we can check the spam filter for it.
Here’s the disclaimer from the local paper
“#######, a freelance writer (###@#####.om), prepared this report based on travel provided by an auto maker.”
People who insist that gratuities couldn’t possibly affect their judgment remind me of politicians who complain about bans on lobbyist-paid meals, tickets, golf junkets, etc. The folks who happily pay the costs of such entertainment certainly are convinced they get something for the investment.
I think it was Senator Long, defending the tax code’s rules on business entertainment deductions, who said entertainment expenses are to business as fertilizer costs are to farming. Maybe he had in mind there’s a certain smell in both cases.
My old Purchasing Department had a good policy for freebies from vendors: “We accept nothing but business cards and handshakes.”
Automotive journalists are regarded in the journalistic trade with contempt as bottom feeders and hangers on. A reputation that they richly deserve.
The Brits are the least affected because auto advertising is a very small part of their publications’ overall ad revenue,the Americans and Canadians are influenced most aggressively to be nice guys about the cars they “test”.
With one or two obvious exceptions.
My personal experience is that you’d better say ALL the right things, or you won’t be invited back again.
Remember when GM withdrew all their advertising from the LA Times over a perfectly honest article that Dan Neil wrote?
Props on the King of the Hill idea.
“You were flirting with her, weren’t you Hank?”
“What! No! I didn’t even mention I work in propane!”
I have to agree with Robert. This isn’t even normal protocol for certain areas WITHIN the auto industry. The remarketing business for starters.
When I was at Capital One Auto Finance, the company had to pay for virtually everything when it came to special events and auctions. The flight, the hotel, the incidentals related to those two. You couldn’t simply ‘pass the buck’ to the auction company or organizer of the event and live it up. In fact doing so would leave you and the company in a very vulnerable position due to the fact that we only liquidated repossessed vehicles.
The only thing we got out of the deal was a dinner (usually no more than $20) and perhaps a group event with other attendees, such as watching a ballgame or going bowling. When you’re dealing with over a million dollars in inventory every sale, that amount isn’t much. It’s not even a ‘buy fee’ for an auction.
If the entertainment cost over $50, we either had to have COAF pay for it or just not do it. I really don’t see why the major media outlets couldn’t either go on an extensive test drive for a production model via a nearby dealership or, in the case of the more successful ones, buy the vehicle themselves and then drive it without having any strings at play.
……………………..
Then again, the bottom line for many an organization in this business can be more important than being truthful with your clients. Some folks, many of whom have their axes and careers on the line, simply don’t want to hear any of it. End of story.
I understand the idea of manufacturers bringing journalists to events to drive the cars. It’s called marketing.
I work in the medical device sales industry, and noticed the comment earlier regarding when your doctor prescribes pills based on where the company took them on vacation. Frankly that was the case in the years past, but the regulations in place now not only restrict the dollars spent by the companies, but tracks the companies dollars spent by name and in many cases medical license.
Maybe there should be more transparent disclosure?
Think about car magazine reports 10-20 years ago… less colorful photographs and more colorful copy. Now all of the magazines use manufacturer-released press photos, and the copy reads just like the press releases. And worse, they are all ALMOST the same word-for-word. I no longer subscribe to any of the US print magazines and read them online. At least it saves a tree or two. I could recommend Winding Road too… they at least take their own photos…
CAR, and Top Gear are about the only worthy reads within the print media…