Edmunds has a new review on the InsideLine home page. “BMW M3 vs. Audi RS5. V8 German Supercoupes Face Off.” And they subtitle it “2010 Audi RS5 meets 2010 BMW M3 CSL.” Except that they don’t face off and they don’t meet. There is no RS5 as of yet. And BMW cancelled the M3 CSL program. Edmunds has no review to offer here, and instead puts forth an anticipatory preview of what the two cars might be like in contrast. The ample pictures of the cars in motion are photochops. This isn’t the first time Edmunds has pulled the “click on our link” bait and switch, either. In February, before either car was on sale or available for even the most committed online buff book (Edmunds Inside Line) to drive, EIL “conducted” a comparison test between the Camaro and Challenger. This kind of dishonesty is not necessary. There’s nothing wrong with titling a post a “prospective preview” or publishing it as TTAC has done: as an editorial. But to mislead people into thinking that this is a “face off” between two cars is nothing but misdirection. In Edmunds case, it is particularly difficult to tell this is just a stats-based preview because they so regularly have access to preproduction cars. So it’s plausible that they could have driven the 2010 RS5, even if they are describing it as “coming down the pipleline.” I’m not as angry as I sound, but it’s crucial to keep in mind that when large websites squander the advantages – and the clean slate – offered by being online, they leave themselves looking no different than the print buff books.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
When I saw this, my first thought was “didn’t BMW cancel the M3 CSL?” Good to see I’m not losing it.
Edmunds already squandered whatever positive reputation it had when they hired Paul and Anita Lienert to do their news feature. They’re right up there with the worst in auto-“journalism”: hacks who rewrite press releases, hedge virtually any negative comment they could make, and never, ever use the internet to check facts before submitting a story.
I think I read in Car and Driver that the 1964 Pontiac GTO is better than these two cars anyway.
I still think the CSL is coming. I don’t care what BMW says. Of course I also still think the ti is coming. I don’t even read Edmunds.
Funny… just this morning I was listing to the TWiT podcast where they were discussing the state of the news industry. They were discussing “link baiting”, which is how modern media has decided the only way to compete is to emulate the worst attributes of blogs. They do this by creating misleading and/or provocative headlines. Basically, exactly what this post is describing.
This is simply a sign of things to come.
In February, before either car was on sale or available for even the most committed online buff book (Edmunds Inside Line) to drive, EIL “conducted” a comparison test between the Camaro and Challenger.
That’s nothing, Motor trend did a comparo between the Camaro and the Mustang in 2006. They made it clear in the piece that this was a computer based comparison of the known and tested attributes of the Mustang versus what GM was promising for the Camaro. Take a wild guess as to which car came out ahead in this bench race?
Lumbergh21:
They made it clear in the piece that this was a computer based comparison of the known and tested attributes of the Mustang versus what GM was promising for the Camaro.
Yo Edmunds! There’s an idea!!!
Review cars from video games. Think of the potential! Sofa bound gamer dweebs could double your site hits. And it’s cheap! No gas, no insurance, no travel. Just invest in a few Alienware desktops and you can ROLL.
I got excited when I saw this. I was like, how did they get an RS5? Something was unusual. I looked at it a little, but didn’t read it. I do not like the style either.
“Edmunds Publishes Comparo of Nonexistent Cars”
Well, to be fair, so did TTAC – the 20?? Volt vs. the 2009 Prius. I think Paul Niedermeyer wrot4e it and it was good, entertaining and informative but neither car is available yet. And the Volt may never be.
It may sound like a distinction without a difference, but TTAC’s “head to head” was clearly labeled an editorial.
Robert, why whould you expect people who aren’t in the business (the media business, not the car business) to cop to the difference between an “editorial” and…well, what? News? Car Review? I’m not even sure I understand the distinction. Does “Editorial” mean “We made this up”?
I eagerly await the Volt vs. White Star editorial…