They don't, at least not directly.
But ask yourself this. If a "normal" magazine can't make it on it's OTC sales
and subscriptions, and needs money from advertisers just to survive, than how
can a publication that does all sorts of additional testing and covers nearly
the entire consumer product market, both of which add lots and lots of extra
costs to their operation (at least to do it right would) afford to do without
it? And where or how does CRM replace that "lost" advertising income? CRM does
the same things in many cases that UL and the auto insurance industry do.
Assuming they do it right, it costs CRM just as much to do this as it does for
anybody else, and those other testing industries need lots of outside income. So
how can CRM afford all that and the costs of publishing a glossy unless they are
taking in other moneys?
Are they directly beholding to companies that run ads in their publication? No.
Do they owe someone someplace for some sort of supplementary income? I have to
believe they do. What they do is far, far more costly than publishing a simple
product-oriented, market-specific magazine (like a car magazine or a home
improvement magazine) and someone has to be paying for it. The fact that I never
am told who is paying for it, and instead am lead to believe they do all this
out of their altruism, makes me *very* skeptical. Also their frequent
off-the-wall conclusions often lead me to believe something is directing their
actions. Anyone loves them so much they want to prove me wrong, great. I'd love
to see just exactly where all their money comes from.
Gary McCormick wrote:
>
> I haven't seen a copy of Consumer Reports Magazine for a long time - I'm not a
> fan, and I get my car info from R&T and a couple of auto industry trade
> magazines - but I was under the impression that CR didn't take ads.
>
> Gary McCormick
> San Jose, CA
>
> andycost wrote:
>
> > It's hard to sell magazine ads if you rate your advertisers products poorly.
> > That's why I don't trust very many of the consumer report type publications.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Gordon Glasgow" <gsglasgow@home.com>
> > To: "Datsun Roadster List" <datsun-roadsters@autox.team.net>
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 8:20 PM
> > Subject: RE: Oil Testing Results
> >
> > > Not meaning to diss anyone, and I'm sure the information was provided with
> > good
> > > intentions, but I've never considered Consumer Reports to be an
> > authoritative
> > > source on things automotive. This is the same bunch that rated the Fiat
> > X-1/9
> > > handling "unacceptable" and got in deep yogurt over the faked Suzuki
> > Samurai
> > > "rollover" test.
> > >
> > > I'll stick with the conventional wisdom on this one.
> > >
> > > Gordon Glasgow
> > > Renton, WA
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-datsun-roadsters@autox.team.net
> > > [mailto:owner-datsun-roadsters@autox.team.net]On Behalf Of datsunmike
> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 5:11 PM
> > > To: Rich Glass; Datsun Roadster List; Bill Strohm
> > > Subject: Oil Testing Results
> > >
> > >
> > > Consumer Reports Oil Testing Results
> > > =20
> > > =20
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > =20
> > > Consumer Reports Oil Testing Results=20
> > > =20
> > > Return to Articles Page=20
> > > =20
> > > Consumer Reports, with one of the most widely respected =
> > > product testing laboratories in the world has just released the results =
> > > of an extensive test on oil brands and oil changes, as well as other =
> > > issues regarding car care. In the process, the test demolished much of =
> > > the conventional wisdom regarding car lubrication. The two most =
> > > surprising results: the frequency with which oil is changed doesn't =
> > > matter after the first few oil changes on a new engine, and the type or =
> > > brand of oil used can not be shown to make any difference.
> > >
> > > The testers placed freshly rebuilt engines in 75 New York =
> > > taxis and then ran them for nearly two years, with each cab racking up =
> > > 60,000 miles, placing different brands and weights in different cars and =
> > > changing the oil at 3,000 miles in half the cars and 6,000 in the other =
> > > half. At the conclusion of the test period, the engines were torn down, =
> > > measured and inspected. The conclusions: Regardless of brand of oil or =
> > > weight, no measurable differences could be observed in engine wear. =
> > > Furthermore, there was no difference among cars which had oil changed at =
> > > the shorter or longer interval.
> > >
> > > Does this have any bearing on the enthusiast's car, which is =
> > > given almost the opposite usage stored for long periods of time then =
> > > started and driven for short distances? The tests suggested that our =
> > > type of usage would build up sludge and varnish, indicating that an =
> > > annual or semi-annual oil change is a good idea regardless of how much =
> > > mileage the car is driven. But there is little indication that the brand =
> > > or weight needs to be given serious consideration, and synthetic oil has =
> > > no discernible advantage over the old stand-bys. More information on the =
> > > tests and results can be obtained from Consumers Union or the July issue =
> > > of Consumer Reports available at most libraries.
> > >
> > > Source: British Car Magazine, October-November 1996
> > >
> > > Related Stories:
> > >
> > > More Than You Ever Wanted to Know About Motor Oil
> > >
> > > An Excerpt from a SAE Oil Filter Test Oil filter efficency =
> > > test and a list of filters that fit the Spitfire
> > >
> > > Visit the Mopar site for the study of major old filters and =
> > > the results
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Return to Articles Page =20
> > >
> > > =20
> > >
> > > [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type image/gif which had a name of
> > > premast.gif]
> > >
> > > [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type image/gif which had a name of
> > > referbut.gif]
> > >
> > > [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type image/gif which had a name of
> > > maintbut.gif]
> > >
> > > [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type image/gif which had a name of
> > > howtobut.gif]
> > >
> > > [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type image/gif which had a name of
> > > salebut.gif]
> > >
> > > [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type image/gif which had a name of
> > > clubbut.gif]
> > >
> > > [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type image/gif which had a name of
> > > funbut.gif]
> > >
> > > [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type image/gif which had a name of
> > > Magazbut.gif]
> > >
> > > [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type image/gif which had a name of
> > > otherbut.gif]
> > >
> > > [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type image/gif which had a name of
> > > siteindex.gif]
> > >
> > > [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type image/gif which had a name of
> > > returnbut.gif]
> > >
> > > [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type image/gif which had a name of
> > > back.gif]
--
Marc Sayer
82 280ZXT
71 510 2.5 Trans Am vintage racer
|