#Cringely sez…
I don't think you'll find too many examples of suppliers "paying off" magazines
not to print certain information. But there are more subtle approaches to
achieve similar end results, such as:
1. "You must sign a non-disclosure agreement before we tell you about this new
product/new version". A tough one for publications: what's the point in
hearing about things you are prohibited from publishing? But many will go for
it, since it's the only way to get a preview of the product, and thus be ready
to put it to press FAST. Sadly, some suppliers never get around to telling the
publications that it's OK to print the stuff now; it's often "well, competitor
xxx has published it, so I suppose it's OK for us to do so now". A few
writers/publications refuse to sign non-disclosures, but most do.
2. "I don't think we can advertise any of our products in a publication that
has unfairly criticized one of our new releases", or, "If the review looks
good, we're prepared to come in with a two-page full-color advertising spread".
Pretty blatant, really, but occasionally publications have gone for this kind
of thing. Not often.
3. "Our development staff are spending a week in Acapulco, and we'd like one
of your staff to join us – at our expense, of course – to see how we get it all
together". VERY rare in this day and age, at least for the small computer
press. But when it does, well, it's not easy for a writer to come down hard on
those wild and crazy guys who were so much fun. No overt pressure at all, but
it's there in the background.
4. With no intervention of any sort: many readers may well have already
bought a product, and writers are often reluctant to tell such users that they
have just spent hundreds of bucks on cr*p. Readers often buy publications to
find out how to use what they have already got, not to be told that they have
junk. A writer can often soften his/her stand because of this.
But cash payoffs? Naaah.
–Jim