#Them Poor SGI rndrs:-(
9 messages in this thread
>> How can you say that AutoDesk does not get fair treatment from CGW <<
I do not know if fair is the right word. I am just saying that money talks:
Issue Mention of Autodesk Autodesk Ads
—————————————————————-
CGW V17 N1 Model Shop w/3DS Full Page Ad 3DS p. 31
CGW V17 N2 Model Shop w/3DS Full Page Ad 3DS p. 37
CGW V17 N3 Favorable p. 40-42, 71 Full Page Ad 3DS p. 50
CGW V17 N4 Favorable p. 45 Full Page Ad 3DS p. 73
CGW V17 N5 Model Shop w/3DS Full Page Ad 3DS p. S7
CGW V17 N6 Favorable p. 26-28 Full Page Ad 3DS p. 73
CGW V17 N8 Favorable Cover, p. 36 Full Page Ad AU p. 71
—————————————————————-
It would seem from my simplistic research that I can draw few conclusions about
advertising affecting editorials or vice versa since there is favorable mention
of 3DS in nearly every issue of CGW, and likewise Autodesk has a full page ad
in every issue.
It would also seem that both of my points in #122110 are specifically
incorrect, but the basic premise that money talks is still correct. One
_might_ conclude that because Autodesk spends a full page ad with CGW, CGW
gives Autodesk favorable press.
It is also possible that we may be seeing the effect of product envy from those
who spend huge amounts on overpriced software and hardware.
What do you think about the low-rez image on CGW V17 N8 p.26 and the comments
on the same page located under the spaceship image? Do you find bias in these
items?
— James — MAP —
James,
You're looking at it backward, When CGW is doing an article involving 3DS then
the ad people for CGW call Adesk and ask if they'd like to put an ad in the
magazine to accompany the article. CGW does not tailor articles to the
advertisers. Adesk is the one that decides to put ads in specific magazines and
it does not influence the content of the articles. The magazine is put together
long before the ad space is sold. Additionally CGW is extremely responsive to
its readers. If you want to see more 3DS related articles write to them and let
them know.
I simply cannot believe that some people are so naive as to believe that there
is some type of conspiracy against 3DS.
It is also a fallacy to think that people who have large investments in other
packages "envy" 3DS. A heck of alot of my close friends own SGI based shops or
work for the top 3 SGI 3D companies and they are in no way paranoid or
concerned about 3DS. As a matter of fact they all have a great respect for
Gary,Tom,Dan,Jack, etc. and there is a general friendship throughout the
industry that has existed for many many years. I get so severely bummed
watching people try to fabricate some type of conspiracy or consorted effort to
keep 3DS out of the limelight. It simply doesn't exist. I happen to run a
number of packages on a number of different platforms. There are very distinct
reasons to have them all. There are tons of things that 3DS simply cannot do
and tons of things that 3DS can do that others can't. Most well rounded shops
have a number of different 3D packages, just like paint packages. Lots of
people have Photostyler, Photoshop, Fractal Design, Kai, etc.
Chill out and concentrate on producing beautiful things. Paranoia and ill will
can directly hamper possitive thoughts and pretty pictures.
🙂
Paul
I Agree, Being an Alias and 3DStudio user…. Both systems have there place,
but if anyone wants to offer a challange, I'ld be more than willing to accept
it. Seeing both sides of the story from a "production heavy" environment I'd
still take SGI anyday!
Here, here. =-)
John Tissavary (LUNA cie, inc)
>> CGW does not tailor articles to the advertisers. Adesk is the one that
decides to put ads in specific magazines and it does not influence the content
of the articles. <<
I am glad that CGW holds such a noble posture (no sarcasm intended). In my
town, it is hard for small businesses to get _any_ article in the press without
making an (ad) investment in the magazine/newspaper/whatever. I know this is
the case because I have been present for several of such deals and have even
made a few myself. Money has influence.
Quite honestly, I have no faith in the media these days. I take what they say
with a grain of salt. You may be right: perhaps there is no conspiracy against
3DS or PC animation. But how many 3DS productions have there been in the
Electronic Theatre at Siggraph? Why do some animators, including myself,
choose not to reveal the platform and software they use to their customers?
What started this thread?
Anyway, who cares? Lets just have some fun! 🙂
— James — MAP —
Few people really know if a magazine holds a noble posture like this. Sometimes
it's much more ambiguous, a chicken-and-egg situation. Any company rich enough
to pay large advertising outlays on a regular basis will certainly have the
smarts to have some money behind a press-relations staff that tries to get
their product mentioned at every turn. What's more "insidious," the publisher
of a magazine or an editor at a magazine reminding a writer to include product
X in a discussion, or a PR hound from Company X, reminding the writer to
include Product X in the article?
I was recently accused of ignoring a 3D package in an article. I served as
writer and organizer of a 3D wrap-up for AV Video. I guided the efforts of two
other writers who covered the Amiga and SGI platforms. I did the Mac and PC
sides. For multi-platform programs, we assigned the products at random. Hash
Enterprises' Animation Master was assigned to the Amiga guy. However, he
didn't end up saying much about the program at all, and I didn't catch the
error. Now I've known the guys at Hash for years and years, back in the days
when they were writing it on their kitchen table, so they were really miffed
that this article ignored their product. However, my notes did show that I'd
faxed Anjon & Associates, requesting their press kit for the product, but that
I'd never received anything. Later, Hash confirmed that although Anjon had
been promoting and distributing their product in the past, I was wrong to have
requested the info from them. Although I talked to someone at Anjon, they
didn't inform me of the change in their publishing relationship. So a series
of small errors lead to the ommission of the product…
There's so many people that influence an article. You can't even point fingers
at particular writers, because you don't know how their prose was changed,
clipped or otherwise edited by an editor. For conspiracy theory accuracy, you
should at least account for the magical process that might successfully
influence all those people along the chain… the writer, the PR people (for
and against a given product), the editors, the ad people, the publisher, the
associate editors, etc.
Hi John,
->For conspiracy theory accuracy, you should at least account for the magical
->process that might successfully influence all those people along the chain…
->the writer, the PR people (for and against a given product), the editors, the
->ad people, the publisher, the associate editors, etc.
I realize this thread's about 6 days old, but I'm usually surfing a wave about
1000 messages behind the lead so it's hard to do timely responses. <g>
Your are absolutely correct. Like James Coulter's comments about having lost
faith in the media, I have vowed never to do another product review after the
last few I wrote for 3D Artist.
It's such a circus of owners, pr people, ad people, users, and whatever that
there's absolutely no motivation for doing a fair review beyond personal
integrity or money. And we all know how well 3D Artist pays writers. 🙂 After
you do a couple of these you really start to notice that software reviews
generally fall into 3 categories:
1. Glossy topographical overviews or reviews written by those without a clue.
This is the stuff you see all the time in PC Mag and the like. Basically a
rehash of the advertising literature, completely useless.
2. Reviews with a hard slant towards someone's personal gain. Harder to spot,
you need to get familiar with all the players to gain understanding. Often
disguised as a glowing endorsement.
3. The real thing, an objective review. Rare and usually found in the less
glossy mags. Often results in someone getting creamed by the offended party,
and bringing absolutely no positive return to the writer. Usually drives
writers into retirement or category 2.
What's truly needed is an independent reviewing organization like Consumer
Reports for 3D software. Unfortunately a good 3D product is usually so deep and
feature rich that it demands an entire issue to fairly cover all the features.
And since there's no real money to made doing this other than selling it to end
users we'll probably not enjoy it in our lifetime.
Enjoyed reading your comments,
-Heinz.
If customers started thinking and weighing their software purchases along
rational, calmly-calculated lines, then the software industry would collapse
within weeks, from Microsoft on down. 🙂 So much of software purchases are
made on impulse! To think that people buy software without a hands-on demo,
without examining the manual, wiuthout talking to existing users of the
product, without considering the past track record of the company, without
regard for the quality of the software (in simple presence-of-bugs terms) or
the technical support or the upgrade paths…
I think a variation of the Peter Principle is to blame. If someone is skilled
enough as a writer *and* as a 3D animator, then someone is already paing them
much more than they'd get to write a review for a computer magazine. The more
technical the magazine, the lower the pay. The more consumer-oriented, the
higher the pay. In other words, the larger the audience, the higher the pay.
If a Consumer Reports of 3D-reviewing magazines were to arise, how much would
you pay for a subscription?
Hi John,
->If customers started thinking and weighing their software purchases along
->rational, calmly-calculated lines, then the software industry would collapse
->within weeks, from Microsoft on down. 🙂
Ha! Well put. The multimedia industry would evaporate overnight.
->If a Consumer Reports of 3D-reviewing magazines were to arise, how much would
->you pay for a subscription?
One thing that makes Consumer Reports succesfull is a clear-cut set of
measuring criteria that can apply to all the products reviewed. The study of
buying a car has been mastered over many years, and very clear guidelines exist
on what constitutes good features vs. bad. The study of buying software,
especially 3D software is at best undefined. The difference is that most
everyone has experience driving a car, and a car is a fairly finite machine to
operate. 3D software is relatively complex to operate and no two products are
alike.
If someone developed a standardized suite of tests and benchmarks to compare
products, and established credibility as an independent non-biased
organization, I'd pay good money for the output, since as time marches on the
purchase dollars/risk get bigger and bigger for me.
The audience isn't that large today, but wait another year or two…
-Heinz.