MBM's Flagship - up for renewal!

[Kevin]

I dont quite see what the problem is with the boat MBM finally choose and whether that means the reviews of them are slightly biased, if indeed as some imply, they might be.If it wasnt a commercial bias then by the nature of being human it could well be a personal bias unintentional as that might be.

Does anybody really use a magazine report to decide if the boat is good or not, I see them as no more than interesting articles which may well have been written by non boaters. I for one wouldnt take a boat report made by a magazine as anything to go by with regards the quality of the boat and its prowess whilst in use IMHO.

No offense meant to Kim and his team im sure his reports are just lovely but like that of cars in car magazines etc to me they are infotainment not serious decision making data.

just my opinion on it.

Kevin

<hr width=100% size=1>

[franktheseadog]

Yup, I agree. If you want really indepth (if sometimes a touch scurrilous) boat reports you go somewhere like Dave Pascoe's website or Powerboat Reports. I'm afraid that when I read in MBM as I did this month that an old Cruisers boat is a good secondhand option when they were arguably the worst-built heaps of dogwhoopsie ever, then it is obvious that MBM is meant for entertainment and not to be taken too seriously.

<hr width=100% size=1>

[kimhollamby]

I'm not being defensive about this but neither do I think I want to leave some of your comments unanswered. I don't deny you have your strong perception and therefore I am attempting to change it (a little...maybe).

Most of the boat's uses, whatever it happens to be, have nothing to do with the test programme. In fact the magazine's main testers rarely if ever drive it; they are too busy looking at other boats.

The deal we did with Sealine was not a purchase; therefore by definition it was different to a consumer sale. I didn't deny that. But we did fund the project and it wasn't a freebie, so you might draw some comfort from that. We also paid exactly the same as anyone out there for engine servicing and any work that we didn't undertake ourselves.



<hr width=100% size=1>

[franktheseadog]

Would I as a member of the public be able to lease a boat from Sealine? Sounds like it could be a good deal.

<hr width=100% size=1>

[hlb]

This sounds more like a quiz Kim.

1/ Not a Purchase?
2/ Not a consumer sale?
3/ Not a freebie?
4/ Did fund project.

I give in. Go on you paid for the diesel...[img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

<hr width=100% size=1> <font color=blue>No one can force me to come here.<font color=red> I'm a volunteer!!.<font color=blue>

Haydn

[franktheseadog]

Come on, admit it. Sealine gave you a preferential deal on the nod and a wink understanding that you would obviously mention the boat lots of times in your mag and that wasn't going to do them any harm, was it?

<hr width=100% size=1>

[kimhollamby]

...I've said this before.

Check with Sealine if you like -- there was no agreement for editorial in exchange for the boat deal. Not one sentence in writing; not one wink on the face of the people sorting it out. I've never been less than honest on here so this now gets to the point where you can either accuse me about lying with regard to this, or accept what I am saying.

Would the Sealine get into the magazine if we used it? Of course; bit hard to leave it out (just as it was a bit hard not to write about the Pedros I owned myself before the company took on the Sealines or the many other boats we have been boating on in various capacities). Did the 800 hours plus we put on the first one give it 800 hours-worth of exposure in the pages, for example? No, nowhere near. You saw it a fair bit in 1999-2000 because I lived on it for five months trying to make contact with readers in all parts of the UK. My overblown series of nine-or-so-page features for 12 months carried the occasional pic including the gory ones of the engine being lifted out and worked on. But you didn't find us writing the word 'Sealine' every sentence.

Only the third Sealine of the series of three that we ran had a full feature devoted to it (I wasn't involved in that so I cannot remember what it said but it was a first season wash-up report). Don't believe me? Scan the magazine indexes and you'll see for yourself. Criticisms have been broadcast. Don't believe me? Search the forums as a starting point.

What do you want us to do? Buy a bare shell of indeterminate origin, fit it out ourselves all with non-marine products to 'guarantee' our independence? Or run a mainstream boat which happens to sit somewhere in the middle of our core readership? Or not have a boat at all and weaken the magazine's on-water experience and ability to test and get involved in various things?

I know I should be agreeing to differ at this stage and leaving it alone but some of your comments are personal, given that I was instrumental in the original deal, and I feel disinclined to read an accusation of what amounts to corrupt behaviour without some kind of reply.

<hr width=100% size=1>

[stuartw]

I agree with Kim. It is going a bit far when you appear to be suggesting that people on the mag are being less than honest.

This thread was suposed to be factual fun, discussing the merits or otherwise of a possible contender for a new flagship. Not as it appears, a bit of mudslinging at the expense of people who can only try & refute what appears to be a bit of personal axe grinding, without any proof.

May I suggest you back off, and perhaps if it was a bit of a wind-up, then perhaps an apology should be forthcoming

<hr width=100% size=1>

[Talon]

Well said Stuart!!!!

It seems to me that "Franktheseadog" has a chip on his shoulder and no matter what Kim says he is not going to be happy. How about an apology to Kim, Frank, or come back with facts and figures so your accusations can be taken seriously.

If you are not willing to do either of the above and feel that strongly, maybe you should purchase a different mag, one that you think is not taken back handers. [img]/forums/images/icons/frown.gif[/img]





<hr width=100% size=1>Alex


<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.mad-als.com>http://www.mad-als.com</A>

[Talon2]

Still trying to understand the terminolgy on this site. Is "Franktheseadog" what we call a troll???

<hr width=100% size=1>Keith


<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.mobiledit.co.uk>http://www.mobiledit.co.uk</A>