Re: Eureka Models 38 class

Steve Magee wrote:

> > > Just read in the latest AMRM that Eureka are doing both streamlined > > and unstreamlined NSWGR pacifics. > > > > Say wha'??? Didn't hear anything about that! Thought the internet was > > faster than magazines! > > Why haven't we been notified by Lemming Flat?

The funny thing is that we have yet to see any of their products actually hit the shelves yet. But yet there seems to be a hell of a lot of talk about their big plans and aspirations. Which is evidenced by the number of press releases coming from that organisation. Also on another note I wonder if the Prop of Eureka models will stop being a contributor to AMRM once the said models go on sale. As this could be a potential conflict of interest.

Reply to
Greg Rudd
Loading thread data ...

David in your opinion is this good or bad thing?? I don't see the model railway press as being different in any way shape or form to any other print media outlet when it comes to accountability to its readers. With a manufacturer being a contributor/reviewer it really opens a pandora's box with things such as soft reviews, infomercials ie what is really an advertisement is masked under the vail of news story. And ultimately that does not help any modeler or the hobby what so ever. Just like what has happed in audio hobby over last 10-15 years.

I would the like to agree with you on this David, I generally do on most things. But unfortunately my cynism of the media tells me otherwise.

Reply to
Greg Rudd

Thats a disclaimer.  I am all for seeing that, if that occurs. 100% agreement.

I don't see a problem with the hypothetical instance that you have stated here.  As the person doing the review, generally would have no association with the manufacturing entity.

That is called cross promotion. Provided that the reviewer is not associated in any way shape or form with the Magazine or SCR publications that is OK.

No problem with that either on the proviso that a disclaimer is printed if they are an manufacturing/retailing entity.

I think that this has to be policed very tightly. I.E a contributor whose manufacturing entity is run on a "cottage industry" basis should not be allowed to discuss their own products for reasons of conflict of interest.  

Size generally speaking, does not equate to quality. But of course, there are always exceptions.

Reply to
Greg Rudd

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.