| Product: |
Mountain Biking UK (MBUK) |
| Date: |
25/09/01 (330 review reads) |
| Rating: |
 |
Advantages: Wide range of advertisers, some OK stories, quite funny in places
Disadvantages: crap content, self promotion, the same riders every month
MBUK may be the most popular mountain bike magazine in the UK (ABC figures 57,663 Jan-Dec 2000) but it isn't the "best".
I've been reading it since the first issue, all those years ago. Since then, it may have become glossy, fat and full of content, but it still follows the same formula. The only reason I now buy it, is if I want to buy some components and want adverts that I can use to get local retailers in London to price-match.
MBUK attracts tons of advertisers, being the biggest selling mag. This includes all the on-line retailers, who have cut-throat prices. I can take the mag to someone like Evans in London, and get them to slash £20 off the price of a helmet, or £70 off the price of some suspension forks. This is the only thing that makes the £3.30 cover price worth paying!
MBUK seems to revolve around the same people every month, and this gets really stale. These may be the UK's "top" racers, like Steve Peat, Rob Warner, Will Longden and co, but there are tons of really good riders who don't want to suck corporate dick, and will never appear in MBUK's pages. From reading the mag, you would think that there's only about 10 riders in the whole UK!
The magazine is like a cycling soap opera, every issue has 5 page articles about what Rob Warner or Steve Peat has done this month, or really daft articles about "scuba diving on your mountain bike". but if you look carefully you'll see lead weights pinning the bike wheels to the sea bed, making a mockery of the whole article. Like they could ride bikes underwater? you can't, I've tried in a swimming pool with a bmx(I'm a BSAC dive leader) as the tires try to float the bike back up!
MBUK has always done daft articles, like jumping out of planes and stuff, stuff that isn't accessible to your average rider. It's all meant as fun, and it it funny, but a bit pointless.
The thing that bu
gs me is the self-congratulation and self-promotion of anyone who is part of the MBUK crew. Like Jamie Tomkins (son of Pete Tomkins "mr. crud") who decided to make Base Bikes frames for dirt and bsx jumping. MBUK shamelessly promoted this "brand" , which consisted of nothing more than Taiwan re-badged frames, wacky geometry and no innovation. But from reading MBUK you would think that Base bikes frames were the greatest thing since sliced bread. Funny how I now see them being sold off cheap by on-line retailers, no one wanted them!
Their product testing is very suspect too, they don't get the goods dirty but have a "scoring system" (out of 5 points). A recent Aheadset test featured about 30 products, obvious they didn't even use them, no mention anywhere of having fitted them to a bike, no photos of bikes being ridden using them. However, they gave these products scores based on what must be their all-knowing "expert" knowledge. I used to work in product development for some of mountain biking's biggest international companies, and you can't test product without getting it dirty!!
It's funny how they seem to highly rate product that is often connected to their biggest advertisers, or their friends who run small companies.
A recent handlebar test was the same, no mention of having actually ridden the products, but scores and comments. Some of the comments were so far off the mark that it was laughable, and they didn't include major brands like "Easton". They made comments about strength based on looking at the handlebars!!
Their recent tire test completely missed out on Nokian's Gazzolodi and IRC's Kujo tires, the two hottest downhill tires on the market! Sometimes they'll make a note that the products weren't available at the time of the test, and that they'll follow this next issue, this never appears so you don't get a balanced vi
ew of the market.
The main problem with their testing is that young riders are really impressionable.
These young guys read their "bible" (MBUK) and then go round waffling s**t that they have read in the mag. I meet loads of riders like this, that don't have a clue about products, and you can that they got it from MBUK as they recite the information almost verbatim.
They also waffle on about "Steve peat" this and that, how Rob Warner does this and that, etc. Loads of misinformation and bullshit. MBUK seems to promote the "pop star" side of mountain bike, not about having fun and developing yourself, but about having the "right" gear, speaking the right lingo and knowing the right people.
The bike tests are equally daft, they often contradict themselves. A recent jump bike test made little sense, again Base bikes scored well. They'll say something like "the bike had a poor component specification" and give that bike 3/5, whilst giving a more poorly specced bike 4/5 or 5/5?
Apart from the adverts, it's a waste of space. Future publishing's mission statement ramble on about "providing expert knowledge" this should be changed to "promoting self-serving interests".
Magazines have the ability to start trends as many young riders lap up the info, MBUK plays on this and often starts trends (like riser bars) to keep their mag / products /advertisers selling by appearing to be "cutting edge". like the whole dirt jumping scene, which they have wormed their way into....
I would change the name to "Mountain Bike Soap Opera UK" or "Blatant commercial mountain biking UK".
Summary:
|
Last members to rate this review:
(0 members total)
Overall rating: not yet rated
Last comment:
 |
shelley222 - 25/09/01 It is a shame that most specialist magazines are like this. Great detailed op. Shelley:) |
|
