Is it possible for Vital to be more critical of bike and component brands?

hey darkstar, fair question for sure. did something specific stand out to you as not critical? let us know, so we can help out.

Hi!

As one of the resident reviewers here on Vital I thought I should chime in. The point you raise is of course a valid observation, and at first glance it might seem as though it would be all but impossible to remain impartial when reviewing something that is presented by an advertiser. I have a few points to offer on the subject:

1. Pretty much every brand is an advertiser at some point. The reason for this is that the media industry as a whole has found itself in a position where less and less end-consumers (i.e. readers) are prepared to pay for the content. One look at declining magazine sales and titles closing down is all you need to confirm this fact. But this actually creates kind of a three-way partnership within this little bubble called mountain biking, where the brands, the media, and the end-consumers are in fact playing a mutually beneficial game (definitely a non-critical, first world problem kinda game I should add). Brands make toys that end-consumers want to learn more about and then purchase to be able to enjoy their favorite hobby. Now, within this small world where everybody depends on everybody, a clearly partial media outlet would loose its reputation and its readership pretty quickly. And, not to mention that it would have to basically give EVERY bike and product a glowing review, since pretty much everybody is an advertiser to start with. Within this confined space, it's actually not so easy to just say something is great even if it isn't. People will call you on your BS.

2. We love being critical, because it makes writing a piece more interesting that just the usual climbs-like-a-goat-descends-like-a-bat-out-of-hell drivel. However, as bikes and other products improve, the fact is that a lot of them WILL actually climb like a goat and descend like a bat out of hell. And there is an even deeper secret buried here: not every bike is the same for every rider, which means that as a reviewer, you have to try and keep an open mind and avoid sweeping generalizations and black/white propositions as much as possible. To a reader, this may sometimes seem like the reviewer is trying to tip-toe around an issue to protect a brand, but in fact, I'd argue that the reviewer has a responsibility to moderate his/her observations and feelings - especially if we are talking about press camps where you get one or two days on unfamiliar trails to form an opinion. I can give numerous examples, but the fact is that some people will like a particular bike where others will not. When those opinions are expressed on the internet (by end-consumers), they are increasingly polarizing and tend to use very dramatic language. A bike with a head tube angle that is 1 degree steeper than what you ride is now "unrideable". A 34-mm fork on the front of a bike is "an overcooked noodle" compared to a 36-mm, while "you wouldn't be caught dead riding such and such brakes" or that new bike has the "most hideous color scheme ever". If we as reviewers employed the same approach, our reviews would be a whole lot less pertinent to most riders - because in real life there are very few absolute truths and ever fewer bike designs that you can't get used to within just a few rides. Or let me put it differently: out of all the bikes (and gear) I've tested, there are very few that I would actually put at the top of my list of potentials if I were to go out and purchase them. Does that mean that all the others are sub-par and should be nuked from orbit? Not necessarily, because what is just right for me, my riding style, my trails, and my morphology might be less suitable for somebody else. I'm not saying us reviewers shouldn't have opinions, I'm saying that the grey area in between the perfect product and a complete POS is full of a lot of very good products. Burning down everything that's not a 5/5 is not a useful service.

3. Believe it or not, we reviewers take a lot of pride in our work. Pointing out flaws is part of the job description, and something we take seriously. Toning down or putting a little perspective on our conclusions as per point 2 above should not be seen as back-pedaling our opinions but rather recognition of the fact that different strokes suit different folks.

4. Putting aside the philosophizing for a bit, here at Vital we've actually taking conscious steps towards providing more clear-cut opinions in our tests and reviews over the past few years. Our series of "Face-Off" tests have scored and ranked products against each other, and let me tell you that there have been some advertisers who have been less than pleased along the road of that little journey. Our more recent Test Sessions allow readers to directly compare bikes after they've been pitted against each other at the same time at the same venue. Our product reviews always provide a "Strengths/Weaknesses" section and a "Things That Could Be Improved" section that we make sure we spend a lot of time on filling out. These are all things that we plan to continue doing and further expand as we go along.

I hope these points may have contributed to broadening your understanding of the subject at hand a little bit. It's easy to see how from a reader's point of view it can seem as though we're in bed with the brands, but the truth is that's it's more of a threesome than you would perhaps think. Keep voting with your clicks and with your cash, and welcome to the party. (don't be shy - leave your own reviews for others to consult in our Product Guide!)

I'm hesitant to reply here, as I don't want to put anyone at Vital in a tough spot, but I do want to add my $0.02. I was a former Vital test rider and former ski tester for an entirely different mag.

What may be interesting about my point of view is I never was reliant on income from Vital to do much else besides pay for a few parts or pay for part of a bike trip. The reason I think its important I mention this is it was not about the money for me, at all. If I were to parse out an hourly rate, it'd be in the single dollar an hour range, which is fair all things considered, but again - ***not about the money***

So I'll just tell you my experience, as one of the guys who is harder on gear than most (I think everyone thinks that by the way - lol)

In the case of "outside testers", guys like me, I actually think there is more separation between church and state; less of a conflict of interest. As I stated above, it isn't about the money. I also rarely dealt with the company directly. So I just went out and tried to hammer on a product, see how it shakes down, and then do my best to communicate that to the audience. Rarely did Vital change much of my copy, and in the times I broke something or it didn't stand up to my expectations, it was communicated as such.

There was one product out of 5 years of helping around here that simply sucked, it was scary/dangerous. The company actually pulled it from the market completely, and as such we didn't write about it.

All that said, the only real way to be 100% objective is to do what Consumer Reviews does. Buy the product at retail, test as such, make the consumer pay for the review. There is no doubt you look at a product different if you paid for it, if you deal with warranty the way the consumer deals, if you get an off-the-shelf variant without working directly with XYZ marketing person.

I tried hard to stay as objective as possible, but it can be hard to not be a bit charmed by the experience of a bike test, especially if the company flies you to some far off land and you ride with your heroes. Companies know what they are doing, they know a Pinkbike/Vital review probably sells more bikes than any top rung rider this side of a top 10 WC guy or top 10 EWS guy and they are willing to throw down because of this.

Still, I'm yet to see a media company with the "old media model" do as bang up of a job on reviews as Vital. Their network of testers is chalk full of ex-pros, current pros, fast dudes that love the sport more than they love their own children. Vital also is keenly aware of the fact if they lose their credibility, they lose their entire audience. They are willing to put this above advertising dollars, something I've seen first hand.

So yeah, there you go, an outsider now that used to sort of be an insider.

For what its worth, gear reviews are something I take really seriously, and still hope to do in the future though maybe in a different way. I see a lot of the shortcomings to most gear reviews out there, and I cringe to see how most people make their buying decisions based on what some guy-on-the-internet suggests (this isn't Vital specific, this is more YouTube "everyone is a gear tester" specific). After all, unlike a gadget review or car review, the pilot is such a big part of the review it can be hard to parse out whats what...

Seriously? How do they what?
Show me any review where is some exact point..
All the reviews have same conclusion - "well, product we tested is not bad and some of you riders will be happy with it" etc.. ))
Show me where it's said - Reverb is a shit! Shimano breaks leaks like noone else! ...

Here are 35 examples of very critical reviews by Vital:

https://www.vitalmtb.com/product/main?discontinued=true&page=17&scope=b…