|
Mr. Peterson:
I don't believe that BM consciously aimed to "shamelessly mislead" anyone. But that's not the point at all.
As a popular magazine with some authority on the subject, BM knows at all times that the conferring of an award or even the mere printing of a few positive sentences would automatically place that product in the limelight and provide it with some degree of credibility!
I'm sure readers would agree that with this sort of power and influence comes responsibility. For example, BM fell short on fulfilling this editorial responsibility when it made a splash on "Light is Right" -- despite the near total absence of any actual products! And in the case of BS, given its consistently rotten record, the special mention of its tents in BM could well lure unsuspecting readers to BS' website -- where they are then led to believe that by paying upfront, they can expect delivery by "late Spring"!
You wrote about sour grapes. I may be wrong, but to me, it reads like you are simply minimizing / discounting people's negative experiences with BS. Reading the posts, more than a few buyers were deceived by BS -- where a promise of 4-6 weeks delivery time morphed into a year or more! Warning off people is hardly a case of 'sour grapes'!?!
Sour grapes aside, you also wrote that: "Whether it works out for the parties involved really has little to do with the past." A company's past service record is often the best indicator of future performance -- better anyway than any marketing slogans or promises. Unless you actually KNOW of major restructuring or sourcing changes that are now in place, I think you can pretty much expect things to stay the same...
Edited by ben2world on 03/06/2007 12:51:06 MST.
|