Controversies, comparisons & lots of cars

Let’s say you’re working for a car manufacturer. One of your marketing objectives is to try to get as much media mileage as possible in order to spread the word about the car(s) you’re selling. Then along comes an upstart publishing firm with plans to come out with a car magazine that, yes, will feature your car. The catch? They will test it. We’re talking instrumented tests here, buddy, using devices and procedures as ambitiously stringent as leading foreign car publications’. They’re gonna say the good and the bad about it. And, uh oh, they might compare and rank it relative to your competitors’ products – an initiative done in foreign publications, but never yet in this country’s small industry.

From the reader’s perspective, this can be a good thing. It’s a chance to weigh the pros and cons of a particular car you’re thinking of buying in contrast to the other cars in the market... if he can be assured that the tests and judging parameters are uniform, the editor-judges unbiased.

From the manufacturer’s perspective, it’s also a chance to get great mileage if the car tops the rankings. Of course, it’s also a big risk. What if your car "fails" for all the C! readership (and their friends) to know about? How badly might this affect your sales?

It’s in this sort of atmosphere that Kenneth Quintal, editor in chief of C! Magazine set out to do the great challenge. President of a design firm and with a strong enthusiasm for cars, but with little experience in the media, he had to form a team of people that would produce a great-looking car enthusiasts’ magazine, one with the patience and guts to take the time in doing instrumented tests and declaring which cars are good, which ones not so good. C! says it’s your money these manufacturers are asking you to shell out for their product, and you deserve to know what you’re getting in the transaction.

And so readers who manage to get a copy of the magazine’s first issue will find a comparison test for 1.6 liter, four dour sedans. Instrumented, tested, evaluated, judged. Whether you agree or disagree with the results of that test, C! puts its balls to the wall for readers, manufacturers, and potential advertisers to read and possibly get miffed about in case the results aren’t to their liking.

Of course, the comparo isn’t the only story of interest in C!’s first issue. The cover story is of a Porsche 911 Turbo. There’s a back-to-back comparison of a Volvo S60 and a T5. A test drive of a Jaguar X-Type, as well as an interview with Jaguar’s Chief Engineer Phil Muldoon. Yet these are all high-end cars, beautiful machines with little relevance beyond being eye candy and possibly fulfilling the academic interest of ordinary, middle class consumers with substantially lower budgets. The real meat is in these reviews and comparison tests of ordinary vehicles because these are what potential car-buyers may base their purchasing decision on.

To be sure, C! strives to be the best in the business. Their benchmarks for quality and substance are Car and Driver, Road and Track, Evo, and Performance Car – all top flight magazines well known for no-apologies test drives and meticulous testing procedures. Says James Deakin, C!’s managing editor, "We would like to be the authority in the industry... basically that if [something] came from C!, then it’s official. If we have our "Car of the Year" event — that’s what we’re hoping — we’ll have every manufacturer waiting and hoping that their car will be chosen."

Launched just last Jan. 29, C! impressed the invited media, manufacturers and other guests with an impressive display of automotive excellence. A BMW M5, a Ferrari 355, and a Bentley were just some of the cars loaned by their manufacturers or owners. As for the magazine itself, most found its layout, print quality, and story lineup impressive. "Not bad for a first issue," notes REV Magazine editor Vernon Sarne, a sentiment expressed by many other media and manufacturers alike.

But there’s that little issue of the comparison tests again. One industry source points out that — C!’s good intentions aside – all in the magazine’s "elite" team of road testers have yet to establish their credibility and authority in declaring this car better than that car, that car worse than this car. Aside from editors Michelle Pritchard, Angelo Barretto, and Kookie Ramirez – all of which have racetrack and some media experience – no one else on the C! editorial team has the reputation to back up their conclusions. What they do have is enthusiasm and knowledge. All the editors have been hotly involved with cars for a long time, and are genuinely happy to finally have an outlet for their enthusiasms.

One media source couldn’t see the logic in their ranking system, either. One car finished low in the performance and features categories, yet ranked high in the "quality and value" section. While this happened, another car that finished high in the first two categories ranked low in the last. "What gives?" an observer asked. "Shouldn’t the first two categories figure prominently in the evaluations for the last?"

While they’re at it, the observer wondered how simply being technically proficient in things automotive gives the C! staff the credibility and privilege of declaring winners and losers, and therefore, possibly calling themselves as self-appointed experts. Being in the media is a responsibility, the observer said, so be careful with what you communicate to your readers, especially being newbies in the business.

Though C! may lack experience and clout, it does have commitment. Some in the industry felt that C! came on a bit too strong or ambitious when it came to explaining to manufacturers what they were about in order to borrow some test units. "There’s nothing wrong with being ambitious. You have to muster enough courage to go into this industry. Admittedly, we’re not experienced as media people. I’d be the first to admit it," says Kenneth Quintal.

"Most of us here are not from media, but we are ambitious because we are passionate about cars. We saw a need to try and do something different not because of what’s available out there, but more because of our passion for more information as consumers. Admittedly, we came on a bit strong, but it was not without commitment. When we say we’ll get hold of a car, we’ll do it. Our loyalty is to the reader and no one else."

True enough, C! was able to gather all the cars needed for their first issue. Their policy is that if a manufacturer can’t loan them a unit, then they’ll try to borrow one from a dealer. If that doesn’t work, then they’ll look for a private owner willing enough to loan C! his car and subject it to their tests.

Manufacturers we talked to thought this was fair. One did, however, express concern that C! at least note where they procure test units sourced from other than the manufacturer, if only to point out that whatever results come out aren’t representative of the brand and product being reviewed due to dealer/owner variables.

However, yet another industry source is honestly pragmatic about C! and its fearless policy. C!, he points out, is a niche magazine with a limited readership. If he feels that future test results are debatable (but which C! would stand by with anyway), then there’s little reason for his company and its already limited, post-Sept. 11 marketing budget to support the magazine. The industry as a whole, he says, may not yet be ready for what C! would like to prove to itself, to its competitors, to the manufacturers, and to its target audience.

If anything else, C! still has plenty of miles to cover. Kenneth says that the 3rd issue is the one to watch out for in terms of editorial substance and print quality. Aside from more comprehensive test data, they’re also planning to feature 4x4s, motorbikes, and more in-depth stories. And in a business where advertising makes up a big part of a magazine’s revenue, it’s also an unsaid hope that there’ll be enough advertisers to financially support C! in the long run.

"If the manufacturer doesn’t want to advertise with us, fine. I’d rather fail knowing that I did my best, that I have a product I’m proud to hold and hand out to people than to come out with a product that may succeed market-wise but is something I won’t be proud of," says Kenneth. "If we don’t make it by the third issue, I’ll know that we gave it a good shot, but I’m hoping that we’ll win the readers’ hearts."