The Offshore Voyaging Reference Site

Beware Marine Equipment Awards


In the last year or so I have evaluated a couple of pieces of marine equipment that have received industry awards. You know the ones: DAME, Pitmann, and Husick.

And while I find these awards useful as a way to learn about new gear, I’m often shocked…nay, appalled…OK, shocked and appalled by the breathless hyperbole about gear that is unproven and/or has significant negatives, at least for many of us. I’m not saying this is necessarily bad gear, but nothing is as perfect as these awards imply.

The worst example was an award given to the CrewWatcher, the text of which went on for several breathless paragraphs about how wonderful the unit was without ever pointing out that it relied on the consumer electronics Bluetooth protocol, with so short a range that it’s basically useless as a crew recovery beacon.

At the very least, anyone writing about the CrewWatcher should point out that there is far better crew overboard recovery technology available in the form of AIS beacons, which have a range of one to two miles, using robust commercial grade transmitter and receiver technology, not a smartphone.

And, in the last few months, multiple awards have been given to Nigel Calder’s new generator replacement machine called Integrel, without any attempt to highlight possible reliability issues, or its value for money for various segments of the boating community.

In one case we are dealing with a safety of life issue and, in the other, a lot of money. Surely marine journalists owe readers a better effort at highlighting drawbacks (even just potential ones), rather than just writing breathless fan-boy awards.

Be Careful

Anyway, I strongly caution against putting much weight in these awards when deciding how to keep you and your loved ones safe, or where to spend your hard-earned bucks, euros, or whatever your currency is.

No Malice

One more thought. The interesting thing about this is that I have deep respect for most of the people who sit on these award panels. They are not fools, and I’m sure they mean well.

I guess it’s just a function of a system where most of the panelists don’t get paid—I was asked to sit on one of them, so this I know—so they really can’t put a lot of time into a thorough evaluation.  And the underlying organizations are advertising-based, meaning that mentioning drawbacks is contrary to their business interests.

By the way, there is a shining exception to this sorry state of affairs: When Practical Sailor magazine gives a piece of gear an award, I think I’m right in saying, it’s always after they have published a detailed evaluation, including both the benefits and the drawbacks.

Not a Hint

Of course, all that sounds like I’m coyly hinting that marine journalism that’s not advertising based (AAC and Practical Sailor) is intrinsically better. So let me be clear. I’m not hinting…that’s exactly what I’m saying.

Further Reading

And yes, you need to join us (US$2/Month) to read these. Why would you not spend that tiny amount? One of our reports deals with safety of life and the other with a machine that will cost you between US$15,000 and US$50,000, depending on configuration.

Comments

Please stay on topic. If you wish to discuss the CrewWatcher, or Nigel’s new machine, please do so on the above linked chapters, not here.

Disclosure

I pay the same subscription for Practical Sailor as anyone else would. Darrell Nicholson, the editor, used to edit Phyllis and me over at Cruising World, back in the day when the world was young and so were we. And I have huge respect for Drew Frye (who seems to be writing about 80% of PS these days) because of all the good common sense he shares in the comments here at AAC.

We currently have four corporate members, who between them contribute about 5% of our gross revenue.

31 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dick Stevenson

Hi John,
I have long written that I consider marine journalists as choosing to drop the ball when it comes to protecting readers/sailors’ interests and this interest includes both their monetary interests, but, more distressingly, their safety interests: as you so nicely point out. Furthermore, I see this as an abdication of responsibility: more morally and ethically compromised than merely a business decision. I say “chooses” as these writers/publishers are smart men and women who, to my mind, can see the bigger picture and choose not to ruffle the feathers of those who control the money. I would also include in this criticism many brokers, surveyors, boatyards and manufacturers.
I would suggest that, in the long run, that such choices will undermine the vitality of our sport. Boating is an optional expense, a recreation. And those that bump unexpectantly into problems, especially problems that need not be bumped into; that they should have been warned about: will take their interests and money elsewhere.
I would suggest one more publication that is in the “admirable” realm. It is “Professional BoatBuilder”. Certainly, many of its articles are above my pay grade (I am, for sure, not a professional boat builder), but I always find articles informative and of interest and I think the attitude of the publication is admirable as well. (Some of its authors overlap with Practical Sailor.)
My best, Dick Stevenson, s/v Alchemy

Dick Stevenson

Hi John,
To me, what is not fair, is for journalists to be put in the spot they are placed in by their publications, by their advertisers and by other contributing pressures. Their organizations should support them to do good marine reporting. And they do not: quite the contrary, they are put between a rock and a hard place and then hung out to dry.
That said, I am not sure I am being too hard on the journalist part of the system. For me, it is too easy (and too broadly unfocused) to describe the problem as a system failure, although, of course you are absolutely correct: it just leaves you with nowhere to go. And to contend that the fault lies with a complacent readership, poorly educated and unwilling to pay more for quality reporting also does not sit right with me. Where do they turn to do their due diligence? I believe a sizable portion of the marine reading public is not aware of what they are missing and I am not sure it is their fault.
It may be, likely is, a bit too idealistic, but to my mind journalists should be thinking of themselves as answering to a higher calling (in addition to their other responsibilities): a juggling act to be sure, but not impossible. The publisher may be committed to the bottom line, the advertiser to selling the product etc. but the journalist is the one who ought to keep his/her eye on the readership and keep their interests in sight.
My focus on the journalists is because, for the reading public, (and accurate or not) they are seen as the responsible party and they are the ones who gather (or lose) trust along the way. But, I am clear, they are not alone: they have the same dilemma/choices as the other marine professionals (also responsible to the public) who I see as often dropping the ball: surveyors, brokers, boatyards etc. and who often participate in not treating their public in good faith.
My best, Dick Stevenson, s/v Alchemy

Dick Stevenson

Hi John,
You may be correct in your analysis, but I think it is a shame to settle for journalists being a shill for the overall system and to not ask more of them, (and of surveyors, brokers, etc.): those who, to my mind, have some responsibility to the reader/buyer.
And it would be quite wonderful if there was a way to help he real expertise out there: (and it certainly exists), to emerge, find a way to be recognized, and be much better compensated for sharing that expertise.
My best, Dick

Steven D'Antonio

John:

You’ve hit the nail on the proverbial head and my only gripe is I didn’t think of writing this editorial, just kidding, well, maybe not.

Having been immersed in the world of marine journalism for nearly 30 years, I can tell you the dark underbelly of this segment of the industry is very dim indeed.

While there are a handful of exceptions, fewer and fewer it seems, most magazines and websites that take advertising simply will not criticize a manufacturer, boat, gear or otherwise. In the business we call what they write “advertorial”, and it’s getting worse as the publishers of some magazines openly boast about “publisher/advertiser partnerships”, and the symbiosis it affords all parties (except the reader).

I too have been asked to sit on some of those awards committees, pro bono of course, and as you say, there’s no way one can carry out a thorough review of the product much beyond reading the claims of their manufacturers. Knowing this, as I walk the awards halls at IBEX and METS, and scrutinize the recipients, I do so with a very jaundiced eye indeed. Some are legit, others not so much.

If you think equipment awards are bad, don’t get me started on boat reviews, the editor of almost (I can think of two exceptions) every magazine for whom I’ve written boat reviews trembled at the thought of even remotely criticizing a boat builder who advertised with the magazine. The irony was, the reviews I wrote (many are now available on my website) always, always included constructive criticism, and in virtually every case those builders ultimately embraced them, and bought reprints to distribute, because they were deemed legitimate, readers actually took them seriously. The fact is, very few marine “journalists” today are skilled and confident enough to critique boats or products, and stand behind what they say. The fact that magazines don’t pay journalists enough, thereby not attracting the best and the brightest, plays into this equation. Some magazines have resorted to letting readers write these reviews (they can be paid next to nothing). This is a recipe for disaster, as few lay persons have the necessary at sea experience, technical boat building knowledge and editorial skills to accomplish this feat. As a result they play it safe, it turns into a contest to see how many ways the author can say, “beautiful”, “finely-crafted’, “precision”, “stable” and “magnificent”.

You are right, AAC and PS are noteworthy exceptions. If I can be afforded a small boast, my site contains hundreds of articles, and I take no advertising, I cover subjects as I see fit, and occasionally make enemies along the way; it’s a badge of honor I wear proudly.

Steven D'Antonio

Thanks John. I have had countless readers of conventional boating mags say the same thing, other than the pictures, boat reviews are of little or not value. A fellow journalist once said to me, “we’ve been instructed by our publisher to remember that the information we provide is more entertainment than absolute fact” ‘Nuff said.

Oliver Schonrock

Hi John

Very important general point, and not just for “marine”:

“Of course, all that sounds like I’m coyly hinting that marine journalism that’s not advertising based (AAC and Practical Sailor) is intrinsically better. So let me be clear. I’m not hinting…that’s exactly what I’m saying.”

Agree 100%. It’s sort of obvious, but many people fall victim. Exactly why I don’t mind paying a small amount for sites like this.

Well done for saying so, and keep up the good work.

Oliver

richard stanard

here is hoping ur excellent article here will make a positive difference in the subj industry journalism, but i am not holding my breath waiting for this to occur ?

Peter Chandler

John, I appreciate your comments and take them to heart. It occurs to me to mention another excellent source of how-to advice and criticism that your readers may find useful. I commend Rod Collins’ (relatively) new website: (https://marinehowto.com/about/).

Dave Lochner

Peter beat me to it, recommending RC’s site.

RC generously gives of his time and knowledge to DIY boats. Much of what I’ve learned about boat systems comes from his website and online conversations. He ranks right up there with Steven D’Antonio, ACC, and PS/Drew Frye.