An interesting read this post.
Maybe I'm looking at this through rose coloured glasses and expecting too much of people but....
I would hope, as others have mentioned that if a manufacturer took away a camper for review, and there were issues with one aspect or another that the manufacturer would be given the chance to comment on said issues before it went to print. If this dialogue occured it would
1. be constructive feedback rather than just a potentially negative review
2. allow the manufacturer to commit to rectifying an issue they might not have been aware of
3. allow the manufacturer to comment on a review of a product that may be outside the intended design as they saw it eg i have seen reviews of on-road campers where they have commented badly on chassis strength , suspension type, draw bar length, space, layout or dust sealing ability. there was nothing wrong with the trailer for it's intended blacktop purpose, but obviously didnt live up to the reviewers expectations on what they thought a trailer should have.
4. allow the magazine to comment on the manufacturers response, or lack there of.
As for the commants about articles on campers that are way above or below budget, i dont mind as long as there is a good mix . I already have a camper, and one i am happy with as i expect a good percentage who buy these mags do. I look at reviews as an opportunity to see what the manufacturers are including for idea's to retrofit to mine, be they small simple idea's ( and i like the CTA "why didnt i think of that" page for owner gadgets and fixes to issues ) or big $$$ items. When it was upgrade time for us we looked through the mag's at campers both cleap and expensive, to get ideas for what our options list should be for when we made our purchase.
Sorry, this turned into a mid aftrnoon post lunch ramble...
Dale
