The complete(ly biased) guide to printers

[JSR]

I haven't bought PC Pro magazine for some years when it became clear that their printer reviews were biased in favour of HP and against Epson.

On the spur of the moment, I picked up the January 2009 issue today - which includes a booklet entited "The complete guide to printers".

My suspicions were raised in the article helping us to decide between dye-based and pigmented ink. The overwhelming recommendation is "don't touch pigment with a barge pole".

This conclusion surprised me because pigment inksets are quite mature these days, so I leafed through the rest of the booklet. To my surprise, there's no sign of Epson (who must certainly be considered the champion of desktop pigment inksets). Other printer brands (HP, Canon, Xerox, Oki, Brother, etc) are all represented but no Epson. Why is Epson missing?

I decided to investigate. The booklet includes a number of full page "promotions" (that look just like all the other review pages but are really thinly-disguised adverts). All these advert pages direct you to Printerbase and their website www.printerbase.co.uk.

So I nipped across to this website, and looked for Epson printers. They don't have any listed. Their search box reveals nothing to do with Epson at all.

The back page of this booklet proudly proclaims "Do not buy another printer until you have called... (printerbase)" - and if you do, you'll be missing out on a certain portion of the market because PrinterBase don't sell Epson printers.

In short, this "complete guide to printers" is an utter sham. It should be called "the complete guide to printers sold by PrinterBase and excluding Epson because PrinterBase don't sell them" - but I guess that wouldn't fit on the front cover.

This is just the reason I stopped buying PC Pro the last time. Last time they had a printer test done by a third-party and the results favoured HP. When checking out this third-party's website, it was clear that they were a shill for HP.

I thought PC Pro might have mended their ways by now but it seems that they still get third parties involved and then purport this biased nonsense as impartial "fact" for the hapless public.

Shame on you, PC Pro.

[Ian]

Re: The complete(ly biased) guide to printers

I haven't bought PC Pro magazine for some years when it became clear that their printer reviews were biased in favour of HP and against Epson.

On the spur of the moment, I picked up the January 2009 issue today - which includes a booklet entited "The complete guide to printers".

My suspicions were raised in the article helping us to decide between dye-based and pigmented ink. The overwhelming recommendation is "don't touch pigment with a barge pole".

This conclusion surprised me because pigment inksets are quite mature these days, so I leafed through the rest of the booklet. To my surprise, there's no sign of Epson (who must certainly be considered the champion of desktop pigment inksets). Other printer brands (HP, Canon, Xerox, Oki, Brother, etc) are all represented but no Epson. Why is Epson missing?

I decided to investigate. The booklet includes a number of full page "promotions" (that look just like all the other review pages but are really thinly-disguised adverts). All these advert pages direct you to Printerbase and their website www.printerbase.co.uk.

So I nipped across to this website, and looked for Epson printers. They don't have any listed. Their search box reveals nothing to do with Epson at all.

The back page of this booklet proudly proclaims "Do not buy another printer until you have called... (printerbase)" - and if you do, you'll be missing out on a certain portion of the market because PrinterBase don't sell Epson printers.

In short, this "complete guide to printers" is an utter sham. It should be called "the complete guide to printers sold by PrinterBase and excluding Epson because PrinterBase don't sell them" - but I guess that wouldn't fit on the front cover.

This is just the reason I stopped buying PC Pro the last time. Last time they had a printer test done by a third-party and the results favoured HP. When checking out this third-party's website, it was clear that they were a shill for HP.

I thought PC Pro might have mended their ways by now but it seems that they still get third parties involved and then purport this biased nonsense as impartial "fact" for the hapless public.

Shame on you, PC Pro.

I think you raise an interesting point - I will try to get some comment from both PC Pro and Epson UK.

Ian

[JSR]

Re: The complete(ly biased) guide to printers

I think you raise an interesting point - I will try to get some comment from both PC Pro and Epson UK.

Ian

It'd be interesting to hear comments.

Purposefully excluding one of the three biggest names in the printer industry makes this "complete guide to printers" completely useless. The booklet is effectively nothing but a glorified advert.

[Barr1e]

Re: The complete(ly biased) guide to printers

Hi JST -

An interesting post.

It wouldn't wash with me as I have been an Epson convert for some time after using a few brands. The R1800 I print with is a superb printer (now superseded) and it would take a lot of arm twisting for me to change allegiance.

Regards. Barr1e

[Pops]

Re: The complete(ly biased) guide to printers

Can't say I have ever used an Epson printer but you have certainly raised some good points. Wonder if they will come clean when Ian asks for a comment.

[JSR]

Re: The complete(ly biased) guide to printers

Can't say I have ever used an Epson printer but you have certainly raised some good points. Wonder if they will come clean when Ian asks for a comment.

[Ian]

Re: The complete(ly biased) guide to printers

David Bayon, Peripherals Editor at PC Pro (who is the featured editor of the printer supplement) has kindly agreed to drop by and personally respond to the debate in this thread. I'm still waiting for a response from Epson, but I'm sure they will be in touch soon.

Ian

[Ian]

Re: The complete(ly biased) guide to printers

David Bayon, Peripherals Editor at PC Pro (who is the featured editor of the printer supplement) has kindly agreed to drop by and personally respond to the debate in this thread. I'm still waiting for a response from Epson, but I'm sure they will be in touch soon.

Ian

Spookily, within minutes of speaking to David Bayon at PC Pro, Epson's response arrived. Epson UK's spokesperson said:

Epson works with PC Pro, as it does with other publications, to provide samples for stand-alone reviews as well as group tests. We’re always keen for our products to be included in reviews but, as you know, it is the editor’s decision at the end of the day as to what is featured either in the editorial of a magazine or supplement.

It’s good to see that your contributors feel Epson deserves a mention in this guide to printers. Thanks for your support!

Ian

[Stephen]

Re: The complete(ly biased) guide to printers

Spookily, within minutes of speaking to David Bayon at PC Pro, Epson's response arrived. Epson UK's spokesperson said:





Ian

Seems like a very tactful response from Epson, who agree with what's been said in this thread. Is the implication that PCPro never asked Epson for samples to test ?

[Ian]

Re: The complete(ly biased) guide to printers

Seems like a very tactful response from Epson, who agree with what's been said in this thread. Is the implication that PCPro never asked Epson for samples to test ?

I'd rather David Bayon answer that

Ian

[davidb_pro]

PC Pro comment

Hi guys, thanks for the comments - I'm happy to come on here and give PC Pro's side of things.

The Complete Guide to Printers was in fact based mostly on our "A List" of recommended products, as well as all of our printer reviews from the last year. We only had a limited number of pages to fill with reviews, so we aimed to cover the best or most innovative printers (in our opinion) across the consumer and small business range. This limited cross-section, at that time, happened to not include any Epson printers.

We could have deliberately included an Epson printer to make sure all brands were covered, but if that meant using a 4-star printer in place of a 5-star model from another brand - well, that didn't seem particularly useful as a buying choice. We wanted to ensure people could read the guide and learn about the best printers to choose for their needs, regardless of brand.

As for the advertising comments - yes, Printerbase were the sponsors for the supplement, but in name only. They had no input as to what printers or brands were included, in fact they only received the final list once the guide had been written. The advertorial pages in the guide are totally unrelated to PC Pro's reviews.

I hope that reassures any readers who may feel short-changed by the guide. The issue may simply be that we haven't covered any high-end printers for photography recently so couldn't include any in the guide (we are PC Pro after all, not DPNow) in which case your comments suggest Epson may have had some success.

Any other questions please ask and I'll try to keep my eye on the thread.

Regards
David Bayon
Peripherals Editor, PC Pro

[jojo]

Re: PC Pro comment

I hadn't seen this thread until now, but I would like to say "fair play" to David for coming on and giving his account on the matter

jo

[Ian]

[JSR]

Re: The complete(ly biased) guide to printers

Thank-you to David and to the Epson spokesperson for replying to this issue.

Reading the replies, it does seem that it was a total coincidence that this "complete guide" happened to be sponsored by a company that doesn't sell the only major brand of printer that isn't included in the booklet.

I guess situations like this can occur. It is my hope that future "printer guides" and printer comparisons will be able to include all major brands for a fairer cross-section - even if the inclusion is to criticise a printer for its shortcomings. After all, in the interests of guidance and for completeness, explaining why a printer doesn't make the grade is at least as important as listing those that do.

Thank-you again to David for taking the time out to reply to my concerns.