On the occasion of our 1000th article, I think that here at AutoSpeed we need to get a lot more arrogant. More arrogant about our own abilities and what we do.
Why? Because it seems that a proportion of readers simply have no understanding of our achievements - and the expertise that has let us reach our current position.
Maybe a few facts first, then some expansion of the implications of those points.
Firstly, with over 1000 full-length articles, we are the biggest modified car website in the world.
We're the biggest in the world!
Each month we serve an incredible 1.65 million pages to 135,000 individual readers.
So, we have achieved what literally hundreds of thousands of car sites around the world have not.
Secondly, each of AutoSpeed's staff members had already carved out a successful career in other fields before coming to AutoSpeed. To put it bluntly, we were already individual high achievers before starting this venture; we have continued to be.
Thirdly, in the areas in which each AutoSpeed staff member currently operates, we are performing at a world-class level.
You realised most of that? Or, you're thinking - why bother telling us this?
Well, you could sure be forgiven for thinking some readers see AutoSpeed simply as a typical fast car website, run on a non-commercial basis by a couple of enthusiasts who are simply happy to be writing about cars on the web. (And of course, there is nothing wrong with that type of site - we delight in looking at them.) But to make comparisons between AutoSpeed and 'Bryan's Fast Nissans' site is akin to suggesting that a car club newsletter and a major national print magazine are on the same level.
But enough of the groundwork; what about the specifics? Well, all of the following are drawn from the AutoSpeed Forums, but because I am not going to trawl back through them for the original individual quotes, the quotes can be taken as indicative rather than actual.
Hell, Just Ask Me!
A month or so ago Deputy Editor Michael Knowling wrote a column about buying a Suzuki Swift GTi. A self-deprecating piece of prose, Michael recounted his story of car yard browsing, he having decided that the little 16-valve screamer met his needs.
"Well", said someone in the Forums, "He should have asked me what to go and buy and I could have told him about lots better cars!"
This statement simply made my jaw drop open.
Maybe, just maybe, this poster has written hundreds of stories on modified cars, interviewing their owners and hearing first hand about the good and bad points of all those cars in standard and modified forms. Maybe, just maybe, the poster also has a huge collection of car magazines, containing thousands of tests over which the poster pores regularly. Maybe, just maybe, the poster also visits numerous car yards and constantly browses the classifieds, keeping a very close eye on all the current used car prices. Maybe, just maybe, the poster regularly spends weekends at State libraries retrieving all the road tests written on particular makes and models so that assessment of primary performance data can be undertaken. Maybe, just maybe, the poster can - off the cuff - give the approximate performance times of every Australian-delivered car of the last 15 years. Maybe, just maybe, the poster can talk with authority on cars as diverse as the Renault Fuego, Mercedes Benz 450SEL 6.9 - and the Soarer Twin Turbo and Suzuki Alto Works. Maybe, just maybe, the poster has over the last four years visited literally dozens of the top workshops in Australia, talking to the proprietors about the good and bad points of numerous cars.
In fact, just maybe, the poster is really an expert on cars that makes the level of eclectic expertise that Michael Knowling possesses look humdrum.
Apparently the poster thinks so - but I don't think that's real bloody likely....
My Buddy, The Pissed Lawyer...
And then there was the Forum discussion about the legalities of what can and cannot be posted. Experience has shown us that we must be very careful in what we publish on the web. What Bryan's Fast Nissans can get away with - complete with that site's 200 readers a week and owner anonymity - is quite obviously not something relevant to AutoSpeed.
So we tread very carefully when it comes to editorial content that is critical of a product or service. That we still are prepared to run material which may well result in legal action is a testament to our honesty, integrity - and guts. But we're not willing to be exposed to the same risk when Forum posters make negative statements about companies or products.
To us this is a clear and unambiguous stand, made on the basis of what has previously occurred as a result of forum posts, and the expert advice that we have sought and received. Recently I placed a post in the Forums reminding readers of this policy - and was flabbergasted when some posters started arguing with the position!
"There's no problem," stated some. "Other websites are negative about products without anything happening."
Said another, "I am disappointed that you have written this."
But the best was yet to come: "When I next get pissed with my lawyer I'll ask him what he thinks..." wrote one generous reader.
For Christ's sakes!
Just how low is that person's opinion of our expertise that he thinks that we haven't already gone into the situation so thoroughly that his offer is just laughable? Does he believe that we just decided to make up that policy one morning, with little thought as to its implications - and zero legal input? Does he think that we have achieved our pre-eminent position in the modified car web publishing world by making stupid decisions?
By implication - apparently yes...
How Come We're Still Here?
Another area of our brilliance which readers are either oblivious of - or simply ignore - are the financial aspects of AutoSpeed. With 1000 articles on-line we have an editorial content conservatively valued at half a million Australian dollars. Each of those articles could have been sold to paper magazines for an average of about $500 - some for far more, others for a little less. Take into account the web bandwidth costs, costs of skilled staff time to format the articles and quality scan the images, and you can see that we are not talking about a small amount of money.
So?
Well, remember the web crash of about 12 months ago? How major commercial websites fell like flies under Mortein? How even today the major automotive sites are losing millions of dollars a week, propped up only by their association with huge media companies?
During that time of web downturn, AutoSpeed's advertising revenue took an enormous plunge - in fact some web advertising agencies simply closed up shop. But, through the same period, AutoSpeed never missed an issue, didn't have to dramatically increase subscriptions, and didn't reduce article count. And just how have we managed to do what other publishing companies simply cannot believe we can still do?
By brilliant management and simply an enormous amount of work....
Hey, just maybe we do have some idea of what we're doing - but thanks for that offer of the pissed lawyer...
Road Testing
It is our well considered position that the handling of road cars - as in, assessment for new car tests - should always be undertaken on the road. Road cars are designed to be driven on roads. Their suspension systems are optimised for the wide range of situations that occur on roads (manhole covers, narrow lanes, different numbers of people and luggage in the car, humps and bumps and corrugations and off-camber corners) and so an evaluation of their abilities should always be made in that environment.
And not on a racetrack.
And of course, that is a decision that we have made in the light of extensive talks we have had with OE and aftermarket engineers on the subject, in addition to watching - and indeed on occasion participating - in the times when these engineers do in fact use the track as part of the suspension development process.
That is not a stand developed because we have read a few car magazines, or watched some car "testing" videos, or been wowed by Nurburgring lap times being achieved solely for publicity purposes in only a tiny, tiny minority of road cars.
But, given the response of some people to that position, you'd think that it is a stupid decision made by people who know rather less about the subject than the average enthusiast - and that we're probably homicidal maniacs to boot. According to some, it is also an approach apparently way out of step with how the majority of the media tests cars.
"Testing on a public road? That won't tell you anything - and you'll be an extreme danger to everyone else!"
The implicit belief that in order to assess a cars' handling on a road requires that you go way over the edge of its abilities is both illogical and utterly misses the point. If a car can pass through a given corner, composed, stable and telegraphing its behaviour and intentions - excellent. If another car through the same corner requires throttle or steering correction, pitches and rolls - and does all of this at a slower speed, not so good. If, in normal wet driving conditions, the car is inconsistent in its behaviour and has little grip on the road - eg sliding on painted white lines - it is handling more poorly in these conditions than the car that is tenacious and consistent in its grip. The fact that a car with a suspension set-up purely for a racetrack (a location where the car will have only one occupant, where the 'road' always has the same smooth surface and always heads in a direction known to the driver) will often be appalling at night on a bumpy, wet narrow country road when there's a boot full of luggage has its obvious corollary: a good road car suspension is very frequently inappropriate for the track.
That people apparently believe that they can authoritatively pass negative judgement on this aspect of our road testing of cars when they present no evidence for ever having carried out a media new car test, for ever having talked to the engineers who actually design new car suspension systems for a living, for ever negotiating with the car companies as to what constitutes a fair test of the car that they are making available, for ever devising a consistent test process for a variety of cars as wide as Daewoo Matiz and Audi S6, for ever even considering the breadth of the audience at which the reviews are aimed - well, hell, you wouldn't actually even expect any of that, would you? Everyone's an expert!
And of course, the fact that our road tests are very frequently referenced as being exceptionally good wouldn't have any connection with our test processes or the people who carry them out, would it?
Only a Minority
I am sure that the vast majority of readers recognise that at AutoSpeed, we are achieving at a level that puts us apart from - and well above - any other modified car website in the world. The string of positive emails that we get, the ever-increasing rate at which subscriptions are being taken up and the positive discussion group references from all around the world tell me that.
And I am also sure that those same people understand the direct correlation between that success and our knowledge of cars, our abilities in writing about and photographing cars, the skills that we have in developing much of the software that allows the site to work so well, the commercial nous that sees us establishing an on-line shop rapidly becoming the envy of every other parts seller in Australia, and our managerial talents that allow us to flourish where so many others have failed.
But there are quite obviously other readers who simply have no idea. People who believe that - perhaps because we are a web-based publication - what we do is nothing special. And so, therefore, those people who make it all happen are just typical of those who can be found behind any of the tens of thousands of other modified car websites.
To those folks - you are very wrong....
|