Aquarium Magazines and Product Comparisons

MedRed

Active member
Why do aquarium magazines not perform relevant product comparisons? Car magazines pit minivans against each other. PC magazines put up the latest processors and GPUs. I have to wonder if they are afraid of losing advertising dollars from unfavorable reviews.

Why not put the accuracy of test kits against each other? How about the effectiveness of chemipure vs regular activated carbon? Par values of different lighting fixtures? Noise levels in decibels of various pumps, heat output, as well as their true gph? The effectiveness of Bio Spira vs Superbac vs Microbacter7? The true concentrations of the various magnesium, strontium, etc. additives? Actual flow rates for powerheads? Salt roundups?

This list goes on and on. These would be the things that would make Aquarium publications relevant. If I'm ranting? I apologize. Maybe these things are out there, and I just miss them. There are so many claims in this hobby that aren't backed up. It'd be nice if our publications worked hard to not only review products... but to compare them.
 
I guess the fact no one has posted means that no one cares... which is why we continue to speculate instead of substantiate in this hobby.
 
as you mentioned and i am just repeating...

i think you make a valid point but would not a magazine be possibly alienating a good chunk
of the possible clients (advertising) by ranking their products low compared to others who
never advertise with them and have superior products?

Take T5 lighting systems. We all know ATI would rank high but I do not recall ever seeing
them advertise in the magazines i get for free at the LFS. I do see other brands advertise
and consider their stuff to be mid range.

Why would a magazine want to rank them #5 and risk losing their business is kind of obvious....

it is forums like this one where those kind of facts can come out... i think the market for
reef magazines is so small that the creators of it have to walk a fine line... sure they could
give info like you want but they could also be out of business in a year doing it.

also, individuals also do not want to do it because of the cost.. i would love to buy 7 different
kinds of Ca test kits and show my results but that is a 200+ dollar experiment with no chance
of ever recouping my costs.. unless i created a website with advertising to get some pennies back.
And test kits are the one thing that a person could swing i bet. Imagine trying to rank several LED
lighting systems and paying for it.
 
Last edited:
Consumers can make such product comparisons via forum product reviews. Publications don't want to risk losing any potential advertising money, as alluded to. Plus, to make scientifically objective reviews would require certain methodology, ethics/disclosures, and lots of time.
 
Consumers can make such product comparisons via forum product reviews. Publications don't want to risk losing any potential advertising money, as alluded to. Plus, to make scientifically objective reviews would require certain methodology, ethics/disclosures, and lots of time.

Ken Feldman has a series of articles in Advanced Aquarist (possibly others) about skimmers, but it is more of a study on the effectiveness of skimmers in general. All the skimmers tested were relatively close in performance. I think part of the problem is time and money in order to do this research, as well as what you mentioned about methods, ethics...
 
Consumers can make such product comparisons via forum product reviews. Publications don't want to risk losing any potential advertising money, as alluded to. Plus, to make scientifically objective reviews would require certain methodology, ethics/disclosures, and lots of time.

plenty of other industries do this. It doesn't seem like the major magazines even attempt to. I think its a disservice to the hobby to not play a role in separating the real from the junk. There's a lot of snake oil sold in reefing.
 
It would be great if academia (marine biology, for example) got involved somehow. With federal or non-sponsored funding, researchers can be more objective and more scientific with controlled testing methods and comparative reviews. Publications and critical peer review would help to drive the aquarium industry to improve product labeling, be more mindful of marketing and making certain claims, and create a more competitive marketplace for the consumer.
 
It would be great if academia (marine biology, for example) got involved somehow. With federal or non-sponsored funding, researchers can be more objective and more scientific with controlled testing methods and comparative reviews. Publications and critical peer review would help to drive the aquarium industry to improve product labeling, be more mindful of marketing and making certain claims, and create a more competitive marketplace for the consumer.


It seems like biology students and the like would be an endless and free resource to accomplish such evaluating.
 
Last edited:
Ken Feldman has a series of articles in Advanced Aquarist (possibly others) about skimmers, but it is more of a study on the effectiveness of skimmers in general. All the skimmers tested were relatively close in performance. I think part of the problem is time and money in order to do this research, as well as what you mentioned about methods, ethics...

Both Dr Feldman and Dr Joshi have done work in this area, and both are at Penn State :D Sanjay has done a ton of bulb work and all the data is there for readers to digest. Ken did a great skimmer right up, but it was limited in brands used.

The online mags are typically a better place to look for in terms of product reviews and comparisons.
 
Back
Top