Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

PC World Editor Returns, CEO Demoted

Posted by Zonk on from the nice-guys-don't-have-to-finish-last dept.

k1980pc writes "In a nice twist to the recent discussion on Slashdot, PC World editor Harry McCracken has returned to the magazine. In turn, Colin Crawford has been removed as PC World's CEO, where 'he will be responsible for driving IDG's online strategy and initiatives in support of our web-centric business focus' ... safely out of the way of the magazine editors. McCracken was pleased to return to his position: 'I'm thrilled to be back with the PC World team. IDG is a company I've loved working for over the past 16 years, and one with a remarkable history of enabling editors to serve our customers--the millions of people who depend on our content online and in print.'"

118 comments

  1. yuupp... by Mockylock · · Score: 5, Funny

    With a name like "McCracken" you can't go wrong.

    --
    "Please, shut up. Just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you speak again." -Archie Bunker.
    1. Re:yuupp... by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 1

      With a name like "McCracken" you can't go wrong. At least his parents knew better than to name him Phil.
      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
    2. Re:yuupp... by PhilipMckrack · · Score: 5, Funny

      What's wrong with Phil?

    3. Re:yuupp... by Punko · · Score: 1

      Harry is better than Phil, anyway.

      --
      If only we could fall into a woman's arms without falling into her hands
    4. Re:yuupp... by clickclickdrone · · Score: 1

      >At least his parents knew better than to name him Phil.
      Although his two best friends who hail from Scotland, Ben Doon and Phil McCavity are less that amused.

      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    5. Re:yuupp... by EvilMonkeySlayer · · Score: 1

      Or Zak.

    6. Re:yuupp... by macdaddy357 · · Score: 1

      No they didn't. His little brother's name is Phil.

      --
      How ya like dat?
    7. Re:yuupp... by Pad-Lok · · Score: 1

      Now the real mindbender is what ever happened to Zak?

      --

      -- Sauer
    8. Re:yuupp... by apostrophesemicolon · · Score: 1

      because I wouldn't want to Phil his Harry McCracken.. maybe you, but I don't swing that way..

    9. Re:yuupp... by lbbros · · Score: 1

      But it would be better if it was Zack. And with the "Alien Mindbenders" as well.

      (I wonder how many will get this...)

      --
      A CC-licensed illustrated horror novel
    10. Re:yuupp... by twistedsymphony · · Score: 1

      I heard he lost his booklet and got put in "Pirate Jail".

      --
      Collector's Edition
    11. Re:yuupp... by dreddnott · · Score: 1

      At least two posters above you got it, and spelled his name right to boot.

      --
      I may make you feel, but I can't make you think.
    12. Re:yuupp... by splutty · · Score: 1

      Or a lot worse: Zack ;)

      Sushi in fishbowl.

      --
      Coz eternity my friend, is a long *ing time.
  2. I wonder ... by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

    ... if they'll run the ad for the new Editor in the classifieds in the back and if the other advertisers back there will complain about it forcing another resignation?

  3. and the obvious question is... by DriveDog · · Score: 5, Insightful

    why wasn't Crawford removed from IDG's employ, period?

    1. Re:and the obvious question is... by Volante3192 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Cause he probably has one sickening golden parachute...like every other CEO at a big company. (Home Depot anyone?) Cheaper to throw him in a closet than fire him I wager.

    2. Re:and the obvious question is... by badasscat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      why wasn't Crawford removed from IDG's employ, period?

      So your argument is that experienced, generally skilled employees should be fired after their first mistake?

      Glad you're not a boss at my company... you'd be boss of an empty building pretty quick.

    3. Re:and the obvious question is... by prelelat · · Score: 1

      probably because having a disagreement with an employee doesn't constitute firing him. Its not like the CEO told McCracken to shove off, he told him to be nicer to the advertisers. This is still a buisness and though we might not like it as well as McCracken you have to see where the CEO is coming from. He sees the advertisers as what is keeping the magazine aflot without their money subscriptions would have to go up and you would loose readership because of cost increases. Lets face it as an advertiser I don't want to be putting my ad beside a colume that just said my product was sub par.

      How we see it(or at least how I see it). We look at the magazine looking for objective material. End of story. Most of use could care less about advertising unless its some new product we haven't hear of before. Usually if its a new product it will be talked about in depth in the magazine.

      Did he do something wrong he pissed off the wrong guy, he rightfully didn't take his crap, cause a PR problem and it was fixed.

    4. Re:and the obvious question is... by sqlrob · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If the first mistake was to destroy the company's reputation or do something take down every server, damn straight I'd expect an employee to be fired.

    5. Re:and the obvious question is... by queenb**ch · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have to second this. It's not about removing someone for "making a mistake." It's about recognizing unscrupulous and unethical behavior and removing that type of person from a position of power and influence in your organization. Keeping him in an equally important and probably well paid spot sends a dangerous message to the rest of the staff at IDG. "You can sell out all you want. If you get busted the only thing you'll get is a new job title."

      I don't know about you, but I were running what I wanted to be a well respected publication, he'd have been gone so quick he'd have left a hole in the air in his office. Not just tastefully reassigned to another place with out any real punishment for his actions.

      2 cents,

      Queen B.

      --
      HDGary secures my bank :/
    6. Re:and the obvious question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So your argument is that experienced, generally skilled employees should be fired after their first mistake?

      you made a mistake, we are not talking about a Engineer, seasoned Editor or other valuable employee. We are talking about a CEO. Executive staff are there as the face and fall guys. they are very rarely there for anythign else and typicalyl are there only because they know someone.

      the era of corperation executives that are worth a damn is way long gone. Look at Steve Ballmer, he's a waste of space.

    7. Re:and the obvious question is... by isdnip · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not clear what role he will really have. These "strategic" positions may be important, or they may be what we used to call "special projects". That was the term used at a certain large company I once worked for... when a manager was relieved of his duty. These senior-level guys don't get fired. It never happens. Their "special project" typically means being quietly invited to find a new job elsewhere.

    8. Re:and the obvious question is... by Timesprout · · Score: 1

      Glad you're not a boss at my company... you'd be boss of an empty building pretty quick.
      badasscat what are you still doing here? Didn't I fire you for not remembering my name shortly after I took over your dept? Anyway you are definitely fired now for daring to criticize a brilliant management strategy on Slashdot. And you're the last one so turn the lights off on your way out.
      --
      Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
      What truth?
      There is no dupe
    9. Re:and the obvious question is... by davido42 · · Score: 0

      This is a huge question in management in general. Do you stick with your "peeps" or do you clean house? If there is still a good working relationship in the company, keeping him in the company can be a great move. If your company will back you up even if/when you screw up, you will be willing to take risks. If the axe always hangs over your head, you may want to do the "safe" thing, which may work out OK in the short run, but generally means the company is headed for mediocracy.

      http://www.bitworksmusic.com/

      --

      BitWorksMusic.com -- odd tunes for odd times

    10. Re:and the obvious question is... by SadGeekHermit · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Harsh, man...

      First of all, the guy tried to do something mildly shady with the intent of increasing ad revenue (which would have been good for the magazine's bottom line, and in line with his duty as CEO). My understanding is, he asked the editor to take it easy on favored advertisers. As sins go in this day and age, that's pretty mild. If you want to see something REALLY nasty, look at Enron or Halliburton. So the guy's not evil, and he tried to help out his magazine, which is his job.

      Second, he was probably reacting to orders from his board of directors, so you can hardly blame them for not beating the guy up over it! They probably felt that he did his best to carry out their will, and it didn't work out. No harm, no foul. Shift him somewhere else in the company and defuse the situation, problem solved.

      Third, really, what's the big deal anyway? He asked McCraken to suck up to some advertisers, McCracken said no, the whole world beat him up online in forums like this, and the magazine transferred him and re-hired McCracken without ever actually going soft on its advertisers. No harm has been done, nobody has been lied to, really, NOTHING has HAPPENED. They tried it, it didn't work out.

      I think it's kind of a non-issue.

      --
      NO CARRIER
    11. Re:and the obvious question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe that's why you're only talking hypothetically about running a well respected publication rather than actually doing so. Talk is cheap. Apparently 2 cents cheap in your case.

    12. Re:and the obvious question is... by horo · · Score: 1

      And how long were you at GE? :)

    13. Re:and the obvious question is... by Asic+Eng · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Third, really, what's the big deal anyway?

      The big deal is, that US society is now so morally bankrupt that we don't even worry about blatant unethical behaviour anymore. As long as lying and cheating results in someone profiting from it, it's not just fine and dandy - it's all but required! So if you ever take a job in which you somehow have to interact with the public you'd better get used to lying, cause if someone tries to force you into unethical behaviour, the public will be on his side. If something mildly inconvenient happens to him because he's found out - well then the public will feel sorry for him.

    14. Re:and the obvious question is... by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      The CEO was just doing his job and there is nothing unethical about it. I would have done the same if I were him.

      His job was to bring in the most amount of money possible to his company from his customers. The customers are his advertisers. Most consumers like me have not read a pc magazine in many years thanks to slashdot and the internet because they are all biased.

      The village voice and other alternative magazines that are free for many metros that were owned by the Village Voice brand had a similiar situation. They fired 1/4 of their staff for being too harsh on their advertisers and hired more friendly music critic writters to increase revenue. Its just business as usual and another example is the TV industry. How many headline news stories do you hear bashing an advertiser? None.

      --
      http://saveie6.com/
    15. Re:and the obvious question is... by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He is a CEO he gets the big bucks so mistakes are not tolerated.
      Besides he made more than one mistake.
      1. To suggest slanting reviews to favor advertisers.
      2. Not listening to his editors when they said that was a mistake.
      3. To not back down when an editor said he was going to resign if the policy was not changed.
      4. Not seeing the backlash if the reason for the editor resigning was made public.
      5. Not understanding about this thing called the Internet and blogs. If he had then he would know that it would be made public.
      6. Not finding a way to cover it all up and make nice with the editor.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    16. Re:and the obvious question is... by PCM2 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Colin Crawford no longer has a position directly overseeing the PC World/Macworld group. It's not a matter of a "golden parachute"; he has been moved into an executive role at IDG, the parent company of those publications -- which is where he came from in the first place.

      To explain, IDG is a very large publishing company with properties and subsidiaries all around the world. It also remains privately held, something which is often touted as an advantage, given how turbulent publishing can sometimes be. The philosophy of Pat McGovern, the founder of IDG, is to take a very decentralized approach. Each publication is its own business unit, under the larger umbrella of IDG. So when I worked at InfoWorld, for example, we had our own CEO and our own vice presidents (a ridiculous number of them, in fact) -- all of whom were ultimately responsible to the Big Execs at IDG, but whom were given a certain amount of autonomy to run the business as they saw fit. IDG requires that all business units report on their financials, obviously, and they all have to explain how they plan to meet various proscribed fiscal goals for each year/quarter. If the plan doesn't add up, IDG will recommend adjustments. But, pretty much, the IDG model recognizes that the market for each content topic is going to be different and its various business units need to have flexible enough models that they can succeed in their chosen niches. The only disadvantage of this model is that IDG business units sometimes can't collaborate with each other as well as they might wish to -- they don't really share resources, so they're often reluctant to invest in something that will benefit other books as much as their own.

      So, that said, Colin Crawford is no longer CEO of a business unit at IDG, but he remains an executive in the IDG umbrella organization. I understand his new title is executive vice president of online. Prior to becoming CEO of PC World/Macworld, I believe his title was senior vice president of online. So it sounds like he's kind of been given his old job back, with a little perfunctory upgrade in title.

      I say good riddance. The guy sounds like a real creep. But, to be charitable, firing him probably wouldn't be the right thing to do. In a position at IDG, he no longer has any direct influence over any IDG business units. He's not sitting next to anybody's editorial. And there's evidence to suggest that he really does understand the publishing business. For example, Crawford was the architect behind the cross-company merger of Macworld and MacUser ten years ago -- and though you might have preferred one or another before the merger, it probably saved both of them at a time when the Mac market wasn't quite as hot as it is now.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    17. Re:and the obvious question is... by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hell yes. If someone's paid X times what a grunt worker is he damn well ought to be X times as good. If a big salary isn't justified by big responsibility, what is it justified by - nice hair?

      --
      Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
    18. Re:and the obvious question is... by edittard · · Score: 1, Funny

      buisness ... you would loose readership ... colume ... we haven't hear of
      As you've demonstrated beyond doubt that you're a professional journalist I'll bow to your superior knowledge of the subject.
      --
      At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
    19. Re:and the obvious question is... by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 2, Insightful

      His job was to bring in the most amount of money possible to his company from his customers.
      For the benefit of a poor oik what clearly don't have a top-notch MBA like what you has, can you explain how driving the readership down by destroying the mag's credibility achieves that goal?

      The customers are his advertisers.
      The readers aren't? Even accepting your assertion, aren't advertising rates roughly proportional to the circulation/readership?
      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    20. Re:and the obvious question is... by m0rph3us0 · · Score: 1

      It's not unethical behavior. The advertisers pay for the magazine just as much as you do. (Actually, they pay for it much more than you do). The magazine must balance the decreased value to readers against the increased value to advertisers in order to maximize profit. There are magazines that are purely reader funded and thus do not have multiple sources of income to balance between.

    21. Re:and the obvious question is... by ISoldat53 · · Score: 1

      In the services it was "Housing"

    22. Re:and the obvious question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and why aren't people mentioning that Crawford is Steve Jobs's bitch? The original dispute was over an article about Apple. When Crawford worked at MacWorld, Jobs would call him up any time he had a problem with a story the magazine was running about Apple.

    23. Re:and the obvious question is... by SadGeekHermit · · Score: 1

      Take a breath and switch to decaf.

      All the guy did was kill a story about Apple (that was tongue in cheek anyway) and ask his editor in chief to be nice to the advertisers that actually fund the magazine.

      He didn't burn your peaceful peasant village. He didn't rape the fields or pillage your women. He didn't even salt your children, or sell your soil into slavery.

      Lighten up on the guy. He's not Hitler. He's not even the Soup Nazi. Chill.

      --
      NO CARRIER
    24. Re:and the obvious question is... by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      No most magazines make their money from advertisers. This is why my example of the village voice which is free. They pay the bills.

      If your the CEO you have 2 options:
      1.) Ban all advertisements and buy the units to review in secret which Consumer Reports does. The downside is price as you need a subscription that costs more than PC magazine to pay for this. Also you need a large reader base for this business model.

      2.) Be honest and let the reporters do their job. Now you have peripheral makers like *cough* Dell/Alienware or Microsoft * cough* threaten to not let you review their products or pay you advertising revenue unless you say more positive things.

      So your competitors get the first headline Windows VISTAXP 2.0 FIRST LOOK!! and you do not have it because Microsoft does not like you enough to give you the first alpha.

      Ouch

      3.) Play the middle of the road approach and let the reporters do their jobs but research advertisers first before printing. That way you do not lose revenues.

      It sucks but that is life for those in the advertising industry. Its unethical but normal and very cut throat. If your competitors have more advertising revenue then they can put you under.

      Readers dont care about reliable reporting or credibility. Look at Fox news or CNN?

      --
      http://saveie6.com/
    25. Re:and the obvious question is... by theatrecade · · Score: 1
      .

      Lets face it as an advertiser I don't want to be putting my ad beside a colume that just said my product was sub par.

      Then don't put out sub-par products and not expect someone to rip them to shreds!
      --
      some people are a "glass half empty" some are "glass half full" i'm a "there is something in the glass be happy" person
    26. Re:and the obvious question is... by theatrecade · · Score: 1

      The village voice and other alternative magazines that are free for many metros that were owned by the Village Voice brand had a similiar situation. They fired 1/4 of their staff for being too harsh on their advertisers and hired more friendly music critic writters to increase revenue. Its just business as usual and another example is the TV industry. How many headline news stories do you hear bashing an advertiser? None. and does the music sound better or resonate better since the company hired lackeys to write articles to be nice to advertisers. i would think an advertiser would be more apt to hear the truth than to continue to shovel the same crap to us and call it sugar. Constructive critizism is the key to growth. If everytime microsoft put out an os and every magazine they advertized in say it was the best system in the world.... oh wait that does happen
      --
      some people are a "glass half empty" some are "glass half full" i'm a "there is something in the glass be happy" person
    27. Re:and the obvious question is... by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 1

      Readers dont care about reliable reporting or credibility. Look at Fox news or CNN?

      Or better yet, look at the editor of PC world resigning causing in a reader backlash that results in the CEO being reassigned and the editor staying at his job. It seems to me that people do care about reliable reporting.

    28. Re:and the obvious question is... by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1
      Take a breath and switch to decaf.

      How very mature of you.

      ask his editor in chief to be nice to the advertisers that actually fund the magazine.

      I'm eagerly awaiting your your explanation how that could be ethical. Oh dang - you expected an argument from me explaining why lying an cheating is unethical, right?

      He didn't burn your peaceful peasant village.

      Neither did he burn yours - very lucky too, all the straw men would have gone up in flames...

      Lighten up on the guy.

      That's exactly what puzzles me. Why? He is an asshole who would be perfectly happy to have one of his subordinates chose between his integrity and his job. Why would I go easy on him? I have to admit though, that I don't even care much about him particularly (none of my original post even mentions him, if you care to actually read it). My problem is with people who argue that his behaviour should be considered normal in a civilized society, i.e. people like - apparently - you.

    29. Re:and the obvious question is... by SadGeekHermit · · Score: 1

      > How very mature of you.

      Why, thank you!

      > I'm eagerly awaiting your your explanation how that could be ethical.
      > Oh dang - you expected an argument from me explaining why lying an cheating is unethical, right?

      No, I expected you to GET my POINT, which is that this guy didn't do anything worth grumbling about. Who cares? I mean, really. At least he's not shooting people.

      > Neither did he burn yours - very lucky too, all the straw men would have gone up in flames...

      How very mature of you!

      > That's exactly what puzzles me. Why?

      Because what he did didn't matter. Who cares? Why are you, individually, getting all up in a lather about something that doesn't even involve you? To quote Pulp Fiction, "you scamps... are like a sewing circle". The guy didn't actually hurt anyone. He didn't even manage to EFFECT anyone. Why do you even CARE? What's your problem? Are you nuts?

      Honest question. Are you?

      --
      NO CARRIER
  4. Punishment by iansmith · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'd rather see the former CEO be a former employee rather than just move him to another important position.

    But, at least they did something.

    1. Re:Punishment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My guess is that they are trying to avoid paying him severance.

  5. Re:censorship tag? by cyphercell · · Score: 2, Informative

    PC World Editor Resigns When Ordered Not to Criticize Advertisers - From the first link.
    --
    Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
  6. Score one for the good guys by gyranthir · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Integrity on the Product Review space is hard to find at any time. I think PC World did a good thing to bring this guy back.

    1. Re:Score one for the good guys by dangitman · · Score: 1

      What does integrity have to do with this story? I don't really see what running lame "10 things we hate" or "10 things we love" articles has to do with journalistic integrity. If anything, it shows a lack of integrity to run vapid link-bait articles.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    2. Re:Score one for the good guys by gyranthir · · Score: 1

      This guy quit over his boss telling him not to write what he feels are the truth about the products he's reviewing.

      They brought him back and demoted the guy that told him not to tell the truth.

      This is about censorship and journalistic integrity

    3. Re:Score one for the good guys by dangitman · · Score: 1

      What the fuck? What does this have to do with reviewing products? The "10 things we hate" article was not a product review. Journalistic integrity? the articles was a travesty not fit for publication. The fact that the editor wanted to run such crap, shows he has little journalistic integrity and should have been fired.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
  7. This seems staged by macz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If your magazine was suffering from the problem of "Review Inflation" that many outlets seem guilty of, what better way to recover integrity than by the old "Quit in a high profile way -> Get rehired -> Bad Guy Demoted" scenario. Especially since the CEO is still drawing a fat paycheck.

    --
    ...But I digress. TREMBLE PUNY HUMANS!ONE DAY MY SPECIES WILL DESTROY YOU ALL!
    1. Re:This seems staged by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 1

      I was thinking the same thing. Who's to say that the editor won't still be required to give good reviews to paid advertisers?

  8. Harry McCracken? by basic0 · · Score: 5, Funny

    You mean all these years I've been registering software and joining websites while unwittingly impersonating the editor of PC Magazine?

    1. Re:Harry McCracken? by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Aren't you thinking of his brother Philip?

    2. Re:Harry McCracken? by obr06850 · · Score: 1

      Now I feel sorry for his brother Phil. I've been using his name for a LONG time.

  9. At least we know now... by gsfprez · · Score: 1

    if yerlooking for a ton of great fluff, its time to get PC world.

    10 reasons we love/hate Apple/Microsoft?

    Holy mackrel. Why not "10 Dumbest things ever said by Dvorak" or "Top 10 Ryan Meader predicitions we wish would come true" or "10 Things to look for in a PC for your dog."

    wow.

    --
    guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
    1. Re:At least we know now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "10 Things to look for in a PC for your dog."

      "10 Things for your dog to look for in a PC"?

      Myself, I'm more partial to "10 places to look for your dog in a PC", but I'll admit that must be targeted to people with rather small ... dogs.

      --
      captcha is "putter", duh! Like I need a reminder for what being on /. means.

    2. Re:At least we know now... by twbecker · · Score: 1

      Dvorak writes for PC Mag, not PC World.

      --
      "The problem with internet quotations is that many are not genuine" -Abraham Lincoln
    3. Re:At least we know now... by Anomalyst · · Score: 1

      So whats your point?
      He has still said far more than 10 dumb things and it would not hurt the public to be reminded of that fact regardless of who published them.

      --
      There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
  10. Good for him! by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 2, Interesting

    While it's always heartwarming to see someone stand up for a principle like this in such a dramatic manner, it's even nicer to see it actually pay off for him in the end.

    I hope IDG gave him a sufficiently good deal to get him back, because it would have been very much worth it for any of their competition to snap him up and brag loudly about it.

    --
    Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
    1. Re:Good for him! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope IDG gave him a sufficiently good deal to get him back, because it would have been very much worth it for any of their competition to snap him up and brag loudly about it.

      Think so? If "their competition" wanted him, they would have bought him. McCrappin is, like most "journalists" more of an egotistical snob that a real journalist. He's not a fucking doctor or something, he writes marginally useful questionably technical trip for a dieing magazine.

    2. Re:Good for him! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you read any of said competition lately? Those are shining qualities for the position.

    3. Re:Good for him! by dangitman · · Score: 1

      What principle is he standing up for? Publishing awful fluff articles? I think that's one principle that should be taken out back and shot in the head.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
  11. I don't think the guy was demoted. by brennanw · · Score: 1

    Based on the article, it doesn't seem like the guy was demoted. I think he was "promoted out of the way."

    I have to figure out how to do that...

    --
    Eviscerati.Org: All Hail the Eviscerati
    1. Re:I don't think the guy was demoted. by PhxBlue · · Score: 4, Funny

      (1) Grow pointy hair.
      (2) ...
      (3) Promotion!

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
  12. what a pleasant surprise by KarmaOverDogma · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's nice to see that, every once in a while, companies see the value of an honest opinion having *some* parity with the advertising dollar.

    maybe other will follow this positive example, from time to time.

    --
    uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
  13. Harry McCracken's "slot" filled again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and by himself, no less.

  14. Still think he should have taken that other job... by Wolvie+MkM · · Score: 0

    ... at his brother Phil's caulking company...

    What?

    --
    I Like Pie...
  15. Take a bow, Slashdot, you probably influence this. by mollog · · Score: 2, Interesting

    To the guys who run slashdot; take a bow. Without being nasty, you made some accurate and justified criticisms of the goings-on that led to the resignation. Nice to see that magazine do the right thing and restore some of their integrity.

    --
    Best regards.
  16. Re:Take a bow, Slashdot, you probably influence th by Timesprout · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Nice to see that magazine do the right thing and restore some of their integrity.
    At a guess I would say this has very little to do with integrity or Slashdot and more to do with Mr McCrackens laywers threatening to bitch slap them with a suit for unfair dismissal. The former CEO would appear to have foolishly overstepped his authority in this matter and raised questions PC World really don't want to have to explain in any detail.
    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
  17. Re:Still think he should have taken that other job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I love the fact that this needs explained . . .

    His brother PHIL would be "Phil McCraken" i.e. fill McCrack . . . . Fill My Crack. Caulking Company. Filling cracks . . .

    C'mon man . . . . if you can't understand 3rd grade toilet humor why are reading slashdot?

  18. This practice is alarmingly common by SilentChris · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I posted this on the original story but it bears repeating...

    People act as if this is uncommon. I'm alarmed that people have reacted in this way.

    It's very common.

    I used to freelance for a large, well-known video game site (not hard to guess which -- there's only a couple). This was back when CD games were first introduced, and a lot of companies were experimenting by cramming as much video as they could onto a disk (with no respect to video quality, acting, and especially gameplay).

    Anyway, a company came out with something particularly wretched. Basically some "video game" where interacting involved pushing an arrow key on your keyboard every 10 minutes or so while actors hammed it up. I bluntly gave the game the lowest possible score and walked away.

    A few months later, I get an email from editor. The game's maker wasn't happy, and they were threatening to pull advertising from the online rag. Now, the editor didn't say "change the review". He just subtetly requested that another review "rereview it" to give a "counterpoint". That counterpoint would be provided by the editor himself.

    Needless to say I wasn't happy, but this was a burgeoning new online rag and I didn't have much say as a freelancer.

    However, ever notice when sites like GameSpot or IGN go soft on a review for a crappy game when that same company has front page splash rights (they cover the page in their company or game logo)? Now you know.

    1. Re:This practice is alarmingly common by clickclickdrone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >It's very common.
      Thankfully, not everywhere. Every editor I've worked with (UK) has known exactly where advertising and Editorial meet i.e. they don't. Most eds won't talk to the advertising department period to ensure whatever they print is the truth and not biased by some compnay threatening to pull ad revenue.

      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    2. Re:This practice is alarmingly common by cerberusss · · Score: 1

      Most eds won't talk to the advertising department period to ensure whatever they print is the truth
      I'm a developer. I, too, make it a point not to talk to either Testing, QA or System Administration. I can't accept even the merest hint of influence of these departments. They tried, but I stare them out of my cubicle.
      --
      8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
    3. Re:This practice is alarmingly common by Blink+Tag · · Score: 1

      However, ever notice when sites like GameSpot or IGN go soft on a review for a crappy game when that same company has front page splash rights (they cover the page in their company or game logo)? Now you know.


      It's not entirely about such political games. Companies know a top-notch game/movie/whatever will reap its own rewards through word of mouth and a "long tail."

      I used to work in the media sales dept (movies/books/etc.) of a fairly large company (several hundred million in annual revenue). Our general rule of thumb was the worse a movie was, the more screeners we got for it. We'd rarely get a promotional copy of the A-list movies. We didn't sell nearly as much ad space for them either (although the links were prominent to capture already interested customers).

      So,... I rather suspect the "front page splash rights" is partly due to the company's unspoken admission that their product could stand some improvement.
  19. hope after all by phrostie · · Score: 1

    Wow!!

    looks like there's hope for life on this rock after all.

  20. Re:Take a bow, Slashdot, you probably influence th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The people who ran Slashdot had nothing to do with the criticisms. They were made by the people who submitted the story and summaries to Slashdot. Slashdot merely chose to publish them.

    Not quite sure why you replied to a troll post either.

  21. Re:Take a bow, Slashdot, you probably influence th by arivanov · · Score: 4, Informative

    There is a term to this and it is "constructive dismissal". Second highest payback category in an employment tribunal after discrimination cases and usually more successful as it is considerably easier to prove.

    --
    Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
    http://www.sigsegv.cx/
  22. Re:Take a bow, Slashdot, you probably influence th by sconeu · · Score: 1

    and more to do with Mr McCrackens laywers threatening to bitch slap them with a suit for unfair dismissal

    What unfair dismissal? McCracken *quit*. He was right to do so, but there is no unfair dismissal suit there.

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  23. Re:Take a bow, Slashdot, you probably influence th by Timesprout · · Score: 1

    Slight brain failure, I meant to say Constructive Dismissal

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
  24. Re:Still think he should have taken that other job by Wolvie+MkM · · Score: 1

    LOL... WHAT? I'm shocked at the filthy minds of the people here.. for shame...

    --
    I Like Pie...
  25. There's something more insidious: by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

    Game "p/reviews" that are written by the PR or marketing team of the game developer. They are essentially sent to the gaming mags with the understanding that they are to be printed largely as is, in exchange of a sum of money or continued advertising. The reason this is worse? No editor can influence this. It's essentially an ad disguised as an independent opinion piece, and only controlled by PR/marketing people in the two companies.

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    1. Re:There's something more insidious: by SilentChris · · Score: 1

      Game "p/reviews" that are written by the PR or marketing team of the game developer. They are essentially sent to the gaming mags with the understanding that they are to be printed largely as is, in exchange of a sum of money or continued advertising. The reason this is worse? No editor can influence this. It's essentially an ad disguised as an independent opinion piece, and only controlled by PR/marketing people in the two companies.


      I don't know if you've ever worked in the industry, but much of what you said isn't true.

      Reviews are written entirely by the individuals. In the case of a television show like XPlay, it's often divided amongst a team. During no part does the game maker consult with the review on the content of the review. The only person who deals with the publisher is the person procuring the game (usually the editor).

      Gamemakers typically do not see the reviews until AFTER they're published. That's why you tend to get backlash after the fact.

      Previews are another story. In order to land the "exclusive" of previewing a hot game, gamemakers tend to show only certain parts to the rag and basically hands them a press release. Rags play along with this because previews drive advertiser dollars (either encouraging random passersby to pick up the paper rag, or register more pageviews on a website).

      This is why you get such a diochomity between previews and reviews. A rag can shower glowing praise on a game during previews then rip it to shreds afterwards in the review.

      And one more thing: by and large, reviewers are more than willing to rip games to shreds. They're paid by the review/word and already have their paycheck essentially. It's the editors that worry (or more specifically, the manager editors -- the review editors can care less). They worry about advertising dollars and straining relationships with developers so they can't get the exclusive previews.
    2. Re:There's something more insidious: by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1

      diochomity
      That word doesn't exist. Which is a pity, it'd be a damn fine one!
      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    3. Re:There's something more insidious: by SilentChris · · Score: 1

      Dichotomy. I was typing quickly. Pointing out spelling flaws is so 1995.

    4. Re:There's something more insidious: by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1

      Of course I new what you meant. If you can't take a bit of gentle ribbing then fuck off and get over yourself, crybaby.

      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    5. Re:There's something more insidious: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A word of advice: don't misspell "knew" in an exchange of comments where you're gently ribbing on someone for misspelling "dichotomy".

  26. Re:Take a bow, Slashdot, you probably influence th by fosterNutrition · · Score: 1
    An "unfair dismissal" suit wouldn't hold much water, given that he quit. However, constructive dismissal is what happens when an employee resigns as a result of the actions of his or her employer, which is what happened here.

    From Wikipedia:

    In employment law, constructive dismissal, also called constructive discharge, is where an employee resigns due to their employer's behaviour. The employee must prove that the behaviour was unfair -- that the employer's actions amounted to a fundamental breach of contract or the law. The employee may resign over a single serious incident or over a pattern of incidents. Generally, the employee must have resigned soon after the incident.
  27. Unspiked by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1

    Does this mean that the 10 Things We Hate About Apple is now officially unspiked? If not, his return means very little.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:Unspiked by matthewn · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is unspiked.

  28. Get promoted out of the way, v. 0.10: by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Based on the article, it doesn't seem like the guy was demoted. I think he was "promoted out of the way."

    Weellll...technically he *was* CEO, so any involuntary change from that would be a demotion.

    I have to figure out how to do that...

    OK. Here you go.

    "Get promoted out of the way, v. 0.10, Underbridge Publishing Co.:

    1. Perform technical tasks early/on time, with completeness, but with no apparent insight or skill beyond the obvious.

    2. Memorize the "bullshit bingo" manual of technical phrases ('paradigm', 'transformational', etc)

    3. Speak in nebulous terms regarding the company's direction that indicate that you "get it."

    4. Attain low-level management position.

    5. Treat employees like absolute crap, resulting in all of them leaving the company

    6. Wait for higher-level management opening within company in marketing, or some other area with hard-to-define performance metrics.

    7. Get promoted out of the way in new position.

    See? Easy!

  29. McCracken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get Cracking McCracken!

  30. Eyeballs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "...to serve our customers--the millions of people who depend on our content online and in print."

    I didn't realize they had millions of advertisers!

    It's a nice sentiment, but the readers aren't the customers, they are the consumers. The advertisers are paying the bills, and is no different than any other media company. They sell our eyeballs, that's it.

  31. PC shouldn't have accepted him back by Trillan · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Bottom line: Those are two insipid, uninsightful, mediocre fluff stories. In addition to being hard on the eyes, they were also poorly researched and wrong. Both stories should have been killed for that reason. PC missed a chance to hire someone with integrity AND taste.

  32. Re:Still think he should have taken that other job by krakelohm · · Score: 1

    Yea I dont think its that we do not understand, its that we have seen the same joke 10 times above this.

    --
    You are all a bunch of idots.
  33. "10 Things We Hate About Apple" article was lame by gtmaneki · · Score: 1
    For those who want to read the contested article, it's here (printable version). While I'm a little biased -- I have an iPod and I'd love to replace my PC with a Mac eventually -- most of the 10 reasons were pretty lame.

    Number 1 I totally agree with, though. Apple going after the rumor websites was an abuse of power. And the point about limited selection of Apple models echoes some complaints I've heard around here. But the others? "Overuse of 'iThingie' names," no "Blu-Ray," and "iPod won't play WMA" are pretty nit-picky.

  34. Hooray! by aftk2 · · Score: 1

    Open the floodgates for more crappy non-stories!

    Thanks for staking your journalistic integrity on such important stories as one lambasting the hockey puck mouse. Coming up next on PC World: "What's the deal with laundromats?!" "Have you ever noticed that..."

    --
    concrete5: a cms made for marketing, but strong enough for geeks.
  35. This isn't a censorship issue by DECS · · Score: 3, Insightful

    McCracken had an editorial debate with his manager. The debate was over a pile of made-for-Digg crap stories that were complete rubbish, not over some withholding of investigative journalism due to outside advertiser pressure.

    All it proves is that IDG is desperate, McCracken really enjoys publishing "fluff" (as one staffer descirbed the articles in question), and that IDG's fortunes don't come from breaking news or informing readers but rather in manipulating Digg throngs with its sensationalist headlines slapped on non-content garbage. What a great business plan to pursue. I'm sure that will reward the company richly in the future.

    Great job McCracken, you now have the capacity to make IDG's magazines worse. Any cred you deserved for walking out has now vaporized.

    Harry McCracken and the Apple Censorship Myth

  36. OT: name question by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 2, Funny

    Which is the proper breakdown of your name: "Bad Ass Cat" or "Bad As Scat"?

  37. Excellent by His+Shadow · · Score: 1
    This way we can see more flamebait traffic generating fluff than ever.

    Up next "Ten Things We Hate About Thumb Drives", and "Twenty Ways To Clean Up Those Unused Desktop Icons That Erratically and Mysteriously Appear Without Warning"."

    --

    Fiat Homos et Pereat Theos

  38. "people who depend on our content " by Anomalyst · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What kind of femtocortex would depend on PC World for anything?
    Can you say "overblown sense of self-importance"?
    Maybe it is a reasonable resource, (haven't read the rag in years, even so it was far outclassed by BYTE) I would not recommned its use as the sole basis for any PC decision.

    --
    There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
  39. How much do you trust the news? by HiThere · · Score: 1

    Your like of reasoning, unethical as it appears to me, isn't unusual. One result is that the news sources aren't trusted by anyone with any sense.

    Do you recall when, I think it was NBC, invented using the docudrama to cover the Tiananmen Square riots? Nobody noticed until some lip-readers wondered why the demonstraters were shouting in English. (Once suspicion had been aroused, however...) Now everybody uses them, though supposedly they aren't substituted for actual footage. I don't know. I stopped bothering to watch. It's easier to determine what the lies are in printed text, which holds still long enough for you to check it.

    So you've got lots of company. But I consider it all unethical.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    1. Re:How much do you trust the news? by SadGeekHermit · · Score: 1

      Well, obviously, it's unethical. I wouldn't do it, even if the 'board told me to.

      My point is that what the guy did isn't all that evil given the current state of the country, and it's barely evil at ALL compared to all the other crazy evils that are going on all around us.

      The president in the white house, right this instant, not only started a war for no particularly good reason, he's been busy destroying the constitution, creating a Stasi-like secret police out of the NSA and CIA, ordering his minions to go around kidnapping, transporting across the planet and torturing people, destabilizing our relations with Russia (hint: the only other world power that could maybe BEAT us in a war) by pursuing an unlikely missle defense, and performing god knows what else we don't know about.

      But everyone's hair is on fire because some CEO told his editor to be nice to advertisers?

      Gimme a break!

      That's all I'm saying.

      --
      NO CARRIER
  40. Re:censorship tag? by dangitman · · Score: 1

    PC World Editor Resigns When Ordered Not to Criticize Advertisers

    Except that title is bullshit. He was not ordered not to criticize advertisers. He was asked not to run crap stories. There's a huge difference there, which has been widely mis-reported. Care to show any evidence that this had anything to do with criticizing advertisers?

    --
    ... and then they built the supercollider.
  41. Proscribed means forbidden by LandruBek · · Score: 1

    they all have to explain how they plan to meet various proscribed fiscal goals . . .
    Reminds me of a mole investigation I heard of: Interviewers questioned intelligence staff: "Tell us, if you were going to betray your country, how would you do it?" The mole was the one who was speechless, then nervous and agitated. It was his first clue that they were on to him. </grammar nazi>
    --
    $META_SIG_JOKE
  42. NICE!!! by partowel · · Score: 0

    Excellent!

    Nice to see the people win over a powerful corporation!

    Awwwww.....apple can't take the heat....so they complain like babies.....wah wah wah.....

    Maybe apple should get the hint........your design sucks.

    Make room for the people that can do the job.

  43. Re:censorship tag? by cyphercell · · Score: 1

    Apparently Crawford also told editors that product reviews in the magazine were too critical of vendors, especially ones who advertise in the magazine, and that they had to start being nicer to advertisers. http://blog.wired.com/business/2007/05/pc_world_ed itor.html

    Either way deciding if a story was crap or not is in the domain of "Editor in Chief" last I checked.

    --
    Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
  44. Re:censorship tag? by dangitman · · Score: 1

    And if the editor in chief is allowing crap stories to run, shouldn't he be fired? I don't see the problem with reining in a terrible editor. Editors aren't infallible gods.

    --
    ... and then they built the supercollider.
  45. Re:censorship tag? by cyphercell · · Score: 1

    I think the final estimate of who was producing crap here, is best summed up with the headline.

    PC World Brings Editor Back, Removes CEO http://blog.wired.com/business/2007/05/pc_world_br ings.html

    Anyways, you really don't get to be editor in chief by running crap, anymore than you get to CEO by acting like a Dilbertesque pointy hair. Of course everyone has their moments.

    --
    Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
  46. Re:censorship tag? by dangitman · · Score: 1

    I think the final estimate of who was producing crap here, is best summed up with the headline. PC World Brings Editor Back, Removes CEO

    Uhhh, what? how does a headline about a personal political feud determine the quality of a magazine article? Wouldn't the actual quality of articles the articles be more relevant?

    Anyways, you really don't get to be editor in chief by running crap,

    What the fuck? PC World constantly publishes crap. There are many editors who publish shit, and it's often rewarded. It's more likely that PC World was offended by a push for higher standards, so they could continue in their usual lazy way.

    All you have to do is look at the actual articles in question. They are absolute shit. There is no way they can be seen as quality writing, or something worthy of being published. It's like they were written by a two-year-old.

    --
    ... and then they built the supercollider.
  47. Re:censorship tag? by cyphercell · · Score: 1

    If your main point was that PC world was shit, why didn't you just say so, instead of dicking around with all this "CEO Probably just wanted him not to write crap" when actually the CEO wanted him to be nice to advertisers, I mean really what is the censorship tag all about? Christ man this is pointless, if I say the original article says it was about crap writing and being insensitive to advertisers, then the current article seems to state that the CEO was being a tard. You'll just say that Zonk is an idiot.

    --
    Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism