Can horticulture and landscaping trade press ever be unbiased?

Let's face facts. The Glee exhibition is in a crisis. In the last 7 years, visitor numbers have fallen by over 49% and even in the last twelve months, the potential buyers attending the show fell by nearly 11%. It's not all down to the organisation, venue or the recession: times have changed and the days of a vast showground filled with exhibitors and willing buyers have long since departed. We're in a new world; one that will see the small intimate venue taking over. Astute buyers and exhibitors will be picking their venue carefully and they'll be doing their research in advance to make sure that an event is the right place to invest. It's also extremely worrying that the UK's established horticulture media is so entwined with the organisation of trade events. The lack of critical objectivity is potentially damaging to the industry - how can we be sure that events are honestly reported and correctly critiqued? This week, it took the intervention of Landscape Juice to force Horticulture Week to change a grossly misleading headline - 'Glee hails visitor uplift to 13,000' - that implied Glee had been a roaring success with visitor numbers being uplifted to over 13,000 when in fact, visitor numbers had fallen by over 10%. I contacted Daniel Thurlow of Emap to ask for clarification (just to make sure I had not misread the Emap/Glee PR). I pointed out that the headline was misleading - in less than one hour - and I guess Emap had been on the blower immediately - Hort Week had changed the headline to 'Glee hails visitor uplift in key areas' with a new URL (although the original URL remains). The following day I received an email from Glee marketing manager, David Langrish, who said: "The release we sent out (I believe you [Landscape Juice] received this) focused on the increase in key visitor areas not in the total number - we lead with the heading "Glee delivers more key buyers ready to do business I am not sure why Hort week changed the heading?" Now Hort Week are a media partner of Glee and I don't think its unreasonable to assume that they (Hort Week) have made a reasonable investment in time, resources and column inches and are expecting a financial return for their commitment? If it weren't for Landscape Juice's exposé, Hort Week's misleading headline would have remained (unchallenged) and given the wrong impression that Glee had in fact reversed its previous six years of decline. What are your views. Can horticulture and landscaping media ever present an unbiased view when there is a financial bond?

Blimey Gary,

We could agree on something

Since the net is fast being acknowledged as important as the press you could be onto something?

The "Creating Landscapes" show by Phil and it's media partner LJ could then be accused of over-hyping it's own event?

Financial bond, media, creating landscapes, it could be a link?

I prefer an unbiased view, and am still seeking one.

Gary @ Acer Paving said:

I think the answer's obvious Phil, not because I know anything about Hort. media because I don't subscribe.

Any media that has a financial link is always going to accentuate the positive and put a gloss on an event they're involved in.

I don't see a problem with that as long as they make their involvement clear and readers can judge the article on that basis.

After all that's how pretty much all media works isn't it ?

Replies

T & S Plants October 6, 2010 at 10:10pm

Blimey Gary,

We could agree on something

Since the net is fast being acknowledged as important as the press you could be onto something?

The "Creating Landscapes" show by Phil and it's media partner LJ could then be accused of over-hyping it's own event?

Financial bond, media, creating landscapes, it could be a link?

I prefer an unbiased view, and am still seeking one.

Gary @ Acer Paving said:
I think the answer's obvious Phil, not because I know anything about Hort. media because I don't subscribe.

Any media that has a financial link is always going to accentuate the positive and put a gloss on an event they're involved in.

I don't see a problem with that as long as they make their involvement clear and readers can judge the article on that basis.

After all that's how pretty much all media works isn't it ?