There 1 s a right way and a wrong way to do just about everything.
And that goes double, it seems, for a trade magazine. There' s a great
temptation to do things the wrong way because that's generally the
easier way .
Since we started pu[:>lishing Play Meter magazine back in 1974, a lot
of people expec-ted us fo take the easy way out of doing things. All we
had to do, in IT)any people's eyes, was run the press releases the
factories sent us, write a couple of glowing accounts about how
everything is going along just fine, and sit back and let the money roll
in . But, to us, we saw that easy way as being the wrong way. We
realized that the only people who had read the trade papers baek
before Play Meter burst onto the scene were the people who were
having the glowing things written about them. The simple fact was the
operators- the ores who count- weren't reading the trade press
because the trade papers weren't honestly addressing the real issues.
So we decided instead to do the right thing, the hard thing. We
forged together a trade paper that didn't hold back its punches, a
trade paper. that strangely enough, told the truth. And it was n.o easy
task. We adopted an open editorial policy that was to be operator- ·
·oriented , and that found objections in some quarters. We ·lost
advertising revenue because of our stubborness not to duck an issue.
We felt it was more important to open lines on communication
, between all levels of the industry, to rekindle operator interest and
participation in the trade press. So we started doing things that were
completely unheard of back before Play Meter was born.
We introduced " Technical Topics," a regular column which came
to grips with repair problems on equipment in the field. And we came
under attack. Irate manufacturers complained that we were pointing
out all the faults in their machines, that we were accenting the
negative, that we should instead be accenting the "positive. " But we
held 9ur ground, and they soon were forced to realize t~. problem
was that they hadn't been providing the necessary information and
schemattcs for operators to repair their "positively" wonderful
machines.
·
.. Then came "Critic's E:orner," a regular feature to review new
pinballs. New pinballs were coming out every week, and operators
were in a quandary as to which one they should buy. So we contracted
with an acknowledged pinball expert to rate the games. It provided
our readers with unbiased evaluations of what operators could expect
from certain games. Needless to say, we came under, attack from those
within the industry which saw ignorance as bliss. But, as it turned out,
our pinball ratings were right on target, and the review column also
survived.
We then went on to rank games against other games. First we did it
as an annual operator poll. And then we started publishing monthly
(and now twice monthly) updates of how the games stacked up
against one ·another. Now we've expanded our review of equipment
to include videos and the technical aspects of the games. And, every
step of the way, there have been those naysayers who insist the
industry shouldn't have this sort of information made available to it.
And why not?
The point of all this is that, as the forum for industry information, it
has become .Piay Meter's responsibility t 6 do things which, in many
quarters, are unpopular. It will no doubt happen still more in the
future. We ask only one thing, that you our readers look at Play Meter's
track record. We think you ' ll find that our heart lies with tliis industry,
even to the degree ot losing advertising dollars. But, then again, I
guess this single point must already be obvious to you since, after all,
that's the reason so many of you subscribe to Play Meter in the first
place.
...
~~Clallyll
Editor and Publisher
4
PLAY
METE~ ,.
july 15, 1981