|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
After posting my comments regarding TASC reviews, I received the message
below. James likely felt that posting this to the list might violate
self-promotion guidelines, however it might prove productive to generate
some discussion (pro's and con's) regarding relative value of TASC and
Futures reviews (and other content). Of particular note is the comment near
the bottom which reads:
>What pays the bills for a magazine is having a trusting
>readership that is attractive to advertisers. This is how
>*long-term* success is generated in the magazine business.
Earl
-----Original Message-----
From: James T. Holter <jholter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Eadamy@xxxxxxxxxx <Eadamy@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: orphelin@xxxxxxx <orphelin@xxxxxxx>; peter2150@xxxxxxx
<peter2150@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, September 23, 1998 8:09 AM
Subject: Magazine reviews
>Earl,
>
>Earl wrote:
>>
>> What many magazine subscribers don't realize is that
>> subscription fees don't begin to pay the bills. Bottom
>> line is that magazine reviews are best read with
>> considerable skepticism.
>
>I bring you attention to the following unbiased reviews
>in Futures magazine. All ratings are out of four disks:
>
>August 1998: HedgeSim 3.0, 2-1/2 disks; MetaStock for
> Windows CE, 2 disks
>
>July 1998: MarketQA, 3 disks
>
>June 1998: kNOW Money Management, 3 disks
>
>May 1998: S-Plus 4.0, 4 disks (and deservedly so; this
> $4,000 program is near the tops in hard-core analysis;
> and, by-the-way, has *never* advertised in Futures.)
>
>April 1998: Aspen Graphics for Windows, 3-1/2 disks
>
>March 1998: OddsCalc, 3 disks; ComStock on the Net,
> 2-1/2 disks
>
>February 1998: Parity Plus 2.0, 3 disks; also see the
> article "Phosphorous Markets," page 64. This review
> of seven market simulators (many produced by companies
> that are long-standing advertisers in our magazine)
> gave an average score of 6.4 out of ten to the programs
> across four categories (total of 28 scores). In fact,
> the conclusion of the article was that these programs
> are fun to play with but (with possibly one exception,
> a NON-advertiser) do not do enough in terms of risk and
> reward analysis to be serious trading tools.
>
>What pays the bills for a magazine is having a trusting
>readership that is attractive to advertisers. This is how
>*long-term* success is generated in the magazine business.
>Futures, as you may know, is enjoying its 26 year in
>publication.
>
>If there is any way that Futures can better serve its
>readership, please let me know ASAP.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>James Holter
>Managing Editor
>Futures
|