May 12, 2016, 5:52 p.m. -  Cam McRae

#!markdown Insulted you? I guess you are sensitive - or maybe you think I offended someone else? Sorry if I offended either way. I'd rather sacrifice profit than leave unsubstantiated insinuations of bias unaddressed. Maybe it's the Scotsman in me. But thanks for your concern about our business model and the advice. Interesting that you know so much about our income. Now about those 'holes'… 1) Press releases disguised as press releases don't need filling. We judge them based on audience interest and post or ignore accordingly and never disguise them as editorial. We didn't post the release of the Sid recently as a result. 2) The Farley? Maybe that was a joke? We've never sold ads to Trek and I never denied being a jerk. 3) Andrew came to his own conclusions about the wheels. Should I have told him to be clearer about the failings he was already clear about? Should I have told him to change his conclusions? We don't work that way. Our reviewers are autonomous when it comes to their findings about products. Mavic has never advertised with us either. 4) We asked Rocky for the Thunderbolt frame because it was Di2 compatible and we wanted to test that. The first impressions piece we write before a review is always focussed on the spec because that allows us to focus on ride quality and performance in the final review. When we follow up with the full review we are going to modify the bike further. So you know. Interesting that this is a concern for you. 5) Have you considered that other media outlets, who often field criticisms like this more often than we do, don't defend them because they can't? We have cultivated an audience with the intelligence and awareness to question what they read. I include you in that group and I'm proud of our discerning audience. There are other outlets who have self-selected for an audience that wants to be mindlessly spoonfed regurgitated marketing speak disguised as editorial. They can have them. I have no idea how any of these are 'holes' and I don't think it's widely perceived that our authenticity is a façade. It's not what we hear from people at all in fact - but I'm sure there are others who share your opinion. I realize that it's difficult for a media representative to defend anything without looking like a douche, (despite Andrew doing this perfectly) but I'd rather look like a douche than have our integrity impugned anonymously and without substantial back up and leave it sitting there. I realize it's a character flaw but at least I have others to keep it company. Speaking of integrity, your anonymous user name and reg. email makes me wonder if you work in the bike industry. Maybe even the media? But I'm sure you'll clear that up for us. Thanks for engaging