Motorcycle.Com Launches E-Commerce with CycleSaver

Re: Information site directly selling products????

Our editorial has never been and will never be compromised by our advertisers or our E-commerce initiative. Print magazines make huge amounts of money from the very advertisers whose products they review. One print magazine alone makes $30 million from its advertisers and another $9 million from their subscribers and newstand sales. An advertiser who pays more than $100,000 per month in that magazine will spend less than that for a whole year's worth of advertising with us. Yet, somehow you suddenly call our credibilty into question. If you think print or other sites have more credibility, I suggest you rethink that conclusion. I would also refer you to a Wall Street Journal article in which a major advertiser, when asked about the cost of advertising in print, was quoted as saying, "but that's sort of the price of entry to get your car reviewed." Does that mean the more they spend the better the review?

It's blatantly unfair to question our credibility unless you've got something more substantial to go by. We have always been unbiased in our reviews, and nothing is going to change. We have no plans to review products which are currently available through Cycle Saver. Motorcycle.Com, like any commercial enterprise, needs to make a profit to stay in business. This is not a hobby to us, but a livelihood that has to support our employees and their families. We don't get the million dollar ad contracts like the print mags do, and you're not paying an annual subscription. The Internet is different than print, and we have to apply those differences, both the good and the bad, to our business model. Research shows that people want to purchase products online from "trusted" sources. Motorcycle.Com has been a trusted source for over six years. It's not in our best interest to violate that trust, so we've applied the same standards for quality and integrity in our thoughtful launch of E-commerce that we apply to our editorials.

If you can't live with us being a source through which our readers can purchase quality products at discount prices, than you had better stop reading motorcycle magazines and visiting other motorcyle sites, because all of them are either supported by large advertising dollars, sales of motorcycles or other motorcycle related products. I welcome the fact that our reader's trust in us is the ultimate check that assures we maintain our editorial integrity. But, I think that standard should be applied equally, not just to us or when it's convenient.

Re: Bad Idea Turned Worse

Dear Anonymous

In case you haven't heard, the advertising model does not work. To really ad insult to injury, you've posted as anonymous which makes that ad model that much more futile. Advertisers want to reach "registered users" as they see that as the only valid measurement of a sites reach. An advertiser that spends in excess of $1 million dollars a year in one single print magazine spends a small fraction of that online. This is not going to change any time soon. What would you prefer, that we go out of business or that we keep the doors open by bringing additional value to our readers and make a buck at the same time?

In order for there to be a conflict of interest wouldn't we have to write reviews on products that you can buy through Cycle Saver? Have you seen any of these reviews? We haven't and we will not be writing product reivews on items that are available on Cycle Saver.

As for that additional fee that was charged, the story as told is a bit misleading. We were alarmed by his comment and we went in to buy something on our own to find out what he was referring to. While the fee could have been disclosed earlier, (and we're told that change is being made) it was disclosed before he entered his credit card information and not after the sale was completed. There is nothing unusual about the fee and it is not a fee that is paid to MO to facilitate the order. In fact, given that you are guaranteed the lowest price, as long as you're able to buy it at Cycle Saver for less I don't think it should matter if they charged a $100 fee as long as it's properly disclosed and the total price is still lower than is available elsewhere online. If it's not, then they match the lower price and give you 3 percent to boot. I only wish all the dealings I had with merchants were that unfair.

You're really reading way too much into this. Can you spell cynical?



If you read our announcement, you'll see that it stated that we entered into a "Joint Marketing Agreement." In order for it to be joint, there has to be more than one party to the agreement. Instead of making it sound like a conspiracy, you should be pleased that we were able to link up with a highly respectable retailer. In fact, the way we were able to promptly handle your concern should have been recognized as a plus. But, instead, you make it sound like we've ripped you off.



As for the "insurance and handling" fee, it is exactly what it says it is, not a fee that goes to MO. Frankly, it shouldn't even matter since your guranteed the lowest price, end of story. BTW we are aware of the AMA discount that is available through Competition Accessories, but we believe that we have negotiated lower prices even considering the AMA discount. Of course, we don't offer anywhere near as many products as Competition Accessories so those are great opportunities to use that AMA discount. At the end of the day, the merits of Cycle Saver should be determined based on the quality of the products and their prices. Hopefully nobody is against us trying to make a living as well. I know our employees would appreciate getting paid for their hard work.



One last thing, you never even mentioned if you got a good deal. Good service, good prices...what a concept.