Last month in this space, we told the story of the machine that failed and the article that never ran. Responses were positive. One phone call in particular, though, represented what we suspect many in the industry experience periodically.
This paving contractor wasn't calling to say, "Well done." No, he called to share a similar story of machine failure. Unlike our machine, however, his didn't fail on a test site; his failed while at work on one of his jobs. And unlike our machine, the manufacturer didn't scramble to figure out what went wrong; his suppliers dragged their feet so much that they are now in litigation over the alleged failures.
He shared his frustrations, described how a similar situation involving a different manufacturer had been resolved to his satisfaction, then suggested that our incident worked out because the manufacturer had paid us to test their machine.
Where did that idea spawn?
Construction Equipment has never accepted nor will we ever accept payment from a manufacturer or distributor to feature one of their machines. In fact, our editors endeavor to ensure that suppliers understand the wall we've built around our editorial integrity.
That's not to say we don't nurture the excellent relationships we have with suppliers. We do. They are important sources of product information and help us analyze trends in machine design and development.
But when this staff chooses a machine to evaluate—whether in a Field Test, Hands-on Earthmoving or in a Paving Report—we base it on our judgment of reader needs, our observations of the machine and the category, and our experience in the industry.
So please, the next time we publish an evaluation, don't think for an instant that it isn't fair and honest. We evaluate equipment with no purse strings attached.
By the way, if the opportunity slipped by last month to view our Webinar on GPS and Machine Control Technology, it's archived on ConstructionEquipment.com.
Rod Sutton, Editor in Chief, 630-288-8130, email@example.com