Topic: Good Gear Guide 2018 (Read 7637 times)

billyb · « **Reply #15 on:** February 21, 2018, 05:12:49 PM »

The blog would probably have to rely on CBF members in it's early days, but we certainly buy enough kit on this forum to get a pretty wide range of reviews, at least of bats to start with.

A glossy cricket gear equipment blog/review site- done to a good quality with good images, and then eventually getting kit sent through/money generated from SEO- could be quite successful, no?
Kit could be divided up based on contributions to the website etc.

richthekeeper · « **Reply #16 on:** February 21, 2018, 05:27:15 PM »

From first hand experience, setting up a blog of this nature is a full time job. You have to be able to update content frequently to keep people coming to your site, driven by traffic through other forms of social media such as Instagram, Twitter and YouTube.

Hats off to people who manage to build up a following in their spare time, and certainly it could be done by a collective of people all pulling in the same direction, but it's a big job.

cricketbadger · « **Reply #17 on:** February 21, 2018, 06:13:40 PM »

Pretty sure Viking don't stock at owzat.

Agree the reviews don't quite match the scores, would also like to see how they test each bat.

It's a massive deal for the smaller brands though, I know Jeff at viking and having spoke to him last night he was delighted with their outcome, it's massive for them help spread the good word about his brand

Tom · « **Reply #18 on:** February 21, 2018, 06:15:00 PM »

Quote from: billyb on February 21, 2018, 05:12:49 PM

The blog would probably have to rely on CBF members in it's early days, but we certainly buy enough kit on this forum to get a pretty wide range of reviews, at least of bats to start with.

A glossy cricket gear equipment blog/review site- done to a good quality with good images, and then eventually getting kit sent through/money generated from SEO- could be quite successful, no?
Kit could be divided up based on contributions to the website etc.

You're welcome to try it, but I launched one a few years back and it was a lot of effort. Days off work to arrange meetings with brands, visiting trade shows and admittedly only did it for a couple of years max with it making around �50.00 a month max.

There's space for it, but the cricket market will never be as sexy nor make as much money as sites such as SoccerBible or HighSnobiety

Neon Cricket · « **Reply #19 on:** February 21, 2018, 06:43:05 PM »

Quote from: TCB on February 21, 2018, 04:35:05 PM

Hello. I'm not sure that is strictly true.

It's also not all just through Owzat, the boutique section is not through them as far as I am aware.

There are some strange scores that don't seem to fit with the text.

To enter the test you pay for the associated advertising, hence all the boutique brands having a page/half page in the PDF. I was approached again this year so have the email somewhere. Agreed you�re not strictly paying to enter the test, but you�re not getting in the issue without paying something at least.

Either way, the returns on almost any advertising in print media is nowhere near worth it anymore - if I pumped �500 into social media the returns wouldn�t even be comparable from experience.

sarg · « **Reply #20 on:** February 21, 2018, 07:22:14 PM »

Thanks everyone who likes my hobby page https://www.facebook.com/MarcsCricketBatPrepInformation/

I have come to believe there is no point ranking bats although I love reading the gear tests for ideas of what is on the horizon. I purposely do not have a favourite, because I don't want people getting the impression there is one that stands above all else and I certainly am not in a position to make that call or endorse one brand publicly over the next. I do have bat makers/brands I think put out some great bats. I just love cricket bats and of course Elviar Mallets (free plug for Les

), not so much the buying and selling of bats.

As far as bias and objectivity goes, well there are genuinely some great bats and some real poor efforts. I don't go out of my way to find fault or create problems for sellers and bat makers, but I do voice my opinion when I genuinely think something has gone wrong. I realise that bat makers are trying to put meals on the table, so I don't go out of my way to be chaotic or controversial. My reviews are just a point of view and I realise one man's trash is another's treasure. They have evolved as I borrow ideas and try different things, occasionally some are stupid. My review process is always on the fly and unprepared and and I try to make it my first interaction with the bat so you get my actual first impression. The drawback of this is I ramble on and edit a lot of drivel out during production.

It is a enjoyable hobby born out of the enthusiasm I connected with joining this page, so you are always welcome on the page and I am happy to hear from anyone.

I am still annoyed about photobucket, as we lost so many excellent reviews we did for the forum.

Calzehbhoy · « **Reply #21 on:** February 21, 2018, 09:01:27 PM »

You page is brilliant Marc. Love looking on it weekly for new review pictures and seeing bats and their shapes. I find an actual image of a bat on a normal camera so much easier to tell what the bats shape is like that the brochure marketing photos!

About this gear test I just Can�t work this review out. The Kippax ProBlade gets a fairly scathing review yet gets 9 for performance???

The Cricket Boutique · « **Reply #22 on:** February 21, 2018, 09:13:43 PM »

Quote from: Neon Cricket on February 21, 2018, 06:43:05 PM

To enter the test you pay for the associated advertising, hence all the boutique brands having a page/half page in the PDF. I was approached again this year so have the email somewhere. Agreed you�re not strictly paying to enter the test, but you�re not getting in the issue without paying something at least.

Either way, the returns on almost any advertising in print media is nowhere near worth it anymore - if I pumped �500 into social media the returns wouldn�t even be comparable from experience.

Agreed on the social media bit, �500 can go a long way. TCB has an advert and a couple of bats involved. You just need to do a bit of haggling

Hoover · « **Reply #23 on:** February 22, 2018, 12:46:38 AM »

We pulled out of the Allout Cricket test mainly because the process. Of the 6 bats we sent the best missed the cut because it only had 7 grains !. Frustrating that a product made for making runs missed the podium because of where it grew. I am sure others in the industry have similar tales. The process begins with staff picking the top 20 based on grain of willow, the one thing a bat maker (or brand) has nothing to do with, and takes all the credit for.

We put to the organisers that they provide similar clefts of Willow to actual manufacturers to see what the results were on the �cleanskin test�. Or, submit bats with an ordinary six grains for judgement. They thought it was a good idea but impractical.
With the current model of judging it was nice to get fluffy comments but not really worth the cost and effort. Furthermore, from the horses mouth, they have to look after advertisers in the magazine.

sarg · « **Reply #24 on:** February 22, 2018, 01:34:05 AM »

Quote from: Hoover on February 22, 2018, 12:46:38 AM

We pulled out of the Allout Cricket test mainly because the process. Of the 6 bats we sent the best missed the cut because it only had 7 grains !. Frustrating that a product made for making runs missed the podium because of where it grew. I am sure others in the industry have similar tales. The process begins with staff picking the top 20 based on grain of willow, the one thing a bat maker (or brand) has nothing to do with, and takes all the credit for.

We put to the organisers that they provide similar clefts of Willow to actual manufacturers to see what the results were on the �cleanskin test�. Or, submit bats with an ordinary six grains for judgement. They thought it was a good idea but impractical.
With the current model of judging it was nice to get fluffy comments but not really worth the cost and effort. Furthermore, from the horses mouth, they have to look after advertisers in the magazine.

@Hoover I recall you finished on top or second in a few tests when you were involved, out of interest did this result in any demand increase for Bradbury? Was it worth it? it is a marketing.

I am guessing a established bat makers like yourselves can trade off mostly goodwill alone now all the hard work of selling bats in both the UK and Australia and firmly establishes Bradbury as a top tier bat maker with loyal returning customers.

Hoover · « **Reply #25 on:** February 22, 2018, 08:13:37 AM »

Quote from: sarg on February 22, 2018, 01:34:05 AM

@Hoover I recall you finished on top or second in a few tests when you were involved, out of interest did this result in any demand increase for Bradbury? Was it worth it? it is a marketing.

I am guessing a established bat makers like yourselves can trade off mostly goodwill alone now all the hard work of selling bats in both the UK and Australia and firmly establishes Bradbury as a top tier bat maker with loyal returning customers.

We do not believe sales were boosted. Maybe brand awareness was helped.

JK Lewis · « **Reply #26 on:** February 22, 2018, 09:16:13 AM »

How about I offer clefts from a single tree, to any batmaker who wants to make a bat or bats for a test. We could specify that the bats can be any profile, but must be within 1 oz of a set weight to qualify. There would be a cost for the clefts but it might be the fairest way to ensure consistency.

procricket · « **Reply #27 on:** February 22, 2018, 09:23:51 AM »

Gear guides mmm seen the inside trading of them and the advertising of them load of tosh....

Kulli · « **Reply #28 on:** February 22, 2018, 09:40:41 AM »

Quote from: JK Lewis on February 22, 2018, 09:16:13 AM

How about I offer clefts from a single tree, to any batmaker who wants to make a bat or bats for a test. We could specify that the bats can be any profile, but must be within 1 oz of a set weight to qualify. There would be a cost for the clefts but it might be the fairest way to ensure consistency.

Would be awesome to see the results of something like that.

Can always come to an agreement with the batmakers regarding cost and ownership of the final bat

Hoover · « **Reply #29 on:** February 22, 2018, 12:56:44 PM »

Quote from: JK Lewis on February 22, 2018, 09:16:13 AM

How about I offer clefts from a single tree, to any batmaker who wants to make a bat or bats for a test. We could specify that the bats can be any profile, but must be within 1 oz of a set weight to qualify. There would be a cost for the clefts but it might be the fairest way to ensure consistency.

We�re in.

Author Topic: Good Gear Guide 2018 (Read 7637 times)

billyb

Re: Good Gear Guide 2018

richthekeeper

Re: Good Gear Guide 2018

cricketbadger

Re: Good Gear Guide 2018

Tom

Re: Good Gear Guide 2018

Neon Cricket

Re: Good Gear Guide 2018

sarg

Re: Good Gear Guide 2018

Calzehbhoy

Re: Good Gear Guide 2018

The Cricket Boutique

Re: Good Gear Guide 2018

Hoover

Re: Good Gear Guide 2018

sarg

Re: Good Gear Guide 2018

Hoover

Re: Good Gear Guide 2018

JK Lewis

Re: Good Gear Guide 2018

procricket

Re: Good Gear Guide 2018

Kulli

Re: Good Gear Guide 2018

Hoover

Re: Good Gear Guide 2018