# The Rake: A Warning



## andreyb (Dec 24, 2003)

Gentlemen,

A few days ago I got an unexpected e-mail from Christian Barker, editor of "The Rake" magazine, informing me that "in light of your clear dissatisfaction with THE RAKE magazine" "we are gladly cancelling your subscription, and refunding its cost in full."

Half-puzzled and half-enraged, I replied immediately, asking for clarifications.

After three days I got a succint answer, simply stating that "THE RAKE reserves the right to regulate its readership, and while we do appreciate your interest thus far, your custom is no longer desired."

My questions (why he decided that I am dissatisfied? even if yes, can I choose myself if to continue being subscribed or not? motives behind his move?) remained unanswered.

Though motives are not hard to discern: apparently, this is "reaction" to the criticism expressed by yours truly on the LL forum: here and there (LL is the only forum where I use (used?) login allowing easy identification of my real name).

Granted, as every other business, "The Rake" has every right to reject any custom (though the general tone of Mr Barker's e-mails is absoultely ungentlemanly... perhaphs this is what they call "rakish"?)

So, why this post? Simple: as a warning to prospective readers, writers, collaborators, etc of "The Rake" magazine. Be warned that Mr Barker's moral / business standards apparently equal to his editorial ones.

Andrey


----------



## Martin Stall (Sep 11, 2006)

That is outrageous, and completely bonkers to boot. Aside from being a PR megafail, how on earth do they think they can 'regulate readership? Hello? It's a magazine....:icon_headagainstwal Regulate membership ok, but....


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

As long as they refunded your subscription price in full, I'm not sure there is all that much to get upset about. You said yourself that you were disappointed with the quality and that much of the publication's content was 'paid for fluff' (my words, not the OP's). The outcome you have described, seems a win, win for all involved...given the circumstance!


----------



## GoToEleven (May 19, 2010)

Sounds like the type of thing to send to The Consumerist or similar sites that tell stories of bad customer service. 

The "regulate membership" thing is crap. 

-- GTE


----------



## Martin Stall (Sep 11, 2006)

Hey Whoa. They said "regulate readership" which indeed is a joke of epic proportions. "Regulate membership" was my phrase, and though it's also crap, they do have the right to, if they want to f#%$ their reputation in terms of PR.

It's not that there's anything to get upset about, it's just remarkable how clueless some businesses are. Sure, any magazine will have fluff as a filler. But if there are serious people such as Andreyb with a degree of renown and reputation, who are not satisfied and saying so online, the stupidest thing to do is what they did. Do they even know about modern marketing and conversation etc?


----------



## DCLawyer68 (Jun 1, 2009)

That's truly weird. Your review seemed positive on balance, and seems to have inspired several subscriptions. Apparently the editor has some pretty thin skin. He'd be better served by thanking you for the honest criticism and using it to improve the magazine.


----------



## Martin Stall (Sep 11, 2006)

Which is exactly what I meant. Nowadays the wrong thing to do is to just ignore or even piss off critics. Instead, they should have challenged Andreyb as to his opinion and engaged in conversation.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

Apparently, meerkats who have the poor manners get dumped by high end magazines.

As it should be.


----------



## Martin Stall (Sep 11, 2006)

:eek2:


----------



## Bricktop (Feb 10, 2010)

After such near libels as "This is the best English-language style magazine we have today", what else would the OP expect?


----------



## andreyb (Dec 24, 2003)

eagle2250 said:


> You said yourself that you were disappointed with the quality and that much of the publication's content was 'paid for fluff' (my words, not the OP's).


eagle2550, in the second linked thread I expressed an opinion that Wei Koh's article on Camps de Luca is not a critical one, and looks more like an advertorial.

Then I went on to suggest: "So, read it, enjoy the stories and pictures, but don't take it seriously."

Exactly what I do myself! I don't take such articles as a source of solid and trusted advice; I take them as infotainment! Which I value.



DCLawyer68 said:


> That's truly weird. Your review seemed positive on balance, and seems to have inspired several subscriptions.


To be honest, the first thread is more than one year old. More likely that the second one ruffled the feathers -- though we'll never know for sure.



Martin Stall said:


> Which is exactly what I meant. Nowadays the wrong thing to do is to just ignore or even piss off critics. Instead, they should have challenged Andreyb as to his opinion and engaged in conversation.


That's what I proposed in my reply. Apparently, no interest in this.



Bog said:


> Apparently, meerkats who have the poor manners get dumped by high end magazines.


High end magazines? I see a low end one. Oh, you probably meant price of watches advertised there... my fail -- I spoke on magazine quality.



Bricktop said:


> After such near libels as "This is the best English-language style magazine we have today", what else would the OP expect?


This was my opinion (not "libel"), based on reading first three issues... and I still stand by my words. Presence of advertorials is a fact of life; at the time I found Rake's ones better written, better illustrated and more relevant to our interests (classic clothing) than the rest of the pack.

In the second thread, I lamented move from topics on classic clothing to more fashion coverage.

Andrey


----------



## storeynicholas (Feb 15, 2008)

The time lapse makes it all even more bizarre: did they give you a year's worth of mags and then refund your sub? Is the Tin Hitler in charge called 'Barker' or 'Barking'? :icon_smile_big:


----------



## andreyb (Dec 24, 2003)

For the sake of objectivity: Christian Barker presented his take on the issue there: https://www.styleforum.net/showthread.php?t=202345 (on pp. 10 and 18).

Andrey


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

andreyb said:


> For the sake of objectivity: Christian Barker presented his take on the issue there: https://www.styleforum.net/showthread.php?t=202345 (on pp. 10 and 18).
> 
> Andrey


Can't read without a membership, apparently.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Always perplexing when a media/journalism outlet takes an anti-free-speech stand. Can you imagine the NYT stopping subscriptions to right-leaning readers, or Fox News turning off content for cable subscribers who lean left? I know the Rake doesn't purport to be as serious as either of the above (take themselves), but still...


----------



## Finian McLonergan (Sep 23, 2009)

Well, imagine for a moment that you commissioned a suit from a famous London house, say, and then proceeded to parade it on an internet forum and severely criticize (perhaps justly) the cut and the make. Would you expect that business/client relationship to resume? Would you be surprised if the company declined any subsequent commissions from you?

Now, of course, media/journalism is a very different business, yet the White House regularly discriminates against those journalists in the Press Corps deemed to write unfriendly copy. A public house, restaurant or nightclub will occasionally exercise its prerogative to exclude customers on what often appear to be rather arbitrary (or worse) criteria. 

The above examples work in practice, and serve to constrain customer behaviour, because they are all exclusive providers of their products/services with complete power over distribution, so that the only means through which a customer can acquire the product or service is via a direct relationship with the provider.

The Rake's problem is that it behaves as though it enjoys such power over customers when, in reality, it has all the control over the distribution of its product that an RTW clothing manufacturer has.

Serious mistake.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Fin, that's one big distinction. Another is that they are in the *business* of (free) speech, and so look hypocritical when they try to stifle it.


----------



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

For the people who have no membership to The Styleforum:



Braker said:


> Without question, Mr. Bokhanko possesses the inalienable right to express his opinions.
> THE RAKE, meanwhile, is free to hold its own opinions, and to choose its clientele, politely declining the custom of any individual it wishes.
> THE RAKE acknowledges Mr. Bokhanko's criticisms, but respectfully disagrees. In light of his clear dissatisfaction with the service this publication offers, and THE RAKE's unwillingness to change to suit Mr. Bokhanko's whims, Mr. Bokhanko has been offered a _full refund_ for the _full cost_ of his subscription, of which only one additional issue remained. We would consider this a most gentlemanly parting of ways. When two parties reach an
> insuperable impasse, the gentleman says "Good day to you, sir," and withdraws. He does not stoop to personal attacks. He does not question the morals of those who do
> ...





Braker said:


> Apologies if previously I came across as pompous or elitist - no place for that on StyleForum. [If I didn't abhor emoticons, a wink would be inserted here.]
> 
> THE RAKE does welcome feedback, and we have in fact taken on board many of the suggestions PMed or emailed to us by denizens of this forum and similar sites. The comments we get from you guys are often insightful, intelligent, and constructive - unlike the incoherent criticism and ill-informed, inarticulate, self-contradictory commentary offered up by Mr. Bokhanko.
> 
> Still, he has every right to express his opinions, however malformed. But we have every right to say "Ciao." -C.B.


----------



## andreyb (Dec 24, 2003)

Finian McLonergan said:


> Well, imagine for a moment that you commissioned a suit from a famous London house, say, and then proceeded to parade it on an internet forum and severely criticize (perhaps justly) the cut and the make. Would you expect that business/client relationship to resume? Would you be surprised if the company declined any subsequent commissions from you?


That's a valid point.

However, I try (as much as I can) to write balanced reviews -- and judging from the reaction here and on sf.net many (though not all) people agree that they are indeed balanced.

Granted, even mild criticism might cause an outrageous reaction; but in case of a bespoke maker it is a good time to ask yourself -- do I really want to give my custom to someone who consider himself/herself above all critique?

In this particular case not only actions but the writing of Mr Barker's messages was simply despicable. Thus, this thread.

Andrey


----------



## DocVenture (Sep 30, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> Fin, that's one big distinction. Another is that they are in the *business* of (free) speech, and so look hypocritical when they try to stifle it.


Agreed. Any media outlet that turns away a subscriber based on his opinion will seem foolish, not to mention petty.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

therakeonline.com <<< It's a terrible website anway, doesn't work properly, keeps on giving blank spaces where the 'articles' are supposed to be.


----------



## De-Boj (Jul 5, 2009)

MikeDT said:


> therakeonline.com <<< It's a terrible website anway, doesn't work properly, keeps on giving blank spaces where the 'articles' are supposed to be.


Are you sure you are not just a victim of the "Great Firewall of China"?


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

So what does he do, go around searching Google for "rake magazine reviews" and cancelling all subscriptions of the people whose opinion he disagrees with? Sorry, but his rationalisation is just poor and he lost a potential $130 from _me_ by pulling this.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Jovan said:


> So what does he do, go around searching Google for "rake magazine reviews" and cancelling all subscriptions of the people whose opinion he disagrees with? Sorry, but his rationalisation is just poor and he lost a potential $130 from _me_ by pulling this.


Ditto.


----------



## TheWGP (Jan 15, 2010)

JJR512 said:


> Ditto.


+1 - no way this magazine is getting a subscription from me now.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

> Apologies if previously I came across as pompous or elitist


You should come across as elitist, you are delivering an elite product. Don't apologize!

And three cheers for canceling the rube. You are one of the few people in this business with some balls.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

TheWGP said:


> +1 - no way this magazine is getting a subscription from me now.


And I'm not going to buy that Bentley now, either!


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Bog said:


> You should come across as elitist, you are delivering an elite product. Don't apologize!
> 
> And three cheers for canceling the rube. You are one of the few people in this business with some balls.


 The "rube" started this thread and Mr. Barker posted that in another forum entirely. You might consider that next time you come in with an opinion contrary to everyone else's just for the sake of starting something.


----------



## KvnO (May 25, 2010)

This is an interesting thread. 

As many others, I think it's really up to the reader if/when he chooses to end his subscription. And, ending a reader's subscription because he leveled some criticisms is a bit much (you can't please everybody).

I will say that offering a full refund was a nice gesture.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

Jovan said:


> The "rube" started this thread and Mr. Barker posted that in another forum entirely. You might consider that next time you come in with an opinion contrary to everyone else's just for the sake of starting something.


Yeah, I know. I should post a defence of Mr. Barker on SF, but I don't even have an account there as I've found that forum lacking in both style and civil forum culture.


----------



## hookem12387 (Dec 29, 2009)

It must be nice, given the economy, to be in a position to turn down a customer.


----------



## chrstc (Jun 11, 2007)

Bog said:


> Yeah, I know. I should post a defence of Mr. Barker on SF, but I don't even have an account there as I've found that forum lacking in both style and civil forum culture.


I truly hope that you mean that in a tongue-in-cheek way given the extreme lack of manners you've shown already in this thread!

Chris.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

Bog said:


> Apparently, meerkats who have the poor manners get dumped by high end magazines.
> 
> As it should be.


*You're a schmuck Bog*. Mr. Christian Barker, Editor of The Rake, is a flake and his magazine is a low end rag,...

Best odds are the "Elite" product you've referred to won't be around in two years. (and justly so!) And the two fancy boys, Bog and Christain Barker, can hang around some coffee house and pontificate about what style is all about.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

After reading this thread I will never eat another copy of The Rake as long as I live.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Trip English said:


> After reading this thread I will never eat another copy of The Rake as long as I live.


LOL! Post of the thread.


----------



## sowilson (Jul 27, 2009)

I thought _The Rake_ was what I used to turn over _The Compost_.


----------



## hookem12387 (Dec 29, 2009)

Someone is now on double secret _Rake_ probation


127.72 MHz said:


> *You're a schmuck Bog*. Mr. Christian Barker, Editor of The Rake, is a flake and his magazine is a low end rag,...
> 
> Best odds are the "Elite" product you've refered to won't be around in two years. (and justly so!) And the two fancy boy Bog and Christain Barker can hang around some coffee house and pontificate about what style is all about.


----------



## 3holic (Mar 6, 2008)

What I find so appalling is that Mr. Barker started a thread on another clothing forum seeking reader feedbacks, and then decided to cancel someone's subscription when said feedback was negative.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

127.72 MHz said:


> You're a schmuck


And you're a guy who lists his waist size in his signature. 'nough said.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Bog said:


> And you're a guy who lists his waist size in his signature. 'nough said.


And you're an ignorant troll.

Listing his waist size would be, "Hey world, my waist size is 34. Enjoy!" That's not what he's doing. He's looking for some specific articles of clothing, and has included relevant details related to that purpose. I mean, if this was a car forum and he wanted to buy a car, he wouldn't just put "Looking for a car" in his signature; he'd list the make, model, and year he's looking for, and possibly other options. But this just happens to be a clothing forum, so instead of just putting, "Looking for clothes," he's put in some finer details, and that's just plain smart. So smart, it's apparently over your head.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

3holic said:


> What I find so appalling is that Mr. Barker started a thread on another clothing forum seeking reader feedbacks, and then decided to cancel someone's subscription when said feedback was negative.


That's called market research. Nothing appalling about the matter. Probably the same sorry set that is finding this "so appalling" on this and other forums would cry out krokodiloe tears for the guy who gets kicked out of a restaurant for breaking the dress code, or when someone gets blackballed at a club.

The fact that Mr. Barker went beyond simple economics on the matter shows that he has more old school principles than most in commerce who are merely out for the next buck.


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

It seems to me the world is filled with douchebags who could probably make more money if they weren't so insufferable. While I suppose their willingness to sacrifice financial gains to maintain their jerk-like principles is on some minor level commendable, the fact remains they are still douchebags.

But even if I agreed with your theory in principle, your criticism of andreyb is still well out of line. As far as I can tell, andreyb is not getting paid for his reviews. And he paid for his subscription. 

Therefore, even if you put andreyb in the worst light possible-- if he's willing to hurt himself financially by paying for a subscription just so he can call out the magazine for not meeting his standards, he would have every right to do so. At worst its a tit-for-tat and you should appreciate the snobbery being shown on both sides. 

Market research is useless unless you get honest feedback. You won't get honest feedback if you punish those who criticize you. Therefore, what The Rake did was NOT market research. Or if it was, it was deceptive and intentionally dishonest in that they misled people into giving honest opinions only to strike back at them later.

And call me crazy, but I believe market research is typically done for economic reasons. I mean, it's got the word "market" in it and all. And yet somehow you have no problem with this.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Gentlemen: Air your differences; debate them with all the energy you can muster but, the name calling must stop. Should it continue, this thread will be closed! Thank you all, for your (anticipated) cooperation.


----------



## 3holic (Mar 6, 2008)

Bog said:


> That's called market research. Nothing appalling about the matter. Probably the same sorry set that is finding this "so appalling" on this and other forums would cry out krokodiloe tears for the guy who gets kicked out of a restaurant for breaking the dress code, or when someone gets blackballed at a club.
> 
> The fact that Mr. Barker went beyond simple economics on the matter shows that he has more old school principles than most in commerce who are merely out for the next buck.


You obviously have no understanding of the market research concept, or possess the capacity for rational thinking.

The purpose of market research is to find out the existing and potential customers' likes and dislikes, buying habits, price tolerance, etc. with the aim of product improvement to better meet the customers' wants and needs. Therefore, it is crucial to gain both positive and negative feedback for this endeavor to be useful.

As for your comparison to someone getting kicked out of a restaurant for dressing poorly, that is not even a sensible comparison, so I won't waste my time addressing that.

Lastly, canceling someone's subscription in this particular case is not "(going) beyond simple economics on the matter (and showing) that (Mr. Barker) has more old school principles."

Rather, it is petty and mean-spirited.


----------



## 3holic (Mar 6, 2008)

127.72 MHz said:


> *You're a schmuck Bog*. Mr. Christian Barker, Editor of The Rake, is a flake and his magazine is a low end rag,...
> 
> *Best odds are the "Elite" product you've referred to won't be around in two years.* (and justly so!) And the two fancy boys, Bog and Christain Barker, can hang around some coffee house and pontificate about what style is all about.


You are not alone in thinking this way. https://www.styleforum.net/showthread.php?t=203483


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

Bog said:


> And you're a guy who lists his waist size in his signature. 'nough said.


The web site is about clothing and given the number of members who've assisted in helping me find great deals because of the fact that I've listed my jacket and waist size I've got no apologies.

At almost fifty years of age I continue to compete, with favorable results, in triathlons, as well a running and cycling events. (All with my 33-34 inch waste)

In addition to being a schmuck you're a coward posting things like:
*
"You should come across as elitist, you are delivering an elite product. Don't apologize!

And three cheers for canceling the rube. You are one of the few people in this business with some balls. ** Last edited by Bog; October 7th, 2010 at 18:04.

*You've sure got a lot of balls,...At least while you can post such hard opinions while under the cloak of anonymity,....You mouse of a man.​


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

3holic said:


> The purpose of market research to to find out the existing and potential customers' likes and dislikes, buying habits, price tolerance, etc. with the aim of product improvement to better meet the customers' wants and needs. Therefore, it is crucial to gain both positive and negative feedback for this endeavor to be useful.


Exactly. Market research is to improve the product, not to get rid of those who don't like it.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Trip English said:


> After reading this thread I will never eat another copy of The Rake as long as I live.





hookem12387 said:


> Someone is now on double secret _Rake_ probation


Both of these posts brought much-needed laughs to the thread. :icon_smile_big:



jean-paul sartorial said:


> It seems to me the world is filled with douchebags who could probably make more money if they weren't so insufferable. While I suppose their willingness to sacrifice financial gains to maintain their jerk-like principles is on some minor level commendable, the fact remains they are still douchebags.
> 
> But even if I agreed with your theory in principle, your criticism of andreyb is still well out of line. As far as I can tell, andreyb is not getting paid for his reviews. And he paid for his subscription.
> 
> ...


"Douchebags" aside (I hate that word), you are spot on.



127.72 MHz said:


> The web site is about clothing and given the number of members who've assisted in helping me find great deals because of the fact that I've listed my jacket and waist size I've got no apologies.
> 
> At almost fifty years of age I continue to compete, with favorable results, in triathlons, as well a running and cycling events. (All with my 33-34 inch waste)
> 
> ...


I do believe eagle just told you to cease with the name calling.


----------



## 3holic (Mar 6, 2008)

JJR512 said:


> Exactly. Market research is to improve the product, not to get rid of those who don't like it.


You nailed it.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

De-Boj said:


> Are you sure you are not just a victim of the "Great Firewall of China"?


Quite possibly. I guess the Ministry of Public Security think 'The Rake' is about poker and gambling.



Bog said:


> That's called market research.


Comments posted on some forum is hardly what I would call 'market research'. Market research has to be conducted scientifically and properly if it is to have any value at all.

I don't even see how The Rake could even link some of their subscribers to unfavourable comments posted on an internet forum which has no connection whatsoever. Who uses their real names on internet fora and chat rooms?



3holic said:


> You are not alone in thinking this way. https://www.styleforum.net/showthread.php?t=203483


Can't read it, have to be registered.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

He used his real name on those forums.


----------



## DCLawyer68 (Jun 1, 2009)

Bog said:


> The fact that Mr. Barker went beyond simple economics on the matter shows that he has more old school principles than most in commerce who are merely out for the next buck.


I'd argue quite the opposite. Those who engage in commerce for profit are usually very civil out of economic necessity. It those who consider themselves "above those sell outs who are just out to make a buck" who usually engage in this sort of odd-ball behavior.

And I'm not aware of any "old school values" that necessitate black balling someone based on their honest, unmaliciously opinions.

That said, I'm unclear why anyone felt the need to go down the path of name calling?


----------



## andreyb (Dec 24, 2003)

An update:



andreyb said:


> A few days ago I got an unexpected e-mail from Christian Barker, editor of "The Rake" magazine, informing me that "in light of your clear dissatisfaction with THE RAKE magazine" "we are gladly cancelling your subscription, and refunding its cost in full."


My paypal account (that I used to subscribe) still not credited with a single penny...

You know, the guys who run the mag are so-o-o bad they are almost good!

Andrey


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

Off Topic-but what is in this magazine that makes it worth $15-20 a copy?


----------



## chrstc (Jun 11, 2007)

beherethen said:


> Off Topic-but what is in this magazine that makes it worth $15-20 a copy?


It features some (stress some) very well-written articles by journalists who really understand classic mens style, has some fantastic exclusive photoshoots and behind the scenes tours of artisinal bespoke workshops and tailoring rooms and the quality of the paper stock and printing itself also adds to the price. Of course the main reason for the hefty price in the West is that it is published and distributed from Singapore.

Hope that answers your question,
Chris.


----------



## andreyb (Dec 24, 2003)

Another update: today I got a FedEx letter with a cheque for $130 (dated October 13th). So, finally they fullfilled the promise of refund.

Andrey


----------



## MicTester (Oct 8, 2009)

On the bright side, OP can go after The Rake without having to pay the subscription now. :icon_smile:

But I am sure someone else has said this already. I did not read all posts :icon_pale:


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

andreyb said:


> Another update: today I got a FedEx letter with a cheque for $130 (dated October 13th). So, finally they fullfilled the promise of refund.
> 
> Andrey


I am suprised that a servant in livery didn't show up. FedEx? The horror.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Life is too short to maintain grudges and hold on to petty animosities for so long. Time to let it go and find another magazine to become engrossed with!


----------



## andreyb (Dec 24, 2003)

eagle2250 said:


> Life is too short to maintain grudges and hold on to petty animosities for so long. Time to let it go and find another magazine to become engrossed with!


Well, the last comment is just for the sake of objectivity, nothing else. Before I wrote that they not issued a refund; now they did.

Andrey


----------



## whistle_blower71 (May 26, 2006)

Andrey

Just received my latest copy of The Rake. Great articles on Huntsman and Ralph Lauren.

*W_B*


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

whistle_blower71 said:


> Andrey
> 
> Just received my latest copy of The Rake. Great articles on Huntsman and Ralph Lauren.
> 
> *W_B*


Nothing personal but that is really funny.:icon_smile_big:


----------

