they don’t. Anyone with a basic concept of business and sales promotion understands that.
A very interesting forum! I heartily agree that the dealers are not buying as much ad space because they can post their latest offerings more cheaply and quickly on the internet. I’ve mentioned this before in the forum. CTT and OGRR have a problem here and I’m sure they are trying to address it. They are not alone in this; other hobby mags face the same problem (photography comes to mind). Unfortunately, subscribers are going to have to pick up more of the publication cost to help cover this advertisiing shortfall.
In regards to Mike Wolf being a “train guy” and having a big leg up because of it, I think that’s overblown. Josh Cowen himself, as far as I ever learned, didn’t have a layout at home – hardly had any trains at home period. He probably saw enough of them at work every day. He certainly new how to fix them, etc., but his genius was in marketing. I’d rather have a marketing genius running Lionel than a “train guy” any day!
Whoa! Pretty interesting comment from a person who is supposed to be editorially neutral.
If there truly is no relationship between advertising and editorial at CTT/Kalmbach, as it should be to protect the publication’s integrity, the editorial department would have a budget for purchasing products to review – just to keep some balance to maintain an air of propriety. You embark on a slippery slope when you review only products submitted gratis. That opens the door for a manufacturer to send you only pre-tested products which will perform perfectly, which may or may not be the same as what’s on the shelves for us to buy. It also discriminates against certain manufacturers, doesn’t it?
There also seems to be some confusion on your part between the departments “new product news” and “reviews.” You don’t need a physical sample for “new product news” – a photo and press release is all that is required. That’s because the sole purpose of “new product news” is to alert readers of new things they may purchase. It is not intended to be construed as any type of endorsement. I can’t believe that Lionel – when requested – doesn’t supply you with these materials.
On the other hand, the purpose of a “review” is to offer a fair and balanced assessment of a product based on unbiased physical examination and testing – and is not intended to sell that product for the manufacturer. By limiting your reviews to products t
Actually, PZ, I do have a budget for buying products and the coverage of Lionel items you’ve seen in the magazine is the result of that.
I’m not, however, going to drop the year’s budget on one or two high-dollar items from any manufacturer. Recent purchases include track, rolling stock, and locomotives like the B6 0-4-0, the hotbox car and the S-2 electric which you’ll see in reviews.
I know you’re trying to make this our fault, but all we can do is offer the coverage to the manufacturer. It is up to them to participate, especially since it doesn’t cost them anything.
As for news photos, I know I like plunking down good money for a magazine, just to see the same photos in their products news sections as I’ll discover in the train-maker’s catalog. Yessiree, I know that buying the same photo twice is money well used.
For the last decade I have sparingly used provided images mainly because the images manufacturers provide, are photos from catalogs or ads. I prefer to shoot a unique product photo as an extra value for our readers. This allows them to see the photo in the catalog or advertisement and compare it with the image in our magazine.
BTW I give Don Thompson at S-Helper two thumbs up for recently shooting an exclusive image of his 2-8-0 (S-Helper didn’t have one in the US to send us) for our lead shot in the May News.
And, PZ, I don’t think there is anything that isn’t editorially neutral in my remarks. Like they say in the TV ads, if you don’t enter, you can’t win. If I don’t have the products to shoot (and return, by the way) for news or to test for reviews, the odds slim they will make it into our magazine. A simple fact of life.[:D]
Interesting to see how some folks try so hard to make Lionel’s lack of advertising and refusal, or perhaps inability, to send products for review look like it’s all the publisher’s fault. Talk about feeble attempts at spin!
And it’s hard to imagine a corporation or corporate executive being so thin-skinned that they would back off supporting the main publication in the hobby (the one with the largest circulation) simply because something was said in an editorial, or elsewhere, that they didn’t like.
Has it occurred to anybody that maybe the reason that Lionel isn’t advertising in CTT in these tight financial times, is because they don’t have to? Their name is on the cover of every issue of CTT, for goodness sake! Has there ever been an issue of CTT without the Lionel name on the cover? I doubt it.
Just a thought…
Regards,
Clint
P.S. With regards to not sending any product in for review… I don’t have an explanation for that one. That’s just foolishness on Lionel’s part, IMO. Okay, I’m done. [:)]
Anyone with a basic concept of business and sales promotion understands that.
LOL!! How foolish of me all this time I was under the mistaken notion the idea of being in business was to make money… Only now do I find out the secret is to lose it… Dang [;)]
If I’m a Lionel PR guy, and I read that, I would figure that the opportunity for an unbiased review is pretty much zero. Sounds like a bowl of sour grapes to me.
The salt-rubbing over Chapter 11 was a particularly nice touch.
This whole thing strikes me as being relatively easy, as no matter how big the companies are, it’s a small industry.
You pick up teh phone and call Jerry C. “Hey Jerry, Bob Keller, CTT.” I want to get together with you for lunch and talk about trains and Lionel and CTT. What works for you?"
If I’m Jerry C and the publisher of the biggest mag in the industry calls and wants to break some bread, I’m all for it.
You get together and tell him you want them to submit some products for review. Tell him you haven’t received any for a long time and you’ve been harranging the marketing people for them without success. “Jerry, do me a favor, get so and so on the phone and tell him you want the products sent to us. He’ll do it if the request comes from you.”
Now, either Jerry has to say “Bob, we don’t think your mag treats us fairly” or he makes it happen. If he says they don’t want to, you find out why anmd chose to either fix the problem (actually change the perception, as no mag should bend to insistance of a positive review) or you at least both know where you satnd.
I serously doubt this thread isn’t in Jerry C’s email already.
“So Bob, why do you keep beating the dead horse about the Chapter 11 on the CTT forum. You know what that’s about - why stir the pot?”
um, er um
Point being, two people sit in the same room and figure it out, instead of all this sniping.
I hope the response to this isn’t Jerry wouldn’t take the call
I don’t think this comment was directed at my post, but here’s the rub – it is the CTT editorial department’s job to provide interesting, topical and timely coverage of the toy train industry and NOT sell trains for anyone. CTT might have a case for being an industry shill – and I am not saying it is – if the CTT magazines were supported solely by advertising and given away for free. Since I pay for a subscription, I have reason to expect CTT does everything possible to deliver editorially that interesting, topical and timely coverage of the toy train industry.
And if that includes buying items to review to deliver for your paid subscribers, so be it. If there’s not enough money currently in Bob’s budget to do that, then he needs a bigger budget to perform his job properly. But lack of dollars in a case like this – what, a thousand or two a month? – is not an acceptable excuse for not reviewing Lionel’s or anyone’s products. Sorry, but that’s the spin you should be highlighting.
Consumer Reports doesn’t get any advertising revenues like CTT does, but uses its subscription dollars to buy products to review. CTT has it coming in both ways – subscription/POP sales and advertising. It’s awfully hard to lose money on an issue when you can adjust the page count based on total ad pages.
I’d like to thank everyone, in particular Bob Keller, for frank and open discussion of a potentially difficult topic. The hobby could use more open and civil discussion of the many difficult issues that are simmering, IMO.
That’s an excellent point Neil, and not one that should go unoted. You would not see this discussion on other magazine sponsored forum(s).
I also appreciate the opportunity to participate in a great discussion.
I’m in the same business as Bob. As a longtime subscriber of CTT, Trains, MRR and CT, of course I have the right to have some expectations. I subscribe to CTT even though I’m an S gauger and in my opinion they don’t offer enough about S scale.
Oh, we S folks do have a publication – S Gaugian – that, unfortunately, is about as journalistically weak as it can get, and that makes me even more frustrated.
So, this is personal? Because you don’t think you’re a priority for Lionel, you’re letting it affect your choices of new products and reviews?
My first thoughts were perhaps Lionel was not aware you would do product reviews without advertising… But you have cleared that up… Since you’ve talked to Jerry’s assistant you’ve made more than enough effort in this area.
Questioning Lionel’s priorities is a foolish enterprise… Some quotes from past CEO’s brings that out…
Gary Moredough… “We’re it and that’s All”
*** Maddox… “You’re Lionel, you can do whatever you want”
Obviously some of their fans hold the same mindset… they don’t need to advertise, they’re Lionel.
So why place blame on the editorial staff of a special interest magazine? Why insist they spend their money to cover products that are so superior anyway?
The arrogance of Lionel and some of their followers never ceases to amaze me. They got nailed in a public trial, they’re sitting in Chapter 11, they’re bleeding money and still the chant “We’re Number One”… Keep on keeping on, boys [:D]
Sour grapes are always less interesting than fine whine :). Anyhow, arrogance is hardly a monopoly of the Lionel staffers or followers. Just check out the DCS forum on the OGRR Board (DCS is so superior to TMCC we cannot deign to hear any arguments to the contrary) or any of MTH’s advertising for the 1990s and early 2000s. They’ve probably patented arrogance and a new lawsuit will be forthcoming shortly.
Sure Lionel followers and Lionel are arrogant. They’ve got to keep up with the Jones :).
And that sound like a good place to wrap this thread up …
[:)]