I agree with the sentiments expressed above. (Except about the part where MR should cost $8-9! But that’s a different story.)
I expect a magazine with the history, background and leadership role of MR to present reviews that are as unbiased as they can make them. Most of the time, I think MR does that. Sometimes, they publish a review of equipment that leans toward the favorable side, when it should either report that the equipment doesn’t perform up to expectations or not publi***he review.
I believe I read once (maybe in MR, perhaps in another mag?) that manufacturers supply the items for reviews free of charge. The reviewer writes the article and submits it. The editors review the article and if there has been some serious doubts about the item, they will go back to the manufacturer to see if the item the magazine received is representative of what’s on the market or just a defect undetected by the manufacturers quality control. This is a good procedure, since every manufacturer can have a bad item come
With regard to the reviews, it may be that they have to be careful of what they print. A magazine over here was allegedly threatened with legal action by a model manufacturer (naming no names, other UK members may know what I’m on about) over a highly critical (and rather unfair - I bought one of the locos concerned and was very happy with it) review.
Of course, threatening legal action and actually prevailing in court are not the same. And media laws in Britain are different than the States. Comments criticizing a product are protected here under Fair Comment and Criticism.
Reviews are a tightrope that magazines such as MR choose to walk. A balanced review in their case is one that informs the reader of the model’s pros and cons without offending the manufacturer/advertiser so that they will no longer do business with KalmPubCo. This is what stands in the way of total objectivity: some degree of objectivity has to be judiciously sacrificed for the overall fiscal health of MR and Kalmbach. That’s why you don’t see the reviewer writing, “This product is not a good value in my opinion.” One or two of those remarks in regard to high-profile/big ad revenue advertisers’ products would not bode well.
Does MR change for the better? Yes, it does, according to the editor’s competency level in and passion for the hobby. That’s why the publication overall was better when Paul Larson, Linn Westcott and Andy Sperandeo, respectively, were the editors.
Ahhh, I think we’re getting to the heart of the problem.
MR reviews (and most others except for Consumer Reports) provide descriptive material about the item. Things like it draws this much currect, runs this fast at 12 volts, has this drawbar pull, is this many inches off the drawing, etc. Also, I have seen comments about problems encountered, especially when kit instructions go awry.
What it doesn’t provide is value judgments - this car is a “piece of junk”, or it runs like a “stuck pig”. etc. You’ll notice that Consumer Reports only rarely says don’t buy a product - what they do are comparative reviews and tests using carefully described criteria. From this they rank the products and make recommendations as to which is the best of the products reviewed, which is the best buy for the money, etc.
MR doesn’t do comparative reviews. MR provides information to you that is not available in the ads or by looking at the box it comes in. MR doesn’t decide whether or not you should buy it. You the consumer have to decide whether the locomotive, car, structure meets your needs/desires. And that may well be different for different folks. Even in this forum there is no agreement about products. For example, I have seen numerous posts that say “Atlas track is junk” and then lots more that say “Atlas track is great, I have used it for years”.
If you want a value judgement and opinion , just ask here - you’ll get it! If you want information MR’s review is good place to go.
Enjoy
Paul
i would like to see 2 changes. firstly i would like to see comparison pictures between the real thing and the model. detailed pictures taken of the loco from the same angles published next to each other. so we can get a proper comparison.
secondly i would liie to see far more content. evry layout that seems to get feathred is a perfectly manucured and totally finished layout built to the highest standards. i have nothing aghainst that. infact i think it is something that british mags should look at more closely. the sheer standard of modelling in MRR is exceptional. but i would pay a pound more for a thicker mag that also had alot more ‘ordinary’ layouts (i dont use the word ordinary to criticise anyones layout). i would love to see the round the room layouts that americans have the space for!
Guys,All to sadly MR has been sliding down hill over the last 10 years and it may never recover.I can recall when MR pushed NMRA membership now it pushes their advertisers products such as DCC,Train sim etc.Gone is the simple but basic how to articles,paint shop and other good columns.Now as somebody pointed out we are getting rehash articles,seeing the same good ole boys high dollar layouts and how DCC will cure all problems.
Will MR listen? I think not as MR has its own cheering section both on this forum and 90% of the letters they print in MR.
As MR continues to slide down hill and loose readers we just might see that $8.00-9.00 price tag.I won’t pay that price as I currently buy the better issues of MR instead of monthly like I have in the past…
I’d like to make a related point here. Several folks here, and in the somewhat-related DCC Buyers Guide topic I started have made a point of price.
I’d like to say that I DO NOT object to paying good money for the magazine, other Kalmbach publications, etc. I also don’t object to the fact that the price of the magazine and books is a little high - if you view it in relative terms of what you can get another magazine for, or what a softcover 100-ish page booklet costs elsewhere.
I say that because I understand that in a relatively “niche” market, costs are higher and margins must be too. I do value and appreciate companies that support this industry. I appreciate the MR advertisers who offer very specialized parts and items. I don’t object to the fact that some little doo-dad costs $12.00, because I realize that the company might end up selling only 500 units and it has to be worth their while.
So speaking for myself (others have expressed a different opinion), my comments in both threads haven’t been centered on things costing “too much,” and certainly when I criticize an article or general practice of the publication, I’m not saying it would be “okay” if it was “cheaper”.
To be specific, the post immediately prior talks about an eventuality where MR has an $8-9 cover price. I have to concur that I wouldn’t pay that for the publication as it stands. But I’d also add that I would happily pay that if the content merited it. For me this isn 't about money, but about a value-equation. I don’t want to pay $2.00 for an issue if it doesn’t bring value, and I have no problem paying $10 for an issue if it’s chock-full of useful info…
Right now I see the value equation as slightly off. Not enough to put me up in arms to cancel my subscription… But enough to say “hey guys, this is what I was expecting and I feel let down”.
MR is turning into a small Walthers catalogue, until they realize it nothing will change. Last years catalogue did have a great article on building a roundhouse scene.
Well, libel law here is much, much more permissive than it is in the UK. Go read the stuff Christopher Hitchens writes for British publications on the web and compare it to the stuff he does for Slate. One of the great benefits of the First Amendment!
Two things probably account for MR’s reviews: midwestern niceness, and long experience. Wisconsin is in the heart of one of the nicest cultures in the US: it’s a little surprising to East Coasters, but rain can be turning the 6 and a half inches of snow to slush, soaking their feet and chilling their toes, and people in Milwaukee will still manage to smile, wish you a nice day, and mean it. All of my correspondence with Kalmbach staffers over the years has had much the same tone. They probably just apply the “if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all” rule.
One thought: Jim Hediger has been around model railroading and MR for a long time - my lifetime, more than thirty years. How do you think the products of today look to someone who was reviewing diecast Zamac engines with open-frame motors? I think they probably look pretty good. I know they look good to me, and I’m probably half Jim’s age.
Please remember, the decision to remove the Coming Events from the magazine was based off of years of reader surveys that all showed that Coming Events ranked at the bottom of the popularity list with readers. They didn’t make a spur of the moment decision to remove that feature, it was based on hard facts.
Most others don’t provide value judgments? Most others are just descriptive? You’re simply flat out wrong here. The demonstrable reality is that most other magazines do exactly that: offer a judgment - hopefully based on informed expertise and the facts at hand, but a judgment nevertheless.
Pick up a car and driver and look for the “hits” and “misses” for each car reviewed. Read the text where they flat out say things like “Car X is a better value in the same price range as this one.” I defy you to find a car magazine that doesn’t review cars substantively - they’d be out of business in 10 minutes because the readers would desert them.
Pick up nearly any audio or video magazine - Audiophile is the one I happen to subscribe to, but I can’t think of one that does not have actual reviews. Again, a camera magazine without real reviews wouldn’t last long.
Pick up any issue of Men’s Health and you get qualitative ratings of various products. If I dig into my wife’s magazine pile here, I see issues of O with reviews. Here’s a copy of Shape reviewing workout DVD’s - and they full out trash one of them.
Even a ‘laddie’ rag like Maxim does real reviews with ratings and recommendations for things like (I distinctly recall this from the last issue I read in my brother-in-law’s bathroom) single-malt scotch. RATED, not just described.
The reality is, again, the value the magazine brings is their expertise - and hopefully their impartial expertise. If they refuse to share that and do a vanilla-fied ‘just the facts ma’am’ review, it has little value.
The reality is most magazines do judgment-based product reviews - it’s too valuable to the reader - and I mean real
I dunno Bergie, looks like you got yourself a contradiction here.
You say it was always at the bottom of the list, and yet every time it comes up here there’s a chorus of “don’t take it away” (before hand) or “we miss it, bring it back” (now).
There’s also the issue of “it was at the bottom”… What does that mean really. Let me put it to you this way:
Which would you rather I give you:
A) $10,000 cash
B) A $10,000 automobile
C) $10,000 pre-loaded credit card.
Now I can ask this of 1 person or 10,000 people and one of those will always be “last”… So then I can say “hey look, nobody wants a $10,000 car for free!” is that it?
Compare MR to RMC, and you’ll see the same reviews,basically telling the good points of the model,I doubt they’d give a thumbs up to a dog. Both mags fill many pages with ads, although many are smaller giving web addresses for prices,only Mainline Modler Rail Model Journal and Model Railroading use less advertising, but are more niche driven mags,covering specific models and eras. Model Railroader’s biggest problems is the good ole boy network of articles,authors and trackside photos.the same people month after month. Then there’s their constant need to feed their ego , RPO, back -slapping" atta boys" ,they have to print each month, and that’s a fact!!!
I tend to agree that the Good 'ol boy network is an issue.
But, especially after seeing the responses and debate on this board the last few days, I would have to say MRs “biggest problem” is simply the utter conviction that there are no problems. If people don’t like the reviews, then they don’t understand what “reviews” are supposed to be. If they say the focus is too much on beginners, then say “no it isn’t” or question their perception.
And if all else fails, just delete the discussion thread, put your fingers in your ears and play “hear no evil”…
I fail to see the contradiction… we have scientific survey results that state the facts. You can’t take random comments from a reader forum (beit comments on Coming Events or any other topic) and use a chorus of “don’t take it away” to be a overall scientific fact.
Yes, it’s not as though those survey results showed no one was interested in Coming Events. There certainly was interest in Coming Events. However, when compared to other features of the magazine, it ranked low.
Don’t be fooled by science Bergie, Lets take the radio industry for an example, over90% of it’s owned by corporations, no matter what genre of music ,it’s based on survey of top 40 hits,so you hear the same thing over and over and over again, all day , everyday. People get tired of it, but the wits in charge say “that’s what the surevys says is popular”, your magazine takes the same approach, individualism is lost,editors follow a script,fearing to try something different
What’s the old saying? Lies, *** Lies and Statistics…
I’ve done enough surveys and so forth to know that you can craft the questions, stage the method of response and interpret results to get pretty much any answer you want to hear.
I wonder if those surveyed ranked Coming Events low when compared to other standard features? Not that they did not like or need them, just they weren’t always needed or required, and feature stories were more important much of the time.
After all we don’t all travel all the time and need to know where shows are, so much of the time the column might not be of interest . If the survey said what would you like to see removed from MR, and one choice was the column, that I could see.
If I’d known there were so many worms in this can, I might not have opened it. However, I did want to generate a discussion of whether constructive suggestions made in this forum ever translate into changes to the magazine that make it better for everyone.
I appreciate Bergie participating in this topic, and I have a couple questions for him:
Do you ever read a well-thought-out proposal on a forum topic and turn it around to Terry with a note saying “This is a great idea! We should look at doing this in MR from now on”?
You indicate that responses to surveys have a big impact on the direction that MR takes. How do I get into the pool of potential survey participants for MR? Every few months I get a survey from Trains, but since I don’t buy that magazine very often I can seldom give a useful response to the questions.
Just so everyone knows, I just paid for another two-year subscription yesterday. I believe MR has some flaws, but not enough to give up my subscription. I just want to know how I can best help improve the magazine.