Content

Advert

New Replies

Report Bug

Help/FAQs

Content

This topic has 30 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 28 October 2011 at 08:23 by John McNamara.

Viewing 25 posts - 1 through 25 (of 31 total)

1 2 →

Author

Posts
4 September 2011 at 16:36 #74451
David Dowlen
Participant
@daviddowlen43702
As a recent subscriber to ME i would say that I’m very happy with the content. Keep up the good work.

David
Advert

4 September 2011 at 16:36 #37498
David Dowlen
Participant
@daviddowlen43702
4 September 2011 at 22:18 #74469
DMB
Participant
@dmb
I started buying ME when it was weekly back in June 1962 and ever since. Seen quite a few Editors come and go, some mediocre, some good, some very good. Also had MEW from first issue. An excellent mag which somehow continues to improve, David building on whats gone before, extremely successfully.

Pity the next Editor of both mags – he (or even she!) will find David a very hard act to follow. Well done David.

John.
5 September 2011 at 07:56 #74471
Ex contributor
Participant
@mgnbuk
Just goes to show that the “You can please some of the people all of the time etc. ” statement still holds true.

I cancelled my MEW subscription on Friday after receiving Issue 181, due to sustained dissatisfaction with the quantity & quality of content. This was brought to a head when my wife passed me Issue 180 with the comment “that’s a thin issue” – subsequent investigation revealed less than half the pages were “content”, with the rest being (frequently un-related) advertising, “advertorials” & the incessant pushing of Magicalia exhibitions, offers etc.

The move from 6 to 13 issues has had a detrimental effect on the quality of the magazine from my viewpoint. The comments from the Editor on this forum & in the magazine don’t give me any hope that the current situation will change in the foreseeable future, so after subscribing from very early in the magazines life it is time to quit. I just missed the DD being taken out, so will get the next 3 issues – if things take a dramatic turn for the better I may reconsider, but I rather doubt that will happen.

£0.02

Nigel B.
5 September 2011 at 09:09 #74472
DMB
Participant
@dmb
Perhaps the consistently higher secondhand prices asked for MEW against ME, shows how much more MEW is valued by readers. Also, it seems that the odd back copies wanted are difficult to obtain without paying a high price to a commercial outfit.
5 September 2011 at 12:34 #74478
Terryd
Participant
@terryd72465
Posted by John Coleman 1 on 05/09/2011 09:09:14:

Perhaps the consistently higher secondhand prices asked for MEW against ME, shows how much more MEW is valued by readers. Also, it seems that the odd back copies wanted are difficult to obtain without paying a high price to a commercial outfit.

Hi John,

It possibly also reflects supply and demand, I reckon a lot more MEs are sold than MEWs. Back catalogues of MEs are also available in many main libraries, but I have yet to see an MEW, hence the need to buy. I do admit to being a subscriber myself though.

Regards

Terry
5 September 2011 at 16:07 #74485
Gone Away
Participant
@goneaway
Posted by John Coleman 1 on 05/09/2011 09:09:14:

Perhaps the consistently higher secondhand prices asked for MEW against ME, shows how much more MEW is valued by readers. Also, it seems that the odd back copies wanted are difficult to obtain without paying a high price to a commercial outfit.

I think it probably reflects more on the fact that, until recently, multi-part articles were rare in MEW whereas they were the norm for ME. Because of that, single, used issues of MEW were inherently more useful than those of ME.
5 September 2011 at 16:58 #74486
Mike
Participant
@mike89748
After 53 years in journalism (including more than 20 editing specialist magazines) I have much sympathy for the present editor of ME and MEW. Compliments are rare, so well said David Dowlen and John Coleman – I agree with you both.

Satisfied readers only very rarely bother to write and make their feelings known. I always used to reckon that as long as I was getting an equal number of complaints from all of the various factions in the readership, then I was doing my job.

In one respect, perhaps I am an oddity, in that I find the ads as interesting as much of the editorial. But then, I have never built a steam engine and have no immediate interest in doing so in the future, but I am interested in equipment and tooling that falls within my budget.

Furthermore, I would be reasonably sure that David, like the majority of editors, has a strict advertisement/editorial ratio dictated to him by the company’s bean counters, and there’s nothing he can do about that!
5 September 2011 at 20:06 #74502
Ex contributor
Participant
@mgnbuk
Furthermore, I would be reasonably sure that David, like the majority of
editors, has a strict advertisement/editorial ratio dictated to him by
the company’s bean counters, and there’s nothing he can do about that!

Certainly magazines are commercial enterprises & rely upon advertising to be profitable. But there has to be a balance between editorial content & relevant advertising. For my part, I feel that balance has gone too far in the wrong direction – too little editorial, too much largely irrelevant (to my mind) advertising. If I wanted to be exposed to products aimed at the model (or full sized) railway enthusiasts, I would purchase Model Engineer or other railway oriented magazine. The current editor appears to think that all MEW readers must be steam or railway enthusiasts also – not applicable in my workshop ! I stopped taking ME after MEW came out, as ME without the workshop bits was too steam & railway orientated to be of much interest.

The content has also, for me, been lacking of late. I realise that you cannot please all of the readership all of the time and, having taken all but 2 or 3 of the magzines since it’s inception, should expect some repetition and items outside my particular areas of interest. But it would be more of an incentive to keep subscribing to have an occasional article that did ! Increasingly I have felt that the editorial bit was just something to be filled up – while a good picture can be worth a thousand words, several poor (poor as in adding nothing to the article, not necessarily as in out of focus etc.) pictures are just padding.

It may be the current editor, may be the current management or a maybe a combination of the two – the end result is that this ex-subscriber felt that the current incarnation of MEW is not sufficiently engaging to carry on subscribing.
5 September 2011 at 20:30 #74504
Steve Withnell
Participant
@stevewithnell34426
I thought the content of todays ME was very well balanced with IC, Loco, stationary steam and a clock article. Struggling to see how you can do better than that.

Steve
5 September 2011 at 23:05 #74515
chris stephens
Participant
@chrisstephens63393
Hi Steve,

Try and get hold of some MEs from the late forties or early fifties, then you will know how.

chriStephens
6 September 2011 at 08:41 #74531
David Clark 13
Participant
@davidclark13
Hi There

I can only put in what I have.

Plenty of steam engines, lots of I/C engines, very little traction engines.

I try to give a wide variety of articles.

Not everyone is a steam enthusiast.

Regarding advertising, I will talk to the management and see if we can raise the price of each magazine by £2 and drop 50% of the advertising.

I am sure everyone would be happy with that.

regards David
6 September 2011 at 09:12 #74532
Mike
Participant
@mike89748
David is right: it is an unfortunate fact of present-day publishing that advertising brings in far more money than profits from magazine sales.
6 September 2011 at 10:25 #74537
Diane Carney
Moderator
@dianecarney30678
Look on the bright side… in 2020 this forum will have a thread that says “try and get hold of a 2010 / 2011 MEW …. those were the days!!!”

Diane
6 September 2011 at 10:59 #74542
Steve Garnett
Participant
@stevegarnett62550
Posted by David Clark 1 on 06/09/2011 08:41:59:

Hi There

I can only put in what I have.

Absolutely. For the people complaining about the content, I think that their time might be better spent trying to create some more. Perhaps then they might appreciate just how much effort goes into even a simpler article before it can be deemed publishable.

I have yet to find a single edition of MEW that hasn’t at least provided food for thought. Even if I only get one good idea from an edition, that’s well worth the cover price.
6 September 2011 at 11:07 #74544
Geoff Theasby
Participant
@geofftheasby
I was talking to a member of another club once and he said he wished there was a magazine which concentrated exclusively on railway models.

I told him that people had told me that they thought there was too much about railways. It takes all sorts!
6 September 2011 at 13:15 #74551
Ex contributor
Participant
@mgnbuk
I can only put in what I have.

Previous editors were a bit more active in providing content for MEW – and it was more interesting as a result.

Regarding advertising, I will talk to the management and see if we can raise the price of each magazine by £2 and drop 50% of the advertising.

I am sure everyone would be happy with that.

Go back to 6 issues a year, with each issue having twice the current editorial content – like it used to be ! A side effect would be more editorial time available to generate content when none was forthcoming.

If the price went up to cover the extra production cost, this would still be better VFM than the current arrangement.

£0.02
6 September 2011 at 13:18 #74552
David Clark 13
Participant
@davidclark13
Content is forthcoming.

I have box loads of multipart articles.

I do generate content.

What do you think I do all day?

regards Daviid
6 September 2011 at 14:23 #74553
William Roberts
Participant
@williamroberts98085
Press on David, I think you do a grand job and often wonder how you manage all you do and still have time to go in the shed.

Regards Bill
6 September 2011 at 14:57 #74555
Trumpet / Flugel
Participant
@trumpetflugel
I also think that David and his team do a great job. Producing three magazines month (every month!) is a serious challenge.

The content of the magazines IMHO is pretty well balanced. I would not be stimulated by reading just about subjects with which I am familiar. It’s the things which I haven’t seen first hand which get the old grey matter stirring. Maybe some articles are not relevant to my current activity, but I’m sure that one day I’ll come across a situation where that bit of reading will come to mind.

Keep up the good work!!

Peter.
6 September 2011 at 15:04 #74556
Roger L
Participant
@rogerl
Having worked in magazine publishing myself I understand that advertising pays for much of the magazine and can actually be useful to the reader in itself. However, I like to know whether what I am reading is editorial or advertising — and there have been some cases recently when I haven’t been sure. An ‘article’ earlier in the year on Reeves left me unsure whether I was reading editorial or advertorial. If it was the latter, I think it should have been signposted as such.

In the latest issue there is a Trade Topic piece about an airbrush that refers to “a quality airbrush at a good price”. Is this comment a piece of editorial judgement based on having seen and used the product, or was it just a line from the press release?

If material from trade suppliers is being used to create editorial pages then I think they should be signposted as such or more use made of the editorial blue pencil to remove un-substantiated claims that otherwise just undermine the credibility of the magazine.
6 September 2011 at 15:40 #74561
DMB
Participant
@dmb
One reason why David can pack a lot into his day is that he works from home and doesnt waste 1-3 hours a day getting ot and from work!

I would like to see larger photos in MEW instead of some which are little more than thumbprints. If piccie is big enough, I can view the `blobs and gadgets` on the mill or in the background. Its surprising what ideas one can get from how others have arranged a part of their workshop.

Still like a pig in muck even after 50 years when ME arrives and more recently, MEW.
6 September 2011 at 17:07 #74572
David Clark 13
Participant
@davidclark13
Hi There

I have the item and it is now in my toolbox.

It is an opinion based on handling the airbrush and trying the action.

I did not have chance to paint anything.

Reeves were put in because management told me to.

regards David
6 September 2011 at 17:08 #74573
David Clark 13
Participant
@davidclark13
Hi William

I don’t get time to go to the shed.

It is 7 days a week, 10 hours a day most weeks.

regards David
6 September 2011 at 18:38 #74582
Steve Withnell
Participant
@stevewithnell34426
Posted by chris stephens on 05/09/2011 23:05:47:

Hi Steve,

Try and get hold of some MEs from the late forties or early fifties, then you will know how.

chriStephens

Funny thing that. I spent part of last evening in the den looking at a stack of 1957 ME’s. Amazing what the world was like without TV and a UK manufacturing base that produced loads of skilled (ie time served) people. A lot of interesting stuff in the mags, but you cannot seriously compare the production quality? ” They don’t build ’em like that anymore”, – damn good job too!

Steve
Author

Posts