https://www.freightwaves.com/news/firecrown-media-grows-again-with-addition-of-trains-astronomy
This probably explains why they have been putting off fixing the forums.
Brent
"All of the world's problems are the result of the difference between how we think and how the world works."
I went through the process to create new account since I never updated since the recent changes. Why Kalmbach is announcing this via the Trains Newswire instead of a banner when you log in is not inspiring. I've subscribed to MR since 1981 and Trains for 30+ years. It wasn't because of the lack of merchandise offered though the website.
BATMAN This probably explains why they have been putting off fixing the forums.
I wish our friends at Kalmbach well. After being through acquisitions and takeovers, it's usually easier to buy than to be bought.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
Thanks Kalmbach.
Well, RMC improved when it went from Carstens to White River. Still, kinda sad. Been reading MR since 1971, when Al Kalmbach was still there.
From my perspective this almost can't be anything but good!
The now former owners nickel-and-dimed Kalmbach without regard to repurcussions. The outsourcing and subsequent deterioration of customer service is one example. The dismal state of these forums (and the prehistoric forum software that still in use) is another.
I suspect at worst the status quo will be maintained.
And... this will probably be deleted by the powers that be as soon as they see it...
Mark P.
Website: http://www.thecbandqinwyoming.comVideos: https://www.youtube.com/user/mabrunton
Sad day. I've been reading MR since 1954. However looking at how thin the magazine has become and how it seems that most of the articles were written in-house, I guess I'm not surprised. Maybe with new owners the magazine will improve, just as RMC did with new owners.
"One difference between pessimists and optimists is that while pessimists are more often right, optimists have far more fun."
Here's hoping for a positive outcome!
Cheers!!
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
I have been a subscriber to Model Railroader since the fall of 1968 - had to give my mother the cash and get her to write the check, I was 11.
Still have every issue and now many years worth before that time.
New blood was good for RMC, could be good here.
Often businesses become cash strapped, and stuck in a rut. They might know the way out, but cannot fund it.
Sometimes new owners are going too far out on a limb, but often new owners also have the cash or exisiting resources to fix the issues and turn their new acquisition into a winner again.
Only time will tell.
Sheldon
New owners won't be able to make relevant advertising magically appear. Take a look at UK model railroad magazines and note the amount of advertising - even retailers still have multi-page ads. If US companies don't want to advertise, there's not much anybody can do. Even the online-only MRH, chasing the same advertisers, doesn't have a big staff or make a big profit.
And then look at the magazine ownership. Of the two UK magazines I subscribe to, one is owned by a manufacturer. The other is owned by a publishing company and has a dedicated staff of three. It shares the rest of the magazine production with the rest of the company. (Which is also the White River model, even though all of their publications are railroad related.)
At least the sale was actually announced (by both parties) and not handled sleazily like certain other recent sales.
RMC has really done well since they were sold so this has to be a good thing
thomas81z RMC has really done well since they were sold so this has to be a good thing
It has survived, whether or not it's done well is a matter of opinion. I dropped my subscription after Stephen Priest's amateur redesign and focus on commentary. In one issue there were 14! pages of editorial content that was solely commentary. I think Otto Vondrak has improved it, but not to the point where I'd subscribe again.
Then there's Rapido sponsored content and an opinion column by Jason Shron. That destroys any argument that there's separation between advertising and editorial.
Hopefully this is a good move. The new owners did not buy them to go out of business. Unfortunately you only have 2 or 3 real Model Rairoaders left, Cody and David and Eric being the three of them. The rest of the staff is pretty much young kids who would not know a Model RR if it hit them in the face. Some of the other older staff just don't want to do Model Railroading. I guess time will tell.
Rather than conjecture I asked David Popp why there was nothing on the MR or trains.com site yesterday nor an email to the subscriber base. He authored a quick reply. (I've only been a MR subscriber since 1981.) His response:
Hello John, thank you for the note.
No one who works on any of the affected titles knew anything about it until yesterday. From a customer experience perspective, nothing will change. The magazines and website content will continue as before. The new company uses the same customer service platform we do as well.
There is at least one story on Trains.com Newswire that was put up mid-morning yesterday. I’m sure there will be something more in the near future as we, ourselves, are getting to know the new owners.
Thank you for your continued support and best wishes on your endeavors.
Sincerely,
David Popp
Not sure Jason Shron writing a one-page column every month means RMC has lost all it's editorial integrity.
I don't believe Mr. & Mrs. Priest have yet recovered from the BNSF merger - which eliminated (in name) our beloved Santa Fe.
ENJOY !
Mobilman44
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
I haven't found a Flying! forum similar to the one we have here with Model Railroader. That worries me, since we are mostly MODEL railroaders and they have a lot of real-world flyers amongst them.
I guess a bunch of locomotives numbered 1027 are going to renumbered or scrapped
MisterBeasley I haven't found a Flying! forum similar to the one we have here with Model Railroader. That worries me, since we are mostly MODEL railroaders and they have a lot of real-world flyers amongst them.
Yeah, that's the question. How much of their business model caters to the MODELING of the objects they cover. If FC wants to expand into model trains, do they want to also expand into model plane mags, model boats/ships, other models of the for-real big ticket items that their subscribers probably buy.
I assume companies like Cessna, Beechcraft, Mastercraft, etc. are the advertisers/sponsors for their existing mags, and not niche model companies?
Of course, I don't see many hobbyists buying real locomotives, so I guess I don't really see the Trains mag fit either. That's okay, they can carry on without me understanding it, LOL.
- Douglas
They've already added the old Kalmbach mags to their "brands" page.
https://firecrown.com/brands/
I don't think their not having model mags up to now is much to worry about, Kalmbach had Astronomy and The Space Store and it didn't affect MR or Trains - or vice versa. It sounds like for the time being the rail related magazines are going to stay in Milwaukee, so may have little affect.
I have subscribed to MR since 1971. It has always been my favorite magazine.
My hope is that it continues what it does maybe better.
Paul
MR has been a shell of its former self for the 15 years. What used to take evenings to pour over can now be done in about 3 minutes standing at the newstand. I used to love Trains and MR but will always remember realizing something wasn't right and the party was over. Gone was the glory days.
Jim Norton
Huntsville, AL
I think advertisers were ran away when Kalmbach drasticaaly raised rates. I recall seeing the same advertiser in Railfan and Trains. In Railfan, the ad was in color. In Trains it was in black and white. Thats greed in my book.
Maybe its just the price of "admission".
Circulation numbers support (dictate?) advertising rates - be it magazines, newspapers, or even tv / radio shows.
Trains has a significantly higher circulation vs. Railfan, so the advertiser may opt for black/white in Trains to keep his cost comparable with the ad in Railfan.
mobilman44Maybe its just the price of "admission". Circulation numbers support (dictate?) advertising rates - be it magazines, newspapers, or even tv / radio shows.Trains has a significantly higher circulation vs. Railfan, so the advertiser may opt for black/white in Trains to keep his cost comparable with the ad in Railfan.
Can't speak for the magazines listed above but I can speak about the MR rates. While their circulation is indeed higher than the other model railroad magazine, the rates are almost 5x higher per month. I pulled my monies and now get year round coverage in 2 magazines and one online magazine for pretty much the same cost as on MR ad and they are all the same size as MR.
Neal
ATLANTIC CENTRALoften new owners also have the cash or exisiting resources to fix the issues and turn their new acquisition into a winner again.
I have to agree with Sheldon,
Why would any magazine publisher buy the rights to new (for them) publications unless they had plans to improve them? I eagerly await the positive developements that will come from these changes in the industry.
hon30critterWhy would any magazine publisher buy the rights to new (for them) publications unless they had plans to improve them? I eagerly await the positive developements that will come from these changes in the industry. Cheers!! Dave
I would say for the same reasons some producers buy the product lines of other companies and then stop producing the lines they presumably made the purchase to acquire in the first place.
A couple of examples: Testor's purchase of Floquil, then Rustoleum's purchase of Testors. The discontinuance of Floquil was a huge hit to model railroading at the time, but did they care?
Or how about Walthers buying up Life-Like, then discontinuing the entire Heritage steam locomotive line. That was a hit to HO steam modelers, but did Walthers care?
Were those things planned from the start (and if so, why?), or did purchased brands just not generate the minimum profits the purchaser wanted?