Does MR Ever Change?

[potlatcher]

Does Model Railroader ever change to better meet the needs of its readers?

I just got done looking at the DCC Buyers Guide "Open Letter" topic (http://www.trains.com/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=49348) and it got me to wondering. That topic included several points of constructive criticism, with various posters describing ways they think Model Railroader could have improved the Buyers Guide, and how MR could better address this subject in the future.

I have read similar constructive criticisms on countless other topics in the past. I remember the pleas for MR to change their mind when they announced they were dropping the schedule of upcoming train shows. Yet no matter how sensible and well presented many of these ideas have been, it seems MR has never made any changes to their format based on these comments.

Can anyone point out any instances when MR changed its course for the better based on suggestions from this forum?

Tom

[jxtrrx]

Boy, I sure agree, Tom. I also naively thought that they would surely change their mind on the train show schedules after seeing the overwhelming comments protesting it being dropped. I can only think that they routinely ignore our comments because they view us as "hard core" modelers not representative of their target audience.

Certainly they have every right to take suggestions made here or leave them alone... they ultimately are resonsible for the direction of their publication, not us. But I'm like you... I always wonder why forum users aren't more viewed as their core readers worthy of paying attention to.

[IRONROOSTER]

MR does change over time. I'm not sure if it's in direct response to these forums. They also send out email surveys to people on the forum for evaluation of issues of their magazine. I suspect that changes are influenced by all of this - surveys, forum, letters/emails, talking with people at shows, etc.

I think a lot of people don't understand what a buyer's guide from MR is intended to do. Unlike Consumer Reports, MR is not a test and evaluate operation that does in depth comparative tests of an item across manufacturers. Their buyer's guide is a survey of what's available and what the main features are - in this case for DCC systems. Considering the amount of information on DCC that MR has published over time, I think they are covering the topic quite well.

Their main purpose is to provide us with information about the hobby of Model Railroading and how to do it. They have been doing it quite well for the over 30 years that I have subscribed.

Enjoy
Paul

p.s. every time they do make a change they get howls of protest. Just search back through the forums.

[Curmudgeon]

Sure they change.
Every time they get a new editor.
Happens periodically.

[jeffshultz]

I've been going through some of my older ('80s) Model Railroaders recently (they were finally unearthed from my parent's garage) and I made the startling discovery - they rarely had color photography in the articles back then.

Now you see very little B&W.

A very nice improvement, to my mind (and eyes).

[Curmudgeon]

Color photos.
Check the cover price of the old one and the new one, figure all that color adds to that cost.....

[jfugate]

More to the point, does MR listen to and consider the feedback of its readers, and the suggestions of those who post on this forum?

As one who has an occasional conversation with some of the MR staff, I can tell you I see our comments are noticed, and even acted upon at times. If they aren't acted upon, MR usually has other considerations we're typically not aware of as to why what they are doing is the better approach.

Sometimes, if it's a suggestion for something new MR ought to be doing that they agree is a good idea, it can take a while to set things in motion, so you need to give it time.

[Anonymous]

I would to know what happen to a thread that was started on this forum last Thur.or Fri. talking about Athearns poor running Mikes and the Pacifes which were the worst pulling engine I ever had, and which MR gave a glowing review to. anyway it was great to see others of you having the seem problems with them and all of a sudden the thread is gone.( did anyone else notice this or was it just me?)
But getting back to the main question here, yes they have changed and I hate to say it, its not for the better. Where i notice it is in the layouts, they are running theres more and more of a sameness if you know what i mean. More and more of a good ole boys club. Like there are only 5 or 6 modelers in the usa and 1 over in the old country that know what and how to properly model. Helps best to if you are a PRO RAILER! only way!

[csmith9474]

QUOTE: Originally posted by swdave

I would to know what happen to a thread that was started on this forum last Thur.or Fri. talking about Athearns poor running Mikes and the Pacifes which were the worst pulling engine I ever had, and which MR gave a glowing review to. anyway it was great to see others of you having the seem problems with them and all of a sudden the thread is gone.( did anyone else notice this or was it just me?)
But getting back to the main question here, yes they have changed and I hate to say it, its not for the better. Where i notice it is in the layouts, they are running theres more and more of a sameness if you know what i mean. More and more of a good ole boys club. Like there are only 5 or 6 modelers in the usa and 1 over in the old country that know what and how to properly model. Helps best to if you are a PRO RAILER! only way!

Don't expect those kind of threads to hang around too long. They have been started before, and "POOF", they were gone. The major point brought up before is that MR is not going to bite the hands that feed them (the advertisers). Then the integrity of the MR staff is brought into question (on a forum that they provide and maintain as free service). No win situation.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, it does strike me too. When they do that "about so-and-so" at the end of layout tours or other layout features, so often it's "Jimmy Jack's narrow gauge module was featured in issue X and his creative background painting techniques were in issue Z"...

And as someone else said here... "The Utah Belt... Again?"

[Anonymous]

QUOTE:
Don't expect those kind of threads to hang around too long. They have been started before, and "POOF", they were gone. The major point brought up before is that MR is not going to bite the hands that feed them (the advertisers). Then the integrity of the MR staff is brought into question (on a forum that they provide and maintain as free service). No win situation.

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here, Smitty. Are you defeding MR or trashing them?

Are you sahing those threads are wiped out because they insult advertisers? That means the staff IS biased to advertisers.

Are you saying those threads are wiped out because they make clear that MR reviews are uniformly positive (even when the product isn't)? That means the editors are either biased or incompetent.

Are you saying it's
_true_ that MR 'won't bite the hand that feeds them?' If so, then the assertions about integrity are 100% justified.

If the assertions are not justified, then why do the threads go "poof" and why are all the reviews a thumbs-up?

I know my thoughts on the matter, but would like to understand your point here.

[csmith9474]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kchronister

QUOTE:
Don't expect those kind of threads to hang around too long. They have been started before, and "POOF", they were gone. The major point brought up before is that MR is not going to bite the hands that feed them (the advertisers). Then the integrity of the MR staff is brought into question (on a forum that they provide and maintain as free service). No win situation.

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here, Smitty. Are you defeding MR or trashing them?

Are you sahing those threads are wiped out because they insult advertisers? That means the staff IS biased to advertisers.

Are you saying those threads are wiped out because they make clear that MR reviews are uniformly positive (even when the product isn't)? That means the editors are either biased or incompetent.

Are you saying it's
_true_ that MR 'won't bite the hand that feeds them?' If so, then the assertions about integrity are 100% justified.

If the assertions are not justified, then why do the threads go "poof" and why are all the reviews a thumbs-up?

I know my thoughts on the matter, but would like to understand your point here.

I know that this will be vague, but I respect MR as a publication and what they do for the hobby. I am a subscriber myself. I appreciate the venue they offer here to exchange thoughts and ideas. They have to do what they have to do to remain a successful magazine. Giving bad reviews is not a way to make friends. The reviews are a great way to "feel" out a product, but as with anything else, get a second opinion.

[grayfox1119]

In order to make a judgement on any subject, we need to be aware of "all" the facts, and I seriousl doubt that most of us are. What we see in the magazine is our "perception" of what MRR does or doesn't do. If you feel strongly about a subject concerning the magazine, take the time to write to the editor, and a word of advice...don't slam people, "I" don't like it, I am sure "you" don't like, and we should be constructive at all times with our criticism if we want to get anyone's attention.
It is easy to slam, it takes intelligence to observe, decide what might be better, and present to the listener/reader in an open way that they will listen. Think duplex not simplex.

[edkowal]

QUOTE: Originally posted by csmith9474

I know that this will be vague, but I respect MR as a publication and what they do for the hobby. I am a subscriber myself. I appreciate the venue they offer here to exchange thoughts and ideas. They have to do what they have to do to remain a successful magazine. Giving bad reviews is not a way to make friends. The reviews are a great way to "feel" out a product, but as with anything else, get a second opinion.

While "...Giving bad reviews is not a way to make friends..." it _is_ within what most people expect from a magazine that publishes reviews. It is done by magazines in other topics of interest, for instance computer equipment, and is also done by other magazines within this hobby. Not pointing out difficulties with a product defeats the purpose of publishing a review in the first place. It is also a disservice to the readers of your magazine. What it winds up being is so many column inches of unpaid advertising.

Model Railroader has the highest circulation numbers in the industry, last time I noticed, and so it will remain the way for advertisers to reach the maximum number of potential buyers, whether or not the reviews are favorable. Manufacturers don't purposely bring out bad products, and with the number of newsgroups out there, it's highly unlikely that news of products defects will remain invisible for long. After that, word of mouth will take over. It's better, in my opinion, for the information to be circulated rapidly back to the producer, who can then fix the problem, and circulate a news release about the new improved product. But glossing over what are perceived to be problems is not responsible coverage in reviews.

-Ed

[potlatcher]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edkowal
Model Railroader has the highest circulation numbers in the industry, last time I noticed, and so it will remain the way for advertisers to reach the maximum number of potential buyers, whether or not the reviews are favorable.

This is a good argument as to why MR should provide more critical reviews of products. If a manufacturer gets upset by the review and pulls their ads, they will be the real losers. Without the advertising, they won't sell products and hence will go out of business. As for MR's bottom line, if they lose a few advertisers because of their reviews, there's a good chance the manufacturers of superior products will be willing to fill those empty pages with their ads.

Tom

[rolleiman]

What has Really changed?? Has Anything changed? Is there anything we do today that we didn't do back in the 1980s?? 1970s, or 1960s?? Or for that matter, 1990s??

Just for grins, I pulled, at random a december issue from days gone by out of my collection.. It happens to be 1991. The first and most obvious, the price.. $2.95 then, $5.50 now.. What did you get for your $2.95 then.. 234 pages.. What do we get for $5.50 now?? 145 pages.. So the price went up, and the content went down.. Right?? Well, let's look at it a little closer.. Open to 12/91 the toc and the first thing that becomes clear is where the content, I mean the substance of the magazine, begins.. Page 80.. It's a rememberance article titled "Tips 'n Tales From the Cab", a retired engineer's perspective by Vernon Hart.. This story amounts to a full page though it actually spans 2 and is flanked by paid ads. It's an interesting story but it's buried among the advertisements and unless you looked for it, you might miss it. Now everybody who has been reading the magazine for that many years knows that the Real content follows the At the Throttle article written by the editor, in this case, Andy Sperandeo. Always the next page and that editorial NEVER shared space with an advertiser. The first Real article, as defined within this post, begins on page 88. A visit to a club layout.. Not good or bad, just your typical club layout story.. What immediately follows, without any ads in between, "MR visits Japan" by Jim Kelly. Following that, "It's the Little Things That Count" by Michael Tylick. Directly following that, "Readin', Writin', And Railrodin' " by Howard Munson.. This particular article and it Is a layout feature would be of interest to the Get the Kids involved crowd.. The layout is built by 7th and 8th graders in this guys class.. The article by the way is about on par with todays super layout features.

Then imediately following that article, the feature story "The 1947 Empire Builder" complete with a 4 page fold out of the train. And too complete with car interior diagrams, car numbers and names, disposition of the cars (to CB&Q), a VERY complete article, as I remember reading, on a Single passenger train. That article started me on a GN buying spree.. We are on page 123 at the end of that article and Half way through the magazine.. How many total in 12/2005? 145?? Page 124, "Walk Around Control for A Small Layout", actually, part of a continuious series of articles that is now the book "HO Scale Layout from Start to Finish".. This particular article shows how to build the control pannel, install the Walkaround cab and wire the switch machines. Page 127, we finally see the first ad since we left, At The Throttle, and it's one of those 1/3 page side bar ads for Marklin.

Pages 128 and 129 are the MR Bookmart, with the titles that could then be purchased from Kalmbach were listed. Then there's an article on Absolute Permissive Block Signalling.. With schematics, how to assemble, etc.. A couple of the pages, Not all of them, have the 1/3 page sidebar ads. A 2 page spread announcing the MR Sweepstakes follows, and then it's into Upgrading the Freight Car Fleet by one of the builders of the NEB&W (want to see a Mega layout? Check That one out).. The article discusses building a realistic roster (an interesting read for those of us who buy everything in sight).. As we get further towards the back, more and more ads begin to appear.. The regular colums begin to appear, MR Workshop, Student Fare (gone), Trains of Thought (here's a thought, Need more ad space? Get rid of that useless column), reviews, etc..

Now, What's within the pages up TO page 80 where this all began?? You guessed it.. Ads.. Multipage, full page, and Lots of them.. A little bit of editorial content mixed in but I never found it worth seeking out.

So What has changed?? First of all, How many multi page ads do you see? For that matter, Full page ads?? Standard Hobby use to have a 5 page spread, now it's one page.. Americas Hobby Center for Years was one of the first 2 pages in the magazine.. Are they even around anymore?? MRPO hasn't advertised in MR for a Long time that I've seen...

What has changed my freinds is the medium you are using to read this post.. The internet. Advertisers, I believe, find it more advantageous to buy a 1/4 or 1/8 page ad giving only the most general info and a Website Link.. To answer your original question, Yes, MR does change. The ads are more distributed throughout the magazine.. Now Bergie tells us that the advertising and editorial depts don't really communicate with one another.. He's there, I'm not so I'll have to take his word for it.. But from what I see, the 2 of them talk to the department that lays out the magazine and what we have is ads, albeit small, but still ads, on nearly every page.. Not all, but more than I like to see. THAT is what has changed. I might also note that, most of those articles I listed, were reader contributed. I think 3 were written by MR staff.

My 3¢

Jeff

[gvdobler]

What kind of review do people expect to see in a magazine?

I would not expect a magazine to trash a product like individuals do. If your were to read "acme locos suck" in a magazine article, written by professionals, I think you would lose respect for the magazine.

They seem to apply similar standards to each review. They tell you what was found in the box, how it looked and how it ran. You can find people that like or dislike about any product made.

A $40 loco should bring less expectations that a $300. I don't think they need to add blogger language that says "it ain't worth $300."

As far as the price goes, everything goes up. I bought a new airplane in 1981 for $76k now the same plane is $340k. I bought a new Cadillac in 1982 for about $16k and one last month for $48k. Accordingly MRR should now be about 8-9 bucks.

[CNJ831]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gvdobler

What kind of review do people expect to see in a magazine?

I would not expect a magazine to trash a product like individuals do. If your were to read "acme locos suck" in a magazine article, written by professionals, I think you would lose respect for the magazine.

They seem to apply similar standards to each review. They tell you what was found in the box, how it looked and how it ran. You can find people that like or dislike about any product made.

With regard to what appears in MR product reviews, and the staff has openly admitted it here more than once, MR will not review a poor quality or clearly inaccurate model/item. What their reviews cover are the "better" items available on the market. As such, while a minor flaw or two might be pointed out, you would normally expect any review that appears to be rather favorable.

Do things change? That's quite another question and largely depends on what your likes and dislikes regarding the magazine's content are. Scratchbuilding and complex kitbashing articles are far less apparent today in the pages of MR than they were twenty years ago and earlier. Modeling articles tend to be less detailed and more liable to minor errors and omission of facts. And it seems no matter how much we ask for overview photos of layouts, they just don't get published.

On the other hand, in the debate over film vs. digital photo contest entries, write-in protests did bring about the division of the contest into two categories. So, one can confirm that at least sometimes the editors certainly do listen to what the readers have to say.

CNJ831

[grayfox1119]

At what price will you stop buying MRR mag, and maybe buy an occasional issue that has a subject that interest you? The answer to that question is as varied as the respondants to this thread. New people to the hobby will buy the mag because everything is new to them, and even the adds give them info of where to buy items. People who have been in the hobby a little longer time, will start to fall away as they perceive they are not seeing anything of interest to them, and can better spend the annual price on something else. Old timers may still buy the mag out of sheer loyalty.
It appears to me that MRR has tried to hold the price down by cutting the number of pages, and by increasing the number of adds. Now here is the dicotomy, if the mag doesn't get enough sales revenue to cover their total cost to produce the mag, they must cover their costs with revenue from adds, like it or not. And, the manufacturers pay out some healthy bucks to run adds. What does that do for us? On one side it helps keep the annual subscription cost down, but on the other hand it drives up the cost we pay for goods that we purchase from that manufacturer because they have to recoup the millions they pay out in adds each year. Remember, they just don't advertise in MRR. Marketing costs for advertising is HIGH. Granted this is not 30 seconds on TV for the Super Bowl game, but you get the point, the costs are *** high and increasing each year.
As for CONTENT, "we" the readers dictate that. We write to the editor and tell them what we want to see more of. And if they do not listen, or you are unhappy, don't buy the mag. If the circulation drops 50,000, what do you think will happen? I would like to be a fly on the wall in the editors meeting with sales and marketing.
Gentlemen....results count...not excuses. WRITE TO THE EDITOR and COPY MARKETING!!!

[dgwinup]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gvdobler

What kind of review do people expect to see in a magazine?

I would not expect a magazine to trash a product like individuals do. If your were to read "acme locos suck" in a magazine article, written by professionals, I think you would lose respect for the magazine.

They seem to apply similar standards to each review. They tell you what was found in the box, how it looked and how it ran. You can find people that like or dislike about any product made.

A $40 loco should bring less expectations that a $300. I don't think they need to add blogger language that says "it ain't worth $300."

As far as the price goes, everything goes up. I bought a new airplane in 1981 for $76k now the same plane is $340k. I bought a new Cadillac in 1982 for about $16k and one last month for $48k. Accordingly MRR should now be about 8-9 bucks.

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 off the assembly line. It allows the manufacturer to correct a problem, re-submit another item for review or withdraw the item from review.

No magazine outside of Consumer's Reports is going to trash an item in a review. It isn't good business practice and it isn't good service to the magzine's advertisers or readers. A magazine review must walk a tightrope between fair and unbiased reviews and outright plugging for an advertiser. MR does a pretty good job of walking that line. Occasionally, they make errors. Perhaps the manufacturer supplied them with a factory-direct item that was 'tweaked' before being sent out. No review of that 'tweaked' item is going to be fair and unbiased, because the item wasn't presented for review in a fair and unbiased manner. It will be a great review that modelers will not be able to duplicate at home.

Model Railroading magazine does 'performance' reviews on locos. They give "out-of-the-box" performance statistics and "tweaked" performance statistics. The 'tweaked' statistics are always better than the "out-of-the-box" statistics. They are honest about this procedure, and they do comment when a 'tweaked' loco still doesn't perform as well as could be expected. The comment is usually mitigated with the phrase "it should perform better after a full break-in period", which neatly removes the magazine from criticism by the manufacturer.

So, are we geting fair and unbiased reviews from MR? In terms of what is new and available, the answer is yes. Where actual performance is reviewed, the answer is probably yes. It would be nice to know if the item is strictly "out-of-the-box", or has it been 'massaged' a bit. Where an item fails to perform as well as could be expected, that should be noted in the review. I don't think there is ever an intent to mislead the readers; that would be suicidal. The integrity of the magazine must be maintained.

The only time I start to get nervous about a review is when the reviewer ends his comments with phrases like "everyone should have one of these!" That's just a bit too overboard for my tastes and makes me question the fairness of the review. No single product is ever going to please everyone who owns it, thus a review can never be a promotion urging 'everyone' to buy the item.

Them's my 3 cents worth.

Darrell, long-winded this early in the morning, so quiet...for now

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: 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.

[IRONROOSTER]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Railroading_Brit

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.

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

[pedromorgan]

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!

Just my 2p worth.
Peter

[BRAKIE]

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..

[csmith9474]

I have learned more on this forum than from MR.

[Anonymous]

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".

FWIW.

[MidlandPacific]

QUOTE: 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.

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.

[Bergie]

QUOTE: Originally posted by potlatcher

Does Model Railroader ever change to better meet the needs of its readers?

I just got done looking at the DCC Buyers Guide "Open Letter" topic (http://www.trains.com/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=49348) and it got me to wondering. That topic included several points of constructive criticism, with various posters describing ways they think Model Railroader could have improved the Buyers Guide, and how MR could better address this subject in the future.

I have read similar constructive criticisms on countless other topics in the past. I remember the pleas for MR to change their mind when they announced they were dropping the schedule of upcoming train shows. Yet no matter how sensible and well presented many of these ideas have been, it seems MR has never made any changes to their format based on these comments.

Can anyone point out any instances when MR changed its course for the better based on suggestions from this forum?

Tom

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.

Bergie

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by IRONROOSTER

MR reviews (and most others except for Consumer Reports) provide descriptive material about the item ... What it doesn't provide is value judgments...

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 reviews that give some insight and guidance to the reader.

I'd even forgive the lack of judgment or ratings if the information was thorough and rigorous, actually allowing me to make an informed decision myself.

But this is rarely the case in MR. Unfortunately the landscape is such that there's one 800-pound gorilla (MR) and a lot of skinny little chimps who don't have critical mass to really drive healthy competition. Result: MR can get away with bunkum reviews so long as we accept them and buy into pure nonsense like "but most magazines don't do that either"...

What do I mean by "bunkum reviews"? The DCC guide is the case in point. One clear example: giving me a listing of "yes" or "no" for whether each system offers wireless throttles is virtually meaningless.

It's rather like rating an automobile and saying "climate control system: yes or no"... You'd end up with a Kia and a Bentley looking pretty much identical... and that's exactly what happens here: Look at the "grid" closely and consider that systems costing massively different amounts look virtually the same "by the grid"... So I should buy the cheaper one? Of course not! I'm simply missing information that clarifies _why_ the other system is so much more expensive.

The point is that doing it this way allows you to basically say nothing and thus ensure nobody at Kia or Bentley or anyone in-between can write the publisher a nasty note about it...

In general, the monthly MR product reviews are pure pablum. Nothing negative is ever said and the whole thing is waffle-language. Most of them aren't even very fact-based, it's all "paint job is credible" and "operation was reasonably smooth"... In the category of "how many words does it take to say nothing substantive?" they'd do a candidate for political office proud.