Hornby ceasing to provide free review samples

[Tim Chambers]

Surely, I can't be the only RMweb person who is aware of this recent announcement by Hornby-that they are intending to discontinue the long established practice of submitting free review samples of new products to modelling magazines due to "budgetary considerations" or some such. Is anybody bothered?

[Guest]

I had heard about this recently, so it's likely that it has been mentioned/discussed elsewhere on RMWeb. I'm not bothered in the sense that someone (on RMWeb for example) will always get their hands on a new release as soon as it arrives and post pics/info/opinion. That assumes that the magazines will no longer review Hornby products (I somehow doubt that will happen). The only thing that does bother me is the fear that this will turn into another thread that ends up blaming Hornby for global warming, radicalism of impressionable young people, the state of the NHS and worst of all, the death of the hobby as we know it...

[rockershovel]

I'm afraid that Hornby give me a distinct impression of a failed, or failing business model; the ubiquitous British fallacy of the middle-man who adds no value, being progressively rendered obsolete by his actual supplier using other distributors, and seeking to maintain profits by progressively reducing quality and narrowing focus.

[t8hants]

When a once famous British motorcycle manufacturer did something very similar, because they were sulking over a poor review, this particular act of managerial brilliance was said to be the first nail in the coffin of the British motorcycle industry.

 

It is not an act that inspires confidence.

[Guest]

...and so it begins <sigh>. That didn't take long!

[fender]

I know there must be some pressure not to be too negative in product reviews, but would this act by Hornby change any of the dynamics of that?

[roundhouse]

I had heard about this recently, so it's likely that it has been mentioned/discussed elsewhere on RMWeb. I'm not bothered in the sense that someone (on RMWeb for example) will always get their hands on a new release as soon as it arrives and post pics/info/opinion. That assumes that the magazines will no longer review Hornby products (I somehow doubt that will happen). The only thing that does bother me is the fear that this will turn into another thread that ends up blaming Hornby for global warming, radicalism of impressionable young people, the state of the NHS and worst of all, the death of the hobby as we know it...

These days I tend ot wait for the reviews on Rmweb.

 

If there is anything wrong then it will soon be pointed out on the thread.

[Fenman]

These days I tend ot wait for the reviews on Rmweb.

 

If there is anyhting wrong then it will soon be pointed out on the thread.

With magazine production timescales and limited production runs, lots of high profile models have sold out before a magazine review appears.

 

I also rely on web reviews. Hornby's new policy appears to reflect the way the market has changed.

 

Paul

[Tase]

This was mentioned in MRE last week.

[tamperman36]

If you think about it if they supply a free review sample to lets say 4-5 different magazine titles every month, at the price of todays models even rolling stock soon adds up. Also in these days of limited production runs the more models available for sale the better. As has already been said there will always be someone on the forums who will review the latest model and give a modellers view

[Andy Y]

This issue did arise a couple of weeks ago. It's fair to say there was an initial bemusement and a sense of frustration with communications (which I'm sure you can guess at) which followed. We'll wait and see how it pans out and whether any compromises discussed are honoured and materialise.

 

The statement that said review samples wouldn't be sent out on the same basis as previously offered the mags the opportunity to a.) buy an item at trade price (believe that's not a lot less than you'd pay at discounted retail), b.) wait until they sent some photos (on the basis that they haven't been sending much of use out they'd have to change their game on that) or c.) go to Margate to look at an item (sorry there's not enough time or manpower available for that).

 

Taking Bachmann as an example they, where possible, airfreight review samples over so they're in the hands of the mags to photograph and review which will then if everything goes to plan appear in mags about the time they will appear on retailers shelves. If we were to buy a Hornby item to review it this would only be at the time that retailers receive theirs which means because of the time needed to photograph and review an item and for it to fit into an existing publication date it's likely that any such reviews would be 3-8 weeks after the release of an item. I asked a retailer their thoughts on reviews in mags and he felt they were no use whatsoever unless they coincided with stock availability and they were an inconvenience if he'd already sold out of an item.

 

The reviews don't just help consumers, they help retailers if published at the right time. Not all modellers read RMweb or other parts of the 'net and it's fair to say more people are likely to read a review in a mag than other modellers' comments on the internet and you would honestly think that a manufacturer would want to benefit from the coverage; after all for the cost of writing off an item for review purposes is a lot cheaper than paying for x pages of advertising of a product.

 

Obviously we want to review an item if its of interest to readers but if the opportunity has passed there may be more relevant items that we can review. Tony and I put a lot of time into photographing items and as a team a lot of effort is expended on reviews but I wouldn't see as much point putting ourselves out unless it's of benefit to readers and indeed to the manufacturer themselves.

 

The above comments are my point of view rather than (mis)representing anyone else in the business but some days I'm surprised they've found one more toe to blow off. My impression is that they probably feel they can rely on their own marketing efforts to get their message out there (on a cost rather than proficiency basis), they may be right but on the basis that I've said that not every potential buyer uses the internet I feel they're choosing to neglect part of the potential market.

[dibber25]

I had heard about this recently, so it's likely that it has been mentioned/discussed elsewhere on RMWeb. I'm not bothered in the sense that someone (on RMWeb for example) will always get their hands on a new release as soon as it arrives and post pics/info/opinion. That assumes that the magazines will no longer review Hornby products (I somehow doubt that will happen). The only thing that does bother me is the fear that this will turn into another thread that ends up blaming Hornby for global warming, radicalism of impressionable young people, the state of the NHS and worst of all, the death of the hobby as we know it...

Model Rail will continue to review Hornby models as normal. The 'J15' 0-6-0 review will be in the April-dated issue (208). Review samples from Margate go back a very long way - Model Railway Constructor was certainly receiving them from Tri-ang when I joined MRC in 1963. 

[Trainshed Terry]

I'm going to say that this thread is going into a counter productive thread torwrds Hornby as the company is doing it's best in the current economic climate.

[Legend]

Model Rail will continue to review Hornby models as normal. The 'J125' 0-6-0 review will be in the April-dated issue (208). Review samples from Margate go back a very long way - Model Railway Constructor was certainly receiving them from Tri-ang when I joined MRC in 1963. 

 

Wow is that the upgraded InterCity J15 ?

[Nimbus]

Whatever replaces a conventional review, it must illustrate the model from all angles, and while the model

is still in stock to buy. Relying on Hornby's 'virtual reality' box-art or catalogue images would be useless, as

I found with several models (Class 08, J15) that the variants I needed were distinguished by optional fittings

on the 'other' side of the loco. The Class 08 actually disagreed with its own box art in respect of the door types

fitted. Choosing on the basis of a browse of stock on a dealer's shelf would require opening boxes, given

Hornby's current packaging.

 

The Nim.

[4630]

Surely, I can't be the only RMweb person who is aware of this recent announcement by Hornby-that they are intending to discontinue the long established practice of submitting free review samples of new products to modelling magazines due to "budgetary considerations" or some such. Is anybody bothered?

 

If you think about it if they supply a free review sample to lets say 4-5 different magazine titles every month, at the price of todays models even rolling stock soon adds up. Also in these days of limited production runs the more models available for sale the better. As has already been said there will always be someone on the forums who will review the latest model and give a modellers view

 

If the discontinuation of supplying a small number of review samples to the magazines is for 'budgetary considerations', it implies to me that they've made the financial calculation that their other marketing effort will more than over come the loss of any positive effect from magazine reviews.

 

Good luck with that one. 

 

As I recall from my time in marketing and advertising the saying goes;

 

"Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half"

[jonny777]

I must admit that by following Hornby on Facebook, I get lots of messages concerning new items. Much of it is somewhat over-hyped but that is to be expected. But there are decent photographs, which is the main thing I look for in a review anyway. Usually the choice is between that RTR model and bodge build a kit, so I don't have a lot of choice; therefore the fact that a reviewer found the distance between rail height and chimney top to be 2mm too high when measured against drawings (or other equivalent), is not going to worry me.

[G-BOAF]

What ever happened to sending (say) a couple of review samples out to magazines, they have them for 24/48hrs, then get collected and delivered to the next magazine. I seem to recall when the Bachmann 4MT Tank was reviewed, CJL commented that it was a review sample and well handled.

OK Hornby might loose a couple to rough handling, and bear the cost of shipping the models, but that would be a lot less than supplying 10 different models.

 

Online video reviews are no replacement for a considered intelligent magazine review (even if they magazine reviews may not be as thorough as they might be at times). Similarly the pictures on here are not always as comprehensive or detailed as magazines offer.

 

On the other hand, maybe print mags will just increase their advertising charges to cover the cost of buying models. Hornby will then end up paying out of a different account!

[Legend]

Hornbys decision does seem a bit bizarre. I'm not sure what a 2 page spread in a modelling magazine costs but I'd imagine it would be more than the real cost ( not the price you or I pay) of a model, even if airfreighted. So it looks like they are taking a bit of a gamble here in that they will force magazines to buy at trade price  thus removing their costs. I don't know how much it costs to send out samples but 4 mags , 5 releases a year , 20 locos  . Got to be less than £2000. Seems a bit penny pinching and a loss of low cost advertising.   Maybe they feel the reviews do more for the mags circulations than Hornbys sales. They could be correct there . How many times have we seen "First review" on magazine covers. I do think its just maybe the old Hornby Arrogance that pops out from time to time , as Andy says assuming everyone has internet access and tuned into their facebook page.

 

If not supplied FOC  may we see more critical reviews I wonder?

 

Overall I'm not really fussed. I go on the feedback on here. Much more valuable eg comments on mould lines on the new Hall .

[Waverley West]

 

If not supplied FOC  may we see more critical reviews I wonder?

 

 

That would certainly seem a possibility as the new arrangement seems to represent a distancing of relations.

 

It does seem a strange decision to me. I like to use many different sources when making up my mind about a model and magazine reviews are an important part of that. I do enjoy sitting back after a hard day on RMWeb working and reading a review of a model I'm interested in. Get a model right and the manufacturers can have an independently written, double-page spread extolling the virtues of a model. I don't visit the Hornby website or facebook page either. Too much hype and blatant advertising for me. 

 

Fortunately, I only have a couple of purchases of well-known reliveried locos from Hornby in mind for the foreseeable future and my main attentions are directed elsewhere, so it won't really affect me.

 

Hornby does seem to be single-mindedly ploughing an odd furrow though. Good luck to them. I genuinely hope they get it right, but for me personally, they are some way off getting it right, although I have to say the TTS locos are a master-stroke.

 

Edit: I also don't see why models can't be returned afterwards, with any (unlikely) breakages paid for.

[Oldddudders]

This does seem an odd move - although the dire availability of so many products these days makes some printed reviews of limited value to the potential purchaser, as has been said, and a nightmare for the dealer who has sold what few he was sent.

 

But, in terms of magazines of all sorts, not just our hobby, there is always the nagging doubt that the product review may be a bit skewed - even if only by the odd omission - due to the importance of the manufacturer's advertising. Model Railroader went through something of this sort decades back, when a DIY article showed how to achieve a particular finish using cheap household products - and a leading paint manufacturer withdrew advertising, saying it would come back when Hell freezes over. There will be denials in this thread on that subject, and I will accept them at face value because of who signs them, but, all the same.

 

Thus, in one of my other hobbies, I enjoy camera reviews online where the reviewer pays actual readies for the product, and uses it day to day thereafter.

 

But I suppose we have to give Hornby some credit for thinking outside the box.....

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

... Is anybody bothered?

Not a bit. Hornby's business is their's to operate, and we have already seen them change direction when one new idea didn't pan out for them. 'Orthodoxies' should be challenged, the world is changing shape and what was 'sound' yesterday, may no longer be so today; 'making an omelette involves breaking eggs'.

 

These days I tend to wait for the reviews on Rmweb.

 

If there is anything wrong then it will soon be pointed out on the thread.

I haven't looked at a magazine review in ten years now, and feel better informed than ever. The combined efforts of many do a fine job; and this method picks up aspects that no single supplied specimen to a reviewer can fulfill, of which some are:

 

Particularly for those who have to buy indirectly, how does the model survive the 'tumble dryer' sorting process involved in delivery?

The range of construction and mechanism defects and performance - you can spot when it is a goodun from the near silence in this respect.

How to fix, adjust or improve on the model as delivered.

Any problems getting inside to fit a decoder or make adjustments / lubricate? A little excess adhesive or other small variations can make big differences.

Any problems that emerge as the model is used and ages.

[pete_mcfarlane]

There's an alternative take on this, which is that Hornby think that the review samples are being used by the magazines as a cheap way of generating content. After all, the glossier model railway magazines are full of pages and pages of reviews, and some people probably buy the magazines just to read the reviews thus generating revenue for the publisher. So why should Hornby, or anyone else, subsidise somebody elses business model?

[dibber25]

This does seem an odd move - although the dire availability of so many products these days makes some printed reviews of limited value to the potential purchaser, as has been said, and a nightmare for the dealer who has sold what few he was sent.

 

But, in terms of magazines of all sorts, not just our hobby, there is always the nagging doubt that the product review may be a bit skewed - even if only by the odd omission - due to the importance of the manufacturer's advertising. Model Railroader went through something of this sort decades back, when a DIY article showed how to achieve a particular finish using cheap household products - and a leading paint manufacturer withdrew advertising, saying it would come back when Hell freezes over. There will be denials in this thread on that subject, and I will accept them at face value because of who signs them, but, all the same.

 

Thus, in one of my other hobbies, I enjoy camera reviews online where the reviewer pays actual readies for the product, and uses it day to day thereafter.

 

But I suppose we have to give Hornby some credit for thinking outside the box.....

This old chestnut comes up again. I hate to think how many times I've refuted it over the years. Nagging doubt it may be. Stop doubting - you don't need to. In my time as editor of MRC and Model Rail I lost adverts due to reviews which manufacturers didn't like - some were very favourable reviews but they still didn't go down well. Professional photography and presentation of magazine reviews is still way better than any of the amateur-prepared reviews I've seen on forums and I still believe that most modellers expect to see products reviewed in magazines. In the end, unless you have the sophisticated review sample system that Bachmann has, it is necessary for each magazine to make its own arrangements. Supply of samples from Margate has been erratic for several years, so, frankly, the new arrangement will not make much difference. It is important to realise, however, that in law a very different view may be taken in any legal action depending on whether the item was freely supplied for review or bought by the reviewer. In the latter instance, the reviewer actually has LESS freedom, not more.

CHRIS LEIGH

[Horsetan]

....If not supplied FOC  may we see more critical reviews I wonder?....

 

A logical step would be reviews of, er, reviews.