Hornby mag ownership

[Kiwi]

Have I missed something?

 

I've always understood that Hornby and Hornby Magazine were totally separate entities, linked only by the mag being allowed to use the name.

 

But that seems to have changed. I see that Hornby are now actively advertising the mag on their website, and no other mags:

https://www.Hornby.com/uk-en/Hornby-magazine

 

Does anyone know what's changed?

Edited March 10, 2017 by Kiwi

[cravensdmufan]

I have thought for a while that there may be a stronger connection.

 

Hornby models always seem to get reviewed well in advance of other magazines indicating that they get sent samples whereas other titles don't.

 

Who owns the magazine doesn't bother me. It is well written and features plenty of other manufacturers products. I don't find it biased towards Hornby. Photographs are good and so are prototype articles. Plus it is printed on quality heavy paper.

 

In fact it is currently my favourite railway modelling publication and I look forward to it every month.

[daftbovine]

They have introduced stronger ties to Hornby with the latest issue but that doesn't really bother me as long as the content remains more or less the same.

[Legend]

Back at Warley announcements Hornby did say there would be a column about inside Hornby in the Hornby Mag. Also there was the promotion that was supposed to see the catalogue sold with the Feb edition. They are not owned by same people. I think all that's happened is the two have got together to co operate for mutual advantage. Hornby magazine keeping the Hornby brand visible to people and In turn receiving Hornby models to review. in Hornby there has obviously been a reappraisal of their relationship with the printed press, but instead of the scatter gun approach they are targeting their efforts through one magazine . In this way they are reacting to criticism that they were only marketing to people who were on line , through Engine Shed etc , by opening a channel through one Magazine. The fact that it's called Hornby Magazine was no doubt a big factor in the selection of which mag!

[olivegreen]

They have introduced stronger ties to Hornby with the latest issue but that doesn't really bother me as long as the content remains more or less the same.

 

I agree and note also what Legend has said (above).

 

It seems to me pretty clear that there has always been a commercial interest between the magazine and the manufacturer that goes beyond permission to use what I presume are copyrighted things such as name, logo, typeface and colouring.  Anyone who believes the contrary is probably fooling himself.

 

Such interest serves the (mostly) sales purposes of both parties, and there is nothing at all wrong with that - in any case, it happens all the time in other aspects of the publishing world.

 

Does it matter who owns whom? For me - and I suspect many readers of the magazine - the important thing for the publisher to retain is editorial freedom which, in concrete terms here, means the freedom to offer negative criticism (as well as positive, of course) of Hornby models: to call a spade a spade.  Let us hope that that principle continues.

[Chris M]

I am sure that what has been said so far is correct. They are two entirely separately owned businesses who have started to work together in some instances where there is a mutual benefit. Sounds very sensible and probably reflects the more sensible approach from the new (ish) people in charge at Hornby Trains.

I reckon the magazine will continue to include articles on all scales, not just OO.

[Phil Parker]

It seems to me pretty clear that there has always been a commercial interest between the magazine and the manufacturer that goes beyond permission to use what I presume are copyrighted things such as name, logo, typeface and colouring.  Anyone who believes the contrary is probably fooling himself.

 

No they wouldn't. For years, the only connection was the licenced name.

 

I believe that since the recent re-negotiation of the licence, and Hornby's decision to re-connect with the hobby, they are working very much closer now.

[olivegreen]

No they wouldn't. For years, the only connection was the licenced name.

 

I believe that since the recent re-negotiation of the licence, and Hornby's decision to re-connect with the hobby, they are working very much closer now.

 

I note what you say, and accept that the licensed name may have been the only legal connection, but 'commercial interest' in the sense I perceive it is far broader than that: advertising by inference, for example, is frequently a deliberate policy. Just look at the number of magazines on the shelves that are little other than 'advertorials' (ghastly word, but it transmits the idea!).

 

Anyway, that is the past, and not worth pursuing, given the latest re-negotiation, as you say.

 

Edit to add:  The important point for the magazine's credibility - I repeat - is the retention of editorial freedom.

Edited March 11, 2017 by olivegreen

[Phil Parker]

I note what you say, and accept that the licensed name may have been the only legal connection, but 'commercial interest' in the sense I perceive it is far broader than that: advertising by inference, for example, is frequently a deliberate policy. Just look at the number of magazines on the shelves that are little other than 'advertorials' (ghastly word, but it transmits the idea!).

 

Anyway, that is the past, and not worth pursuing, given the latest re-negotiation, as you say.

 

Edit to add:  The important point for the magazine's credibility - I repeat - is the retention of editorial freedom.

 

You may "perceive it" but there certainly wasn't any editorial interference while I was working for them in favour of Hornby, and I don't think it does anyone any favours to go around suggesting there was unless you have solid evidence otherwise.

[ruggedpeak]

Edit to add:  The important point for the magazine's credibility - I repeat - is the retention of editorial freedom.

Not really, more about whether it produces interesting and useful articles on railway modelling. I can't get over excited about 'editorial freedom' of a railway mag, reviews are hugely subjective in any event. If they do a negative review someone will point the finger at a biased reviewer harbouring a grudge anyway. And advertorials and sponsored content are a growing fact of life across the mainstream media as traditional revenue sources dry up.

[olivegreen]

You may "perceive it" but there certainly wasn't any editorial interference while I was working for them in favour of Hornby, and I don't think it does anyone any favours to go around suggesting there was unless you have solid evidence otherwise.

 

Nowhere have I said that there was.  Furthermore, I wrote of RETENTION of editorial freedom which means I presume that such always existed with the previous arrangement.

 

Reading what I wrote before reacting would be a good idea.

[Phil Parker]

Nowhere have I said that there was.  Furthermore, I wrote of RETENTION of editorial freedom which means I presume that such always existed with the previous arrangement.

 

Reading what I wrote before reacting would be a good idea.

You said "It seems to me pretty clear that there has always been a commercial interest between the magazine and the manufacturer that goes beyond permission to use what I presume are copyrighted things such as name, logo, typeface and colouring. Anyone who believes the contrary is probably fooling himself."

 

And then said "but 'commercial interest' in the sense I perceive it is far broader than that: advertising by inference, for example, is frequently a deliberate policy. "

 

This (to me at least) indicated that you felt there was influence. All I hoped to do was correct this and clarify the situation.

[olivegreen]

Inference or implication, if you prefer, in the context of association of magazine and product carrying the same name (my point),  and editorial influence (your point) are not the same thing and I repeat that I never suggested they were. That is my clarification of the situation. End of discussion for me.

 

 

(Edited to underline 'editorial' !)

Edited March 12, 2017 by olivegreen

[grahame]

I note what you say, and accept that the licensed name may have been the only legal connection, but 'commercial interest' in the sense I perceive it is far broader than that:.

Commercial in the sense that both operate in the model railway market, but one is a model manufacturer and other a magazine publisher. Sure there will be some overlap in that as a magazine they are bound to report on the new products of the other, but then all the other commercial monthlies do that. I'm sure that the manufacturer wouldn't have an agreement or commercial interest to, for example, hold back on information (or provide extra) to one publisher when they would get wider coverage and more publicity in engaging with all the publishers the same.

 

 

G

[Clearwater]

Commercial in the sense that both operate in the model railway market, but one is a model manufacturer and other a magazine publisher. Sure there will be some overlap in that as a magazine they are bound to report on the new products of the other, but then all the other commercial monthlies do that. I'm sure that the manufacturer wouldn't have an agreement or commercial interest to, for example, hold back on information (or provide extra) to one publisher when they would get wider coverage and more publicity in engaging with all the publishers the same.

 

 

G

One of the manufacturing company's principal assets is its brand name, Hornby. To lend that to another party is a major major risk. Therefore, I would be extremely surprised if Hornby plc did not have some protections in their licensing agreement over how the plc and its products are represented in the magazine. (Cf how the Thomas brand is protected).

 

How that extends to editorial freedom and reviews, I don't know. However, I'd certainly not buy "Hornby Magazine" expecting a warts and all review of Hornby products and indeed adjust any comments they do make for what may be an unconscious bias

 

David

[Izzy]

How that extends to editorial freedom and reviews, I don't know. However, I'd certainly not buy "Hornby Magazine" expecting a warts and all review of Hornby products and indeed adjust any comments they do make for what may be an unconscious bias

 

David

 

Yes, agree, in just the same way you wouldn't expect to read a damming critique of Peco products or those they wholesale in the Railway Modeller. It's often a case of reading between the lines whatever magazine is involved because any review can't reflect everybodys differing tastes anyway. Since returning to the hobby some years back after a decade long break it's the Hornby and RM mags that I buy most often and never the others, although all mag purchases are few and far between these days.

 

Izzy

 

Izzy

[grahame]

I would be extremely surprised if Hornby plc did not have some protections in their licensing agreement over how the plc and its products are represented in the magazine.

If you know that to be a fact then state your evidence. Otherwise it's just supposition.

 

 

in just the same way you wouldn't expect to read a damming critique of Peco products or those they wholesale in the Railway Modeller.

 

It's not the same way though. Peco and Railway Modeller are part of the same company so, yes, they are unlikely to give a damning review, but Hornby Magazine and Hornby Trains are not owned by one company, therefore I'd expect a more honest and open review.

 

G

[Legend]

I like the new closer relationship between Hornby Mag and Hornby. I think it can be good for both if you maybe learn a little extra about the company . I've been interested in Triang, Triang Hornby and Hornby since childhood, so anything that promotes the brand is likely to appearl to me. Recently I had thought Hornby Mag had gone off the boil a bit , but this new approach has succeeded in getting me to buy it again. I suppose that's what it's all about. Frequent references to the Mag in the Hornby Catalogue and Forum work for the Mag. Printed reviews, for those not on internet, work for the company.

 

As for reviews , well consider that most magazines review products from companies that pay for advertising, so will they ever really be free from suspicion of bias? I'm afraid Mag reviews to me are outdated. I do still look at them , but usually for close up pictures. The best reviews for me are from YouTube or the internet. Enthusiasts views . If it doesn't run well, they'lll tell you. Any major issues quickly emerge. You just need to retain some perspective

Edited March 12, 2017 by Legend

[D9020 Nimbus]

Airfix owned Model Trains in the early 1980s but gave the editor, Chris Ellis, full editorial freedom—a policy they had previously followed with Airfix Magazine.

[Steamport Southport]

I think people are reading far too much into it.

 

 

I don't remember these criticisms when Airfix had Model Trains magazine. I don't think that was even a sponsorship deal, I think it was published by Airfix. Yet the content wasn't slanted towards Airfix.

 

 

It's a term that has passed into common usage just like vacuum cleaners being Hoovers even when it isn't a Hoover. My nan regularly said to people that I was into Hornby trains even though hardly anything I had was actually Hornby. You hear it all the time on the antiques programmes.

 

 

I've honestly never seen any real bias in any of the magazines, and I'm one of the most cynical people around.

 

 

 

 

Jason 

[Clearwater]

If you know that to be a fact then state your evidence. Otherwise it's just supposition.

 

 

It's not the same way though. Peco and Railway Modeller are part of the same company so, yes, they are unlikely to give a damning review, but Hornby Magazine and Hornby Trains are not owned by one company, therefore I'd expect a more honest and open review.

G

Graham

 

It's a fact. Even if it were a supposition, it would still be correct. No organisation allows its brand to be used by someone in the same sphere - it's "passing off". To infer otherwise is, IMO, commercially naive. Hornby Plc would sue someone who was seeking to make money out of their brand. What do you think would happen if I set up a magazine/website called "Ford Car.?" I'd have been confident without checking for these reasons.

 

Anyway, because I think facts matter, I checked. It's in the publisher's blurb on the inside front cover.

 

Are their reviews independent, I'm sure they claim they are but as noted above, you have to read between the lines and what they don't say. However, expecting an open and honest review is unrealistic even if it's not a contractual term. How could H's board approve a renewal if someone who licences their name slags off their product? How can Key Publishing keeps its sales without tying to the H brand? So even if not written down, they won't attack a H product. However, they might choose to focus on a mdoel's positives and not its negatives.

 

David

[davefromacrossthepond]

Similarly though,since every magazine has advertisements by all of the manufacturers couldn't the argument be made that there would never be a "bad" review because of the chance of losing advertising revenue?

[corneliuslundie]

"couldn't the argument be made that there would never be a "bad" review because of the chance of losing advertising revenue? "

I was an editor of a magazine in a completely different field, and a long time ago, but i can assure you that the issues were exactly the same. If a magazine criticised a manufacturer's products in any way without really strong justification they would lose the advertising. We got around it by either publishing very short statements about new products, definitely not reviews, or in-depth signed, reviews by respected engineers in the field, and letting the company see the review before publication.

We got away with it because our readers knew our reviews were worth reading and supported us - and told the manufacturers that they liked the approach. Not all manufacturers understood though.

Some of the other magazines didn't follow this practice and just never criticised anything.

But to do what we did costs money and time, which the model railway press these days don't have. There are really too many magazines chasing too little business and they all have very tight budgets.

So keep on reading carefully between the lines.

Jonathan

[Oldddudders]

Advertisers certainly bristle when their patch is invaded. Many years ago, so a former editor of Model Railroader said, a well-known US model paint manufacturer took umbrage at an article which used everyday materials to achieve a result comparable to their product. Their ads were withdrawn, and would not be returning "until hell freezes over". Eventually the ads returned - after what he described as "a particularly cold spell".

[dibber25]

"couldn't the argument be made that there would never be a "bad" review because of the chance of losing advertising revenue? "

I was an editor of a magazine in a completely different field, and a long time ago, but i can assure you that the issues were exactly the same. If a magazine criticised a manufacturer's products in any way without really strong justification they would lose the advertising. We got around it by either publishing very short statements about new products, definitely not reviews, or in-depth signed, reviews by respected engineers in the field, and letting the company see the review before publication.

We got away with it because our readers knew our reviews were worth reading and supported us - and told the manufacturers that they liked the approach. Not all manufacturers understood though.

Some of the other magazines didn't follow this practice and just never criticised anything.

But to do what we did costs money and time, which the model railway press these days don't have. There are really too many magazines chasing too little business and they all have very tight budgets.

So keep on reading carefully between the lines.

Jonathan

You tar all magazines and their editors with same brush. During my time as Editor of Model Railway Constructor and later, of Model Rail, I never allowed any advertiser to 'vet' reviews or any other copy before publication. I was, from time to time, threatened with loss of advertisement revenue but to the best of my knowledge it never happened. Advertisers are usually tied into contracts at advantageous rates, which they lose if they pull their advertising. A review of several pages length, even if it contains the odd justified criticism, is worth the equivalent in advertising revenue and manufacturers know this. Finally, since there are now magazines which carry no Hornby adverts they can be brutally honest without any fear of repercussions - but Hornby's recent models have generally been beyond criticism, anyway. (CJL)