Comparison reviews. Why not?

[phil-b259]

1 minute ago, AY Mod said:

 

Knock yourselves out; we do not have a collection of every model that's ever been made nor the time to play with them all which would be what some seem to want.

 

Why would you need a fresh model to test?

 

It would be perfectly possible to dust off a review of a Bachmann 66, a railroad 66 and the Hattons one for example and pick out the salient points from each.

 

Yes it would not mass muster in a scientific journal, but such a process would be perfectly acceptable in the context of a magazine article.

 

Whether the readership of the magazine would be interested is a very different question as to whether the concept would be possible.

 

Its not a problem to say yes its possible but its not something our particular readership would enjoy so we won't do it.

 

 

 

 

[Matt C]

Top Gear ( of old) do a comparison revew on the Deltic class 55

 

(May) So here we have a Hornby Deltic Class 55 Railroad range, a reasonably priced budget ra...

 

(Clarkson) but its a HORNNBEEEE no one wants a HORNNBEEE...

 

(Hammond) I went for the Battcmnann. ??? . Its great ! You pay a bit more but look ! Its got a little lunch box for the driver and A BOOSTER seat so even I could see out the windscree.....

 

(Clarkson) Shut up Hammond, now I  Went for the Accurascale ! Look at the detail on this baby !!

This beast could even pull Jordan !!  And look at the size of them snowplows 

 

(May) But Clarkson, it's not even been produced yet ! Thats just a photo. . With druel all over it.....

(Clarkson)  Yes Yes Yes ! i Know but when it DOES come out. . . 

 

(producer) Ok guys who's going to introduce the Heljan ?

 

(All).   Hell. Jan ??? What the. . Is a HELL JAN ???? 

 

(Clarkson) cmon ladds it's lunchtime and it BETTER not be B&@@dy Sandwiches !!  

[LaGrange]

1 minute ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Why would you need a fresh model to test?

 

It would be perfectly possible to dust off a review of a Bachmann 66, a railroad 66 and the Hattons one for example and pick out the salient points from each.

 

Yes it would not mass muster in a scientific journal, but such a process would be perfectly acceptable in the context of a magazine article.

 

Whether the readership of the magazine would be interested is a very different question as to whether the concept would be possible.

 

Its not a problem to say yes its possible but its not something our particular readership would enjoy so we won't do it.

 

 

Ok so lets compare a 20 year old Ford Mondeo, a 10 year old Vauxhall Insignia and a brand new BMW 3 series....

 

Which one will the magazine think is the best one. They all fit on the track and pull a train ok, but after that where do you go. Seems people like both misery and going around in ever decreasing circles.......

[Not Jeremy]

Gosh, there really is nothing quite like the sight and sound of a comatose horse being mercilessly flogged backwards and up a very steep hill to brighten up a dreary wet afternoon.

 

As for Robin's forty years later comparison - what larks!

 

I will sadly miss it, as I will by then long have been elevated to the celestial Atlantic Coast Express or cast down into the fires of Little Bytham

 

Not Jeremy

[spamcan61]

In terms of effort required versus extra magazine sales this isn't looking good to me.

[phil-b259]

19 minutes ago, spamcan61 said:

In terms of effort required versus extra magazine sales this isn't looking good to me.

 

A fair observation - but again very different from keep insisting it cannot be done full stop.

[Stubby47]

Surely if you want more comparison reviews, buy more than one magazine.

 

If the reviews are identical, buy different magazines.

 

Does it matter who is reviewing the model ?  Yes and no.  Would I know what I'm looking at if I was writing a review ?  Not on your nelly.  Would I trust the reviewers at RM/H/MR/BRM to be honest and fair minded, yes - knowledgeable, yes, mostly (although I don't expect all reviewers to be experts in all items of rolling stock, air brushes or ready-to-plonk buildings).

 

Are reviews the reason I buy a magazine - no, I see them as a bonus. How often do new items interest me ?  Not as often as the manufacturers would want.

[phil-b259]

35 minutes ago, LaGrange said:

 

Ok so lets compare a 20 year old Ford Mondeo, a 10 year old Vauxhall Insignia and a brand new BMW 3 series....

 

Which one will the magazine think is the best one. They all fit on the track and pull a train ok, but after that where do you go. Seems people like both misery and going around in ever decreasing circles.......

 

Again a rather silly analogy.

 

Lets pick a current focus, a current Astra and current Toyota Corolla.

 

They are not all fresh designs are they? the basic body shapes and design can easily be serval years old, sometimes approaching the decade mark.

 

What about interior fit out - what do you get as standard? Maybe you are an ICE fan and what to fit your own custom system - how easy is it to dismantle / fiddle with the interior.

 

Maybe you like to do your own Servicing - what can you do yourself and what has to be left to the experts.

 

What about durability - ease of keeping it clean inside or any vulnerable bits that could easy be damaged by speed humps say.

[LaGrange]

Just now, phil-b259 said:

 

Again a rather silly analogy.

 

Lets pick a current focus, a current Astra and current Toyota Corolla.

 

They are not all fresh designs are they? the basic body shapes and design can easily be serval years old, sometimes approaching the decade mark.

 

 

But the Hornby 66 dates back 20 years, the Bachmann one 10 years and the Hattons one is quite recent - which is the comparison you are making. Not me, you. Who was being silly again??

[AY Mod]

None of the above. Will the layout fit in it?

[LaGrange]

13 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

None of the above. Will the layout fit in it?

 Yeah, how fast does it go and how high is the score of its top trupms card

[phil-b259]

15 minutes ago, LaGrange said:

 

But the Hornby 66 dates back 20 years, the Bachmann one 10 years and the Hattons one is quite recent - which is the comparison you are making. Not me, you. Who was being silly again??

 

The point is all three designs can be bought new from retailers and have not been retired by the manufacturers yet.

 

Yes you can also buy them on the 2nd hand market -if the particular livery isn't available new  or you are going to repaint it for a detailing project, but the general point is they are all current products - not something last sold* in 1990!

 

Good luck trying to buy a 20 year old Mondeo from a Ford dealer.

 

 

* I am talking about from a design perspective here - not whether it happens to be available new in the particular livery you desire.

 

Edited May 24, 2021 by phil-b259

[LaGrange]

57 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

The point is all three designs can be bought new from retailers and have not been retired by the manufacturers yet.

 

Yes you can also buy them on the 2nd hand market -if the particular livery isn't available new  or you are going to repaint it for a detailing project, but the general point is they are all current products - not something last sold* in 1990!

 

Good luck trying to buy a 20 year old Mondeo from a Ford dealer.

 

They are at 3 completely different levels , so you cant compare them equally aside from the fact they are 16.5mm OO scale 66's, all available and DCC ready - nothing more.

 

 

[Chris M]

The reviews in the mags are fine as they are. The review appears at around the time the new models are in the shops and serves as a useful notification that a new model Is imminent together with some basic information. Most folk already know the good and bad points of existing models and if they don’t they can find out on social media.

 

Decision making is pretty simple - if you like the look of a loco and have the funds then buy it. If you want a particular loco but can’t afford the latest model then buy an earlier version secondhand. 
 

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, LaGrange said:

 

They are at 3 completely different levels , so you cant compare them equally aside from the fact they are 16.5mm OO scale 66's, all available and DCC ready - nothing more.

 

 

 

Yes you can - take car insurance for instance. Go to 'compare the market', 'which reviews' Amazon search results etc and you will find you are presented with a bewildering variety of options all at different prices and with different features.

 

Or take mobile phones - go to the car phone warehouse and you can compare a wide variety of handsets from varing manufacturers at varying prices. tariffs, etc.

 

Take a moment to consider not everyone is looking for the same thing - you may only want the best, be stuffed so full of knowledge that you never need any help or maybe even simply not give a toss about what you buy - but not everyone is so carefree.

 

Take for instance the little matter of DCC sockets. Maybe you are on a tight budget and have to decide between just a loco and a loco plus stock.  Is it worth going cheap and detailing the model yourself or would it be better to pay more and forgo the extra stock.

 

In other cases you might have a shunting plank - slow speed control is going to be important. A roundy roundy operator may not be so fussed about that but wants to be able to fit a certain type of decoder so needs to be sure of the pin arrangement and likely current draw. Another person might be looking to do a respray and wants to know how many fiddly extra details will need to be removed.

 

Yes such information is out there for modellers to find -  but quite frankly why should they be considered a special breed not deserving of some help brining it all together. Car, Hi-fi, photography magazines all manage to do it from time to time and I fail to see why an appropriately constructed article could not also be done for railway modellers.

 

 

[phil-b259]

56 minutes ago, Chris M said:

The reviews in the mags are fine as they are.
 

 

Nobody is saying there aren't

 

The original poster was talking about ADDITIONAL content, a retrospective look at several models at the same time - something which is successfully done in many magazines catering for other hobbies.

 

Nothing I have seen so far means it cannot for model railway products in some shape or form - however I do conceded that the apparent inability of many to look beyond their own needs in the hobby means the effort necessary by magazine editors to create such an article is not worth doing.

 

 

[PMP]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Nothing I have seen so far means it cannot for model railway products in some shape or form - however I do conceded that the apparent inability of many to look beyond their own needs in the hobby means the effort necessary by magazine editors to create such an article is not worth doing.

 

 

The easy way to prove if this will work is for you to write and illustrate an example piece and send it in. 
If I were asked to write such a piece, it’d be ‘no thanks this ones not for me’.

 

I can see no commercial value in allocating editorial space for this sort of piece, I doubt the number of ad hoc additional purchases to read such an article would offset those who pass it by as there’s nothing in it for them. I doubt subscribers would be interested in such extensive pieces either. 
 

For me as a reader who’s purchases of magazines is 95% discretionary, I can’t think of a much duller way to use editorial space and certainly wouldn’t get me lifting one off the shelf.

 

[dibber25]

Peter Marriott, who sometimes posts hereabouts, has done loads of comparison reviews of things which DO stand comparison, from ballast-fixing glues to static grass applicators. I think the OP is, however, aimed purely at locomotives, where there are duplications of the same few diesel classes. However, in my view a comparison review of, say, Class 66s, is a waste of precious pages. The most recent model is almost certain to come off best, simply because it will be up to date in terms of electronics, sound provision etc. i can't see the point of a review to just state the obvious. There are a few cases where the issue of a new state-of-the-art model prompts an uplift in the demand for the cheaper, older Railroad version but reviewers will usually point out if a new model supersedes an earlier one. (CJL)

[phil-b259]

34 minutes ago, PMP said:

The easy way to prove if this will work is for you to write and illustrate an example piece and send it in. 
If I were asked to write such a piece, it’d be ‘no thanks this ones not for me’.

 

 

In principle would be perfectly willing to do so, however I lack the source material (i.e. the reviews of individual products done when they were first released) necessary to construct the narrative, plus being an engineer rather than a journalist / editor / writer the resultant piece would be more akin to a scientific report than a magazine article.

 

While being a successful magazine article writer takes some skill, I see no reason why the staff of modelling magazines are any less capable than those who work for magazines which deal with railways in general, or Hi-Fis, Cars, Cameras, etc all of whom are more than able to write interesting 'comparison' articles.

 

38 minutes ago, PMP said:

 

I can see no commercial value in allocating editorial space for this sort of piece, I doubt the number of ad hoc additional purchases to read such an article would offset those who pass it by as there’s nothing in it for them. I doubt subscribers would be interested in such extensive pieces either. 
 

 

That is a decision for magazine editors to take. While conventional wisdom might say they know their audience and keeping to a particular format is necessary to not lose them, if everyone in the world had taken that conservative view then all sorts of things we take for granted today simply wouldn't exist. Sometimes thinking outside the box and trying something new actually turns out to be far more successful the originator or the audience ever expected.

 

It would be far more helpful if instead of bleating about why 'it can't be done' someone could actually point out an example where it had been attempted and not 'worked'.

 

47 minutes ago, PMP said:

For me as a reader who’s purchases of magazines is 95% discretionary, I can’t think of a much duller way to use editorial space and certainly wouldn’t get me lifting one off the shelf.

 

 

Like you I do not subscribe to magazines, but will pick up ones which are of interest. Unlike you however a comparison review would actually make me want to buy said magazine and keep it as a useful summary /reference work for the future.

[phil-b259]

29 minutes ago, dibber25 said:

Peter Marriott, who sometimes posts hereabouts, has done loads of comparison reviews of things which DO stand comparison, from ballast-fixing glues to static grass applicators. I think the OP is, however, aimed purely at locomotives, where there are duplications of the same few diesel classes. However, in my view a comparison review of, say, Class 66s, is a waste of precious pages. The most recent model is almost certain to come off best, simply because it will be up to date in terms of electronics, sound provision etc. i can't see the point of a review to just state the obvious. There are a few cases where the issue of a new state-of-the-art model prompts an uplift in the demand for the cheaper, older Railroad version but reviewers will usually point out if a new model supersedes an earlier one. (CJL)

 

Define 'best'

 

Do you always go out and buy the 'latest' mobile phone, the latest TV, latest car? By your own admission anything else must be inferior and not with bothering with.

 

A sensible person will sit down and compare all the options available, because, shock horror, you don't always need 'the best'!

 

When I bought a new car 5 years ago I didn't pick the top of the range model - but neither did I go for the bargain basement one. I was able to chose what I wanted by reading copious comparison reviews!

 

Similarly (apart from the 1st one) I have built all PCs I have owned from separately bought parts - again I did not go for the most expensive / cheapest parts and used comparison reviews to determine the appropriate level of tech.

 

I fail to see ANY reason why model railways should be treated differently - and modellers are fools if they blindly follow the 'latest/ most expensive is best mantra'

 

When Rails and Hornby both announced they were doing a terrier I ordered neither! I wanted to be able to compare them both before I committed to purchasing and didn't automatically assume the most expensive one would be 'the best' Having a comparison review of both models in the same article would have been extremely useful...

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Pandora]

There are a modest number of items which can be reviewed side-by-side and the concept would soon be exhausted,  examples matching the concept,  the class 25, manufactured by Hornby, Bachmann, Heljan,  and the class 66,by,  Lima, Hornby Rairoad, Hattons,  and Bachmann.

Edited May 25, 2021 by Pandora

[PMP]

10 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

1/ In principle would be perfectly willing to do so, however I lack the source material (i.e. the reviews of individual products done when they were first released) necessary to construct the narrative, plus being an engineer rather than a journalist / editor / writer the resultant piece would be more akin to a scientific report than a magazine article.

 

 

2/ That is a decision for magazine editors to take. While conventional wisdom might say they know their audience and keeping to a particular format.

(snip)

 

3/It would be far more helpful if instead of bleating about why 'it can't be done' someone could actually point out an example where it had been attempted and not 'worked'.

 

 

 

1/ You’d be in exactly the same position as a mag reviewer, there’s no guarantee Mag A would have reviewed Product X previously, or that the writer was still working for Mag A. You know what you want covered, so provide an example, it doesn’t need to be 100%, if it has merit an editorial team could work with it or provide guidance for you to meet their audience requirements. You’re looking for an analysis of ‘competing’ products, therefore your admitted ‘science’ bias would surely be beneficial.

 

2/ They do know their audience, they speak to them in different media and face to face at shows for example. I’ve spent time talking to the public having helped out on occasion. Reviews rarely come up as a discussion in my limited experience with magazine front of house. Where they have come up talking to people who know me at shows/exhibiting, it’s more why do you still do them? The information is easily found on the web. As an example the reviews on my personal blog are reasonably well read (hits), but no more so than regular pieces.

 

3/ The perceptions, correctly in my opinion, is there’s insufficient interest in this sort of piece. The market isn’t a consumer market in the way that cameras/cars/bikes are. Existing reviews cover the need for people to make their own minds up. 
If you want to have an example of this type of review it’d be far more helpful to provide a worked example/template  rather than bleating about magazines not doing them.
 

 

Edited May 25, 2021 by PMP

[dibber25]

10 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Define 'best'

 

Do you always go out and buy the 'latest' mobile phone, the latest TV, latest car? By your own admission anything else must be inferior and not with bothering with.

 

A sensible person will sit down and compare all the options available, because, shock horror, you don't always need 'the best'!

 

When I bought a new car 5 years ago I didn't pick the top of the range model - but neither did I go for the bargain basement one. I was able to chose what I wanted by reading copious comparison reviews!

 

Similarly (apart from the 1st one) I have built all PCs I have owned from separately bought parts - again I did not go for the most expensive / cheapest parts and used comparison reviews to determine the appropriate level of tech.

 

I fail to see ANY reason why model railways should be treated differently - and modellers are fools if they blindly follow the 'latest/ most expensive is best mantra'

 

When Rails and Hornby both announced they were doing a terrier I ordered neither! I wanted to be able to compare them both before I committed to purchasing and didn't automatically assume the most expensive one would be 'the best' Having a comparison review of both models in the same article would have been extremely useful...

 

 

 

 

 

 

I actually said 'will come off best' = receive the greatest amount of positive comment. 'Best' otherwise = top in whatever ranking system is employed. If there was a 'most expensive is best mantra' there would be no point in a comparison review - or any other kind of review - a price comparison exercise  is all that would be needed. (CJL)

[phil-b259]

2 hours ago, PMP said:

 You’re looking for an analysis of ‘competing’ products, therefore your admitted ‘science’ bias would surely be beneficial.

 

 

Yes, but I am not a fool - magazines, particularly those aimed at the public (as opposed to professional journals like 'The Lancet') need to mix fact with emotion and light heartedness.

 

I know my own strengths and weaknesses - creative writing is not one of them!

 

Again I refer to the practice and performance articles in the Railway magazine. Yes there are factual tables giving timings, but the author also will use emotional wording and phrases to spark the imaginative side of the readers brain. For example phrases like   'invigoration performance, driver J smith relished the challenge, the performance was disappointing, we could be heard from miles away as the 3 cylinder exhaust echoed round the valley,  signal checks intervened and the driver was forced to bring their mighty steed to a halt just putting the chance of a record out of reach" etc provide for an entertaining read even if you don't care what the actual tables (which is the comparison part of the article) say.

 

As the quote goes - its not what you say, its how you say it that matters.

 

2 hours ago, PMP said:

The information is easily found on the web. As an example the reviews on my personal blog are reasonably well read (hits), but no more so than regular pieces.

 

 

But surely that also applies to other magazines covering other leisure pursuits - Photography or fishing are hobbies that have embraced possibilities of the internet too when it comes to factual information for example.

 

That said what I have also noticed is the tendency for published articles to use the 'go to this internet page for details. Even organisations like Which have altered their stance - rewind 20 years ago and they would cover the results of their tests in far grater detail in the magazine. These days you get far more what might be termed 'political / campaigning articles while the ones dealing with product reviews tend to be little more than fluffy, opinion piece article with limited factual info and readers are extolled to visit the website to access the full details.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 25, 2021 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

3 hours ago, PMP said:

If you want to have an example of this type of review it’d be far more helpful to provide a worked example/template  rather than bleating about magazines not doing them.
 

 

OK, so Bering in mind this is an ‘off the top of my head’ response rather than a formal business pitch dragons den style, I envisage that a comparison review on say the class 66 OO models would touch on the following. Also note this is not necessarily an exhaustive list.

 

basic chronology - who introduced what and when (note this is from a design perspective not when every single livery variant was released.

 

brief recap of the prototype - more to highlight that the significant differences in the fleet than a warts and all history of the class.

 

Likeness to the prototype - I know the ex Lima tooling lacks the extra body side door of the low emission variant and believe that the ex EU imports also have differences to the EWS batch which may not be catered for by Bachman.

 

Levels of detail - including a rough assessment of how easy and costly it would be to add stuff yourself.

 

DCC provision - type of socket, typical current draw, speaker provision.

 

DC features - which has more comprehensive options like manually selectable switches for lights.

 

Performance - typical haulage capacity on the flat and up gradients.

 

Any build quality issues to look out for (e.g. excessive glue causing issues with the axle boxes on some Hattons variants.

 

Robustness - is any of the detail a particularly vulnerable when it comes to servicing, is there a part which typically can be missing / damaged on the 2nd hand market that potential buyers need to check for.

 

Ultimately it’s a case of pulling together information into one place and linking it all with some suitable text.

 

 

Edited May 25, 2021 by phil-b259