PLD Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 It's not exactly a change Peter as the words have been there all the while, but previously not shown. It was amusing to watch some earlier presumptions. If it was a deliberate tactic to stir up the heated debate it caused, that comes across as rather childish. If it wasn't deliberate, it comes across as rather naive or clumsy to omit half the masthead and not correct it when feedback suggests it should be there. If it was neither of the above (and it is a change as a result of feedback) it is rather arrogant to deny it. Whichever way you look at it the Warners marketing department and representatives on this forum come out of it looking a bit silly… Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
St. Simon Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 If it wasn't deliberate, it comes across as rather naive or clumsy to omit half the masthead. Hi, It could of been left out initally because it was not needed, after all quite a lot of people already refer to British Railway Modelling as 'BRM' and it's in a thread that is within the 'British Railway Modelling Magazine' section of the forum, so perhaps Warners and Andy have decided that it wasn't needed to begin as it seems obvious what BRM, in this context on this forum, is referring to. Of course, I don't know that that is the real reason, it's just a suggestion! Simon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 Whichever way you look at it the Warners marketing department and representatives on this forum come out of it looking a bit silly… I've only ever been involved in one rebranding (GrantRail to VolkerRail - so not an insubstantial rebranding!) and part of the briefing material was about providing a brand which was strong and didn't leave room for any confusion. Six companies were rebranded within the Volker Wessels group on the same day and everything had to done properly. It provides a bit of a contrast with this - I can't imagine we were hoping for amusing presumptions from our clients that day. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Y Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 Of course it was always going to be there somewhere (why should I have to repeat that?). The initial note was a way of ensuring people who read this would be aware of the change in style and the branding. I honestly don't see why some people (choose) to get bent out of shape about it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 I honestly don't see why some people (choose) to get bent out of shape about it. There's a very simple reason. With many products, when people really like it (this can apply with automotive brands, magazines, an author's works, all sorts of things) they feel a sense of ownership. And when a change is announced, people will worry if the change will affect how they feel and react/interact with the product. I personally think there's been a bit of confusion surrounding the whole thread - it strikes me as being almost a beta-test for the new logo as it appears (to me anyway) to have evolved from that simple 'BRM' logo which Steve1980 posted... BRM masthead.jpg ...into a logo complete with the name as here... photo.jpg I can't ever recall a company rebranding a product with several months notice before - as soon as it's mentioned, it needs to be out there. Hinting that change is coming, or saying they have a big announcement due, fair enough and a good way of drumming up interest and intrigue. But to launch a rebrand while selling products using the old brand, merely dilutes the new brand and devalues the old. I think Warner's have made a mistake with this episode - and that's regardless of the end result. I'm actually looking forward to seeing what the new look and new editorial approach is. I've read BRM since the very first issue, so as a committed reader I feel my comments are perfectly justified, and I have not been alone by any means in my concern over the whole rebranding issue. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted August 28, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 28, 2013 Never mid the masthead, that may sell one copy to a newly intrigued buyer....Its whats inside that keeps the customer BRM has - fortunately - been going through a period of change over the past few months for all sorts of reasons but the key one was that it was becoming less popular on the sales stand and it was in dire need of a revamp. We have already seen a lot of change, we've been given a near unprecedented chance to throw in our two penn'orth about the ways in which we would and wouldn't like to see the mag change and in some respects it has almost become RMweb mag through contributors we know from here and the clear influence of the tie-in with this site. Some folk might not like some of the change but like it or not we have been privy to some of what is going on and what is planned although we are obviously also useful sounding boards for the editorial team - who clearly are 'about RMweb' in various ways. So perhaps the carping should calm down until we see the results of what is emerging for a revised format (and approach?) from BRM. Then we get put our money where our mouths are, or not, as the case may be. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Colin_McLeod Posted August 28, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 28, 2013 At primary school in P7 we had a headmaster who ocassionally made a mistake and someone in the class would mention it. He always pretended that the mistake was deliberate to see if we were listening. No one believed him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PLD Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 I honestly don't see why some people (choose) to get bent out of shape about it. Andy, For many contributors, I don't think it is the re-branding itself that is causing concern, rather the way it has been handled... The 'drip-feed' delivery has clearly backfired in that it has caused more confusion than anticipation among readers; and since then there has been a combination of fire-fighting and back-pedalling from the Warners side attempting to address the gaps in understanding that strategy inevitably leaves but in some cases only succeeding in further muddyng the waters. It disapoints me and it seems many others that Warners think we will be won over by fancy covers and gimicky marketing - It would have been altogether clearer and simpler to give us a full sample cover and more importantly a complete inside page to be able to make a proper judgement from. It is nothing personal to you Andy - you are the 'face' of Warners on the Forum so are left to carry the can on here, but I don't think you have been given the materials to work with (or permission to use them) to properly present the refreshed magazine in the way both it and the audience deserve. The new masthead (it appears) will infact have subtle but significant differences to that initially promoted by Steve in the opening post, so either that opening post did mis-represent what was intended or there has been a change, presumably in response to the initial feedback. Interestingly, Steve and at least one other member of Warners Staff are still using (different) versions of the 'BRM' logo sans the full title as their avatars on this forum... The arguments, confusion and stressing in this thread (from all sides) are totally un-necessary and could easily have been avoided by a clear, simple message in the first instance, giving the reader the whole picture and crediting them with the intelligence to make up thier own minds... Paul Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Y Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 Andy, It would have been altogether clearer and simpler to give us a full sample cover and more importantly a complete inside page to be able to make a proper judgement from. Those will be appearing in due course, RMweb readers will be the first to see them in a week or two. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium 47137 Posted August 29, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 29, 2013 I bought a copy of the British Railway Modelling Annual (2006) online a few days ago. I knew it existed in some form or another, but my search started as "brm year book" and then "brm annual" and then "british railway modelling year book" before I found anything relevant. We are going to need the full title for a long time to come, so we might as well have it on the masthead. - Richard. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Jason T Posted August 29, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 29, 2013 Every time I see the new logo, it reminds me of MBR mag. If people get confused and pick up the wrong one, they will be even more confused afterwards I am ok as I buy both. http://www.mbr.co.uk/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
freebs Posted August 29, 2013 Share Posted August 29, 2013 I've got it! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted August 29, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 29, 2013 Andy, It disapoints me and it seems many others that Warners think we will be won over by fancy covers and gimicky marketing - I Paul Do they? I'm sorry to chop your post down to that one quote but is that really what warners were thinking because I'm sure that wasn't in their mind. Their aim must - surely - be to make the mag stand out on the newsstands, to attract new potential buyers, to make it easier for existing buyers to find among the morass of other railway/model railway titles and, when all's said & done, many folk call it BRM anyway. Adding the sub-title seems to be either a response to what has been said in this thread or just developing thought but yet again while we could potentially 'accuse' Steve et al of jumping the development gun what has also happened is that we have had a chance to comment and it might be that those comments have brought about the change? If the matter hadn't arisen on this site I expect we would still be seeing plastic bags regularly encasing copies of BRM - we had the chance to comment, change resulted - as have other changes. Have the other mags done the same as they made changes - I'm not too sure but I don't think they've done anything quite in this way. Reader surveys yes, but sharing plans and ideas? Oddly we were happy for Dapol Dave to come on here and show us how various locos were developing so we could add our two penn'rth and it was clearly a useful process. So why is it we get uppity when it's done in respect of changes to a magazine - after all being on RMweb doesn't make it compulsory to buy BRM; does it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted August 29, 2013 Share Posted August 29, 2013 So why is it we get uppity when it's done in respect of changes to a magazine Mike, I think it's the way it's been handled more than anything else. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold griffgriff Posted August 29, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 29, 2013 I bought a copy today but I'm confused about the content... too many motorcycles for my taste I have to say Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Y Posted August 29, 2013 Share Posted August 29, 2013 Mike, I think it's the way it's been handled more than anything else. IMO it's more to do with your (very) predictable 'anti' approach. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
-missy- Posted August 29, 2013 Share Posted August 29, 2013 Will you guys act your age rather than your show size! OMG! Everyone is as bad as each other, certain members of RMWeb seem to do nothing but argue everything, and the Warner Guys seem to continually give them something to complain about. At the end of the day its model railways. Its not important at all!! Please, please everyone grow up... Missy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold griffgriff Posted August 29, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 29, 2013 Will you guys act your age rather than your show size! OMG! Everyone is as bad as each other, certain members of RMWeb seem to do nothing but argue everything, and the Warner Guys seem to continually give them something to complain about. At the end of the day its model railways. Its not important at all!! Please, please everyone grow up... Missy That's very Freudian IMHO.... some have very large shows like Warley and some are more modest.... let's not get in to an argument about who's show is the biggest Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Legend Posted August 29, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 29, 2013 Unfortunately it's my waist size and age...........and. I'm not in my 30s! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted August 29, 2013 Share Posted August 29, 2013 IMO it's more to do with your (very) predictable 'anti' approach. And your theory is rather at odds with my monthly purchase of BRM, isn't it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Colin_McLeod Posted August 29, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 29, 2013 I have no problem with Warners doing exactly what Dapol Dave does. That is to show us what is on the drawing board, or work in progress and invite constructive comments which may or may not influence the final product. However, Warners did not invite comments (in the OP) but the comments did come anyway and they were followed by a subtle change in what we were allowed to see. At this point Warners could either have said that the additional words "British Railway Modelling" were due to constructive comments on this forum, or they could have said that it had always been intended to include those words but that they had not shown that in the OP. The later is what Andy York said in post # 124. However he also went on to say It was amusing to watch some earlier presumptions I may be wrong but I believe it was this later statement that has caused a lot of the grief in this thread. If it was always intended, and even if Warners chose to drip feed the information, why tell us that our reactions were amusing? Also when it became obvious that this had caused annoyance, why continue to defend it? I've always had a high regard for Andy and what he has done to build up this forum, and still do, but I find the current exchanges untypical and I don't really understand it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted August 29, 2013 Share Posted August 29, 2013 And your theory is rather at odds with my monthly purchase of BRM, isn't it? Just to add to this, following a chat with my Dad in the village pub tonight; at their house (as I buy BRM and pass it to him after I've read it!) is a complete set of BRMs from Vol. 1 Issue 1 onwards. So if this demonstrates my "anti approach" then so be it, but I think it shows that I am a very committed BRM reader. I even bought a number of back issues second hand at Pickering station to replace favourite early issues which I had worn out! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Y Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 A little more of a teaser showing the new style front cover. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold RedgateModels Posted September 4, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 4, 2013 Nice chimney Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium 47137 Posted September 4, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 4, 2013 "5 great layouts (plus 9 readers' layouts)" is a bit awkward? - Richard. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.