Hornby Stop Web Site & Concession Specials

[dibber25]

To be fair to Hornby the development of and arrival of the Colletts was well publicized by them through their social media and website. And as a regular contributor to this site Chris you'll have had an almost minute by minute news feed of their actual arrival in model shops! 

But no one can monitor the dozens of threads on here day by day unless they have nothing else to do. I don't monitor Hornby's social media and website - why should I? Frankly, if they can't be bothered to let the specialist press know - in advance - they clearly don't consider such things to be important. If they, don't why should I? I buy or borrow models for review for no other reason than as a service to Model Rail readers. They are the first and foremost consideration, and many - probably most of them - are Hornby customers. It is also quite clear from our investigations that a large proportion of readers do not follow social media or forums. They don't shop on line and would never provide bank or credit card details in order to do so. I presume Hornby doesn't want those customers....but then, surely at the moment it needs all the customers it can get? (CJL)

[jjb1970]

I think two things are being mixed, Hornby's relationship with retailers and Hornby's relationship with the model press. They are two separate and distinct issues and it does not follow that an error in a relationship with retailers indicates that their communication strategy is wrong in terms of the model press. Personally I think Hornby corporate communications have been a real bright spot for them, with the Simon Kohler and Engine Shed blogs being excellent whilst I really don't think they've suffered from not sending out review samples.

[Ozexpatriate]

Personally I think Hornby corporate communications have been a real bright spot for them, with the Simon Kohler and Engine Shed blogs being excellent whilst I really don't think they've suffered from not sending out review samples.

The relationship with the trade press is not all about providing review samples. It is about communication. Hornby is doing a poor job of communicating with the press. (Based on inferences here, this appears to be deliberate on their part.)  Such interaction normally includes simple things like press releases / product announcements, occasional on-the-record or even off-the-record conversations at say a trade show, and finally, regular, formal briefings.

 

The trade press appears to have no more access to information than enthusiasts - arguably less information than eager enthusiasts who quickly follow every installment on Hornby's website and spend a lot of time here.  It is a difficult spot for the press to add any value when they are spoon fed no more data than their readership.  There is a broader 'what is the role of print media in the internet age" question here, but where an informed editor has a regular dialogue with corporate marketing people a tempered message can be communicated by a professional journalist - as opposed to whatever is broadcast on the web.

 

We are poorer without this additional perspective, getting only direct marketing positioning through direct mail newsletters and things like the The Engine Shed blog, (nice as these might be) and legally required financial data for shareholders.

 

All this of course is orthogonal to their decision to stop the preferential support of concessions.

[Revolution Ben]

I think two things are being mixed, Hornby's relationship with retailers and Hornby's relationship with the model press.

 

<snipped>

 

whilst I really don't think they've suffered from not sending out review samples.

I think they are two sides of the same coin.

 

It seems that Hornby made the mistake of thinking that the online community represents all their customers. It doesn't.

 

In financial terms the figures speak for themselves. I think they've realised their error, realised they need the retail network to reach their market and are now attempting to redress the balance.

 

In engagement terms I suspect they will reach the same conclusion. The Engine Shed and Simon Kohler's blog are excellent, but they are just one channel. I suspect many of their customers aren't aware of them or don't actively seek them out.

 

Besides, in pure financial terms their policy makes no sense at all.

 

Hornby are still advertising every month in most or all of the magazines. A full page ad costs several hundred pounds. For the cost of a locomotive they could get 2, maybe 3 pages of "free" coverage; with lots of carefully shot photographs and, in the reader's mind, untainted by being paid for.

 

Cheers

 

Ben A. (Declaration of interest: I am an occasional contributor to Model Rail.)

[jjb1970]

I can see the arguments that they'd get publicity, but I also think that if magazines are reviewing their product anyway then they're already getting their products into the magazines and in a way customers at least know that a paid advert is just that, a paid advert. I don't subscribe to the view that model reviewers are in the pockets of manufacturers, but I do think if the two are close then they will be open to that suspicion and in a way it is better for how both are perceived if there is a clear separation. Which does not preclude press briefings and interviews.

[Revolution Ben]

...if magazines are reviewing their product anyway then they're already getting their products into the magazines....

But irrespective of that being dependent on someone at the magazine choosing to buy the model and review it (either because they want it, or because they have made a judgement that they should) it's a policy that simply leaves Hornby wondering, like their customers, if their fine new model will even appear.

 

I am not convinced that's any kind of sensible marketing strategy for a company that is, or at least should be, a major player.

 

Cheers

 

Ben A.

[stephennicholson]

I think they are two sides of the same coin.

 

It seems that Hornby made the mistake of thinking that the online community represents all their customers. It doesn't.

 

In financial terms the figures speak for themselves. I think they've realised their error, realised they need the retail network to reach their market and are now attempting to redress the balance.

 

In engagement terms I suspect they will reach the same conclusion. The Engine Shed and Simon Kohler's blog are excellent, but they are just one channel. I suspect many of their customers aren't aware of them or don't actively seek them out.

 

Besides, in pure financial terms their policy makes no sense at all.

 

Hornby are still advertising every month in most or all of the magazines. A full page ad costs several hundred pounds. For the cost of a locomotive they could get 2, maybe 3 pages of "free" coverage; with lots of carefully shot photographs and, in the reader's mind, untainted by being paid for.

 

Cheers

 

Ben A. (Declaration of interest: I am an occasional contributor to Model Rail.)

 

 

It seems Hornby have been happy to provide samples to online reviewers

 

eg

 

The reviewer spends abound 5 minutes talking about the packaging - I know whose reviews I prefer!

[Legend]

The relationship with the trade press is not all about providing review samples. It is about communication. Hornby is doing a poor job of communicating with the press. (Based on inferences here, this appears to be deliberate on their part.)  Such interaction normally includes simple things like press releases / product announcements, occasional on-the-record or even off-the-record conversations at say a trade show, and finally, regular, formal briefings.

 

The trade press appears to have no more access to information than enthusiasts - arguably less information than eager enthusiasts who quickly follow every installment on Hornby's website and spend a lot of time here.  It is a difficult spot for the press to add any value when they are spoon fed no more data than their readership.  There is a broader 'what is the role of print media in the internet age" question here, but where an informed editor has a regular dialogue with corporate marketing people a tempered message can be communicated by a professional journalist - as opposed to whatever is broadcast on the web.

 

We are poorer without this additional perspective, getting only direct marketing positioning through direct mail newsletters and things like the The Engine Shed blog, (nice as these might be) and legally required financial data for shareholders.

 

All this of course is orthogonal to their decision to stop the preferential support of concessions.

Oz , usually agree with you but on this occasion 180 deg opposite view. Hornby are communicating to their most important people, the customer. And I have to say they are doing it rather well with Engine Shed and to a lesser extent Simon Kohlers blog. They've simply cut out the middle man . And from my perspective that's no bad thing. I'm intrigued to find what additional perspective Model Railway mags bring to this. Is it an expose on pricing, manufacturing in China. Nope not much there. What additional perspective do you need if the manufacturer is communicating directly to you. They are no more going to divulge financial information to a mag than they are you or me. I don't need the model railway press to tell me what to think or what they think,.

 

Yes get their relationship with dealers sorted out, but communications with enthusiasts are the best they've been.

[Clearwater]

Oz , usually agree with you but on this occasion 180 deg opposite view. Hornby are communicating to their most important people, the customer. And I have to say they are doing it rather well with Engine Shed and to a lesser extent Simon Kohlers blog. They've simply cut out the middle man . And from my perspective that's no bad thing. I'm intrigued to find what additional perspective Model Railway mags bring to this. Is it an expose on pricing, manufacturing in China. Nope not much there. What additional perspective do you need if the manufacturer is communicating directly to you. They are no more going to divulge financial information to a mag than they are you or me. I don't need the model railway press to tell me what to think or what they think,.

Yes get their relationship with dealers sorted out, but communications with enthusiasts are the best they've been.

Chris Leigh made a point on another thread that there is a large proportion of their readership that isn't online at all. Checking the ABC stats shows around 30,000 readers. Would be interesting to compare that to the numbers who regularly read/post/lurk here.

 

Equally, the retailers comment that they have customers who clearly aren't on line and rely on the old style catalogues. Now if I'm in the magazine trade, of course I want to be able to have some sort of dialogue as it adds to my USP. I'm sure there's value they can add and insights they can gain that you can't get from one way communications such as the Engine Shed. That's their job as journalists yo pick up on the inconsistencies and interpret what they're saying for us by stripping out the spin.

 

David

[Ian Hargrave]

I can see the arguments that they'd get publicity, but I also think that if magazines are reviewing their product anyway then they're already getting their products into the magazines and in a way customers at least know that a paid advert is just that, a paid advert. I don't subscribe to the view that model reviewers are in the pockets of manufacturers, but I do think if the two are close then they will be open to that suspicion and in a way it is better for how both are perceived if there is a clear separation. Which does not preclude press briefings and interviews.

With respect,your post tends to be contradictory.Any organisation's relationship with the press of necessity has to be privileged.Why should it not be so ? In the world of theatre,press nights are an essential factor in the success of any production.Good or bad reviews make or break.Car manufacturers are eager to present a model in the best light in similar fashion. Not much point in press briefing if the gents of the press can't get their hands on the merchandise.In any case,we're not talking here of testing machines worth mega bucks are we ? Toy trains are woth pennies in comparison.Do we really need such austere scruples and ask that all must be like Caesar's wife.....beyond reproach?

[Revolution Ben]

<snipped>

 

I don't need the model railway press to tell me what to think or what they think,.

 

<snipped>

 

I don't think the model railway press has ever tried to tell anyone what to think.  And while I can't speak for all, certainly where I express a view I try to substantiate it. so the reader can make a more informed choice.

 

And while I understand that reviews aren't something you personally need, we all have different levels of knowledge.  I find reviews helpful where I lack knowledge of a particular prototype but like the look of it and am considering buying but want to know more, such as where it operated, or what rolling stock I should run with it.

 

Now that information may, or may not, be found in one of the threads here on a particular new model.  But that can involve wading through pages of often quite tangential commentary about the model (most invariably focussed on why it's too expensive) and as has been said many times a large number of modellers do not use the internet or are not on this forum, so I feel reviews are an important part of the overall mix of a balanced magazine.

 

cheers

 

Ben A.

[Ozexpatriate]

Oz , usually agree with you but on this occasion 180 deg opposite view.

No worries.   I agree that Hornby have stepped up their direct marketing game in a huge way - though they whiffed a bit on the 2016 catalogue.  I'm not endorsing the idea that they should stop publishing their blogs. I like them.

 

The heart of what I was saying is that it might be that just having an ongoing dialog between editorial and marketing staff, not to mention what gets said 'off the record' over a cup of tea (or something stronger) that makes all the difference.

 

It's not just about product reviews - it's also about the editorial page and what features are planned to go in the magazine in the first place.

[robmcg]

Oz , usually agree with you but on this occasion 180 deg opposite view. Hornby are communicating to their most important people, the customer. And I have to say they are doing it rather well with Engine Shed and to a lesser extent Simon Kohlers blog. They've simply cut out the middle man . And from my perspective that's no bad thing. I'm intrigued to find what additional perspective Model Railway mags bring to this. Is it an expose on pricing, manufacturing in China. Nope not much there. What additional perspective do you need if the manufacturer is communicating directly to you. They are no more going to divulge financial information to a mag than they are you or me. I don't need the model railway press to tell me what to think or what they think,.

 

Yes get their relationship with dealers sorted out, but communications with enthusiasts are the best they've been.

 

I too usually agree with Oxexpatriot and certainly respect his opinions and perspective, although I haven't generally understood him to be at 180 degrees to what you say above.

 

I think Hornby's relationship with retailers has been poorly done, the reasons may have been understandable if not excusable by dint of serious need for cash, and possibly better book-keeping.  Perhaps it was on purpose by Hornby to hurt retailers, but I find this hard to swallow. To what end?  Dogmatic 'web-is-the-future' zealots, I think not.

 

I suspect the strains of recent management down-sizing.

 

As to the Intercity84 reviews, I like them.  Which probably shows that I have too much time.    ...   

 

I would also like to take this opportunity to admit that I am an avid collector, buyer and seller of RTR UK steam,models, and thus wish Hornby well! 

[Legend]

Chris Leigh made a point on another thread that there is a large proportion of their readership that isn't online at all. Checking the ABC stats shows around 30,000 readers. Would be interesting to compare that to the numbers who regularly read/post/lurk here.

Equally, the retailers comment that they have customers who clearly aren't on line and rely on the old style catalogues. Now if I'm in the magazine trade, of course I want to be able to have some sort of dialogue as it adds to my USP. I'm sure there's value they can add and insights they can gain that you can't get from one way communications such as the Engine Shed. That's their job as journalists yo pick up on the inconsistencies and interpret what they're saying for us by stripping out the spin.

David

Absolutely, the magazines should report the news for those not on line. But they don't need an inside track for that , simply report what is being said on Engine Shed or whatever. Similarly for those that like reviews you can still have them, but the model is supplied at the mags expense rather than Hornbys. As to their job as journalists to pick up on inconsistencies and interpret what's being said by stripping out the spin, well if they did that, I might be inclined to agree . But I haven't seen any evidence of this in the last 10 years in any of the mags.

[Ian Hargrave]

Absolutely, the magazines should report the news for those not on line. But they don't need an inside track for that , simply report what is being said on Engine Shed or whatever. Similarly for those that like reviews you can still have them, but the model is supplied at the mags expense rather than Hornbys. As to their job as journalists to pick up on inconsistencies and interpret what's being said by stripping out the spin, well if they did that, I might be inclined to agree . But I haven't seen any evidence of this in the last 10 years in any of the mags.

 

The Engine Shed,good as it is,gives the viewer a second hand glimpse of a model.It is an official press handout in online form. Using your argument,any journalist can make a living by simply watching a press briefing on the media.That's a slippery slope reminiscent of Soviet Russia.

And indeed many journalists have been known to do exactly that.In consequence,that makes a mockery of decent reporting and becomes meaningless pap.To make an unbiased critical assessment of any product,you need hands on and proper testing.I am sorry you state that you have seen no evidence of this for a period of ten years in 'any of the mags'. As a subscriber to Model Rail since 2003,I can only quote CJL's excellent product reports and those of editor Richard Foster,who was the first to blow the whistle on Bachmann's front end error with their Modified Hall and whose review of Heljan's O2 in the current edition is as good as it gets and is inline with my own hands on experience with this model' Reviews of Hornby products are done with purchased items which answers the advice you give.

 

  Report the news for those not on line ? Does that mean we can't read both kinds of media ? There are indeed many modellers 'out there' who do not belong to this forum or 'that load of whingers' as I was once told in discussion at the Doncaster exhibition several years ago.Many do not access the hobby (or The Engine Shed ) via the internet,preferring to read the mags.Lastly,we use this forum courtesy of Warners,They are themselves a media organisation.

[Dunsignalling]

I can see the arguments that they'd get publicity, but I also think that if magazines are reviewing their product anyway then they're already getting their products into the magazines and in a way customers at least know that a paid advert is just that, a paid advert. I don't subscribe to the view that model reviewers are in the pockets of manufacturers, but I do think if the two are close then they will be open to that suspicion and in a way it is better for how both are perceived if there is a clear separation. Which does not preclude press briefings and interviews.

The issue as I see it is not whether the model press should be provided with review samples of new models without charge, which is usually the point most argued over.

 

The way the industry operates these days means that the most popular models more-or-less sell out in a month or less. Technology has reduced the time lag between press dates and publication but it will never be zero and, in any case, any review has to be conducted, written up and photographs taken before that. These factors can conspire to create a situation where, by the time a review appears, the model may be almost unobtainable. For me at least, a review of something I can't buy is a waste of magazine space.

 

It is, therefore, quite legitimate for the press to want review samples in advance of release. That means air-freighted in whilst the main delivery is on the high seas, perfectly practical but it still begs the question as to who should bear the cost and whether the model should be paid for.

 

This should not be insurmountable, at least for the bigger operators whose area reps (amongst other things) travel around visiting their dealers and also "head office" from time to time. Could they not deliver advance samples to the magazine offices as part of their rounds? Post-review, they could be retrieved when delivering the next lot unless someone at the magazine wishes to  purchase them.

 

John

[JSpencer]

The issue as I see it is not whether the model press should be provided with review samples of new models without charge, which is usually the point most argued over.

 

The way the industry operates these days means that the most popular models more-or-less sell out in a month or less. Technology has reduced the time lag between press dates and publication but it will never be zero and, in any case, any review has to be conducted, written up and photographs taken before that. These factors can conspire to create a situation where, by the time a review appears, the model may be almost unobtainable. For me at least, a review of something I can't buy is a waste of magazine space.

 

It is, therefore, quite legitimate for the press to want review samples in advance of release. That means air-freighted in whilst the main delivery is on the high seas, perfectly practical but it still begs the question as to who should bear the cost and whether the model should be paid for.

 

This should not be insurmountable, at least for the bigger operators whose area reps (amongst other things) travel around visiting their dealers and also "head office" from time to time. Could they not deliver advance samples to the magazine offices as part of their rounds? Post-review, they could be retrieved when delivering the next lot unless someone at the magazine wishes to  purchase them.

 

John

This was true a couple of years back, however the price increases seem to ensure that items don't disappear within 2 months any more. The only exception to that seems to be small tank locos like the J50 (if we can call that small!). Everything else like S15s, E4s, D16s, J15s can still be found many months after release.

 

Therefore a review may now return to being useful to help sell stock (providing of course its not negative) and we will probably see less pre-ordering and a return to more people wanting to see the item, have feedback from reviewers on the item before actually buying it.

[jjb1970]

There is a question of what magazines are for. In today’s market I think magazines are viable if they provide content which is more than content which is freely available elsewhere. In a model context that is modelling articles, layouts and potentially analysis of the model industry. I still buy Railway Modeller, their reviews are more a raising of awareness that a model has been released than a review but I find that the modelling content remains very good. I buy Model Rail as I like the modelling articles and I do enjoy their reviews but in neither case do I buy the magazines for news or analysis of the model industry.

 

There are a couple of different angles to the manufacturer – magazine relationship. On news and analysis, it is the job of a journalist to find news, to use sources and to apply analysis and judgement. That means doing a bit of legwork. Yes, many magazines rely on being spoon fed stuff to print by manufacturers but I find such magazines where news content or analysis is supposedly a significant part of their offering to be valueless. If magazines are going to print what they’re fed by a manufacturer then that is not really journalism and I can get the manufacturer’s take on things easily enough myself. Note that I am not saying magazines shouldn’t print information releases, rather that I don’t see that magazines can’t do what others do and observe the manufacturers chosen paths for releasing such information.

 

I find Model Rail reviews to be very good, they generally find a good balance between being a rigorous review and keeping a sense of perspective. However I don’t see that they need the manufacturer to provide them free. There are lots of other hobbies where magazines provide “reviews” which are basically valueless as it is pretty obvious that they are neither informed nor independent. On the pre-order and availability of models, the obvious counter point is that if a manufacturer has sold out of a model before the magazine review is published then why would they be interested in reviews anyway? In any business there are costs of doing business, personally I’d prefer models which are reviewed were viewed as a cost of business rather than expecting that manufacturers will supply freebies.

 

I really cringe when I see a press feed re-packaged as a news article or analysis which is clearly based on being spoon fed by a particular player. I read some technical journals and in some cases I can make a pretty good guess at the true author of an article from the style and syntax of the words presented, and it isn’t the author whose name is listed at the bottom of the page. I’ve followed the VW emissions scandal story quite closely as I have a particular interest in engine emissions measurement and testing and quite honestly the great majority of the reporting has been woeful and a lot of it is clearly regurgitating VW’s spin without making a serious effort to look beyond the stuff journalists have been fed. For the most part I think model railway (if not certain 1:1 railway magazines) are mercifully free of that sort of incestuous relationship and I think that is mainly because they offer something other than news. What I would say however, and without wanting to open up a whole thread on prices, is that I feel that most of the magazines have been very accepting of what certain manufacturers tell them with regards production, pricing etc. To be clear, I’m not really that bothered about the prices per se as I’ll make my own mind up about whether or not a model offers good value, but I do think that the model magazines could be more questioning of some of the stuff they’re fed on this subject.

[John M Upton]

Are Hornby going to have a decent stall at Ally Pally this year so we the model buying public can lynch talk to them direct?

[tarifa]

When buying a car does one take a couple of test drives and read any reviews in motoring magazines or go straight to the dealer and buy one based on his sales pitch, I suspect not.  The car reviewers do not buy the vehicle for the review, its usually lent to them.  Before buying a model I do like to read reviews of said item, my preference being model rail.  So if Hornby decide to feed the reviews to magazines and do not "lend" a model for review I think it's their loss, I mean would you trust Arthur Daley or David Cameron.  I have not made any purchase from the Hornby web site so its neither here nor there by stopping web concessions.  When all's said and done it's their business unless of course you are a share holder.

 

Mike

[45568]

Are Hornby going to have a decent stall at Ally Pally this year so we the model buying public can lynch talk to them direct?

As someone who has had the privilege(???) of manning a trade stand at a model railway exhibition for three consecutive days, I can assure you that your attitude as stated above will assure you of unlimited attention and meaningful discussion for at least 30 minutes seconds. It's all in the way you hold your face! You can pick them.

Cheers from Oz, someone who is hoping Hornby make it through this .....

Peter C.

[cheesysmith]

Having looked at some of the comments above, I will say Hornby have started to readdress some of the problems it has created for itself. As to if it was a good idea to do these things in the first place, I have mixed feelings. Any company that doesn't try something new will stagnate, but some of what it has done also had obviously the ability to hurt Hornby more than any gain it got.

 

For example, concessions. Offering models in these outlets increases the wider potential customer base, and supporting them with limited editions is a good idea. As long as the batch size required doesn't involve too much capital outlay, so minimising the risk, and the choice of model wouldn't sell better as a general release, so as not to hurt your potential sales.

 

Online sales. Again a good idea, as long as it doesn't hurt your retailer network. The online sales at full RRP can give some useful profits, but the retailers allow Hornby to pass on some risk down the chain and also the capital tied up is with the retailer not Hornby. The retailer network should have priority, with a few held back for direct online sales to at least give the online bit some credibility. Also, more effort should be put in to ensuring that dealers orders are fulfilled.

 

As to the magazines. Put simply, reviews in magazines vs hornbys own online stuff and bits in forums. The figures speak for themselves. This site is one of the biggest online model rail forums in the uk, and has 28000 members. Modelrail mag has sales last month of 30000. That's a extra 2000 customers to reach out for, keep informed, buy a model based on a review, and maybe preorder models not released yet. As tesco says every little helps.

 

 

PS, I think railway modeller sells more mags, but the only figure I could find for its sales was for 2008, and that was 44000. Even so, that is a lot of potential customers to reach out for.

[John M Upton]

Oh I have no intention of lynching anyone, especially Hornby.  I just like to admire what is in their display cases as I overhear conversations between visitors and the weary Hornby reps as they get asked some of the most bizarre questions I have ever heard.  Can be quite amusing to watch!!  The way some of the Hornby guys handle some of the really awkward customers is practically an art form to behold.

[jjb1970]

When buying a car does one take a couple of test drives and read any reviews in motoring magazines or go straight to the dealer and buy one based on his sales pitch, I suspect not.  The car reviewers do not buy the vehicle for the review, its usually lent to them.  Before buying a model I do like to read reviews of said item, my preference being model rail.  So if Hornby decide to feed the reviews to magazines and do not "lend" a model for review I think it's their loss, I mean would you trust Arthur Daley or David Cameron.  I have not made any purchase from the Hornby web site so its neither here nor there by stopping web concessions.  When all's said and done it's their business unless of course you are a share holder.

 

Mike

Cars are a good comparison. With a car you are looking at directly comparable products from different manufacturers, and a whole range of potential configurations for the same basic car within the offerings of each of those manufacturers. If I buy a car I do my research, which includes the facts and figures, CSI survey scores and manufacturer literature but the three key important considerations are whether I like the car which is entirely a subjective and individual consideration, the offers available from dealers and what it feels like in a test drive. A magazine review doesn’t really help with those things and I find car reviews in magazines to be somewhat variable. Some are honest in telling you it is a certain category of car, it feels well enough built and drives well enough and if you like it then it is a decent enough car. Others will inflate perceived differences, most of which are very subjective (for example, you like the seats, instrument cluster design etc or you don’t) in order to present a selection of cars as being separated by a huge gulf in quality, performance, handling etc when they’re not. The reason being that it is difficult to build a regular magazine whose main selling point is car reviews by admitting the obvious, that cars built for a certain segment are pretty much the same in most objective ways and most of the ways in which they differ are the subjective aspects where it is entirely personal preference. And I feel cars are a good example of the dangers of an incestuous relationship between the press and suppliers as some of the stuff they print is pretty obviously just guff they’ve been spoon fed and repeat mindlessly. Which is why I don’t really give them a great deal of credibility.

Railway magazines are different. As I say, I enjoy the MR reviews but I would not go out to buy a model based on a glowing review, and it is extremely unlikely that a negative review would prevent me buying a model. Reviews are enjoyable to read but in my case they don’t really influence purchasing material much.

[Ian Hargrave]

Are Hornby going to have a decent stall at Ally Pally this year so we the model buying public can lynch talk to them direct?

 

If they are the same team who manned the Hornby stand at Warley,then they are polite,knowledgeable ambassadors for the company,enthusiastic to discuss their products,including those in development,with their buying publicwho are,hopefully,of like mind.They are decent professionals proud of their achieverments and are not the ones responsible for the company's present difficulties . I would like to believe we all respect that and behave appropriately..