Model Rail Reader Survey

[asmay2002]

The message that comes across from the suvey questions loud and clear is something like.

 

"If you're into narrow gauge, foreign or any railway other than postwar BR RTR we're not interested in you".

 

Badly thought out survey which looks like it was cobbled together in about 10 minutes.

 

ASM

[Bruce Depot]

Well I completed it, but could not get the international offers page to open at all.

 

Keith

[dibber25]

Just one or two thoughts based on the criticisms above.

Firstly - it's a survey looking for some background into Model Rail readers and those who sometimes or occasionally read Model Rail. It wants to find out how we can make those 'sometimes' readers into regulars.

It's not an all-enbracing model railway enthusiast survey designed to classify every enthusiast in the land/world.

We haven't included overseas magazines or Continental Modeller because Model Rail doesn't cover those subjects and they're not competitors to Model Rail.

Surveys like this are never cobbled together in ten minutes - they cost way too much for that. Specific questions are asked in order to obtain quantifiable answers to things that we need to know. As I said before we don't cover overseas (we used to have the International supplements but we now do MRI as a separate mag because we found that the majority of readers did not want overseas coverage in MR). If there are no specific questions about narrow gauge or pre-Grouping interests, its because we already know the answer (ie these are minority interests which we will cover in a limited way - but the survey is about mainstream magazine content.

CHRIS LEIGH

[Huw Griffiths]

The message that comes across from the survey questions loud and clear is something like.

 

"If you're into narrow gauge, foreign or any railway other than postwar BR RTR we're not interested in you".

 

This seems to be a common failing amongst UK rail modelling magazines - and it's the reason why I referred to "further comments" boxes in the survey.

 

When I implied that a box for this purpose would be a good addition, I might have overstated things a little - but not much. There isn't much you can say in a few lines.

 

 

OK, my main interests lie a bit outside postwar BR RTR, but this doesn't stop me enjoying good articles about this topic (especially if they show how to build things - or give decent advice on how to solve problems which affect people modelling a wide range of prototypes).

 

What I'm not so happy about is if a number of the mainstream magazines only cover the same subset of the hobby - and appear to have decided that this shall be all that any modellers can possibly want to read about.

 

This also seems to happen in the US - at the moment, I don't think Model Railroader could hold a candle to its former self. I prefer my magazines (and articles) to have some clarity and substance. In other words, I'd like them to taste of something - and I don't like bitter (I'm more likely to drink cider). What I'm really looking for is a fresh brew, that isn't allowed to go stale.

 

 

I've recently been getting a lot of unwanted attention from the canvassers who go door to door, hawking Sky TV. Some of the ones round this part of the world seem to have been instructed to keep ringing the doorbell until they get an answer. They then launch into a programmed spiel, in which they ask if people have had Sky before (I haven't - and I'm not about to) - then try to shoehorn everyone into one of about 3 or 4 standard channel packages. If this fails, the next part of their program seems to consist of ticking boxes for why we're not interested - a small number of standardized reasons (no doubt with stock responses) which don't seem to include a vitriolic distaste for high-pressure, programmed sales techniques.

 

Strangely enough, I don't think their list of options includes the most common one - a blunt invitation to sample the joys of cycling.

 

 

What does all this have to do with rail modelling magazines? Not much, except for the fact that I don't appreciate being pigeonholed. I don't think I'm alone.

 

There's nothing wrong with postwar BR RTR. There's also nothing wrong with GWR BLTs, or rabbit warrens, or any other of the niche themes that some magazines seem to have fixated on at different times. What's not so great is if one (possibly two) of these themes is all that gets covered by the majority of magazines, to the exclusion of everything else.

 

When this happens, it shouldn't surprise anyone if there are clamours of "change the record". I could also say this in a more "subtle" way:

 

Some people are happy with Status Quo. I want a revolution.

 

 

This doesn't mean that I want heads to roll - far from it. I'm British and I like to keep things civilised, if that's OK by everyone. The only things I want to see rolling are the wheels of change.

 

You're probably familiar with adages - like "a change is as good as a rest" - and "variety is the spice of life". Well I think the diet in a number of UK magazines might have been getting a bit bland of late - a bit stodgy and a bit stale - and I'm starting to get restless. This is why I only get magazines when they've got articles that interest me. It's also why I've started reading "Model Railroad Hobbyist" - and why I'm on some forum sites (standard and narrow gauges - UK and US).

 

A number of years back, loco / railcar / rolling stock plans, technical and "how-to" articles used to be "mainstream magazine content". In fact, they were the mainstay of a number of magazines - and one of the things that drew me to the magazines (and railway modelling in general). More recently, I've been getting withdrawal symptoms, mirrored by a reluctance on my part to hand over my hard-earned folding stuff in exchange for magazines that don't interest me as much as they used to.

 

I'm an engineer, so I want my "fix" of technical and how-to articles. Unfortunately, from a number of magazines, all I've been getting is cold turkey - and there's only a certain number of times you can curry it up, before people decide they've had enough.

 

 

Does this mean that I want changes at the helm of magazines? No. Far from it. Just give us a few articles about different things - stuff that tells us how to do more than shake RTR models out of the box - please.

 

 

I actually see surveys like this as an encouraging sign - evidence that the people running magazines recognize the need for a more varied diet - evidence that they're decent people who want to know what we (their readers) want to see, so they can try to accommodate at least some of our wishes. I'd like to give them the chance to achieve this.

 

 

Perhaps a sensible next step might be for editors to openly invite us to say what sort of articles we'd like to see - no tick boxes - no preconceived ideas - followed by further steps to fine tune these ideas into something workable. This is why I liked the idea of the "friends of Model Rail" initiative. It's also why I was suggesting a tick box about "follow-up" contact for further information.

 

 

Anyway, that's my thoughts. I'm sure other people here have thoughts of their own - and I don't want to stifle debate.

 

It'll be interesting to see what everyone else has to say.

 

Regards,

 

Huw.

[asmay2002]

Chris,

 

A response to your points below.

 

Firstly - it's a survey looking for some background into Model Rail readers and those who sometimes or occasionally read Model Rail. It wants to find out how we can make those 'sometimes' readers into regulars.

 

I am an occasional reader. Actually I get it for my Dad and post it to him in Australia - sometimes I read it. I may even have sent you an email in the past.

 

It's not an all-enbracing model railway enthusiast survey designed to classify every enthusiast in the land/world.

We haven't included overseas magazines or Continental Modeller because Model Rail doesn't cover those subjects and they're not competitors to Model Rail.

 

If you just stand there looking at the centre spot you are never going to find out what the rest of the pitch looks like. In this case what potential additional readers might be interested in.

 

Surveys like this are never cobbled together in ten minutes - they cost way too much for that. Specific questions are asked in order to obtain quantifiable answers to things that we need to know.

 

If you actually paid for this you should ask for your money back - it was poor. It would not have been hard to do a much better job. And yes I do get involved with these things from time to time.

 

As I said before we don't cover overseas (we used to have the International supplements but we now do MRI as a separate mag because we found that the majority of readers did not want overseas coverage in MR). If there are no specific questions about narrow gauge or pre-Grouping interests, its because we already know the answer (ie these are minority interests which we will cover in a limited way - but the survey is about mainstream magazine content.

 

If you were a narrow gauge enthuisiast it wasn't actually possible to answer some of the questions. So you're never going to find out how many might be interested. There are so many diverse scales and eras that everyone is in a minority.

 

If you have already decided that you know what the answers are why bother with a questionaire? Surely the whole point is to learn things that you didn't know.

 

ASM

[Miss Prism]

Excellent post, Huw; you've articulated how I have felt over many years, and I think your tale of the Sky TV hawkers was very apt. Your cardinal mistake however was in being brave enough to admit not only to being an engineer, but worse still, actually liking and thriving on engineering aspects. In the world of the mainstream model mags, engineers are low-life scum, engineering is a dirty word, and its promotion in any form is strictly verboten. The chief weapon used against the engineering-fanciers is the empty mantra of "railway modelling is fun, and btw keep taking the happy pills and buying the boxes". In essence, it is a philosophy aiming no higher than consumerist eyecandy. Model Rail and Hornby Magazine are merely the "OK!" and "Hello!" mags of our sector. They are not for someone like you whose personal modelling arc is now seeking a 'fresh brew', let alone a revolution. The cold turkey syndrome is long accepted in the consumer magazine business, with a large proportion of readers moving onto different mags (or a different medium, viz RMweb) after a couple of years or so, because that is typically the period after which the same content is recycled.

[coachmann]

My gut reaction to being asked how I feel about a magazine is "they are struggling"!

 

Editors seem to work on the basis that their magazines have to contain something for everyone...... Modern image, steam, N, 00, EM, P4, 0 gauge, narrow gauge, industrial, beginners corner etc. When much of each issue is of no interest to those not interested in one of the treasured headings, I could never understand how this formula works.

 

Publishers seem to think they can churn out monthly issues chock full of staff-written articles covering this and that. Is this the only way to make a buck these days?

 

Sticking my neck out I'd say try rejecting articles that merely skim the surface like the old editors used to do.....Attract people who know a thing or two about modelling.... Plastic RTR is a massive market so show what can be done with RTR to provide prototypical trains and operation........But don't forget there are also planets other than RTR......Feed the mind and don't be afraid to lead by good example instead of assuming everything has to be dumbed down for it to be digestable.

 

Incidentally, I have just read Miss Prisms post. Brillaint observation.

[Andy Y]

Can I please ask that this lightens up a bit. It's a survey; they set the questions to find out what they want to know rather than us feeling deprived that we can't feed back what you want them to know. There are of course plenty of other channels (normally shown on the editorial page) to discuss things outside the scope of a survey.

 

Picking it to shreds will result in the topic being closed.

 

Thanks.

[orcadian]

Can I please ask that this lightens up a bit. It's a survey; they set the questions to find out what they want to know rather than us feeling deprived that we can't feed back what you want them to know. There are of course plenty of other channels (normally shown on the editorial page) to discuss things outside the scope of a survey.

 

Picking it to shreds will result in the topic being closed.

 

Thanks.

 

Thanks, Andy! Well said, as usual!

 

Richard

[KevinWalsh]

Here goes with my twopennorthworth,

 

For those posting rather negative and picky comments about various niche topics not being covered, why not submit articles / how-to guides to the editors of magazines for consideration of publication.

 

I filled out the survey and where there were questions that I couldn't accurately answer (because my layout is at the baseboard top built and in storage stage) I just left them blank or gave an answer that was closest to my situation.

 

Overall I found the survey a delight to answer compared to some I fill out on other sites (as part of reader/viewer panels)

 

Kev

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

Can I please ask that this lightens up a bit. It's a survey; they set the questions to find out what they want to know rather than us feeling deprived that we can't feed back what you want them to know. There are of course plenty of other channels (normally shown on the editorial page) to discuss things outside the scope of a survey.

 

Picking it to shreds will result in the topic being closed.

 

Thanks.

 

Well I must admit that I thought it was a survey when it came along via an email this morning. So I endeavoured to answer the questions asked. It seemed fairly obvious what it was all about, and that didn't seem to me to be some sort of major change in the magazine's basic approach to the hobby; the questions were clearly not looking for that.

[Beacon]

At least those at Model Rail are asking for some input! At the end of the day they need to sell as many magazines as they can, especially in the "current climate", to stay in business. It is up to them what they ask and why in their survey. I was happy to complete it and give them the information they asked for as best I could. If they make changes and I like them it is good all round. If I don't like what they do I won't buy it - simple!

 

By the way, I like Kev's suggestion of sending in your own articles or suggestions to the editor(s). After all, there is no need to wait for a survey like this to write in/email any magazine about their content - it may or may not get a response but then you're back to choosing whether or not to buy it and the magazine has to deal with the consequences of the choice you and everyone else makes!

[Stubby47]

I also agree with sending in articles - my other comment entry was a question on what format should the article take ( how many words and photos), what meduim ( email a word doc ?) as well as what subjects ( picking from recent topics on here - backscenes, painting people?)

 

there is a lot to praise MR for for asking these questions, sorry if my points were viewed negatively,

 

Stu

[nick_bastable]

no 2mm option so guess thats me out

[John B]

Well I completed it, but could not get the international offers page to open at all.

 

Keith

 

Same experience here, Keith. I took the survey in the spirit outlined by Chris Leigh - as an occasional buyer who might like to be a more regular purchaser. Sadly I couldn't find an international subscription cost (or means of payment) on the website, and an email to the subscriptions address on the website yesterday has brought no response as yet...

[Nile_Griffith]

Got to say that I am very much in agreement with Huw Griffiths. I know Andy has asked for us to lighten up on this one and kind of keep to the original notion of the questionnaire, but to my mind the OP has raised it's head above the wire and dragged another important discussion with it.

 

From a personal standpoint. I tend to just Buy Model Rail and Rail Express. Being interested in "Modern Image" modelling. I have no use for magazines such as Hornby (which to my mind should be re-titled "we Hate Diesels Monthly").

 

However I am beginning to loose any motivation to pursue Model Rail and whereas at one time my Purchase of Rail Express was for the centre modelling section. I now find that it's the real world part of the magazine that affords more information and entertainment.

 

Like Huw my primary driver to purchase the modelling periodicals is to help expand on my model engineering skills. Model Rail at present seems to be particularly fixated with it's "Top Tips" pages. I might be speaking out of turn here but there are times when it would be more apt to correct the editorial from reading "13 pages of Top Tips on how to improve your layout" to saying something like "13 pages on the bloody obvious as we are short on ideas this month".

 

It often seems that so many "How to guides" just scratch the surface of techniques etc yet we can have umpteen pages of reviews on glues. I very much understand the need for magazines to have a certain visual flare, but it would be nice to see some of the eye candy relegated and replaced with a few more column inches of editorial that put meat on the subject. For example it would be nice to read reviews of new RTR releases from the various manufacturers that included a good level of prototypical information. So that as well as making an informed purchase on the grounds of product quality, we could also make an informed purchase on the grounds of prototype, chronology etc.

 

Maybe instead of compiling a very generic questionnaire, which considering the nature of the subject, is a bit of a hiding to nothing. Maybe the questionnaire should have been based around maybe the last three issues of Model Rail. Participants marking each article or feature on the basis of usefulness to them, quality of information etc. it's all very well trying to tailor the magazine to include a variety of interests, but it's the quality of the information within the magazine pertaining to those interests that will continue sales.

[Pugsley]

Your cardinal mistake however was in being brave enough to admit not only to being an engineer, but worse still, actually liking and thriving on engineering aspects. In the world of the mainstream model mags, engineers are low-life scum, engineering is a dirty word, and its promotion in any form is strictly verboten.

The final part of that paragraph is a bit OTT, but I agree with the general sentiment with regard to engineering. However, is that not merely a reflection of the society we are currently living in? Being an engineer in the UK is not a respected profession, which is part of the reason we're in such a mess IMO, but that's an entirely different discussion.

 

Model Rail and Hornby Magazine are merely the "OK!" and "Hello!" mags of our sector. They are not for someone like you whose personal modelling arc is now seeking a 'fresh brew', let alone a revolution. The cold turkey syndrome is long accepted in the consumer magazine business, with a large proportion of readers moving onto different mags (or a different medium, viz RMweb) after a couple of years or so, because that is typically the period after which the same content is recycled.

I disagree with that to a certain extent. Certainly Model Rail, a few issues ago, carried an article about a quite extensive conversion/kitbash/combination of a Bachmann 66 and Lima 59, which would go some way towards engineering practice (not too far though, as the bloke that wrote it was a bit of a bodger )

 

In this day and age, scratchbuilding and kit building, incorporating proper engineering practices, is going to be in the minority and the mainstream magazines are going to reflect precisely that - the mainstream. A lot of modellers in days gone by would have worked in engineering and that would have been reflected in the models they made, particularly as they didn't have the thriving RTR sector that exists now, but that is no longer (if it ever was?) the mainstream.

 

I know it's a cliche, but the magazines can only publish what they receive in terms of articles, so if you consider that very few modellers are working at the cutting edge of the hobby, and even fewer of those have the time or the inclination to write articles about what they're doing, then is it any wonder that revolutionary articles are few and far between?

 

If anyone wants more in the way of model engineering, then MRJ still fulfils that remit AFAIK, and I think anyone who expects this kind of content in the mainstream mags is asking for too much.

[amdaley]

Just did the survey,no problem. Can't see what the problems are. Its just a survey.

[beast66606]

From a personal standpoint. I tend to just Buy Model Rail and Rail Express. Being interested in "Modern Image" modelling. I have no use for magazines such as Hornby (which to my mind should be re-titled "we Hate Diesels Monthly").

 

Don't read the August issue of Hornby mag then - you may have to eat those words

[dibber25]

I had decided not to comment further on this topic, once it degenerated into suggestions that we treat engineers as scum and other such ridiculous, juvenile and utterly incorrect nonsense.

I will, however, just add that these surveys are only ever treated as giving us a feel for whether what we're doing is about right, or not. With the greatest will in the World it isn't possible to read dozens of pages of closely typed precise info about what one reader feels is right or wrong. We'd get 30,000 different opinions, different demands and we wouldn't be able to take it all in. And in the end, each one represents the view of just ONE reader. We need something that can be 'scored' and the scores added up to give us basic figures.

It's a big sledgehammer, maybe, rather than a jeweller's screwdriver, but it just one of many tools that we use in this business.

Any MAJOR changes, which might or might not take place, (I know of no plans at present) would not be based solely on any survey result.

I will NOT be making any further comment on the subject - there are clearly people who know how to do our job so much better than we do, there would be little point.

CHRIS LEIGH

[Mod3]

And on that note this topic is now locked.

 

I'm sure some people might want to reflect on how their contributions added to this survey.