MI in September BRM

[Andy Y]

 

There are 32 pages of MI in the September BRM focussing on new content on Pendon's Vale Scene and Bob Essery's 'Dewsbury Goods' at the HMRS, I say new content as I've still had a couple of people think it would just be a re-hash of what had been in online versions of MI. There's been a couple of passing comments in the September BRM topic but not much for me to go to take into account for future issues.

 

Happy to hear any thoughts on it to bear in mind for the future.

[Horsetan]

Not technically counted as MI5, then.

[Andy Y]

Nope; MI5 is still undergoing compilation as we speak. N gauge fans with an inclination toward 40 years ago are in for a treat in that one.

 

The MIx numbering is for the digital version, the magazine version is just given months. Have you seen this MI and any comment to make? Or just......

[Stubby47]

I have the mag, but skipped over the MI pages as I thought they were just the same as in the online version of MI4. I did notice the Resin buildings article seemed shorter.

[Metr0Land]

As I see it there were 2 main problems:

 

a/ Too much GWR/Midland/LNER/7mm/P4/OO/2FS *delete as appropriate

b/ Too little GWR/Midland/LNER/7mm/P4/OO/2FS *delete as appropriate

 

[Andy Y]

I did notice the Resin buildings article seemed shorter.

 

Those couple of pages were the only condensed content from MI4, the rest was all new.

[Stubby47]

Then I need to re-read it, but as the opening picture was of Pendon, I just assumed it was all the same stuff.

 

Maybe if it's not a condensed version of what's in the online MI, (as was the first printed one), then it shouldn't be called MI when it's in print... ?

[Dicky W]

Then I need to re-read it, but as the opening picture was of Pendon, I just assumed it was all the same stuff.

 

Maybe if it's not a condensed version of what's in the online MI, (as was the first printed one), then it shouldn't be called MI when it's in print... ?

 

That's a good point, some may bypass it as same content as the web - maybe a slight rebrand to BRMI?

[Coombe Barton]

That's a good point, some may bypass it as same content as the web - maybe a slight rebrand to BRMI?

Why are we already trying to fix something that's too new to be broke? The print magazine, I surmise, deals with a significanly different audience that the online MI. Does it really matter that some content is different and some the same? The overall identity is a unifying feature. Change the identity and you lose the point of the crossover between the online forum and the print magazine audience.

 

Modelling inspiration is just that - let's please leave it to do its job and inspire as it currently most certainly does. We can be very introspective looking at that audience who read both the online version and take the magazine. I do, and can differentiate the style and the intended audience. People who are unfamiliar with either, and assuming that you want to increase the crossover between RMeb and BRM, need to have familiar features and names to make the linkage. Rebranding the printed edition into BRMI or whatever take the current fancy will break whatever link is trying to be formed. Please leave it alone to do its work - as it does admirably. If it were broke it would be obvious by now. It ain't broke, so don't try to fix it.

[Coombe Barton]

There are 32 pages of MI in the September BRM focussing on new content on Pendon's Vale Scene and Bob Essery's 'Dewsbury Goods' at the HMRS, I say new content as I've still had a couple of people think it would just be a re-hash of what had been in online versions of MI. There's been a couple of passing comments in the September BRM topic but not much for me to go to take into account for future issues.

If it were just a rehash it would be boring and one of the reasons for buying the mag for hardcore RMwebbers (see previous rant).

 

Andy - you have invented something new and different and have produced a marketable product that has a commercial niche. Other print mags can't do that as effectively. We've only had four issues - not enough time to bed it down yet. Each one has, in its own way , been groundbreaking. There have been some comments such as 'too much GW/LMS/Steam/Diesel' or whatever personal interests aren't served for one particular small section of readership. But what about the silent majority - you don't get the number of downloads you do by getting it wrong. You don't get the good reactions you do by getting it wrong. You haven't reached your limit yet - there's a long way to go before you do.

 

So paddle your own canoe. All I want is more of the excellent modelling and photography that's displayed - doesn't matter if it's not stuff I model.

 

(must be suffering from withdrawal symptoms - that's the second rant of the night)

[Stubby47]

Fair points John, and I can't argue with your logic.

Andy had asked for feedback, so I answered as I saw it.

Having now read the MI section, it is indeed different content, so from now on, I shall assume it will different subjects ( or a different perspective of the same online subjects) and read it as such.

My initial assumptions were based on the previous issue and the lead photo of this one - hence my suggestion of somehow emphasising the different versions of MI were exactly that - different.

Stu

[Coombe Barton]

... hence my suggestion of somehow emphasising the different versions of MI were exactly that - different.

Stu

 

I don't think it needs to be different.No one expects the online version of a newspaper to be the same as the printed version. We're dealing with different demographics although trying to extend each demographic's penetration into the other. But currently they're sufficiently far apart except for the ones who have made the join (and I would think this is mainly from RMweb to include the printed mag) not to matter greatly. I believe that a single brand identity needs to be established better. Separating it out will lead to fragmentation of the people who Andy and Warners are trying to encourage to join the crossover. And of course the commercial benefit for Warners is not in getting people to go to RMweb but to go from RMweb to buy the printed mag. (as I am now doing).

 

But in marketing the MI sub brand (and the important point is to recognise that the sub brand was already established and recognised as of superb quality) it is important not to dilute the message by giving too many signposts that are only recognisable to the congoscentii of both formats. To compare with the newspaper trade, where you, on an ascending quality scale, have the redtops below the lkes of teh Mail and Express, and the ex broadsheets above those two with th FT at the top, I think you have in the model railway press something equivalent. If you look at MRJ as the equivalent to the FT, and the rest of the mags somewhere in the Mail/Express/Guardian/|Times/Independent/Telegraph area, any effort to better the mid range brand would bring a recognisable shift in teat band. With BRM upping itself to include a superb online resource (which RMweb is) then they will be slightly ahead of the pack. And remain there - as in order to BETTER RMweb you'd have to recruit someone with even more talent than Andy, gain their own brand loyalty through developmental work and marry the sub brand into your main brand. And you'd have to do it better, as the original (BRM+RMweb) has shown the lead and is proving that this sort of quality is achievable.

 

I'll end todays first rant by reiterating - it ain't broke - don't try and fix it. Give it time and space to develop.

 

[Edit] My job title for credential purposes, if anyone's interested - Senior Lecturer in the Department of Business and Marketing.

[The Stationmaster]

I agree very much with John about the 'MI' brand and its linkage across the two types of media - it encourages web adherents to perhaps buy the printed version and conversely should tempt buyers of the printed version to look online and thus find this site. And if you want a full set of MIs you'll have to do exactly that of course - clever crossover marketing of what should must, I think, remain a consistent brand with the same name in both media.

 

And the consistent brand bit is critical I think. So far this has worked very well although the Dewsbury pics have a slightly different 'visual feel' (daft term but I'm sure you know what I mean?). The one thing which is consistent is high quality images of high quality models and as importantly they are, in the main, images which inspire (thoughts or schemes or ideas if not necessarily immediate action. Thus the 'inspiration' bit is becoming well established in some of our thoughts and that becomes the lead, with a common title to both sorts of media.

 

The pics themselves - well I think the 'new angles' on Pendon are smashing and you've captured them well in a way we don't necessarily see when visiting the museum, that's good. I'm not really a fan of pink engines but the Midland had some nice signals and the non-train pics are a nice touch. So I liked it (as I have all of them to date). (And now I can see why Harry had his hair cut - so he could see through the viewfinder or whatever and make a good image for our enjoyment. )

[JohnR]

I think it really depends on what Andy and the BRM team want - do the want MI to be consistent across media - a strategy pursued by the Guardian, for example, or do they want to use it to tempt people from one form to another? Either is perfectly valid.

 

My view? Just sit back and enjoy the excellent modelling on display - in whatever format it comes in.

[Stubby47]

John,

I take your point about the MI brand being consistent across the two formats, but I'd not be happy finding out the content I've read for free on the forum is the same I'm paying for in print. The first printed MI was, and the second is partly.

Yes, I'm happy to accept a free copy of MI on line - I feel I put as much into the forum as I get out ( not invoking the old adage here either) so feel no guilt in reading it. But, buying a mag with the same content in again, is illogical, even though, there is more than just MI In the printed mag.

It's the same reason why I don't subscribe to any modelling mag,, often the same layout appears in different mags only a few issues apart - Woodmore's Scrapyard being a prime example.

If the MI brand is to be consistent across the media, then IMHO it should contain different, not re-worked, content.

Stu

[Metr0Land]

As discussed above there are valid reasons why the online and printed version should be the same/different, and either path could form part of a valid strategy.

 

All I would say is that MI normally appears on rmweb first, and we now have a situation where we get 'teasers' on here each month about the content of the upcoming BRM printed mag. This being the case, I think it's importnat to set the expectation of those who've seen MI here first, as to what can be expected in the mag (some new content/all new content/no new content/mostly new content).

[trisonic]

My opinion (we've all got one) is that MI should be limited to RMWeb members own work. I'm sure that was the stated intention when it started. I think it will be disappointing if only RMWebbers modelling the British scene should be shown as well.

 

Best, Pete.

[-missy-]

That is a good point Pete.

 

I think I suggested a monthly mag based upon stuff from RMWeb which came from the then floundering RMWeb Showcase and a question from Andy on what to do with it. Amazing as the photography is, it would be nice to use content from RMWeb.

 

Missy

[buffalo]

I agree it would be good to have something like that, but why did the showcase flounder? Was it a shortage of material, or was the quality threshhold too high? Should the showcase have just concentrated on the very best of RMweb or tried to represent a wider cross-section?

 

Nick

[trisonic]

Nick,

There's a ton of fine modelling by RMWebbers - the surface has only been scratched, so long as all models are considered.

 

Don't get me wrong I've loved Pendon since the sixties but it is a trifle overexposed now....

 

Best, Pete.

[Andy Y]

My opinion (we've all got one) is that MI should be limited to RMWeb members own work. I'm sure that was the stated intention when it started.

 

I think I suggested a monthly mag based upon stuff from RMWeb which came from the then floundering RMWeb Showcase and a question from Andy on what to do with it.

 

There's a ton of fine modelling by RMWebbers - the surface has only been scratched, so long as all models are considered.

 

Thanks for these, sorry I hadn't come back to the topic before now as I was at Midland Railex over the weekend.

 

I'd love to do it solely off RMweb content but the reality is that there isn't enough that is sufficiently complete, available or accessible to fit into planning issues. I've got quite a few outstanding 'must-do's' from RMweb members but several have wanted to do a bit more before committing to it and also some are further afield which involves planning time around various events/activities (shows/servers etc). I'm not saying non-RMweb content is filler but I have included content that I knew could be turned around within the time available, Pendon may be over-exposed but it doesn't change its quality and I wanted to point my lens at it too; Dewsbury Goods certainly isn't over-exposed and it's gone down very well.

 

Probably in the same way as it is for most magazines I have to do most of the approaching too; it's very rare any material gets volunteered. Don't be shy but also bear in mind that I don't wish it to pad it out with anything less than good stuff. I can say though that there will be more RMweb members content in MI5.

 

And yes; Julia's certainly on the 'must feature' list!

[Andy Y]

why did the showcase flounder? Was it a shortage of material, or was the quality threshhold too high?

 

Probably an extension of bloggism Nick. Most people didn't get involved because it wasn't integrated with the main site and therefore there wasn't the incentive/motivation for contributors to produce more material.

 

Apathy ruled.

[martin_wynne]

What makes MI is the stunning pictures. The printed image quality in the magazine at 300dpi is vastly superior to anything that can be displayed on most computer screens. PDF is an awful format to read on-screen, the PDF format was specifically designed to be printed. But not everyone has the means to print out the online PDF on glossy paper, and the PDF download has lower-res images anyway, otherwise the file would be too big to be practical.

 

My vote would be to provide a printed version of each online MI in full, or a shortened version to fit the available space. I can't see any reason for the printed version to have different content or a different name.

 

And if possible for the online version please change from the dreaded PDF to HTML. Then the reader can adjust the font and text sizes independently of the image size. The internet is turning into PDF-hell.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[daveblueozzie]

Just been re-reading MI in the BRM mag again, and a thought popped into my head (thats rare these days) when you look at MI you have to turn the mag sideways and i thought what a good idea if they made a calendar out of one of the MI inserts as we get close to Christmas, I know it would mean not fixing MI to the mag but not a problem i would think. or is that just a daft idea.

[Andy Y]

when you look at MI you have to turn the mag sideways

 

Glad you noticed.

 

I had a sensible discussion with a Railex visitor over the weekend about the merits/drawbacks of the landscape style. I appreciate it means a bit of work for the reader but it helps show the images off in a different way (recent comments about double-page spreads in perfect-bound mags).