Hornby ceasing to provide free review samples

[Gwiwer]

To put it simply and from this consumer's point of view:

 

I value reviews highly because they give a (more or less) impartial analysis and description of a model just about at its point of release for sale.  Those reviews are normally accompanied by good quality photography.

 

Hornby has had no end of quality control issues over quite a few years now.  In addition they have chosen, as a business, to split their brand into mainstream and "Railroad" meaning if you want something a little less refined and a bit cheaper there is sometimes an option for that.  Taking three well-known examples the class 50 has been superb, the class 423 (4Vep) has been a lemon and the latest West Country has (to date) been delivered in such a small quantity that many retailers were left egg-faced and offering apologies for the manufacturer's supply-chain failings.

 

I can use review to determine if I wish to part with perhaps £150 or more.  I chose not to invest in the 4Vep for precisely the reasons reviewed namely that it had many faults which were soon confirmed by other owners. I can also make an informed decision using review material as to whether or not a Railroad item will be a good match for my other rolling stock or perhaps would look out of place and train set-like.

 

My confidence in Hornby delivering future items of interest at the high standard of presentation and fitness for purpose we have come to expect is very low.  Accordingly I don't pre-order Hornby items meaning the retailer is not assured of my business and neither is Hornby assured of the sale either.  I wait until the reviews appear.  

 

Hornby have chosen a business model which is cutting out some retailers and cutting back on their dependance on the retail trade altogether.  Now it seems that are cutting out the reviewers who play an important part in the early sales and success of a model.

 

There are some strange decisions coming out of Margate / Sandwich and they would appear to be doing no-one any favours.  Not the end consumer, not the retailers, not the magazines and therefore definitely not the manufacturer.  

[Fenman]

... What happens to all the (so called) 'free review samples' following publication ? ...

Andy's already answered that: it seems most of the mags recycle most of them to generate more content.

 

Which further emphasises, to me, that these are arrangements between two separate commercial companies. Why should we care if Hornby Plc charges Warners Ltd (?) for the material that Warners turn into content that they then try to sell to us in order to make themselves a profit?

 

Why, exactly, should we care that Hornby has decided the value to them is not worth the cost? As Chris has already told us, Warners will simply buy the models so they can continue to review them.

 

Well, excellent. Everyone's happy, aren't they?

 

Paul

[Andy Y]

Which further emphasises, to me, that these are arrangements between two separate commercial companies. Why should we care if Hornby Plc charges Warners Ltd (?) for the material that Warners turn into content that they then try to sell to us in order to make themselves a profit?

 

 

I wouldn't expect anyone to particularly care whether they're free or chargeable; the issue (from my perspective) is that they are choosing not to supply an item and not making any arrangements so that the item can be reviewed and published around the time that it is available to the consumer. Therefore a mag has to take its chances along with the consumer; nothing wrong in that necessarily either but when there's an expectation from magazine readers that they can read a review of an item around the time it is released (not some time afterwards) we have to try and make that happen. It would appear we want to do that more than the manufacturer in question.

 

If we do need items for an article we do buy them but if there's something suitable that's in the review pile it makes sense to use those where applicable or find interesting projects for them.

 

Just to clarify Chris doesn't work for Warners (that's us at BRM), Chris works at Bauer but I know both offices have had to go out and buy items when they've not appeared.

[Fenman]

... Just to clarify Chris doesn't work for Warners (that's us at BRM), Chris works at Bauer but I know both offices have had to go out and buy items when they've not appeared.

Thanks for that clarification, much appreciated. It's sometimes hard to keep track!

 

Maybe in the changed market we need to start thinking of model reviews as being more like reviews of tv programmes. They are published after the fact, offering reflections to those who are mostly assumed to have already watched the programme, rather than being Which?-like consumer reports to help you decide what to buy.

 

The world seems to be moving towards pre-orders. In that world, post-purchase reviews (with a focus on prototype complexity and how to improve the product) may be much more useful than the old sort of "should-you-buy-it?" review.

 

Paul

[t-b-g]

Another point is that some magazines seem to have a very high proportion of pages of reviews. I do not know if I am right but I can imagine that a paid member of staff carrying out a review during office time on a gifted model is a very cheap way of filling pages.

 

I can be pretty sure that it works out at less per page to produce than than paying contributors for modelling articles.

 

Surely, you can't be serious? A salaried staff member being cheaper than a freelance? Just goes to show how wildly wrong forum posters can be and another reason why amateur reviews are a bad idea. And just to repeat what I've said several times through this thread, it will not affect the appearance of reviews in Model Rail because we often have to make our own arrangements to obtain samples anyway.

CHRIS LEIGH

 

I think you have misunderstood what I was saying. My point was that if a magazine can fill some review pages of a magazine using material from somebody who is already being paid, they only pay one lot of money out. If they pay an outside contributor to fill those pages, they are still paying the salary to their staff plus they are paying the fee to the contributor too. So they may pay out more in total.

 

I don't know how these things work internally, which is why I included the caveat "I may be wrong" but unless a salaried staff member gets paid a salary plus the same fee per page as an outside freelance contributor (which may happen - that is the bit I don't know about) then it is cheaper for a magazine to fill pages "in house" rather than from outside.

 

So yes...... I was quite serious!

 

Tony

[dibber25]

Just another thought.

.

What happens to all the (so called) 'free review samples' following publication ?

.

Brian R

The majority are used as competition prizes, as agreed with Simon Kohler many years ago. It is appreciated by those who send free samples, that the free publicity is worth far more than the cost of the model, on the basis that all publicity is good publicity - even a 'bad' review. Others are used in projects. As I've said previously, a large proportion of Hornby models that we review have either been bought by one of us or borrowed, as the supply from Margate is erratic.

CHRIS LEIGH

[dibber25]

Completely agree with first part. But it seems rather high handed and superior to disregard the Railroad Hall racing round the circle of Setrack. For one that might show if the engine seizes or not, whether there are fragile bits dropping off etc. The key part he has splashed the hard earned buying this loco so he is going to give you his feelings critically again from the point of view of the consumer. I appreciate that some people may have an axe to grind or be pro a manufacturer, but you can usually tell and make an informed decision. In general the more information and reviews the better. Maybe Hornby are just reacting to the digital age and recognising this.

 

As too the Heljan Clayton (going round and round on Setrack might have shown the issue here) apologies if I missed it Chris, but I honestly don't remember any of the mags reporting issues at the time. I remember being rather annoyed about that as my Clayton ground its way round my layout. Fortunately Hattons sorted it out for me when replacement chassis became available, about a year later! The whole sorry episode received scant attention in the press at the time, most information coming from here. Can you imagine if it had been a Washing Machine,laptop,camera . The manufacturers would have been called to account.

One of the problems for any reviewer - magazine or otherwise - is the receipt of a non-runner or a very poor runner. You know it's not meant to be like that, but is it just your misfortune, or are they all like that? These days, a widespread problem would quickly show up with complaints on the forums, but when a reviewer receives a model in advance of general sales, there is no way of knowing whether or not it's a one-off, other than going back to the supplier. The Clayton is a long time ago and I wasn't the reviewer although I did get involved as we tried, first of all to figure out what was wrong and then to go back to the UK agent for Heljan, to alert them and enquire if we were just unlucky. Initially it seemed that we were, but after two or three days it became obvious that the problem was more widespread and related to (IIRC) the fitting of a bearing in the motor/drive chain. There is a relationship between reviewers and manufacturers which means that not everything is carried out in public in the glare of a review. We were, for instance, able to advise Bachmann of the problems with the modified 'Hall' two years ago - which I believe never got reviewed because the models were recalled once we pointed out the error. Now we have a corrected model to review.

CHRIS LEIGH

[rue_d_etropal]

All manufacturing systems are prone to failure, so when they send out samples to the media or prospective customers they make sure the items are perfect and do what they should do normally( I did hear about one loco sent to one magazine last year that looked superb, but did not work properly). When I sent samples of my 3D printed track down to Chris, I checked the samples first. When Chris ordered some more items I was relieved to see they were printed OK.

If manufacturers expect magazines to buy their own, then there is a risk the model might be faulty. Friends of mine, when buying locos at real shops will always ask to look at them, and have several samples tested to see which runs best. That is an important part of real physical model shops which can not be done online. That's assuming the shops can even get hold of the models. With short supplying shops, good models disappear off shelves quickly, so it is pointless having a review in a magazine after the horse has bolted!

The timescale between review and release of a new model is critical, and I think most magazines have a lot to review, which means that scheduling in reviews of new models, which might be in shops very soon is problematic.

Something else worries me in the way Hornby are going, and that is the switch to in-house selling, which looks like a classic accountants approach to business. I believe manufacturers should concentrate on the manufacture and leave the end selling to someone else, and I preferred to deal with wholesellers who could sell me one item not a box load. I learnt a lot about that when I was trying to run a shop. I was also happier ordering items I knew were in stock, and if not would turn up eventually.

A lot of things are changing at the moment. The wheel is starting to come off the Chinese wagon, and new technology is introducing new manufacturing methods, in particular lazer cut wood and card, and 3D printing. All new technology has bugs in it. I worked in IT for many years so understand systems.

[chris p bacon]

. I worked in IT for many years so understand systems.

 

You'll be the only one that does then.....

[dibber25]

I think you have misunderstood what I was saying. My point was that if a magazine can fill some review pages of a magazine using material from somebody who is already being paid, they only pay one lot of money out. If they pay an outside contributor to fill those pages, they are still paying the salary to their staff plus they are paying the fee to the contributor too. So they may pay out more in total.

 

I don't know how these things work internally, which is why I included the caveat "I may be wrong" but unless a salaried staff member gets paid a salary plus the same fee per page as an outside freelance contributor (which may happen - that is the bit I don't know about) then it is cheaper for a magazine to fill pages "in house" rather than from outside.

 

So yes...... I was quite serious!

 

Tony

But only if the salaried staff member is sitting around doing nothing. In fact, one of the main duties of editorial staff is to write reviews. It is the only way to ensure consistency in what's done, how it's done and how it is reported. In a commercial concern, everything has a cost allocated. Reviews are just as expensive to produce as any other content - in fact more expensive than some because of the amount of time and photography involved. If we wanted to economise we'd publish lots of readers' letters, as they fill space and we don't pay for them. Oh, wait a minute. We dropped the readers' letters page. 

CHRIS LEIGH

[Colin_McLeod]

Youtube reviews like this one leave me cold.

 

After five minutes of soul less monologue we eventually get the box opened

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdhT0XWc2kY

I did not want to watch the other 24 minutes

 

Here is the shorter version by the same reviewer at only 14 minutes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xgz6phehf8o

 

 

Note I'm not just picking on this particular reviewer, it iwas just the first example I was able to find.

[dibber25]

All manufacturing systems are prone to failure, so when they send out samples to the media or prospective customers they make sure the items are perfect and do what they should do normally( I did hear about one loco sent to one magazine last year that looked superb, but did not work properly). When I sent samples of my 3D printed track down to Chris, I checked the samples first. When Chris ordered some more items I was relieved to see they were printed OK.

If manufacturers expect magazines to buy their own, then there is a risk the model might be faulty. Friends of mine, when buying locos at real shops will always ask to look at them, and have several samples tested to see which runs best. That is an important part of real physical model shops which can not be done online. That's assuming the shops can even get hold of the models. With short supplying shops, good models disappear off shelves quickly, so it is pointless having a review in a magazine after the horse has bolted!

The timescale between review and release of a new model is critical, and I think most magazines have a lot to review, which means that scheduling in reviews of new models, which might be in shops very soon is problematic.

Something else worries me in the way Hornby are going, and that is the switch to in-house selling, which looks like a classic accountants approach to business. I believe manufacturers should concentrate on the manufacture and leave the end selling to someone else, and I preferred to deal with wholesellers who could sell me one item not a box load. I learnt a lot about that when I was trying to run a shop. I was also happier ordering items I knew were in stock, and if not would turn up eventually.

A lot of things are changing at the moment. The wheel is starting to come off the Chinese wagon, and new technology is introducing new manufacturing methods, in particular lazer cut wood and card, and 3D printing. All new technology has bugs in it. I worked in IT for many years so understand systems.

In general, review samples are not specially checked or prepared - certainly not Hornby ones. In the days of the Margate factory, they were taken straight off the assembly line. Today, they come with a packing note, just the same as the deliveries to a model shop and often at the same time. Reviews can be make or break for smaller manufacturers and we can often allocate a reviewer with a particular interest in the type of specialist item submitted. Scenic materials generally go to Peter Marriott for instance, while at present I seem to be getting a reputation for an interest in 3D printing, having reviewed Simon's 'tram track' and just received a 3D printed 'OO' locomotive body for review. I'm not going to say what, just yet....

CHRIS LEIGH

[bgman]

I remember looking in an antique shop once and saw a railway game in a battered box. Inside there were several pieces, made from mezak I think, a round board and some pretend money. The players chose either a mans head with a trilby ( think it was stamped with the name Frank), a tower made out of Ivory, a small train, a man sat at a calculator, a row of shops, a factory building and a sampan.

 

The rules suggested that the winner would be the person to travel from Liverpool to China in the shortest time and come back with the most model trains to safely distribute them amongst the shops on the board without going through the square marked Accountant without facing a large penalty would be the winner. I didn't see the value of the game personally, and looking at the large price tag that the dealer had placed on it I left it in the shop.

 

Having looked on the Internet recently and seen the same game at a third of the price I'm still not tempted !

 

Funny old life eh !

[Legend]

There is a relationship between reviewers and manufacturers which means that not everything is carried out in public in the glare of a review.

CHRIS LEIGH

Thanks Chris, I think that's the crux of it, which Hornby have failed to recognise. However its also why I prefer feedback, whether that be reviews that some people do, or just postings/observations from on here

[Phil Parker]

Just another thought.

.

What happens to all the (so called) 'free review samples' following publication ?

.

Brian R

 

A few years ago, I took a couple of 08s from the Hornby Mag pile and made this:

 

 

Where it's possible, items supplied for review will be recycled in to projects so the supplier gets 2 bites at the advertising cherry.

 

I know people want to believe that everyone at a mag is sitting on a big pile of "goodies" but certainly amoung the BRM team, that's not happening. Ben never gets sent any of those funny foreign locos he likes, Howard doesn't get any Welsh 7mm stuff, Andy spends all his time behind the camera and everything I get arrives in bits anyway.

 

Projects are kept and taken out to shows so you can see things from the mag for real. My experience is that other mags work in a similar way - as someone said earlier, watching locos thrash around one of Mike Wild's layouts is a good advert for the model.

[Kenton]

 

Maybe it's just me, but someone delivering an 'expert' opinion on the model of a locomotive class that was consigned to razor blades 20 years before the reviewer was born, combined with their knowledge of a prototype having been learned from books and GA drawings (the latter not always an accurate place to start) occasionally tends to irritate me.

 

In an ideal world but, we have to trust that the reviewer has all the tools of good research available to them and are able to perform that research. (questionable?) We have to remember that memories fade and there is a great deal of mystique around the perhaps childhood memories of that favourite loco. Also who here can remember witnessing a loco the last specimen of which was scrapped before 1930 let alone later. We have to rely on books, photos and other sometimes poor quality reference material.

 

But I still think that a review of a model should not focus on solely that it is exactly the same as the prototype. Possibly far more important to the average consumer is that it works, looks the part (no unjustified compromises)

 

But I do also think that BRM are missing a trick on the research front. They have access to the best model railway forum with thousands of members. They should be putting up a topic to discuss the prototype in advance of the model arriving on the reviewer's desk. Discussing it on here will raise the important features and those requiring further research. A useful starting point for the review of the actual model (no matter what it's source).

[Kenton]

 

There is a relationship between reviewers and manufacturers which means that not everything is carried out in public in the glare of a review.

So it IS true then.

 

I'm sorry but THAT is just the problem why no review is worth the paper it is written on. We would expect a manufacturer to perform quality control on their product and to not tell us if it failed. We expect a manufacturer to supply a review sample that has been pre-selected and tested as working. But surely we expect a reviewer to be representing the customer and independent. Sure, go back to the manufacturer / shop and request/buy a second example but if it fails then that is part of the review findings and that should be published.

 

On a similar vein, don't all you reviewers talk to one another? Something like "I am reviewing a xyz from abc and my sample doesn't work, how is yours?" Are the commercial interests of the magazine so restrictive that no one knows what another magazine is doing? We as consumers seem to think that every magazine is going to produce a review of the latest xyz.

[Andy Hayter]

If, has been suggested, Hornby is moving further towards on-line operations with facecrook, its own website etc., then I think they are missing a very important trick.

 

Namely, the generation least switched on to these on-line systems, is the one with the disposable income to purchase the offers they will never see or know about.

 

Own goal methinks.

[locoholic]

Recently I've learned far more about the good & bad points of new RTR models from this forum than from magazine reviews. I can possibly understand Hornby's decision because there are now so many railway modelling magazines - dare I say too many? I bet I'm not the only person who stands in WHSmiths or Sainsburys and flicks through them all. I very rarely buy one, because each magazine usually only has one item that interests me, and I haven't the money to buy several magazines each month. And if I do buy a magazine, it's either because it contains an article about a layout, or drawings of a prototype, not because of a review.

 

For a long time I've had doubts about just how thorough and impartial the reviews are. However much some may protest their innocence, there can be little doubt that an honest negative review would put advertising revenue at risk, as well as risking that subsequent review samples would be late or not received at all. I waited to see if there was any comment in the magazines about the chaos following Hornby's Black Friday event, or the tiny numbers of Exeters, but didn't notice any - but again, there are so many magazines that I may have missed the brave title that put their head above the parapet.

 

In some ways I hope that Hornby carry through with their decision, as it will be interesting to see if it actually makes any difference at all.

[Andy Y]

Whilst I would normally not comment on another manufacturer’s section of this forum, since this thread has included references to reviews of Bachmann products then I trust the information below will be of interest. I am posting purely from a Bachmann perspective as it would be unprofessional of me to comment for any other reason.

 

Bachmann only issue press releases when new products are announced. These give basic information on the prototype, examples of which can be found in various threads in the Bachmann section which Andy has posted since I joined the company back in 2006. We also provide quarterly updates on the various development stages of all of our products in the Bachmann Times (the magazine of the Bachmann Collectors Club) which is also sent to all the model railway media including RMWeb, so Editors can see what is in production and plan accordingly, knowing that within the next three months the model has a pretty good chance of  landing in their office.

 

We send out review samples of new products to all the model railway press (including those with specific specialist interests e.g. N Gauge Society Journal) who only receive items that are relevant to them. We include a comprehensive information sheet, a copy of the latest one being reproduced below, which shows the comprehensive information Richard and I collate for them. I am sorry Chris Leigh did not get the information we provided in the Model Rail package – he should not have had to look up the RRP for himself as it is provided on the document supplied to every Editor with the shipment.

 

 

I would like to reassure readers of RMweb that Bachmann will continue to provide review samples to the recognised media. We welcome their feedback.

 

What is perhaps not recognised is that the model railway media are recording history as it is being made. There are many with an interest in the history of our hobby and also what this forum terms as collectable/vintage (with its own devoted section). In the years to come the reviews of Chris Leigh etc. will be invaluable to them

[Ryde-on-time]

As a subscriber of both BRM and Model Rail I read both cover to cover including reviews and do generally find them informative. The excellent photography really shows things warts and all. While the text may be more guarded than some of the (hysterical!) comments to be found online, I feel it results in a more a more balanced view of the model

 

Bachmann seems to have a sensible and understandable approach to review models. Taking the E4 tank engine as an example this is reviewed in the current BRM allowing readers to see, read and judge it make a final decision on purchase before they arrive in the next few weeks at dealers

 

Hornby however seem to be using a scatter gun approach to marketing at present, randomly firing off all sorts of ideas, some of which contradict – web exclusive products that they then release to the trade, bargain on-line prices undercutting their dealers, bargains just offered to Kernow, offering samples to bloggers only to withdraw the offer and now no longer offering samples to magazines for review

 

It seems to me that Hornby perhaps need to stop and make a coherent marketing plan!

[dibber25]

Recently I've learned far more about the good & bad points of new RTR models from this forum than from magazine reviews. I can possibly understand Hornby's decision because there are now so many railway modelling magazines - dare I say too many? I bet I'm not the only person who stands in WHSmiths or Sainsburys and flicks through them all. I very rarely buy one, because each magazine usually only has one item that interests me, and I haven't the money to buy several magazines each month. And if I do buy a magazine, it's either because it contains an article about a layout, or drawings of a prototype, not because of a review.

 

For a long time I've had doubts about just how thorough and impartial the reviews are. However much some may protest their innocence, there can be little doubt that an honest negative review would put advertising revenue at risk, as well as risking that subsequent review samples would be late or not received at all. I waited to see if there was any comment in the magazines about the chaos following Hornby's Black Friday event, or the tiny numbers of Exeters, but didn't notice any - but again, there are so many magazines that I may have missed the brave title that put their head above the parapet.

 

In some ways I hope that Hornby carry through with their decision, as it will be interesting to see if it actually makes any difference at all.

Black Friday and Exeters have got nothing whatever to do with free review samples. I once - unintentionally - put an editorial comment about Hornby's quality control opposite a full-page Hornby ad. I got an ear-bending but they didn't pull their adverts. Such things go with the territory. Manufacturers know how much three or four pages of coverage in a magazine is worth even if it does contain a few lines of adverse comment. In fact, one of the advantages which a 'forum reviewer' has over a model magazine is that he can hide behind a pen-name and never actually have to take one of those angry calls from a manufacturer who doesn't like that you 'only' gave his model a 90% rating. Four or five modelling titles turn up to Hornby's press events so the number of review samples is not many but some do also go to 'prototype' magazines which have little or no modelling content. If bloggers are to be used, presumably at least as many will need to be sent out, at the same cost and with no guarantee as to the size of audience that will be reached. 

CHRIS LEIGH

[br2975]

The majority are used as competition prizes, as agreed with Simon Kohler many years ago. It is appreciated by those who send free samples, that the free publicity is worth far more than the cost of the model, on the basis that all publicity is good publicity - even a 'bad' review. Others are used in projects. As I've said previously, a large proportion of Hornby models that we review have either been bought by one of us or borrowed, as the supply from Margate is erratic.

CHRIS LEIGH

Thanks Chris.

.

Brian R

[RedgateModels]

If we do need items for an article we do buy them

 

As I did for the Rebuilt Crosti article in this month's BRM - anyone want to buy a custom built loco?

 

[7013]

Better late than never RM web starting a thread.