Decembers SAM magazine

[Seahawk]

What I find interesting is that after 3 days this thread has generated only 25 mild and not very controversial posts. Similar threads have come up regularly over the years and in the past could be relied upon to produce a. long laments for fings not being what they used to be, b. torrents of virulent abuse upon the heads of one or more magazine editors and c. early lockdown by the mods. This thread however is just ambling along. I conclude that times have moved on: the folks on this site no longer really care what happens in the print media because it has (or is it "they have"?) simply become irrelevant as a means of meeting their needs for modelling info, inspiration, etc. As an author of one or more of the said long laments in the past, I know that for 95% of the time it is/they are for me now.

[Norman]

The mags are still selling despite the loss in readership as are newspapers, maybe they will disappear one day who knows !

I subscribe to SAM as i was sick of missing out on a copy and we have plenty of newsagents nearby !

[Greg B]

I'm a little bit mystified as to why, if they knew that the article would not be in the magazine:

"You were meant to be reading the editor's article on building the Revell 1:32nd scale Bf109G, However it was not finished in time for this issue, so....."

The editorial team still decided to leave the headline of the 109 build on the front cover? Why not swap it for the build that was in there? Is it that difficult to change the cover with an electronic editing programme?

[cmatthewbacon]

It does seem a bit odd. But it's true that magazines aren't sent to the printers in one big lump -- they'll have been feeding layouts (including the cover, perhaps) to the typesetters for a couple of weeks. SInce the cover is on different paper, it's possible that it had been _printed_ before they finally decided that they couldn't get the article finished in time, and swapped in another one they had "on the stocks" with that small line added at the beginning (or maybe they always had it as a fallback). Mind you, I'm not making excuses -- it doesn't give a very professional impression! I don't think I ever worked on an edition of Focus that had something on the cover that wasn't in the magazine -- in our office the cover was always the LAST thing we sent to the printers...

bestest,

M.

[Spence]

It does seem a bit odd. But it's true that magazines aren't sent to the printers in one big lump -- they'll have been feeding layouts (including the cover, perhaps) to the typesetters for a couple of weeks. SInce the cover is on different paper, it's possible that it had been _printed_ before they finally decided that they couldn't get the article finished in time, and swapped in another one they had "on the stocks" with that small line added at the beginning (or maybe they always had it as a fallback). Mind you, I'm not making excuses -- it doesn't give a very professional impression! I don't think I ever worked on an edition of Focus that had something on the cover that wasn't in the magazine -- in our office the cover was always the LAST thing we sent to the printers...

bestest,

M.

That may have been true in the olden days, but with the advent of digital design and layouts, there is zero reason to send a magazine to the printers in bits. The designers create a complete PDF and that is fired of to the printers. Job done. The idea that the printers need to typeset for a couple of weeks is rubbish. The book that I recently completed for ADH was completed and then sent to the printers and the complete run was back within two weeks. My own magazine that I printed digitally was back within three days from delivery of the completed PDF file that the printers simply uploaded onto their computers and then fired off the printing press. As for this idea that the cover is sent off with errors on, or content that's not in the magazine, that I'm afraid is down solely to the editor and the proofing team who should have noticed the mistake before it was sent off - after all, that is the most important aspect of any magazine...

Spence

Edited December 3, 2013 by Spence

[Kelsey]

As Spence says, it is the responsibility of the Editor to ensure that any magazine is ready for printing before it is signed-off. The problem is often caused by small enthusiast companies producing publications without any real experience of proper commercial publishing (and, therefore, Editors who don't really have a proper grasp of what their duties are). I guess that in the case of SAM one has to accept that it's a short-run magazine for enthusiasts, and it's never going to match the standards of mainstream commercial magazines. Errors are probably inevitable from time to time.

[cmatthewbacon]

That may have been true in the olden days, but with the advent of digital design and layouts, there is zero reason to send a magazine to the printers in bits. The designers create a complete PDF and that is fired of to the printers. Job done.

Fair enough... I guess times have moved on! No excuse, then...

bestest,

M.

[John Laidlaw]

Depends on the way the things are done. Spence is correct that there's no need to do a job piecemeal any more, but some still do regardless. We have customers that insist on sending un-proofed covers, foldouts, TOCs, etc., sometimes weeks in advance of the body PDFs... and it doesn't matter what we say to them to try and streamline the process or point out errors.

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

At the risk of being contrary to my usual views (well almost):

Mistakes do happen.

No one's died, and the OP has been promised a copy of the edition carrying the article free. If you consider this was the Telford SMW special- so probably had to go to press sooner than usual, that may have something to do with the mess up. It is perhaps embarrassing for the editor and annoying for those who bought the mag on the basis of the article being in there.

Perhaps model mag editors should all make a mental note to concentrate on editing more, and less on editorialising.....

Jonners

[pinky coffeeboat]

Good evening all.

Had a reply.

Short one though.

"Please give me your address and I will send you the mag its in for free".....

Is this the actual verbatim reply?

If this is the way my complaint was dealt with, I don't think I'd ever buy anything from this company again. This really smacks of disinterest and lack of focus, a reply sent at 2 minutes before home time.

I could rattle on about poor grammar and "text speak" (something which makes me so mad, but that's for another rant!!) but to use the term "mag" and the absence of any kind of apology would be the last straw for me, if I still wasted my money on "mags".

As I've written on several replies to these type of subjects, I don't buy any magazines (and now, very rarely, books) at all. The internet has become such a valued source of reference that magazines can't really hope to compete nowadays. I was in W H Smith at the weekend for the first time in a long time, but that was to visit their newly opened Modelzone section (Cardiff, Queen Street.), I didn't even think to visit the magazine stands.

Edited December 3, 2013 by pinky coffeeboat

[Terrain Safe]

Pinky:

Yes it was the exact response.

Jonners:

Your last line makes a great soundbite. It also sounds like a good idea...

[Norman]

[Terrain Safe]

Just had a reply from Mr Laverty. Quite long and in it he explains that it was entirely his fault in leaving it too late to change the cover before deciding that he wouldn't finish the 109 in time to make the issue. So at least I now have an answer to the reason why it wasn't in the latest issue. If he's reading this then thank you for being big enough to admit your mistake and how you'll fix it. Thanks again.

[Norman]

Good on Jay for getting back to you , i am sure you thanked him in return i'm sure he feels bad for the mistake

I have been getting SAM since issue 1 and will add this to the discussion, back in the early days the mag was 40 odd pages of black and white, now it is double the size full colour and printed on lovely stock, it has improved out of site and the December issue has some great articles in it, in particular the ones on the Seafires and Spitfires in Israeli service , yes the spelling/grammar and basic omissions do annoy me being ex media but i do love the mag and am prepared to cut them some slack !!!!! and i have just renewed my subscription

Cheers

[pinky coffeeboat]

Good on Jay for getting back to you , i am sure you thanked him in return i'm sure he feels bad for the mistake

I have been getting SAM since issue 1 and will add this to the discussion, back in the early days the mag was 40 odd pages of black and white, now it is double the size full colour and printed on lovely stock, it has improved out of site and the December issue has some great articles in it, in particular the ones on the Seafires and Spitfires in Israeli service , yes the spelling/grammar and basic omissions do annoy me being ex media but i do love the mag and am prepared to cut them some slack !!!!! and i have just renewed my subscription

Cheers

Credit where credit is due, but the phrase I have highlighted and italicised just illustrates my point about why I don't buy magazines any more. This discussion started because an article about a Bf109 was absent from the magazine, but the issue contains another article about Spitfires (and Seafires)! Some editors seem to think no other aircraft exist or nothing was built after 1945.

I know that's what readers want as Kev1n has mentioned but rename the magazine if all you're going to feature is this very small range of subjects - how about "Another Spitfire Model is built, and we discuss Bf109 Camouflage Again Monthly".

I recently came across a set of bound SAM from the days of Hall, about ten or eleven binders all complete, at a car boot sale. I deliberated and flicked through them and felt quite nostalgic remembering the excitement I had years ago, but I decided against because there is so much more available online now that I'd just be left with a pile of magazines cluttering up the house, used only for that warm fuzzy feeling or to remind me of how it used to be.

It may well have doubled in size and be nicely printed, but from what others have stated, the rapidly falling sales indicate that all that fluff isn't enough to encourage modellers back. Certainly not me anyway.

[Norman]

Oh dear me.........

Fair enough...each to his own i suppose ,

Cheers

[Rabbit Leader]

I recently came across a set of bound SAM from the days of Hall, about ten or eleven binders all complete, at a car boot sale. I deliberated and flicked through them and felt quite nostalgic remembering the excitement I had years ago, but I decided against because there is so much more available online now that I'd just be left with a pile of magazines cluttering up the house, used only for that warm fuzzy feeling or to remind me of how it used to be.

Sounds like this could have been a bit of a steal? I hope you don't live to regret it. I constantly use mine as both a source of inspiration and a reliable reference. Yes - I agree about the warm fuzzy days as the magazine during its Hall heyday did elevate my understanding and interest in British aircraft like no other, however besides the internet my SAM collection is the next thing I could not do without.

Cheers.. Dave

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

My collection of SAMs is currently being held by a fellow BM member ( gawd bless you sir)

I have to say that I doubt anyone would miss, as an archive, the current crop. But I think that's what the new team want - its a a very good 'now mag'

The web has stripped them of the ability to do in depth stuff, and ironically reviews too. So what you have left in the middle is photo rich builds - which is no bad thing as long as you do them well, which SAM does; unlike SAMI; but not as well as MAI.

Too many initials, but there was a time when SAM = Good, now its just average, whatever the editor's take on distribution figures is.

Jonners

[Simon Cornes]

I have to say that, 12 months ago, I went 'cold turkey' and let my SAM subscription lapse. And every month I've bought the latest copy and so its both been more expensive and less convenient than a standing order! I have looked at other mags but, quite honestly,none tick all my boxes but,obviously I enjoy my monthly 'fix' of modelling literature.

All magazines evolve and I was very fond of the original SAM but things inevitably change and how often do I refer to SAM back issues? In truth not very often! I used to love the Ian Huntley articles but talking to the 'wise men' of modelling - they know who they are - you realise that that sort of thing may not have been as accurate as I believed at the time - ignorance really is bliss!

To be fair to Jay, in every magazine, at the foot of the bit about the following months articles it always says that things may change - and often do - and there are several articles that have vanished - one by Jay about a Sunderland springs to mind.

I could go on, I wish all the articles were by British journalists - and indeed the editor to - but that's me being xenophobic and 'international contributors' seems to be a common thread with all magazines. But I still come back to the fact that I am addicted to the damned thing - and I bet I'm not the only one!

Simon

[Jonny]

No, Simon, you are not the 'only one'!

I've just waded through the January 2014 Airfix Model World and come to the same conclusion! A potentially useful article (I#d better not identify it!!!) seems to be written in a language approximating to English which to my mind ruins it.

Returning to SAM - like you I do miss the Ian Huntley and Mike McEvoy pages, and the editorials. I was somewhat disappointed to see that Jay is beavering away on a large-scale wooden Spitfire which is ***VERY** expensive (it's one of those things that appear as parts in monthly magazines). I haven't worked out what the cost will be but to my mind it's far beyond a sensibly affordable limit and I'm not convinced that the finished article (probably over 2 years ahead) will be truly 'scale' anyway.

I know printed magazines have to be produced to deadlines and it's bad luck if a kit and subsequent write-up miss the deadline. Nevertheless there have been some editorial horrors over the years which I think spoil the authoritative quality of the magazine. I've started flipping through each month's copy in the newsagent's and deciding whether to spend almost GBP5:00 on it. Websites like this one provide a wider coverage and some of the 'in progress' threads are far far more detailed that anything in print.

Just my GBP0.02 worth!

Edited December 6, 2013 by Jonny

[blueliner]

I stopped getting SAM a few years back when the content changed significantly from the days of Alan Hall.

What you have experienced with said issue has happened before. I would look it up for verification but I'm physically unable.

I distinctly remember that was one of the main reasons I stopped getting it. I went looking for the cover article and nil, nichts, nada...

I prefer magazines to the internet, but the cost of publishing and distribution may make print obsolete.

Finally, I met Alan Hall at the IPMS/USA Nats...Indy, I believe. Whatta good guy!

[Ptmvarsityfan]

Hi, I still get SAMI as a one-stop shop for news and they

feature some more esoteric subjects, but as others have

said I also am not interested in endless Spitfire/Luftwaffe

articles so rarely get SAM these days sadly. Still have many

old copies from the 80's and 90's and they are still a great

reference source. Currently building a Special Hobby Balliol

and the old Aircraft in Detail is a great reference, the information

in it is just not available on the internet, not to mention the

side profiles.

Cheers, Paul

[Kelsey]

It is worth remembering that modelling magazines are rather different to mainstream commercial magazines. They are produced in small quantities and their editors don't have the luxury of paying contributors hefty amounts of money. The result is that the editors rarely have any opportunity to commission features on specific subjects. In practise, they often simply rely on taking whatever they can get. The result is that the content often reflects the type of material that the editors have received. Obviously, editors can discuss future ideas with some contributors and they can make the decision to cover subjects themselves, but a great deal often depends on the tastes of the contributors.

The other problem is that modelling magazine editors are modelling enthusiasts first and foremost. They are not journalists or professional editors. Consequently, it is inevitable that they will choose to pursue subjects that they happen to like, rather than making a more considered judgement as to what might be commercially popular. This is why we often read misleading comments such as "this is the kit we've been waiting for" and so on. Naturally, the editor really means "this is the kit that I've been waiting for" and the result is that readers often feel more than a little disenfranchised. A classic example is the way in which one editor pursues his liking for 144th scale subjects. It is fine for him to express his own tastes, but when the comments suggest a wider view, it is of course grossly misleading.

Similarly, the same editors don't have a proper grasp of editorial policy, commercial-versus-reader interest, and often don't have a good commend of English or grammar. Readers often complain that the standards of English are sometimes poor, but the only alternative would be to employ an editor with better abilities, even though he would probably have no interest or knowledge of modelling issues. It is certainly true that this wasn't a problem many years ago when Airfix Magazine first started, and when Alan Hall produced Scale Aircraft Modelling. Alan was an enthusiastic (and very talented) modeller, whilst also being a capable journalist and editor. It was perhaps a unique combination and it would probably be unrealistic to imagine that it would ever be repeated.

Ultimately, one has to accept that modelling magazines are never going to be perfect. The problem now seems to be that they have to compete with the internet, where information, feedback and news is free. This is obviously why readership figures continue to fall from a level that was already barely sustainable. Coupled to this are the increasing costs of print and distribution. It seems inevitable that, sooner or later, all of the existing modelling magazines will fold, as they are clearly unsustainable in the long term. Other forms of print magazines might continue if they provide the reader with useful information (ie- reference publications), but the traditional magazines have no long-term future. News coverage (which the editors glean from the internet) can be sourced by the reader for free. Modelling techniques can only be explained once, and anything more is simply repetition. Colour scheme and markings features are only useful if the material is accurate (it usually isn't) and fully explanatory (a one-side fuselage illustration doesn't enable a modeller to build a model), and editorial comment is merely throw-away opinion that can be found on the internet. Consequently, the existing magazines offer very little of value and they rely on readers that either buy the magazines through force of habit, or readers who simply want something to thumb-through whilst sat on their sofas.

It is a sad outlook but it's worth bearing all of this in mind. The existing magazines may well be far from perfect but they are all that we have, and so we either have to enjoy them while we still can, or accept that our needs will have to be met through other sources.

It is certainly true that the heady days of Alan Hall's SAM are greatly missed. At that time we had no internet, and only a scattering of vaguely-useful reference publications. Alan understood that modellers wanted information rather than just hot air (even though he was able to provide plenty of that, especially if a bottle of whiskey was on hand!). He ensured that the modelling articles were of practical value. He didn't indulge in the modern-day practise of writing I opened the box and stuck the parts together features. He preferred to show the actual techniques of building kits, modifying kits, using conversion parts and more. He also understood that reference material had to be of practical value, so that colour scheme and markings information would enable the reader to actually build a model, based on the information. But then Alan had the luxury of publishing at a time when print costs were low, and when he had the time and inclination to do a lot of the necessary work himself. He also had the luxury of relying on colleagues who were both able and willing to provide first-class material. Things are very different now and we can't turn-back time, even though a lot of us would love to!

Edited December 12, 2013 by Kelsey

[Tom R]

Anyone would think you were a publisher or a publishing consultant - anyway you have absolutely hit the nail on the head. An intelligent, serious and well reasoned post.

[Dave Batt]

But then Alan had the luxury of publishing at a time when print costs were low, and when he had the time and inclination to do a lot of the necessary work himself. He also had the luxury of relying on colleagues who were both able and willing to provide first-class material. Things are very different now and we can't turn-back time, even though a lot of us would love to!

I feel this post presented valid viewpoints up to this statement, which I'd categorically have to differ with. Go back 20 odd years and print costs were astronomic compared to today. In those days any run less than 30,000 saw the unit cost shoot up astronomically, and the publisher had to be sure of sales in excess of 25,000 unless the advertising revenue was eaten into in order to support the print run costs alone. In those days magazines were proud to publish their ABC circulation figures on the mastheads for the world to see, not just the publishing world with their copies of BRaD (assuming that publication still exists).

Edited December 14, 2013 by Dave Batt