Decembers SAM magazine

[cmatthewbacon]

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.

But these are not fanzines, run off on the laser printer and then copied. Someone who gets paid to edit a magazine by a publishing business is a professional editor in my book (by definition).

I don't think it's fair to say that "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." The publishing houses are not charities. ADH or SAM Publications, say, are in the business to make money, and they'll employ an editor who knows what it takes to do that. If the editor they'd hired really had no grasp of commercial versus reader interest and was presiding over a financial train-wreck, then the publishers would be waving bye-bye pretty quickly. The fact that they are enthusiasts for the hobby is a bonus, not a pre-requisite: if the publishers could find someone who would make a compelling, well-researched business case for they way they wanted to run the magazine as a commercial success, then it wouldn't matter a jot if they never actually stuck plastic together themselves -- I didn't have to be a practising nuclear physicist, xenobiologist or digital special effects guru to edit Focus. I would hazard a guess that the large majority of magazines, when you include all the B2B magazines covering sectors from banking to boring (yes, Tunnels and Tunnelling, I mean you!), are edited by people who do not practise what they preach about monthly. Equally, ANYONE who is being employed as an editor really should have an EXCELLENT command of English and grammar, familiarity with Fowler and The Economist Style Book, and a good grounding in the relevant bits of media law... so, publishers: give 'em a test before you hire them!

The paper magazine may be doomed by the internet, or it may not (people are saying that since 1994, and it still ain't quite happened yet.)

But whether or not it's published on paper, I think there's always going to be a role for curated content. As long as you deliver high-quality, engaging, informative and useful content (whether on paper, with animations, with video clips, as web site or whatever!), there'll be an audience who find this valuable.

bestest,

M.

Edited December 13, 2013 by cmatthewbacon

[Harry Lime]

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.

What are the mainstream commercial magazines you refer to? Even a cursory glance around WH Smiths reveals a plethora of titles aimed at various niche interest readerships. Cycling Weekly, MBR, Guitarist, Flypast, Air Forces Monthly to name but a few, but these don't include the myraid publications aimed at car enthusiasts, musicians of varying forms, doll's house collectors, model railway builders, air rifle users, etc etc. Surely by definition every magazine is a commercial publication as it exists to make money for the publisher?

The business model you present of editors being unable to plan much in advance, would surely have seen all model magazines folded by now? I had it drummed into me during management training that "if you fail to prepare, prepare to fail". Surely no business, especially one with such a limited market and falling revenues that you portray, can afford such a slap-dash approach to planning and delivery?

What experience do you have of the magazine trade? You seem to make some pretty sweeping statements that come across as 'facts' regarding the editorship of modelling magazines, are these based on your time working for these magazines?

Mark.

[Fea]

Ayup All...

Just my 2C,

I gave up with all the Magazines after what was it ? SIX issues of AMW stuffed to death with stuff leading up to the Airfix Valiant being released or however it was spaced out. It nigh on killed my Interest in everything written on paper about Modelling full stop, AND the Valiant as on Aircraft too.

I'm just glad for my two wardrobes full of Original SAMs, SAMI, Flypasts, and all the rest of them. It still bugs me that my Knowledge of their content is not Encyclopaedic enuff to reach for them every time I start a new kit. But I do like (the older) Magazines better than the Internet.

[CockneyCol]

I have to admit to loving the OLD style SAMI, but really not enjoying the newer style at all. The old style issues I have are being scanned as PDF's as I no longer have space for them all due to child related occupation of all available space in the house.

It used to be a valuable and informative resource, however I'm not finding much in the way of value in the current style of magazine, yes it's cheaper to produce and it has shiny paper, but that's your lot.

[dwh]

Reading through this edition, it is titled on cover as Spitfire Spectacular, nice you might think, but did we really need 6 build reviews of Spitfire/Seafire, I do not think so, a much better way to pad out the spectacular would have been to add some more info regarding various type profiles showing maybe the different nose contours etc.

Yes I know it has been done before in books etc but there maybe a lot of newer modellers out there who do not have this information.

[SleeperService]

Reading through this edition, it is titled on cover as Spitfire Spectacular, nice you might think, but did we really need 6 build reviews of Spitfire/Seafire, I do not think so, a much better way to pad out the spectacular would have been to add some more info regarding various type profiles showing maybe the different nose contours etc.

Yes I know it has been done before in books etc but there maybe a lot of newer modellers out there who do not have this information.

Yes, like me for example. Getting back into the hobby generally and aircraft for the first time seriously. Thank Mike and the Minions for BM and the like.

[Kelsey]

What are the mainstream commercial magazines you refer to?

I refer to what we would traditionally regard as "mainstream" magazines - the lifestyle, news and other magazines that have substantial circulation figures, and are produced by publishing houses. It's always worth remembering that newsagents now stock a huge range of magazines that are much, much smaller publications, produced by very small companies that can sometimes be little more than a couple of people (some book publishers are also very similar). Yes, I do base my comments on first-hand experience, having edited aerospace, modelling and lifestyle magazines.

It's not a case of being "slap dash" as such, it's just that many magazines (including many model magazines) are simply not produced by people with any great editorial experience, and often produced on relatively small budgets. They tend to be produced by companies that also have other interests, and/or edited by people who are primarily modelling enthusiasts, not experienced editors. I think it fair to say that only the late, great Alan Hall was someone who truly could claim to have had both talents.

It's probably unfair for any of us to make any suggestion that these magazines are somehow deliberately amateurish. As I said previously, a great deal of the difficulties with content are a result of simply being obliged to use whatever material is available, as the luxury of "picking and choosing" often isn't available. I agree that it might seem like commercial suicide to proceed without a long-term structure, a secure policy on content quality, subject choice and so on, but it really is often a case of making the best of what material can be found.

At the same time, I don't think there is ever any excuse for poor usage of English, bad proofing, inappropriate or seemingly irrelevant content, etc. But when we complain that so many subjects are ignored, or covered poorly, or when so much space is devoted to repetition and the coverage of subjects that have virtually been exhausted, it's always worth remembering that this is probably because that's the best that could be offered. Naturally, that doesn't dissuade a lot of us from simply choosing not to buy the magazines, but that's just the way things are now. We always have the option of not buying, but at the same time it's worth bearing in mind why things are as they are.

Even back in the days of Alan Hall's SAM, things were far from perfect, but back then there was virtually nothing else on the market, no internet, and so it was undoubtedly easier for Alan to assemble a useful magazine every month at an affordable price. Things are very different now, and although I'm the last person to defend the current crop of model magazines (personally, I think they are pretty poor), I do think it's important to understand why things have drifted into such a lamentable state.

The problem (if there is a problem) is that the vast majority of readers have a very unrealistic image of how enthusiast magazines are produced. I think it fair to say that most people picture a large, shiny office, full of personnel tackling different aspects of the magazine, and an editor who sits on a huge budget, planning-out the subjects and content almost at will. It really isn't like that at all. In almost every case the true set-up is a small company with a very limited amount of money, and an editor who works from home, assembling a magazine on the basis of what he can find, what he is offered, what he can create himself, or (if he is lucky) he can sometimes afford to commission. It's hardly surprising that the result is often unedifying and that many of us decide that the magazine is simply not worth the cover price. But that's how things are these days, so we either ignore the magazines and glean what we can for free off the internet, or we buy the magazines and simply accept that they will never be perfect and that it is probably a minor miracle that they survive at all.

I can tell you for nothing that an all-new model aircraft magazine may well have been released next year, by an established, professional publisher. But it isn't going to happen now, simply because the publisher investigated the market carefully, and concluded that to put money into such a venture would be financially suicidal. The sad (for us) truth is that model aircraft magazines sell in astonishingly small quantities (which continue to dwindle) and that even with substantial advertising support they are still only barely capable of sustaining themselves. For a company with a wider commercial interest, they are simply not a viable proposition. I can also tell you that it's not the first time that this has happened. Sadly, in terms of available magazines, we either accept what we already have, despite their flaws, or we stick to the internet. Either way, there's little prospect of anything better coming along, quite the contrary in fact

Edited December 14, 2013 by Kelsey

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

Kelsey: Time to show your hand i think Sir. You are either an insider, a Walter Mitty or a troll. So give us something to find your bona fides with. PM me if you wish.

Jonners phishing for phish, or is that trawling for trolls?

[Harry Lime]

Yes, I do base my comments on first-hand experience, having edited aerospace, modelling and lifestyle magazines.

The sad (for us) truth is that model aircraft magazines sell in astonishingly small quantities (which continue to dwindle) and that even with substantial advertising support they are still only barely capable of sustaining themselves.

Excellent. If I can be as bold as Jonners, would you like to name and shame the titles you edited?

Also, what is your source for the circulation figures and is it an open source? I'd like to have a look at the circulation figures myself.

Mark.

[Spence]

Kelsey: Time to show your hand i think Sir. You are either an insider, a Walter Mitty or a troll. So give us something to find your bona fides with. PM me if you wish.

Jonners phishing for phish, or is that trawling for trolls?

I agree: I'd love to know how you have gained so much experience in this industry and what gives you the ability to comment with such authority...

Excellent. If I can be as bold as Jonners, would you like to name and shame the titles you edited?

Also, what is your source for the circulation figures and is it an open source? I'd like to have a look at the circulation figures myself.

Mark.

Good luck with that; twenty years in publishing has taught me that companies tend to keep such things close to their chest... Come on Kelsy, spill the beans: who are you?

Spence - who everyone knows, seemingly...

[Kelsey]

I'm not entirely sure that any publications have been "named and shamed" here. I have merely tried to explain why we (as modellers) are in the situation that we are in. Obviously, SAM was the subject of this thread, but much of what has been said applies to other magazines too. There really is no need to "shame" any given publication. They survive or fail depending on their quality or usefulness. I simply thought it might be helpful to some readers of this forum, I've I endeavoured to explain why the situation is as it is. I have no interest in arguing about the subject.

Edited December 15, 2013 by Kelsey

[Greg B]

Tim McLlelland, aka "Chox", "Coolcat" among others. So nice to see you back on here under another sock puppet account.

Don't worry, we will pass this info on to the other forums you have been banned from such as LSP, as well as your ip addresses;)

[pinky coffeeboat]

^ Oh intrigued too...

This topic has made me think (or more correctly "reminisce") about this very magazine and what it meant to me. For me, it's was the one that other magazines were judged against, and I always looked forward to receiving it when it dropped through my letterbox; in fact if it wasn't delivered but SAMI, Finescale Modeler or any other modelling magazine I subscribed to was, I'd still be disappointed.

I used to buy over 15 magazines per month, many often for one article or even just a picture, but those days have long gone - many became too expensive, badly written, others cheap and tabloid in style (Aircraft Illustrated - great magazine years ago, but became very "samey" but even with great photo shoots by John Dibbs, there's only so many times you can put up with big glossy colour shots of the Red Arrows practising over Cyprus (yawn..) or Concorde in flight (lovely aircraft, but still yawn...) because that's all they seemed to feature and then the editors began to use tabloid style headings for their features - "Chinese take-away" I recall when they did an article about the varied aircraft used by Chinese airlines. There were others but this one sticks in my head - why go down that route?)

But above all, and the magazine I still haven't got round to throwing out (SAMI, Finescale, Tamiya, and all the rest I owned, were long ago converted to pulp - in some cases, the best thing for them!), was Scale Aircraft Modelling. I did enjoy it, referring to it whenever I was deciding on a colour scheme and such. I liked Tailpiece a lot and really liked the build articles they did with a photograph and a description below.

When the magazine restarted again after it ceased production in the mid-90's, for me it just wasn't the same even though the format largely remained. I still subscribed but as the internet became much more accessible, I found numerous forums and realised that here was a place that could review kits more in depth, feature many long detailed build articles and I could actually ask the modeller a question about something he had just done! Not only that, I could answer some questions too. And when SAM and SAMI and just about every other aircraft modelling magazine become obsessed/blinkered on 1939-1945 aircraft, I rapidly lost interest (not my cup of tea). I stopped wasting money.

Now I've got internet access any time I want, magazines are irrelevant to me. If I'm in a model shop (quite rare these days) I can quickly view numerous online reviews of a kit that could be on offer ("too good to miss") or just released and decide there and then if I should snap it up or leave it there. I can't drag around piles of magazines with me and then sit down and thumb through hundreds of pages to find a review of it, or wait a couple of months for the review.

As I've stated several times in the past, the days are numbered for the printed word (not just niche modelling publications, but for other magazines, books and even newspapers too - have you seen how much advertising there is nowadays in all the papers, tabloid and broadsheet?). Like it or loathe it, the internet has had a massive part to play in the demise of the printed word and any publisher that continues to put out rubbish and fluff of the kind that's often discussed here, really is responsible if (when) their product collapses. Harsh, but true.

Edited December 15, 2013 by pinky coffeeboat

[SleeperService]

Tim McLlelland, aka "Chox", "Coolcat" among others. So nice to see you back on here under another sock puppet account.

Don't worry, we will pass this info on to the other forums you have been banned from such as LSP, as well as your ip addresses;)

Tim McLelland is possibly an alias as well. It's the name of a Major league baseball umpire (there's also the little known film director/writer, my money would be on riding the umpire image). Overseeing, judgemental, beyond question, ultimate authority all typical troll traits.

[Gary C]

Tim McLelland is possibly an alias as well. It's the name of a Major league baseball umpire (there's also the little known film director/writer, my money would be on riding the umpire image). Overseeing, judgemental, beyond question, ultimate authority all typical troll traits.

It's not an alias and to be fair he does have a little bit of experience as an author...

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tim-McLelland/e/B0034PMJOS/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_4?qid=1387134917&sr=8-4

[pacificmustang]

It must only be me, but I only ever used to buy SAM for the ads.

very few articles featuring my chosen scale (1/48)

poor picture quality and usually only in B&W long after other mags had converted to colour.

the reviews often featured obscure eastern Bloc kits,once again, never in my scale and had poorly made models.

Mike McEvoy's were always gloss finished regardless of the actual finish of the real a/c, looked very toylike I found his tailpiece to be rambling in nature.

SAM never contributed to me learning any skills. Scale Models ran some good back to basics articles, as did Airfix Magazine

Really only bought the issues I did for Terrence Marriott's and Jim Howard's - what ever happened to them?- builds

I far more enjoyed Scale Models and Icarus's column, until the demise of that once great magazine too.

SAM only really picked up for me once Robinson had taken over. As people here have said different mags do different things for different people. SAM never did anything for me. The mags I buy probably dont float other peoples boats.

Cie la vie!

Bruce

[Dave Batt]

As I've stated several times in the past, the days are numbered for the printed word (not just niche modelling publications, but for other magazines, books and even newspapers too - have you seen how much advertising there is nowadays in all the papers, tabloid and broadsheet?). Like it or loathe it, the internet has had a massive part to play in the demise of the printed word and any publisher that continues to put out rubbish and fluff of the kind that's often discussed here, really is responsible if (when) their product collapses. Harsh, but true.

I could only agree with this comment if we can mutually accept that what the user sees on a computer screen is a form of 'print'. Another post in this thread introduced the wonderful term "curated content", which I have never seen before but, if I am understanding it correctly, can accept as relevant here. You raise the term "rubbish and fluff" as if such is only ever to be found in (paper) printed publications and would never be seen sullying the noble form of the internet.

Edited December 16, 2013 by Dave Batt

[AnonymousAA72]

It's not an alias and to be fair he does have a little bit of experience as an author...

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tim-McLelland/e/B0034PMJOS/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_4?qid=1387134917&sr=8-4

I think he has another alias as Tim Laming.........

[pinky coffeeboat]

I think we're just talking printed "in your hand" words (physical magazines, books, newspapers etc..) since this discussion is about a physical magazine and how it has fared in the face of Internet use. If we even began to discuss what's written on the Internet it would open a whole massive can of worms.

If something is going to make it to paper print then I think it's reasonable to expect it to be produced to a high standard, no or minimal spelling and grammatical errors, and the content should actually reflect the title. In an increasing number of cases printed magazines fall short of these basic expectations, as witnessed by the discussions here.

On the Internet if rubbish and fluff is produced, other than my monthly Internet expense, it hasn't cost me anything and can easily be ignored. Not so after spending £5 on a magazine that will sit on a shelf cluttering the house and be referred to rarely. Such a waste of my money. Hence, I no longer buy magazines.

Everyone is entitled to their views and opinions and these can be freely and easily expressed on such forums as this. With magazines, the editor often follows his agenda and will only print articles and readers letters if they match his area of interest.

[dwh]

Having just received my January 2014 copy of SAMI, it is interesting to see the difference in editorial and content.

This months magazine has a good cross section of articles. Interspersed with the normal new products and adverts

A good in depth article on building the Admiral Yamamoto “Betty” in which he died.

A tribute to British Phantoms, good in depth article with photo reference.

Building a RAF Hudson transport.

Article on the Northrop Alpha 4 monoplane

A build article on the Yak-18

The usual CLASSIC PLASTIC article, always interesting

Reader’s models gallery

Revell Typhoon Mk 1B article (pt3)

Modellers portfolio, building the JU88, colour profiles and scale plans.

Build review of Meng Me163 Komet.

Italeri F104 Starfighter First look.

Revell He 111H-6 1/32 review

Voisin Farman 1/72 review

Junkers Ju 52/3m 1/144 review

Me 263 review

How to modelling guide

Paint it with Testors, Kfir C7

580 modellers column

This is a good selection to wet any modellers appetite and I am sure that there would be something for most people, now had I to make a real decision as to what magazine to keep buying, be it SAMI or SAM , I think at this point in time the loser would be SAM

[pinky coffeeboat]

But....look at what they've included:

Betty (WW2), Hudson (WW2), Typhoon (WW2), Junkers 88 (WW2), Me 163 (WW2), He111 (WW2) another Messerschmitt (WW2) and another Junkers (WW2). THAT'S why I stopped buying these magazines.

I would hardly call that a good cross section. So blinkered.

Edited December 16, 2013 by pinky coffeeboat

[Greg B]

But....look at what they've included:

Betty (WW2), Hudson (WW2), Typhoon (WW2), Junkers 88 (WW2), Me 163 (WW2), He111 (WW2) another Junkers (WW2) and another Junkers (WW2). THAT'S why I stopped buying these magazines.

I would hardly call that a good cross section. So blinkered.

One mans meat is another mans poison

[JasonC]

But....look at what they've included:

Betty (WW2), Hudson (WW2), Typhoon (WW2), Junkers 88 (WW2), Me 163 (WW2), He111 (WW2) another Messerschmitt (WW2) and another Junkers (WW2). THAT'S why I stopped buying these magazines.

I would hardly call that a good cross section. So blinkered.

I think it's probably a good reflection of the market demand. Besides, you left out the six items that weren't WW2.

What's your interest, and how many articles would you like to see devoted to it?

[pinky coffeeboat]

One mans meat is another mans poison

Very true. But rename the magazine then!!!! "Scale Aircraft Modelling from 1939-1945". As I said that's one of the reason I no longer buy magazines. This forum and others has a much better cross section - something for everyone.

[dwh]

Very true. But rename the magazine then!!!! "Scale Aircraft Modelling from 1939-1945". As I said that's one of the reason I no longer buy magazines. This forum and others has a much better cross section - something for everyone.

And reduce your readership a little more?