Modelling magazines - for the reader or manufacturer?

[Glen]

I've just re read Gary Hatcher's editorial in SAMI Feb 10 edition and was concerned about the direction SAMI appears to be taking with regard to reviews and coverage of new models. The editorial appears to be promising coverage of manufacturers products with absolutely no negative comment.

As far as I am concerned, I expect a model magazine to provide a fair and balanced critique of a product it reviews (a 'critical evaluation of...' according to my dictionary). That means good and bad comment depending on what the reviewer finds. Gary states 'we do not issue bad reviews, and we shy away from negative comment'. He later says that ' rooted in the belief that there is no such thing as a good or a bad kit'.

Is this really what we expect to see from reviews? I want to know if the kit is accurate, goes together well and is value for money. I have already asked SAMi in the past to note the origin of a reissued kit (is it Hasegawa in a Revell box or an old Monogram kit - a big difference) but was told that they had stopped doing that as the manufacturers complained. Of course it is possible to build a decent model from a poor or old kit but I want to know that before I part with my hard earned cash. There are many 'bad' models out there that would require considerable time, money and expertise to put right. The point of the review is to inform the reader that has purchased the magazine of those details so that he/she can make an informed decision.

I realise that magazines such as SAMI need the support of the manufacturers - if a model company regularly gets slammed in the press (as some internet sites have been doing as Gary notes) then they are not going to be particularly keen to co operate. However, it is thee and me that pay for the magazines and ultimately keep them in business so should we expect to be the focus of their attention rather than a sudo advertising vehicle for the manufacturers? There has to be a balance but I am concerned that SAMi's is heading too far in the wrong direction.

I am sure there will be opinion both ways, but rather than send a snottygram to SAMi from Mr Angry of Goring I thought I'd throw it up for discussion!

Tin Hat on!

[Siggi]

I won't buy any publication that panders to a manufacturer. No exceptions. It amounts to nothing less than fraudulent behaviour in my opinion.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Siggi

[pigsty]

Gary states 'we do not issue bad reviews, and we shy away from negative comment'. He later says that ' rooted in the belief that there is no such thing as a good or a bad kit'.

I wondered about that too. He's quite wrong in the latter statement - ask anyone who's fought with a kit from Fonderie Miniature or Battle Axe or, worst of all, Mach 2. If a magazine tries to say only good things, in some cases it'll simply have to hold its tongue and become little more than a trade directory. And if it does that, its value will drop dramatically.

However, there's always the articles. They can be written in ways that make a kit's problems clear without necessarily slagging it off. After all, if a work-round is possible, I'd find it much more valuable to read the details rather than a review that says "very difficult" and leaves it at that. The work-round may be beyond me (most things are) but even then, I'll have enough information to help me judge whether to obtain the kit or not. And sometimes the article will make it clear that no work-round is possible, and the only options are to compromise or wait for something better to come along.

For SAMI's new approach it's early days yet, so I'm going to reserve judgement for a lilttle while longer. It's still the mag I like most, for some reason I can't put my finger on. But if it does come to pass, I suggest that we write en masse to complain, rather than all cancelling our subscriptions in a huff. I'm sure the publishers are willing to listen, and if they're told that tilting their product one way to suit one interested party is spoiling it for another, they'll have to take account of it. In the great scheme of things, they need readers more than they need advertisers, even if advertisers provide more of their income - after all, who will advertise in a magazine that no-one reads?

[Gary C]

So how do you decide what makes a bad kit then? Raised panel lines? Decals in the cockpit? No weapons? Sloppy fit? Inaccurate shape? Price? Different people have wildly different expectations of what constitutes good and bad kits. Factor in different tastes, modelling skills, disposable incomes and so on and it is very difficult to describe any kit as being bad enough that it should be avoided. Personally I like old Monogram and Esci kits in particular but a lot of people will run a mile because of the raised panel lines. I love Hasegawa stuff but a lot of people despise it because of the price. I don't like Italeri kits because of the soft details, other people love it . Horses for courses I'm afraid.

As for the editorial Gary actually said..."We try to avoid opinion, especially in the kit reviews section where reviewers are encouraged simply to report the facts. We do not issue bad reviews and we shy away from negative comment."

And I think he's spot on. All I ask of the magazines is the facts. Describe the contents and leave the opinion behind. If we're talking about a 1/48 prop that costs £49.99, has raised panel lines, decals in the cockpit and doesn't fit all that well then I'm quite capable of forming an opinion on that. I don't need to be spoon fed a diatribe masquerading as a review. And...in this day and age I find it hard to believe anybody really needs to rely solely on a magazine review to find out about a kit. There are umpteen sites and fora out there ready to provide you with all the info you need...a magazine review should really be just a starting point.

[Mentalguru]

This is what I no longer understand about model mags, and the reason I only buy Magazines that display real modeling talent- ie Tamiya and Model Air. real modelers pick their poison and just get on with it.

If one wants to find out about new releases etc, one only has to go onto the interweb (every home now has one courtesy G. Brown) and you will get lots of free information about new releases that doesn't cost the earth.

The recent Hyperscale Luftkrieg on the Eduard 109 ultimately did more good for us modelers than ANY fawning model magazine ever did.

[TheModeller]

Personally I don't think any of the reviews to be found in the current crop of hardcopy worth the time to read, if I want the lowdown on a kit I don't need to pay good money for some no-nothing dweeb to tell me its lovely with the usual opening line 'Although I know nothing about the Scrugg Wonderbat Mk.XIX...'

Instead I'll seek out the opinions of knowledgable individuals on the various forums.

Detailed construction articles, conversions, colour profiles and historical research features are more useful but vary in quality as well, thats why I usually take a look in the newsagents before plonking down the readies, if there is an article of feature worth the money then I'll go for it.

Alas that sort of material is becoming more and more scarce, and what does get published is sometimes flawed anyway.

As for SAMi, I gave up on that rag years ago, the paper is too shiny and not absorbent enough!

[Andrew Jones]

When it comes down to it ,any review, either magazine or web based is only one mans opinion, and that opinion could be wrong. How often do reviewers state " matches published scale drawings" and then we discover the drawings themselves are inaccurate. Any reviewer is limited by his/her personal knowledge of a subject, and it can't always be possible for a publication to find an "expert" on any particular subject, so if handed a kit for review that they have limited knowledge of , then the best they can do is comment on the fit and general quality of the parts provided. For the reviewer then to be pilloried when the kit turns out to have several gross errors is very unfair in my opinion, how many of the rest of us mere mortals would have known about said faults, if they hadn't been pointed out to us. As a farmer I have visited many livestock shows over many years ,and a saying springs to mind concerning livestock judging, " If you have six judges ,you get six different opinions", I believe the same can be applied to kit reviews.

[SPerx]

It has always been thus and is not confined to plastic scale modelling.

I also fly Radio Controlled aircraft and once bought a model on the strength of a highly favourable "review." What a Dog! The sad reality is that magazines rely on advertising and if they do not publish favourable "reviews" of Tamigawaterifix's latest model the advertising dries up. At best a magazine review is just confirmation that the model has been, or is just about to be, released.

[Daniel]

We have these threads now and again, on all forums. I like independent reviews, and find the web best for them, yes you get a mix, and personal opinions, but you learn how to read them.

Magazines have a place, I like paper copies, and generally like the feature builds, and reference but would rather just have a round up of new releases, which I can then research myself.

However, as always, a magazine can only be expected to do whatever helps it turn a profit, and thus make more magazines.

Dan

Edited February 23, 2010 by Daniel

[Giorgio N]

Honestly, I haven't bothered with SAMi reviews for a long time, therefore this "new direction" is not going to change my habits. I still buy all the issues for other reasons and still find a lot of interesting stuff, but the only thing I look at in the reviews are the marking options ! This because it seems to me that things have been going in that direction for a while, with quite a few "it's a great kit regardless of what they say on the web" here and there. Not that I trust anything I read on the web either, but I know where to look for whenever I need informed opinions on a kit pros and cons (BM among the first).

Yet I find it quite sad, because magazines are not that cheap nowadays (even less since I moved back to italy, where international press can be quite expensive and can't be found at the closest newsagent) and having to pay hard earned cash to read that something is great when it is not, well, it doesn't make me happy. But then, SAMi is not he only culprit, happens in magazines and on the web.

Said that, I can't agree with a statement like "there's no thing such a good or a bad kit". Yes, there are ! If a kit has good fit, is accurate, well produced and so on, why can't I say it's a good kit ? It is a good kit ! And if a it is a poorly moulded copy of a copy of an old Frog kit...sorry, but that's a bad kit. Then I can decide to buy and build the bad kit anyway, it's my choice (and like every other modeller I have my ow dose of masochism.....), but at least I'm making an informed choice. A bad one but an informed one

Giorgio

[AnonymousFO98]

We do not issue bad reviews and we shy away from negative comment."

and this is a good thing?

Do they equally shy away from positive comments and praise?

of course one chap's meat is another man's poison. But by not highlighting problems it becomes nothing more than an advertisment.

I am not suggesting in the least unmitigated criticism for the sake of it. That isn't any more useful to the reader. But a fair critique of the kit is surely desirable. It has been noted elsewhere that the mags get the kits supplied and if there is the slightest suspicion that they will only be supplied in exchange for favourable comments then the whole thing becomes meaningless.

[Test Graham]

Honesty requires presenting both good and bad points about a model. Anything else lacks credibility, and value. If the magazine does not do this it is not providing the information that I look for. There is no point nowadays getting a magazine for the news value: it is only that extra information that makes it worthwhile. Or not.

[Nanook]

I enjoy thumbing through the modeling magazines SAMI and SAM but there is quite a bit that I won't ever plan on using for my own use. The only one out there that I REALLY enjoy cover to back is Wingmasters. But my inability to grasp French and the cost (the cost of any modeling magazione at this point, really) just makes it a near impossibility to buy them or even subscribe to them. And don't get me started on FSM...that's 50 pages of ads! The fact that I build primarily in 1/48 and 1/32 with only the occasional dabble in 1/72 makes much of the content of SAMI and SAM not worth the price as well. As mentioned before me there is quite a bit out there on the web if you take some time to look. Modeling Madness, Hyperscale, Britmodeler, ARC and so forth do a fine collective job to help cover kit reviews, builds and techniques. All of that info for the monthly cost of internet service...it cannot be beat!

What magazines I do have I keep and use them for builds. There is always a different way to look at construction or detailing and some articles serve thsi purpose well. My old MAP/MMP and Quarter Scale Modeler magazines get the most use by far and away.

Later,

Lee

P.S. Good post here...really enjoying what everyone has to say!

Edited February 23, 2010 by Nanook

[Mentalguru]

My good friend Martin Ford introduced me to the anology of a magazine being a "one crap mag"- or maybe a "two crap mag." Very very rarely would one find a "Three crap mag " these days, and (spoken in Monty Pythonsque-) "A four crap mag is RIGHT OUT!"

[NickParker]

I don't really see the point of reviews that do nothing but kiss manufacture bottom. Surely the point of a review is to inform the potential buyer of all the points good or bad of a kit so you can make a choice as to whether you wish to buy it. Otherwise you might as well just read the manufactures blurb.

[AnonymousER99]

The best reviews of any product of any type in any publication should come down to these three words........fair and balanced. That is all I expect to get. I do not expect every reviewer to be intimately knowledgeable with everything they review. I just expect them to be honest in their own assessment of the kit or whatever.

As a "manufacturer" myself, I get more feedback out of honest comments about our products than I do out of "I don't want to say anything bad" comments about our products. If everything we did was "perfect", "superb", "first rate", "awesome" etc we would never strive to improve.

[NickParker]

I guess there's a reluctance to upset manufactures for fear that products will no longer be made available for review. But ignoring falts or problems or simply writing about the good points leaves the magazine looking slightly ridiculous and ultimately leads to readers leaving and looking elsewhere.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Fisk

[Nanook]

I guess there's a reluctance to upset manufactures for fear that products will no longer be made available for review. But ignoring falts or problems or simply writing about the good points leaves the magazine looking slightly ridiculous and ultimately leads to readers leaving and looking elsewhere.

Yeah, that was one of the main reasons why MAP/MMP disappeared back in the late 1990s. A terrific magazine but they did not hold back on anyone. Hobbycraft allegedly groused about how their kits were reviewed and they quit sending stuff altogether. Funny thing was that their good stuff (the P-26, P-35 and P-36 come to mind) were praised by the magazine.

And it's a complete crock that the magazines whine about letting the buyer know if a new release is actually another company's molds or an older existing mold. As far as I am concerned it should be put on every box if the molds are from another company.

Later,

Lee

Edited February 23, 2010 by Nanook

[Deon]

I dont think reviewers give two hoots about the manufacturers egos and as long as the review is honest and just, I doubt any editor would make it a dishonest one. That said there's a middle way that those responsible for the business need to tred. Given the human propensity for seeing the negative over the positive, I think a gentle nod in the direction of problems in a kit should be enough, after all we dont want the manufacturers to stop squeezing out those kits do we? As for mags over the internet, they're both great sources for info on new kits, but i like stuff I can hold and read on the sofa, that i can take to a cafe, that isnt going to get robbed or weigh me down. I like pretty pics and works of art but mainly I read them for the reviews, so I can decide whether I want to build one too., now Im off to bed to read a modelling mag, that wont wake the wife!

[Matt Roberts]

Military Model Preview shot itself in the foot (and blew it clean off) when they started going crazy on Luftwaffe stuff not having Swatistas without any discussion about WHY companies didn't put them in the kits. They got as repetative and mind numbing as those who decry 'the mad riveter' around the boards. One fault they had was that they showed really what a kit went together like (this was the era of the Airfix Jag....Tornado....and Buccaneer...imagine the hilarity) and that was one area where they annoyed the companies, then they went and started trying to start up thier own decal line which competed directly with their main advertiser, Aeromaster.

It will be interesting to finally see the SAMI that this issue is covered in - is it the one with the Auster on the cover?

Matt

[TheModeller]

...after all we dont want the manufacturers to stop squeezing out those kits do we?..

Now there is a line I'm really getting tired of! Airfix, Revell, Tamiya, Hasegawa, Dragon, Academy, Trumpeter... Have any one of them ever made any suggestion that they'd stop making new kits because of a bad review? Despite some of the unmitigated rubbish they've all churned out over the years? If anything quite the opposite is true, new manufacturers release new products in greater and greater numbers all the time and it matters not one jot if the reviews are good bad or indifferent!

It'll never happen! The day these manufacturers stop making new kits is the day the raw material runs out!

And it's a complete crock that the magazines whine about letting the buyer know if a new release is actually another company's molds or an older existing mold. As far as I am concerned it should be put on every box if the molds are from another company.

I'm in total agreement, as far as I'm aware plastic kits are the only consumer goods where this kind of behaviour is commonplace, try that kind of crap with anything else and Trading Standards would have a field day! I'm of the opinion that kits should carry not only thier origins but original date of release on the box in big clear print!

[Nanook]

Military Model Preview shot itself in the foot (and blew it clean off) when they started going crazy on Luftwaffe stuff not having Swatistas without any discussion about WHY companies didn't put them in the kits. They got as repetative and mind numbing as those who decry 'the mad riveter' around the boards. One fault they had was that they showed really what a kit went together like (this was the era of the Airfix Jag....Tornado....and Buccaneer...imagine the hilarity) and that was one area where they annoyed the companies, then they went and started trying to start up thier own decal line which competed directly with their main advertiser, Aeromaster.

It will be interesting to finally see the SAMI that this issue is covered in - is it the one with the Auster on the cover?

Matt

Yeah, that's a good point about the Hakenkreuz issue...forgot all about that one but soon as you said it my memory jogged hard. And yes, their candor about the fit of the kits that time was very refreshing but no doubt angered many of the companies. As an aside I attempted to build the Airfix Tornado...I still get shivers thinking about it. And their decal line was not bad but yeah Aeromaster could not have been happy about that. I did hear some rumors that they were always cash-strapped but never followed up on that. I know that my subscription petered out because they got so far behind on sending each issue out. I still need to get the last few issues actually.

Later,

Lee

[Deon]

Now there is a line I'm really getting tired of! Airfix, Revell, Tamiya, Hasegawa, Dragon, Academy, Trumpeter... Have any one of them ever made any suggestion that they'd stop making new kits because of a bad review? Despite some of the unmitigated rubbish they've all churned out over the years? If anything quite the opposite is true, new manufacturers release new products in greater and greater numbers all the time and it matters not one jot if the reviews are good bad or indifferent!

It'll never happen! The day these manufacturers stop making new kits is the day the raw material runs out!

Im sure you're probably right, it would be interesting to hear what the manufacturers feel about negative reviews..

[Giorgio N]

Now there is a line I'm really getting tired of! Airfix, Revell, Tamiya, Hasegawa, Dragon, Academy, Trumpeter... Have any one of them ever made any suggestion that they'd stop making new kits because of a bad review? Despite some of the unmitigated rubbish they've all churned out over the years? If anything quite the opposite is true, new manufacturers release new products in greater and greater numbers all the time and it matters not one jot if the reviews are good bad or indifferent!

It'll never happen! The day these manufacturers stop making new kits is the day the raw material runs out!

I'm in total agreement, as far as I'm aware plastic kits are the only consumer goods where this kind of behaviour is commonplace, try that kind of crap with anything else and Trading Standards would have a field day! I'm of the opinion that kits should carry not only thier origins but original date of release on the box in big clear print!

I agree wholeheartedly ! I can't really see how a negative review is going to affect the sale numbers, considering that magazine readers account for a small percentage of the market anyway. If negative reviews would affect Airfix sales, then how did they manage to sell so many of the infamous JE-J Mk.ix over the last few years ??? The buyers decide if a company will survive, based on what they expect for the price and what they get in return.

Don't mean to offend anyone, but it makes laught to read things like "if we criticize a company they'll stop to sell kits, the hobby will die". Companies die every day, but among the many reasons I've never seen aything like "had a bad review in a magazine". I can often see things like "didn't keep up with the quality requested by their customers" though !

Funnily in some Legislations advertising campaigns boosting facts that are not true can be banned and the company heavily fined... I wonder what might happen if I bring to court a magazine because I bought a product basing my purchase on a review that was not objective...

[cmatthewbacon]

OK, I'll add my two-pennorth. First off, I'll declare an interest - I am one of the "no-nothings" who does reviews for SAMI, but I'm not in any sense speaking for the magazine, or for Gary... any of you who've met and chatted to him at shows know well enough that he can talk perfectly well for himself, and I'm sure he will in this thread if he feels he needs to. What follows is simply my experience while reviewing for SAMI, and some explanation of what I try to do when I review a kit; for those of you who never read the reviews, it'll be irrelevant.

My philosophy is that there's no such thing as a kit that no one will buy, so the review should be about:

1) Helping most people decide whether they want to buy the kit or not, and

2) Giving pointers "from experience" about things to watch out for, correct or improve while building the kit for people who do buy it.

For the first part, I always try to:

a) Give a "headline" in the first paragraph that summarises what I think of the kit overall

Flag up when the kit is a reissue of an older tool, and if so what's new in the boxing (eg decals)

c) Where I can, comment on the overall "look" of the finished model early on, based on experience, or at least photos - but I'm not an expert on everything I build, and I'm not going to tell you if the engine bleed air panel on the starboard side has round corners when they should be square.

d) I DON'T care too much about about scribed or raised detail, or the heaviness or otherwise of rivets. I'll tell you how the surface detail is done, and leave you to make up your own mind if it bothers you. It's always fixable, and I think it's a matter of taste (let's face it, if models were really scaled down small aircraft, there'd be virtually no surface "texture", just some barely visible drawn-on lines, dots and staining...)

e) I DO care about value for money - if a kit is £2.99 and can be built into a good looking model, then I'll say it's good value, even if it's not quite as good as the Eastern European equivalent for £12.99

f) I won't make direct comparisons with other kits of the same subject; this is a review of the kit I'm building, not of others. It's easy enough to find reviews of the others, in mags or online, and you can make comparisons yourself. If that's "pandering to manufacturers", then I'm afraid that's part of the price you pay for getting the kits to review in the first place. The ONLY time I've ever had a comment "edited" by Gary was when I made an unflattering comparison of the box art on a kit I reviewed with the rather similar image on another kit in my stash, and in retrospect, fair enough.

For the second part, I try to:

g) Build the kit straight from the box, but using all the tools and techniques that I know to do the best job that I can.

h) I don't spend time discussing how I "fix part 13 to part 22" and detailing every aspect of the build

i) I DO spend time explaining how I did something if the instructions aren't clear, or if a part needs modifying to fit, or if there's a "gotcha" that I had to recover from that I could have avoided if I'd known about it in advance

j) I use the kit decals, and test how they respond to the usual techniques and solvents, and say if there are problems.

k) I end with a summary of how well I think the kit delivers a good looking model if assembled with care taking note of any advice I've offered in the course of the build.

Overall, I think the philosophy is NOT about giving a sanitised, uncritical review to please the vendors, but more "accentuate the positive". Assume that some people are going to build the kit, and give them some advice and pointers to help them do the best they can with it.

Let's face it, kit manufacturers aren't going to stop making kits if they get bad reviews, but magazines that constantly slag off a particular manufacturer's products with relentless negativity are soon not going to get kits to review from that manufacturer (there was an editorial in Wingmasters a while back about how they'd not been getting any Trumpeter kits to review, and how they'd had to rebuild their relationship with the French distributor). And given the way kit distribution works, if you tick off the local distributor, you might not just lose one manufacturer in your review pages.

Magazines have to pay their way with advertising and the cover price. If you upset your advertisers too much, they stop advertising; if you don't offer a goodly number of reviews, people stop paying for the magazine. It's a fine line to walk, and most, if not all manufacturers and distributors understand the value in editorial independence and "credible" reviewing - it means that when they get a "rave" review, it counts for something, and to a certain extent "all publicity is good publicity" at any level.

bestest,

M.