Modelling magazines - for the reader or manufacturer?

[AnonymousFO98]

One interestiung sideline of the SAMI idea of preferring not to publish reviews of products that arent great, is that what the modeller my eventally infer is that if a certain kit doesnt appear in a review, it must therefore be crap?

Wondered about that too.

It could get to the stage where editors get phone calls from Luigi cossa they have no Italeri review

Horsa head ona da pillow

Apologies for poor attempt at an Italian accent.

[Seahawk]

Let's start from first principles. I buy magazines for information of longterm value to me, not just 1-, 2-, 3- or even 4-c**p entertainment (perhaps that's a generational thing but I digress). The types of information I am after are:

- news on new or forthcoming products;

- background info on the real things, including colour schemes, detail photos, etc; and

- informed comment through reviews and builds of how good new products are to inform my decision on whether or not to buy them. (In other words I am paying for the informed views of people I can respect as in all probability knowing at least as much about the subject as I do.}

The first one is almost totally usurped nowadays by vendors' own websites and e-mail shots and the second is under threat in many magazines owing to sloppy research (ie nowadays I can't have 90+% confidence in what I read) which leaves only the third role for the print magazine to fulfil. If a magazine decides as a matter of policy that it will only publish anodyne reviews (and some magazines already seem to have taken this road), it's lost its point for me and I shan't buy it. I take the point that magazines have to make money but they won't do that by alienating their customer base. I am buying informed comment and that has got to mean honesty about the good as well as the bad.

And this is not a new issue. (Remember the fact that it took several years before any magazine mentioned the short noses on the Hasegawa 1/72 Tornado and Sea Harrier?) I don't recall being put off, say, the Heller Spitfire XVIe by a review (by Bob Jones?) which said the radiators were too deep, the canopy a little odd in profile and the nose a bit pigeon-breasted: it was also clear that the kit had a lot of strong points as well. But I certainly wanted to know, rather than be disappointed after shelling out my hard-earned. And there are ways of saying these things.

If Gary is saying that reviews in his magazine will not be the sort of intemperate diatribes frequently seen on the Internet, fine: no problem, that's part of being a responsible magazine editor. If he is saying that his reviews may occasionally overlook the odd misplaced rivet that would cause some extreme modellers to dismiss a kit instantly as unbuildable, no problem. But if he is saying that his magazine will shy away from pointing out calmly, factually and objectively significant shortcomings in kits, he's lost my vote. But the proof of the pudding will be in the eating: I was puzzled by his editorial but will wait and see what practical impact this policy has.

BTW I liked Matthew Bacon's first post. Sounds fair enough to me. The only point I'd quibble is that it's not (or not just) a "goodly number or reviews" but also the quality of those reviews Some magazines (not yet SAMI) have either lost or never had any credibility: it's not something to toss aside lightly.

Nick

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

As a general rule, making good products is what manufacturers, certainly in the cottage industry try to do. I certainly don't do it to make lots of money, or if I do then I'm doing it wrong!

However when the likes of Trumpeter invests hundreds of thousands of dollars in a new 1/32 kit, do you think they are are trying to make a bad product? They do the best within budget, and human error is always a factor.

Going back on topic, my feeling is modelling magazines are for both readers and manufacturers.

Colin

Hi Colin - while I sympathise with your point of view, and certainly have no doubt of your own established desire for making good products.

I have a feeling that this may not hold true with certain larger companies: Much has been said of the infamous Trumpeter A & B teams for their kit design, and at a certain point if the tooling is pretty much done, but its based on bad reseach - so is wrong. The kit will get released reagrdless, cus the cap ex of re-doing the toolings isnt going to be stretched any further.

If reviews of inaccurate or badly designed and fitting models dont mention these factors, then theres going to be scant other reason to encourage manufacturers to improve.

The point being they will always sell enough over the long trem to at least recoup costs, because there are probably enough modellers out there for whom it isnt an issue, and whose building skills mean that bad fitting parts are just a toss up between tooling design and limited skill. They may be beleive its their own lack of skill thats the reaosn why part A doesnt fit part B, when actually its the tooling design.

Now wouldnt a review that basically said. "this kit has great detail , but it doesnt fit worth a damn. Come on "manufacturer" sort your self out, cus this is unaccepatable in a model that costs £XXX" be a good way of allowing the less skilled modeller, who desires the subject, at least know what they are getting themselves into. And it might just persuade the manufacturuer to makeit better next time.

Ultimately, if magazines are going to be, in effect, soft in their criticism of review products, they are going to be seen as the journalistic equivalent of "a good day to release bad news". Thats good for no one surely?

Cheers

Jonners

[cmatthewbacon]

Now wouldnt a review that basically said. "this kit has great detail , but it doesnt fit worth a damn. Come on "manufacturer" sort your self out, cus this is unaccepatable in a model that costs £XXX" be a good way of allowing the less skilled modeller, who desires the subject, at least know what they are getting themselves into. And it might just persuade the manufacturuer to makeit better next time.

I think all I'm saying is that rather than the above, a review should say:

"this kit has lovely, finely engraved detail. There are some areas where the fit needs to be worked on so protect that engraving with masking tape before you start. Try removing the oversized tabs on the cockpit floor, and insert a spreader bar at the wing roots, test fitting and paring away a bit of the central area of the fuselage fillet as necessary... That engraved detail looks great under a coat of paint and takes a wash well. Overall, the kit will repay a bit of work with a good-looking replica."

There's no need for the " Come on.... sort yourselves out..." bit! That comes under the heading of "You might think that.... I couldn't possibly comment", and anyone who reads the piece can make up their own minds...

I'm a school governor, and when you start, they tell you that your role is to be that of a "critical friend" - challenge and support, comment critically, but in a positive way to encourage improvement. I think reviewers should take a similar perspective - positive encouragement where it's deserved, constructive criticism where it's necessary.

Let's not forget that these kits, and these magazines, are the product of hard work by people who care about what they do - just like the things we all do in our day jobs. Just because some of the people are in China doesn't automatically mean they are cynical automatons ;-). Would you go up to Trevor Snowden at a show and say that his latest kit was an "overpriced, inaccurate piece of dross" or "Come on, sort yourself out because this is unacceptable..."? No, you'd find a way to politely address the shortcomings you find, wrapped up nicely with some positive comments as well. We do the same thing in "ready for inspection" or "critique corner" Why suspend the need for constructive criticism just because you're talking to a kit manufacturer or a magazine editor?

bestest,

M.

[Spence]

Let's not forget that these kits, and these magazines, are the product of hard work by people who care about what they do - just like the things we all do in our day jobs. Just because some of the people are in China doesn't automatically mean they are cynical automatons ;-). Would you go up to Trevor Snowden at a show and say that his latest kit was an "overpriced, inaccurate piece of dross" or "Come on, sort yourself out because this is unacceptable..."? No, you'd find a way to politely address the shortcomings you find, wrapped up nicely with some positive comments as well. We do the same thing in "ready for inspection" or "critique corner" Why suspend the need for constructive criticism just because you're talking to a kit manufacturer or a magazine editor?

I really couldn't agree more...

Spence

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

Let's not forget that these kits, and these magazines, are the product of hard work by people who care about what they do - just like the things we all do in our day jobs. Just because some of the people are in China doesn't automatically mean they are cynical automatons ;-). Would you go up to Trevor Snowden at a show and say that his latest kit was an "overpriced, inaccurate piece of dross" or "Come on, sort yourself out because this is unacceptable..."? No, you'd find a way to politely address the shortcomings you find, wrapped up nicely with some positive comments as well. We do the same thing in "ready for inspection" or "critique corner" Why suspend the need for constructive criticism just because you're talking to a kit manufacturer or a magazine editor?

bestest,

M.

The difference being Matthew that when you are critiquing a modellers work you are commenting on their personal ability. When you are reviewing a model you should be assessing the manufacturuers ability to provide parts which fit, and all go together to produce an accurate replica. I cant see how telling a manufacturer that their product, which they arent giving away after all, doesnt live up to some of these pretty basic requirements is anything other than constructive. They sure as hell wont like a reviewer saying it, but it has to be constructive, if it means that the next model they release for sale fits better, is more accurate etc etc.

I have no doubt that magazines are the hard of work of caring and dedicated people. And I'm not singling out the Chinese modelling industry either, but when the "amateurs" on the internet can point out glaring inaccuracies in certain kits, with proof to back it up, then one has to wonder why a professional magazine might "more lenient" in its approach. If its a lack of knowledge on a subject - then its the editors job, in my opinion, to make that clear: The editor of SAM at least admitted as such in his recent issue with the quick look at the Hobby Boss Tornado - it will be interesting to see how the full build review comes out.

I just feel that magazines should be written with the idea of informing the buyer of both good and bad points about products, and if that means rubbing the occasional manufacturer up the wrong way with some straight talking, then thats what needs to be done. Its not personal, its business: They want you to buy the model, they should try and make it as good as they can. They send it for review in a magazine, it gets reviewed. If they have done a good job it gets a good review, if they havent - why the hell should the model buying public not have a right to know?

And here's an idea for magazines: Scared of not getting samples for review because you've criticised a company for releasing a badly made product? Well as you all know each other - just let said company know that if they wont send you review samples, then no other mag will review them either. Lets see how long a company can hold out against an across the board lack of product reviews?? Exercise some muscle gentlemen, and start punching for the modeller.

Sorry - I'm getting a bit wound up about this, so time to stop

Jonners

[TheModeller]

Would you go up to Trevor Snowden at a show and say that his latest kit was an "overpriced, inaccurate piece of dross" or "Come on, sort yourself out because this is unacceptable..."

You know Matthew I'm going to start taking this personally if you continue to quote me out of context regarding my opinion of the merits and value of one particular kit, a kit which a number of magazines have widely praised despite it being demonstrably inaccurate, expensive and lacking in detail, not just my opinion but the opinion of a good number of modellers who also use this forum and have in past been published in a number of magazines including SAMI!

I don't get paid to write reviews, yet I'm expected to pay to read reviews that often as not these days amount to nothing more than a great big wet smacker for the manufacturers for being kind enough to provide the styrene in the first place.

The more I read of this thread, the more I become convinced that both hardcopy and Internet based reviews originating from sources reliant on remaining in the suppliers or manufacturers good books can never be objective or of value when it comes to providing me with the basis for an informed opinion about where I should choose to spend my hobby budget.

I wouldn't dream of passing an offensive or ill-considered comment about a modellers work on any forum, but then again, I haven't met a modeller yet that expects me to pay him for me to look at his work! If kit manufacturers were producing new products and giving them away I wouldn't be so stupid as to bite the hand that feeds me... But they don't give them away do they, only to magazines, for the purposes of review, they expect me to pay for them, and as long as thats the case I'll reserve the right to say what I think about thier quality!

If you can't see the problem with sucking up to suppliers to maintain a stream of new plastic and then trying to pass off a load of rinsed-out PC claptrap as an objective review, in order to avoid offending a suppliers delicate sensibilities, then I guess I'm wasting my time trying to debate the matter with you any further.

Edited February 24, 2010 by TheModeller

[Seahawk]

I just feel that magazines should be written with the idea of informing the buyer of both good and bad points about products, and if that means rubbing the occasional manufacturer up the wrong way with some straight talking, then thats what needs to be done. Its not personal, its business: They want you to buy the model, they should try and make it as good as they can. They send it for review in a magazine, it gets reviewed. If they have done a good job it gets a good review, if they havent - why the hell should the model buying public not have a right to know?

Jonners

Right on. Surely pointing out that, say, the Andy Pack Super King Air (see Worst Kit Ever thread) is maybe not quite of Tamiya quality is more a public duty than a public service, especially if people might be buying it unseen via mail order. And to SAMI's credit it was to my knowledge the only magazine that reviewed it. Even under such extreme temptation there were no histrionics but I think that the reviewer's comment that (from memory) he'd only been able to use 9 parts from the kit made the point clearly enough.

And let's try extending the "there is no such thing as a bad model" into other walks of life. "There is no such thing as a bad novel" so all novels should get glowing reviews, right? How many book reviews are you going to bother reading then?

Nick

[Mentalguru]

If this is going to get personal- we can start to pick the holes in the output of one particular magazine editor. The "one up- one down" elevators on his Mosquitoes, the strangely weird canopy opening of his Buccaneer.

if people can't even get stuff like this right- yet as (fawned over) magazine editor are scooping in bucketfuls of resin goodies (which in the old days he then used to sell on for profit at club meets) what chance have we got of accurate reviews while on his watch- we never even got accurate spelling..

The other extreme is to give something to the utter pedant who trashes a 98% beautiful model because "Sadly, after much cogitation,despite the kit being of tamiya quality and dimensionally accurate, I cannot recommended this kit as the fuel filler cap is the wrong shape and 2mm out of position. Also, the diameter of the tailwheel is 1mm too small."

[Deon]

mmmm.. the Modeller makes some good points and so does Matthew, now Im confused, can we agree that we're looking for reviews with a positive approach - we do our best to make it as good as we can and say what we had to do, but constructively critical - point out any factual faults whilst also pointing out the kit's strengths- ?

[AnonymousFO98]

He who pays the piper...

The Modeller makes the very good point that we are paying for our copies. The advertisers pay for page space.

Are we to assume that the advertiser's dollar is more persuasive? Or less cynically, that the revenue received from advertising exceeds that from sales?

The original post asked who the mags are really for. In the time I have been reading modelling magazines there has been a shift from how to make to what to buy. Am at the point of no longer wanting to buy any magazines as they feel like glossy catalogues.

[cmatthewbacon]

If you can't see the problem with sucking up to suppliers to maintain a stream of new plastic and then trying to pass off a load of rinsed-out PC claptrap as an objective review, in order to avoid offending a suppliers delicate sensibilities, then I guess I'm wasting my time trying to debate the matter with you any further.

I tend to agree, since if you think that's what I'm advocating, you clearly haven't read anything I've written anyway...

bestest,

M.

[pigsty]

one particular kit, a kit which a number of magazines have widely praised despite it being demonstrably inaccurate, expensive and lacking in detail, not just my opinion but the opinion of a good number of modellers who also use this forum and have in past been published in a number of magazines including SAMI!

Forgive my higgerance, but what kit are we talking about here?

The Modeller makes the very good point that we are paying for our copies. The advertisers pay for page space.

Are we to assume that the advertiser's dollar is more persuasive? Or less cynically, that the revenue received from advertising exceeds that from sales?

As I say, the magazines and the manufacturers need the readers more than the magazines need the manufacturers. If the readers all bugger off, to whom will the manufacturers be speaking?

[TheModeller]

Forgive my higgerance, but what kit are we talking about here?

Trumpeters 1/32nd EE Lightnings, I'd avoided mentioning the kit by name as the last time I did that, on another forum, my membership was revoked! Though of course given the forums sponsorship I don't suppose I should have been that surprised!

I agree entirely with the comment walrus made about magazines these days, there has been this steady and none to welcome move from modelling to catalogue and frankly I don't much care for it, I won't waste another penny of my hard-earned on any of them.

These days I'll look at whats being said on the forums. Wether or not those opinions are a rabid diatribe or a glowing recommendation at least I don't have to pay any extra to be patronised!

Edited February 25, 2010 by TheModeller

[Giorgio N]

Let's not forget that these kits, and these magazines, are the product of hard work by people who care about what they do - just like the things we all do in our day jobs. Just because some of the people are in China doesn't automatically mean they are cynical automatons ;-). Would you go up to Trevor Snowden at a show and say that his latest kit was an "overpriced, inaccurate piece of dross" or "Come on, sort yourself out because this is unacceptable..."? No, you'd find a way to politely address the shortcomings you find, wrapped up nicely with some positive comments as well. We do the same thing in "ready for inspection" or "critique corner" Why suspend the need for constructive criticism just because you're talking to a kit manufacturer or a magazine editor?

Hmmm... as an engineer if I get something wrong in my everyday job I usually get much worse words than those. I would also see no money until the matter is settled, and in the worst cases i might even be brought to court, or get suspended by the Society of Engineers, depending on how wrong I've done.

And I can't complain because it's business ! When someone pays me for something I can't expect a pat in the back and some nice "don't worry you'll do better the next time" if I get things wrong.

Someone is posting a build here ? It's a hobby, a pat in the back and constructive criticism is perfect to help a modeller grow. In the end it's only a hobby.

A company is investing money (plenty of it) and proposing a product asking a price for it, with the goal of generating a profit for the shareholders ? Now it's business, and the usual business rules apply. Of course, trying to steer the public opinion on the merit of the product is part of the business, I think it's name is "marketing". Replying unpolitely after having purchased said product without being satisfied is a customer's right though.

Cottage industry sits in a grey area between the two....

Call me cynical, but this is how I see it

Giorgio