Magazine prices

[Seahawk]

I'm more likely to pick up a copy of Aeroplane Monthly than any of the model mags these days and get my modelling fix on Britmodeller.

Same here. I find Ian Allen's "Aircraft" often worth a flick through as well: there was an excellent one covering FAA Buccaneers a while back - lovely big colour pics - and another with an article on Swedish Sigint Dakotas.

[Gajman]

I agree with you on the construction and painting articles in modern magazines, it used to be that you had several pages of detailed build and conversion details followed by " I painted it green". Today it's " I stuck it together " followed by pages and pages of painting and weathering details,

That's probably because there is less detailed building being done in recent articles. It's more a case of getting a chunk of (usually expensive) resin that when painted looks fantastic after simply gluing it onto/into the kit.

I'd much rather see a build where the guy uses tin foil and plastic strip to make a wingfold mechanism (for example) than one where a resin part is simply glued on and then hilited with fancy washes/shading techniques. Sure the resin part will probably look better when complete but at the end of the day there's very little skill required and for a reader there's nothing to learn when reading about a build that uses aftermarket parts.

Edited March 4, 2012 by Gajman

[turnerdad]

As a contributor to one of these mags, I find it disparaging to read that in depth "how to" articles are not what (some of) you want. These articles can take days to write and the models months and most of us who write them get paid a tiny amount compared to the effort that went into them. I guess it just shows that you cannot please everyone all the time. What do you want in the mags then? Why don't you submit the articles you think everyone else will want to read? All I and others have tried to do is pass around useful tips and techniques usually set against a fairly detailed guide to a particular subject that usually does warn of pitfalls and provide ways to correct them. We don't claim to know everything but we do work hard in an amateur capacity to further interest in our hobby. I guarantee that for those that actually read those articles, digest what has been written and even try out some of the techniques, their modelling will have improved dramatically. I see it here on BM all the time and it's fantastic to see peoples skills and confidence improving, and mags are a valuable facet in facilitating that, along with books, the web etc. Now that the internet is free, I guess a few pounds a month does seem expensive...

Thanks for the lesson in apostrophes, not sure why we needed that.

Edited March 4, 2012 by turnerdad

[Gajman]

Why don't you submit the articles you think everyone else will want to read?

I hear what you say about the effort required to write articles. I have submitted a few and you're right, it's a lot of work.

I would have submitted more articles of the type I think would make for good reading but the problem is that the requirements for photographs are pretty strict. I have a problem with the requirement where photographs must be 300 DPI (and before we continue let me stress that my photography skills are even worse than my modelling skills).

My happy snappy type camera has a macro function but only takes pics at 180DPI, and converting them to 300 DPI in photoshop didn't seem to help. My wifes fancy Canon takes at 300 DPI but we don't have a macro lense for it. So short of forking out £450 for a macro lense (which would then require I get about 18 pages printed to break even) it's just not going to happen.

So I think to imply that any Tom, Dick or Harry can submit an article and stand a good chance of getting published is simplifying things considerably. It's not quite that straight forward.

Finally, remember that model mags are still selling thousands of issues every month, so even though we (myself and others on this thread) may complain about content, there are thousands out there who feel differently (so don't let our moaning get you down, we're in the minority when compared against sales figures )

Edited March 4, 2012 by Gajman

[tank152]

As a contributor to one of these mags, I find it disparaging to read that in depth "how to" articles are not what (some of) you want. These articles can take days to write and the models months and most of us who write them get paid a tiny amount compared to the effort that went into them. I guess it just shows that you cannot please everyone all the time. What do you want in the mags then? Why don't you submit the articles you think everyone else will want to read? All I and others have tried to do is pass around useful tips and techniques usually set against a fairly detailed guide to a particular subject that usually does warn of pitfalls and provide ways to correct them. We don't claim to know everything but we do work hard in an amateur capacity to further interest in our hobby. I guarantee that for those that actually read those articles, digest what has been written and even try out some of the techniques, their modelling will have improved dramatically. I see it here on BM all the time and it's fantastic to see peoples skills and confidence improving, and mags are a valuable facet in facilitating that, along with books, the web etc. Now that the internet is free, I guess a few pounds a month does seem expensive...

Thanks for the lesson in apostrophes, not sure why we needed that.

Well its because of people like you that I do buy magazines. All the things i've done to the few aircraft i've built so far built have been mostly learnt from build articles in magazines.

Why moan about the price if something, if you don't like it don't buy it.

[thx6667]

As a contributor to one of these mags, I find it disparaging to read that in depth "how to" articles are not what (some of) you want. These articles can take days to write and the models months and most of us who write them get paid a tiny amount compared to the effort that went into them. I guess it just shows that you cannot please everyone all the time. What do you want in the mags then? Why don't you submit the articles you think everyone else will want to read? All I and others have tried to do is pass around useful tips and techniques usually set against a fairly detailed guide to a particular subject that usually does warn of pitfalls and provide ways to correct them. We don't claim to know everything but we do work hard in an amateur capacity to further interest in our hobby. I guarantee that for those that actually read those articles, digest what has been written and even try out some of the techniques, their modelling will have improved dramatically. I see it here on BM all the time and it's fantastic to see peoples skills and confidence improving, and mags are a valuable facet in facilitating that, along with books, the web etc. Now that the internet is free, I guess a few pounds a month does seem expensive...

Half the time its a case of "we don't know what we want but we know what we don't want..." Plus for a number of who buy model magazines a lot of the content will be new to them.

I've always found it odd that people seem to have endless supplies of time and energy to bemoan the content (or lack of) in magazines on internet forums but then not have the time and energy to put derriere in gear and produce the kind of article they would to see. Become the change you want.

Thanks for the lesson in apostrophes, not sure why we needed that.

The apostrophe police are everywhere!

Edited March 4, 2012 by Jonathan Mock

[turnerdad]

I hear what you say about the effort required to write articles. I have submitted a few and you're right, it's a lot of work.

I would have submitted more articles of the type I think would make for good reading but the problem is that the requirements for photographs are pretty strict. I have a problem with the requirement where photographs must be 300 DPI (and before we continue let me stress that my photography skills are even worse than my modelling skills).

My happy snappy type camera has a macro function but only takes pics at 180DPI, and converting them to 300 DPI in photoshop didn't seem to help. My wifes fancy Canon takes at 300 DPI but we don't have a macro lense for it. So short of forking out £450 for a macro lense (which would then require I get about 18 pages printed to break even) it's just not going to happen.

So I think to imply that any Tom, Dick or Harry can submit an article and stand a good chance of getting published is simplifying things considerably. It's not quite that straight forward.

Finally, remember that model mags are still selling thousands of issues every month, so even though we (myself and others on this thread) may complain about content, there are thousands out there who feel differently (so don't let our moaning get you down, we're in the minority when compared against sales figures )

A fair point, and perhaps this is an area that editors could open up. Perhaps an article on writing articles could be of use, you don't need a very expensive setup and I'm sure there are lots of things you and other folk who are less confident with photos etc could contribute (and I'm not being sarky, I mean that). I enjoy the writing and I hope that by giving away my secrets (however mediocre), it will help those who are interested to experiment. I'm sure there are areas which don't require as much photography but then we will probably be accused of waffling. There was also a time when I couldn't take decent pics, but I taught myself to a reasonable standard, so if I can do it, anyone can.

[Gajman]

I've always found it odd that people seem to have endless supplies of time and energy to bemoan the content (or lack of) in magazines but then not have the time and energy to put derriere in gear and produce the kind of article they would to see. Become the change you want.

See my response above

[AndyL]

Back to the original question of why does a magazine increase in price more or less overnight. There are of course the production costs involved - paper, printing, ink...but there is one cost to also be factored in. The magazines are distributed by a wholesaler, who charge for the service, for placing the magazine, and for dealing with the unsold returns when they come back. They tend to hike those costs quite suddenly. I should know. I work for said wholesaler

[Moofles]

Well since we are mentioning magazine names i started buying SAM and SAMI 2 odd years ago, all I can say is that I personally find that SAM is going from strength to strength. This months issue is great. The demon build with the walk around, and a shed load of profile pictures. That's what I as a modeller is after, the walk around pictures, the multitude of colour profiles with correct call outs, saves hours of internet trolling to find the pictures. I feel that SAMI has slipped of late, but I will still continue to buy both every month. As I enjoy reading the build reviews and if I'm honest I enjoy the fact that some of the models in the magazine are not breath takingly epic as it gives me a small ray of hope that my models are not as crap as I fear they are. Small confidence boost and what not. But hey at the end of the day, we as modellers are fickle, we all like and want different things. Some prefer the super detailed builds that bring a normal model into the realms of museum pieces, some just want to see how well the model goes together and what it looks like out of box.

Since I only buy the 2 mags a month, I find that £10 (rounding up) is worth it, but that again is just me.

Edited March 4, 2012 by Moofles

[Lothian man]

Points all taken, but - as some of the posters agree - the content is just not going far enough beyond the 'I stuck it together and painted ... filtered ... weathered ... pastelled ... varnished ... ' approach. It is fine ot have some painting articles (just think of the series on weathered buildings in Mil Mod just now), just that we shouldn't have painting to the exclusion of other themes. It's not even as if all those articles establish new ways of doing it, as far as I can see.

I was writing the day after discussing, over a coffee, those problems with the chum with whom I share my mags and who entirely agreed with me, and after I had put in the recycling the most recent issue of one magazine which constituted little more than catalogues and build articles of this kind. I have fished it out to confirm my impression. There were a few conversions but only two comprised much more than parts swaps and resin/etch addons, and, as it happens, neither was of much interest to me subject wise (just the luck of the draw). Okay, this is a personal approach, but it's mine and that of quite a few others as some other posters evidently agree, and the fact is that magazines like this are simply not useful to me. The result was that all went into the recycling. Perhaps an unlucky mix this issue, but if it keeps up like this, I won't re-up when the subs time comes. So, yes, voting with my wallet.

The magazines that I have found myself keeping intact include the old Scale Aircraft Modelling (until their major changeover 2-3 years back) and Air Enthusiast/International, and the old MAM. MIlitary Modelling is more of a mixture simply cos I don't do figures, but it has enough useful articles that I find it well worthwhile.

As for writing one's own articles, which was another substantive point, I used to be a freelance writer in my spare time separate from the day job, in a completely different field, before that area of the publishing industry stopped paying for outsiders to write articles in order to cut costs. So I know what it is like to work to deadlines, etc. About 20 years ago I took a hard look at extending my writing to modelling articles but by the time one had sorted out the photographic setup and costs and dealt with HM Revenue and Customs (even if one can offset the income against expenses, it's more paperwork), and subordinated one's modelling to the deadlines, it would not have been worth it financially or hassle-wise, especially as my photo skills are not that great and I dislike taking photos. I was quite happy to write pieces for society and club mags (and should return to this mode now) but I couldn't be bothered with the paying market. Even today with digital cameras I am not sure it would be worth the added hassle to what is supposed to be a hobby.

I'm very impressed with those folk who still persevere and even more so with their painting and other skills, and I should say here clearly, what I should have before, that the problem is not so much with the writers but the editors who commission this stuff and compose the resilting magazines. Whether it is because they can't get anything else is not my problem: my immediate problem is that my sub money is being - effectively - wasted.

Those "people seem to have endless supplies of time and energy to bemoan the content (or lack of) in magazines" =- pardon me, but you must be thinking of someone else. I'm off to go and do some modelling now that I have made a constructive criticism which tries to pin down what quite a few people evidently dislike about some issues of some magazines today, so in that sense I have got off my backside.

I won't get into the subject of reviews per se, partly because I don't distinguish here between 'reviews' and later build articles - they all go into the same file, so to speak, for when the model is built. But while we are on magazine editors' policies I should also note that at least one magazine effectively and repeatedly expects the purchaser to pay for exactly the same reviews from certain writers as one can read online for free (website advertising aside) in completely unrelated websites. Apart from the irritation that that causes, it reduces the number of independent reviews of the kit or product in question. Whether this is the fault of the reviewer or editor is another matter, but it is not a practice that I like.

[heloman1]

Come down to the tip of Africa if you like/want high mag prices, ten quid for AFM and Airfix and by the time they arrive they're two months old! Got a one year sub to AFM 51 Quid saves me 50%, arrives via a tin buggie and ten days after publication, what a bargian. Eat my matrass filling RNA (the local importers).

Colin on the Africa Station

[FalkeEins]

..the new revamped bi-monthly "Avions" is 12 euros for 96 pages - a little pricey but still one of the best aviation mags anywhere IMHO

http://www.avions-bateaux.com

[turnerdad]

Points all taken, but - as some of the posters agree - the content is just not going far enough beyond the 'I stuck it together and painted ... filtered ... weathered ... pastelled ... varnished ... ' approach. It is fine ot have some painting articles (just think of the series on weathered buildings in Mil Mod just now), just that we shouldn't have painting to the exclusion of other themes. It's not even as if all those articles establish new ways of doing it, as far as I can see.

I was writing the day after discussing, over a coffee, those problems with the chum with whom I share my mags and who entirely agreed with me, and after I had put in the recycling the most recent issue of one magazine which constituted little more than catalogues and build articles of this kind. I have fished it out to confirm my impression. There were a few conversions but only two comprised much more than parts swaps and resin/etch addons, and, as it happens, neither was of much interest to me subject wise (just the luck of the draw). Okay, this is a personal approach, but it's mine and that of quite a few others as some other posters evidently agree, and the fact is that magazines like this are simply not useful to me. The result was that all went into the recycling. Perhaps an unlucky mix this issue, but if it keeps up like this, I won't re-up when the subs time comes. So, yes, voting with my wallet.

But what you must remember is that most of the articles are written by amateurs like me who are not commisioned as such to build a model, that would cost the mags too much money. Rather the editors generally rely on the personal interest of those contributors. Although this has gone a little off topic, I think this is an interesting and worthwhile debate and I will certainly take on board what I can, but I'm afraid, from a personal point of view, my days of re-scribing entire models plus endless detailing and scratch building are long gone, statistically I'm half way through my life. But then I never say never and who knows how an individuals tastes will change.

[viscount806x]

I agree with you on the construction and painting articles in modern magazines, it used to be that you had several pages of detailed build and conversion details followed by " I painted it green". Today it's " I stuck it together " followed by pages and pages of painting and weathering details, most of which may or not be spurious.

Like most of the other posters in this thread , I find I'm buying less and less magazines these days, not because of the price ,but because the content just doesn't appeal to me anymore.

I'm more likely to pick up a copy of Aeroplane Monthly than any of the model mags these days and get my modelling fix on Britmodeller.

Andrew

I have posted earlier on this thread but the 'Aeroplane Monthly' reference caught my eye in Andrew's post. Now, AM used to be the bees knees of aviation magazines and I subscribed to it for over 38 years believe it or not. Now, I do note down refs within mags in a card index for future uses and I have noticed less and less from AM worth recording. Loads of very nice shots of Hunters, Bf 109s and Spitfires - but every month??? Also irritations by their contributors asking questions like : 'Does anyone have any info on this or that picture/location/personality' and it being left to the readership to fill in gaps. Now this is all very well but we all must know that they have access to Flight/Aeroplane archives going back to 1909 or thereabouts so what is that all about? Anyway, I subscribe no more and just look at the Hunter/Spitfire photos ewach month in the local 'Reading Library' (WHS God bless 'em). Hope AM editorial staff take note of this and comment. Whatever happened to such great articles like the 'Fighters of the Fifties' series or 'Navigator's Progress' and all those others. Nowadays, pick up AM or Flypast and there is little to choose between them.

Rant over- for now!

[thx6667]

Guess what folks, almost everything costs more these days. I sometimes don't quite understand what economic bubble this hobby is supposed to exist in when the rest of the world is flogging its family jewels to cover budget deficits, banks are being bailed out by governments etc...

What part of the publishing industry can we make immune from the rest of the world? Printing? Nope, that relies on power consumed by printing presses and all their overheads, plus rents etc... Distribution? Nope that's affected by the crippling price of fuel which either has to be passed on down the line or haulage firms go bust. Raw materials? Nope because the prices of ink, paper etc is also affected by the same overheads, i.e. production and distribution.

Plus magazine have to pay their staff and contributors, they also have their own office overheads which - guess what - also include power costs, rents.

Finally magazines that have to go via the mail system to be delivered to your doorstep - guess what, Royal Mail in recent times managed to double the price on some items based on size rather than weight, and they're about to jack the prices up again.

Long story short - if A and B go up in price, it affects the price of C. Sure, magazines could keep the same cover price, they'd probably have to print fewer pages, maybe even cut back on the articles, even go to a lower paper stock.

And as for all those adverts - yes, because its a business, its not a service.

Edited March 4, 2012 by Jonathan Mock

[FalkeEins]

Guess what folks, almost everything costs more these days.

to be fair Jonathan I doubt there's anyone here who doesn't understand that. At some point though these discretionary purchases will get ditched. We do quite well here though generally, the price of the average mag is virtually double on the Continent. Agree with viscount806x re Aeroplane Monthly. Virtually everything looks like 'Flypast' now ( probably because Key own virtually everything). I quite like the look/feel of 'Jets monthly' and that's about it.

[JohnT]

Interesting topic. Made me realise that I had effectively stopped buying modelling magazines over two years ago - had the odd purchase now and then but tbh it has been quite a rare event these past years. I still get Aeroplane Monthly or Flypast, usually the former now as I find Flypast is getting rather sparse with information within its articles these days and perhaps need a make over or new blood? Can't quite put my finger on what I feel is missing there.

I guess the reasons why are

1 I get better or at least as good model reviews on line

2 Its much easier to refer to internet articles back info on line - if I can put it that way. I have boxes and boxes of magazines all going back to the 70's unread for decades now and I don't fancy cataloguing them !

3 For the price of 2-3 magazines I can buy a pretty damn good book on the subject which will give me much more detail though admittedly not on the model.

and last but certainly not least -

4 I get a lot more help on my hobby from you very helpful chaps

If I was in the publishing business for a hobby like this I think I'd go on line with a magazine subscription - certainly I'd be making a back catalogue available that way.

JohnT

[FalkeEins]

digital is the where it will end up - paper will slowly disappear. "Avions" are just about to make their entire back issue catalogue available as downloads. Carries it own risks of course.

[thx6667]

to be fair Jonathan I doubt there's anyone here who doesn't understand that.

In which case why the surprise in the rise in prices? Put yourself in a publishers shows. Do you pass on price rises immediately? Or do you try and absorb them and only pass the on when the circle cannot be squared.

[Giorgio N]

Still, with all the increases it seems to me that magazines, as model kits and other modelling related items, are as expensive now as they used to be years ago ! I'm looking at the price tag of the first magazines I bought (1982-83) and these back then costed roughly as a small kit, say an airfix series 1 spitfire.

Today the few magazines I buy cost roughly as.... an airfix series 1 spitfire ! So nothing seems to have changed much. Back then a couple of magazines costed as a pizza and a coke in an average italian pizzeria, today they cost as a pizza and a coke in the same average pizzeria. Guess in the end most consumer goods are more expensive in the same proportion.

Personally I am another of those who used to buy several magazines and has now stopped. Not much because of their cost though, but because I feel that there has been a change in contents that went against my taste: a few years ago I used to buy SAM, SAMi and MAM every month. SAM then changed completely, MAM (that used to be my favourite) moved toward an aviation magazine with little modelling content and then moved back somewhat, SAMi took on board some of the MAM content and then changed a bit again... but we all know this. Replic was another magazine I enjoied but this is now gone for good. As the magazines I enjoied changed or closed and no other magazine had the type of content I like, I now only buy something if there's an article on a subject I'm interested in.

Talking about prices, guess that in the end each of us must decide what price she/he is wiling to pay for the content. The Avions magazine mentioned by Falkeeins is an example: it's expensive for a magazine, here it costs me twice as much as the average british printed modelling magazine. Yet the content is such that the cost is IMHO fully justified. It's something I can almost see as a book more than a magazine. The same applies to the Hors Series issues of the same magazine: these are even more expensive (from 16 to 18 euros each) but they are magazines only in the packaging, the content is that of a book, and a good one too !

The opposite happened to some italian modelling magazines: their cost was not particularly high, but at some point the content was becoming so poor (at least for what I look for in a magazine) that they became to me a total waste of money, even if that money was not much. Reason why I dropped them completely many years ago.

[F-32]

Many valid points from all. I haven't actually purchased a model magazine for quite a few years. I always flick them in 'Smiths but only tend to buy if they have a profile on an unusual subject for instance.

I do however buy a couple of aircraft magazines each month. There once was a time where I'd just pick up Aircraft and Flypast without even looking through them but now I have a good look before deciding whether to purchase. It's not so much the price that concerns me (although they are quite high) but sometimes the content just doesn't do it for me.

That's not a dig at the magazines or contributors, just each to their own.

[Lothian man]

But what you must remember is that most of the articles are written by amateurs like me who are not commisioned as such to build a model, that would cost the mags too much money. Rather the editors generally rely on the personal interest of those contributors. Although this has gone a little off topic, I think this is an interesting and worthwhile debate and I will certainly take on board what I can, but I'm afraid, from a personal point of view, my days of re-scribing entire models plus endless detailing and scratch building are long gone, statistically I'm half way through my life. But then I never say never and who knows how an individuals tastes will change.

Absolutely on the first point, and that's a very important comment about life being too short - or not long enough. I have exactly the same feeling for much the same reasons, though for me the result is to keep life simple by forgetting about weathering, figures, diorama, etc., as well as rescribing panel lines - though I am only too happy to admire those whose skills lie in those directions. For me, I'm happy if I can get finished a reasonably neat and reasonably accurate model with (as a bonus) an interesting colour scheme, and (as a further bonus) a colour scheme and detail modifications I've sorted out myself. The old Scale Aircraft Modelling Aircraft of the Month features were, and still are for those who have the old back issues, brilliant for this - they helped sort out the variants and gave some ideas for colour schemes. And an article which covers any basic accuracy and construction pitfalls of a particular kit scores highly too. I don't like wasting time and energy building models that turn out to look plain wrong when they are done, and I don't like wasting time pulling apart part-built models to rectify an assembly error in the instructions which the writer could have mentioned (he must surely have spotted it ...). So magazines which don't help in those ways are less likely to be bought. As another chap said, one can get good and useful books for not much more than 2-3 mags - thpse by Windsocks and Tankograd for instance.

Another factor which has not perhaps been stressed enough is the reduction in newsagent outlets which take modelling (or other) mags on racks - so one can't sample before buying, but rather has to buy a series of pigs in a poke also known as a 'subscription'. After a few cats in a row, I lose faith that the next might be a good succulent porker and just stop - when in another universe I might have been able to browse, and so bought maybe 4 out of the next 12. That must surely have an effect. In my not very small town, the only modelling magazine I have ever seen on sale in recent months (apart from a Railway Modeller in Tescos, many moons ago) is FSM in the corner shop and that's only cos I can't get a realistic sub from the USA, so I have a standing order for one copy, so he gets a few more for the rack!

Edited March 5, 2012 by Lothian man

[ursa_major]

Given the above point that printers' ink is the most expensive liquid on the planet at present, and thus accounts for a good proportion of the magazine's cost, how come the digital editions of AMW cost exactly the same amount as the print ones?? Plus you have to pay £2.49 extra as a startup cost for the app, and that's without factoring in the cost of the hardware you're reading it on. AFM, also from Key, is marginally better value - in-app mags are £3.99 vs the £4.40 for the paper ones.

I can see that digital editions would probably show a better saving on imported magazines that aren't printed in the country of reading (UK mags in the US used to be so expensive it was cheaper for a mate to subscribe in the UK, get the mag shipped to me & for me to post him it than it was to buy it in the US!) but surely there should be some discount as an inducement to go digital over buying the paper edition? In the case of AMW, it's effectively showing that the paper & ink of the magazine can be factored out of the magazine pricing equation.

[John Laidlaw]

Given the above point that printers' ink is the most expensive liquid on the planet at present, and thus accounts for a good proportion of the magazine's cost, how come the digital editions of AMW cost exactly the same amount as the print ones?? Plus you have to pay £2.49 extra as a startup cost for the app, and that's without factoring in the cost of the hardware you're reading it on. AFM, also from Key, is marginally better value - in-app mags are £3.99 vs the £4.40 for the paper ones.

I suspect they're trying to make hay whilst the sun shines - these are very tough times for those in the print industry, and we have no idea what the final balance between apps/print will be. As for the start-up cost for the app, they may be trying to recoup their development costs on it. Things will no doubt change when the whole print/app edition thing has settled down.