Modelling magazines - for the reader or manufacturer?

[pigsty]

I'm not seeing anything in this ^^^ that I find problematic. So long as the magazine carries on like this, I'll be happy enough with it.

Some people seem to be setting up a qualitative distinction between the interweb and print: interweb reviews always right and always written by experts; print reviews always wrong and always written by dweebs. I'm not sure either can possibly be true. I use both and find both equally variable, but the up-side of that is that both are also equally useful. As things stand, only two things would stop me buying the mags that I do. A drop in quality (of whatever kind), and my being unable to afford them.

[Deon]

On the whole I have to agree with Matthew, although value for money is not something Id enter into, I find most kits these days shockingly expensive, but then Ive got short arms

I do remember, some years ago, giving a a fairly critical review on a badly miscast Dekno model, Im not sure if they still send kits in for review, but it hasnt stopped me aquiring others. There's always going to be some quality control escapees, sometimes they end up on my desk. I think if the kit is atrocious its fair to say 'not recommended'. Ive seen it done before and each reader can still make up their own mind. I think if we cant be honest about a kit then its time to step down. Perhaps any model can be enjoyable to build, depending on the mindset of the modeller, and something so subjective might be of little use to a prospective buyer. Then the dry facts are left, does it fit ( can it be made to fit!) , does it look right (is it accurate) these are ther core qualities Im looking for in a kit, and ideally these are the things I need to know (along with are the decals right functional, and maybe a bit on the component quality) from a review before shelling out.

[little-cars]

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.

Mike,

Couldn't agree more, fair and balanced is exactly what I want.

My policy is to only stock tools and accesories I would use myself, but if they think it's a lemon I want to know why, if it's the best thing sinced sliced bread I also want to know.

A lot of the products I stock are because of customer feedback, it's always welcomed.

[rob]

If I may add an opinion from outside the Modelling world. I work in the TV and Home Cinema retail sector .I really hope the mags are not going down the same way as the TV and Home Cinema Mags that IMO are definately in the pockets of "certain" manufacturers. You see reviews of TVs that are quite different our experiances of the products when we get them in store.

We then have to spend hours undoing the bad reviews to our customers, who take at face value these manufacturers press releases that are masquerading as reviews.

One particular (Very well "reviewed") Manufacturer had a return rate (under the insideous "distance selling regulations") of over 10 times that of the other manufacturers, the returnees

stating that they were not happy with the picture quality of the set. Many times when talking to the customers on the phone prior to the sale we'd comment that we didn't think that the

set was that good they'd be agast that us "shop boys" didn't agree with the magazines opinion of the set in question.

So hopefully the model mags can strike a balance between "warts and all" and just copying a press release from the manufacturer.

Just my two penneth from a slightly different Angle

Regards Rob.....

[pigsty]

What's insidous about the distance selling regulations?

[Colin @ Freightdog Models]

Here's another opinion of a supplier of samples. I have a lot of time for Gary, as he has only be helpful and positive towards my products. If I got a negative review, and I haven't so far (although thats down to my fine quality products!), I would certainly think twice about sending samples to that magazine again. The closest I've had was for two Pegasus and a Blue Max kit that SAMI reviewed recently as re-issues. On reading them (when the mag came out, you don't get any notice before hand) I felt they were, well not as positive as they could have been, but on re-reading the reviewers all enjoyed the challenges, and didn't say don't buy it, so I was happy with the outcome, one of them pointed something out to me that I had not spotted.

One reason I deal with Gary is turnaround times (other editors please take note!), If I have a new item, he will preview it straight away, I've waited up to four months to see previews appear in other mags. Thats probably easier for SAMI due to the sheer size of the news, review and preview sections of the magazine.

Colin

Edited February 24, 2010 by Colin @ Freightdog Models

[rob]

What's insidous about the distance selling regulations?

Not wishing to start an argument about it but imagine if you will someone orders a 50" Plasma TV set at £1500 it gets delivered (by us I hasten to add anywhere in the UK)

Wifey take one look at it and says "either that monstrosity goes or I do!" (and believe me this is a regular occurance) customer then invokes DSR we have to pick it up

(at no cost to the customer!) and refund totally. We then have a "secondhand TV" which we sell at a loss.

And this regulation is one of the reasons why so many small shops in our industry are going to the wall!!

Regards Rob....

Edited February 24, 2010 by rob

[TheModeller]

I'm not so sure this discussion isn't getting things a bit bottom-about-face... It shouldn't be a case of a positive review or a negative review, what I want is an honest review, if the product isn't up to snuff for whatever reason then it should fall to the manufacturer to address the shortcomings, not throw a hissy-fit and stop sending any particular magazine review samples.

There was a time, back when plastic scale modelling was an inexpensive past-time, when most of us would look at a product for ourselves and make our minds up wether to buy it or not, alas times have changed, the hobby isn't inexpensive, products are now coming from all over the world, often its difficult, if not impossible, to drop into the 'local hobby shop' to examine a kit or a set of decals or a resin set for ourselves. More and more modellers are having to rely on whats written, either in print, or online, to form a judgement on wether or not to buy a particular product. And a lot of this stuff isn't cheap anymore.

If I'd gone with what the magazines were telling me, in the absence of my own knowledge, and simply plonked down 100 quid for a certain manufacturers large-scale kit of a classic British supersonic fighter, I'd have been seriously disappointed with the inaccurate and overpriced dross in the box!

If a review is an honest assessment of the product it shouldn't matter if its negative or positive. If its negative then the manufacturer should try harder, if its positive then we all win.

Edited February 24, 2010 by TheModeller

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

Hi - been reading this with interest. I too saw the SAMI editorial and raised an eyebrow, but then reasoned that it did seem aimed to coincide witthe Nuremburg toyfair - so wa sperhaps a po bit of a pitch to companies to come an si hi at the SAMI stand or whatever.

With reviews there are surely a couple of issues that the modeller (potential buyer) would like to be aware of: How does the model fit i.e. its buildability and, as a separate concern, how does it look i.e. is it an accurate representation of the real thing. Then theres decal options , instructions etc

Lets face it there are plenty of modellers who will happily buy a model thats builds well, even if its not especially accurate - but there are others for whom accuracy outweighs buildability. And then theres a big bunch who lie in the middle, and would like to know a bit of both.

Take the Hasegawa 1/48th Spit mk IX - its lovely model that builds superbly, but has the famously short fuselage. I bet that hasnt stopped them being built in the 1000s though, but its nice to know that it does have this pretty major accuracy issue, which has also resulted in lots of modellers buying it and aftermarket accurising products.

I dont see why a review shouldn't have both pros and cons in it. And as long as the style of the review isn't merciless in its berating of a product, I dont see why the manufacturer should be scared of some criticism if its vlaid. In fact I dont see how a manufacture will learn to improve their product without some kind of criticism; without it just leads to complacency. I mean otherwise you might as well just have paid for "advertorials"

Jonners

[AnonymousER99]

To add another thing from this manufacturers perspective, I would not stop sending review samples to magazines if I get a less than glowing review on something. A not so hot review, while it sucks, will not stop us from send our products out. Like I said before, as long as reviews are fair and balanced, you really can ask for no more.

[AnonymousFO98]

I'm not so sure this discussion isn't getting things a bit bottom-about-face...

not sure that is the case Modeller, I think we all want honest and fair reviews.

It is no use to anyone if a kit gets savaged and so puts people off buying what is actually a decent model.

The magazines are not doing themselves any favours by being uncritical.

I have seen reports that have been glowing and have totally ignored faulty aspects.

It then becomes difficult to trust the reviews.

Problem is that the reviewer may be honest, but not sufficiently aware of accuracy of a type.

Good point about timing of articles. I find it a tad annoying to see a kit appear in the new releases/reviews when it has been on the shelves for 6 months

[TheModeller]

It is no use to anyone if a kit gets savaged and so puts people off buying what is actually a decent model.

If its a decent product then why would it get savaged?

The magazines are not doing themselves any favours by being uncritical.

Agreed, if the reviews amount to nothing more than free advertising then they aren't worth the paper they are printed on, and its already been said that a lack of criticism of a sub-standard product does the consumers (us) no favours at all, it just encourages more sub-standard products.

Edited February 24, 2010 by TheModeller

[cmatthewbacon]

If I'd gone with what the magazines were telling me, in the absence of my own knowledge, and simply plonked down 100 quid for a certain manufacturers large-scale kit of a classic British supersonic fighter, I'd have been seriously disappointed with the inaccurate and overpriced dross in the box!

I'm sorry, but after a quick Google around, I've found reviews of "a large-scale kit of a classic British supersonic fighter" on all the mainstream modelling web 'zines, and a couple of IPMS ones, and they are all overwhelmingly positive - with occasional niggles, true. TheModeller seems to be unique in his view that it's "inaccurate and overpriced dross". My point is that most models of most planes are not made by "experten," and there's no difference _generally_ between the people who build and review models for magazine and those who review them online. The difference is that a magazine has more "editorial responsibility" than web sites, and while there will potentially be more than one review of the same kit on a forum, the magazine only gets one bite at the cherry. Suppose I'd been an editor, and published a review saying "The ... kit of the classic British Supersonic Fighter is inaccurate and overpriced dross" not only would I risk alienating the manufacturer, and struggle to get future review kits from them (letting down future readers), but I'd also have given "airtime" to one person's negative opinion with no opportunity for balance, like you'd get on a web site or forum, resulting in my readers forming their view based on an opinion that _provably_ is not shared by many others - and notably not by those who HAVE actually built the kit (for web sites or magazines) rather than leaving it on the shelf in disgust...

People expect a certain amount of "mouthing off" on forums; readers have a right to expect that a professionally produced hobby magazine will go the extra yard to provide a credible, useful review...

best regards,

Matt

[AnonymousFO98]

Hi Modeller

No idea! what did I mean by that?

It was a hypothetical situation, I was trying to see it from the other way round but guess it doesn't work that way.

Theorectically it could happen but not likely

Edited February 24, 2010 by walrus

[TheModeller]

I'm sorry, but after a quick Google around... YADA YADA YADA... and notably not by those who HAVE actually built the kit (for web sites or magazines) rather than leaving it on the shelf in disgust...

And saving myself 100 quid in the process... I'm sorry, I thought this discussion was about the relative merits of the standards of reviews found in the current crop of hardcopy, not an opportunity to question wether or not I've wasted my money and time building a kit I don't personally care for... If you want a detailed assessment of the kit in question then just search for any of Bill Clarks in-progress threads on this very site, no need to go trawling the 'net via Google!

...readers have a right to expect that a professionally produced hobby magazine will go the extra yard to provide a credible, useful review...

As I've already explained, all I want is an honest review, if a 'professionally produced hobby magazine' is going to go the extra yard (mile?) then I'd hope the author of the article would take the time to address the kits shortcomings and offer references and advice on making any corrections that are needed.

I am being expected to spend my own money on these magazines aren't I? Have I missed something, is there a modellers service somewhere handing these pearls of wisdom out gratis? Equally I am being expected to spend my own money on the kits and products the magazines are reviewing and recommending aren't I?

I can get amateur comments and observations on the Internet for no more than the cost of the connection I'm already paying for, if I'm spending money on hardcopy as well I don't think its too much to expect a certain degree of 'educated' comment and observation.

The kit I'm alluding to costs around 100 quid, or it did when it hit the shelves! Maybe in some households that kind of cash is stuffed in a biscuit-barrel somewhere, for my household thats a weeks shopping!

[thx6667]

Agreed, if the reviews amount to nothing more than free advertising then they aren't worth the paper they are printed on, and its already been said that a lack of criticism of a sub-standard product does the consumers (us) no favours at all, it just encourages more sub-standard products.

But I think we've established that a demolition review in a magazine would be unlikely to deter a company from releasing any more products, so equally I doubt that a "rose tinted" one would encourage complacency either.

We're back to those three words, "honest", "fair" and "accurate", and I seriously doubt anyone from the smallest cottage company to the largest multi-million yen corporation would have a problems with that.

Me personally I always like FSM's approach, they were factual, informative, balanced and fair, and done with an admirable economy of the Queen's English, unlike some of the home grown mags here where it takes about three paragraphs to get to the actual kit.

I've said it before reviews in magazines and reviews in mags are two different things.

[pigsty]

I'm sorry, but after a quick Google around, I've found reviews of "a large-scale kit of a classic British supersonic fighter" on all the mainstream modelling web 'zines, and a couple of IPMS ones, and they are all overwhelmingly positive - with occasional niggles, true. TheModeller seems to be unique in his view that it's "inaccurate and overpriced dross". My point is that most models of most planes are not made by "experten," and there's no difference _generally_ between the people who build and review models for magazine and those who review them online. The difference is that a magazine has more "editorial responsibility" than web sites, and while there will potentially be more than one review of the same kit on a forum, the magazine only gets one bite at the cherry. Suppose I'd been an editor, and published a review saying "The ... kit of the classic British Supersonic Fighter is inaccurate and overpriced dross" not only would I risk alienating the manufacturer, and struggle to get future review kits from them (letting down future readers), but I'd also have given "airtime" to one person's negative opinion with no opportunity for balance, like you'd get on a web site or forum, resulting in my readers forming their view based on an opinion that _provably_ is not shared by many others - and notably not by those who HAVE actually built the kit (for web sites or magazines) rather than leaving it on the shelf in disgust...

People expect a certain amount of "mouthing off" on forums; readers have a right to expect that a professionally produced hobby magazine will go the extra yard to provide a credible, useful review...

best regards,

Matt

But if you follow this logic, you end up in a situation where no-one can publish their review first - all must wait to see how common their view is before pressing the Print button. Or, worse, conformism - rule by consensus rather than everyone having their own opinion. There must be a risk in employing individuals that they'll come to different views about the same thing. It happens when reviewing other products, without the suppliers chucking their toys out of the pram, so I don't see why it can't happen with plastic models.

Of course, any opinion has to be reasonable - but in my experience the unhinged foaming-at-the-mouth "this kit is unbuildable!" reviews are almost exclusively the preserve of the interweb, not print media. As a quid pro quo, manufacturers need to respond reasonably to reasonable reviews. If a review is negative, the first reaction should be to ask why. If the reviewer has spotted a problem, the manufacturer should use that positively and see whether improvements are possible. This is why Colin's comment

If I got a negative review, and I haven't so far ... I would certainly think twice about sending samples to that magazine again

worries me slightly. The purpose of reviews is surely to assess objectively, and to praise only where praise is deserved. As a general rule, I'd say the best way to avoid negative reviews is to make good products.

[TheModeller]

The purpose of reviews is surely to assess objectively, and to praise only where praise is deserved. As a general rule, I'd say the best way to avoid negative reviews is to make good products.

A single line that sums up my sentiments more succinctly than all the posts I've made so far in this thread... Well played sir!

[dahut]

Modelling magazines - for the reader or manufacturer?

Both. You gotta go with the money in the publishing biz

The degrees of pandering can vary, but that is the core principle.

[Giorgio N]

As I see the internet based reviews mentioned, I think it's fair to say that these are not necessarily better than those that appear in print on the magazines. The same problems a honest reviewer has when writing for a magazine occur to an honest reviewer writing for a webzine or his personal modelling website. I acknowledge that being a reviewer is not easy, especially when the subject to review is something quite obscure (and fortunately there are more and more obscure subjects appearing in kit form every day), if it's not easy for those who write on the magazines, it's not easier for those who write on the web.

And let's be honest, the bigger modelling websites are based on advertising the same way magazines are, or even more. So if the director of a magazine would prefer not to upset a main advertiser, why shouldn't the editor of a webzine have the same worries ?

And to be even more honest, I have heard more than once of website administrators that approach manufacturers promising brilliant reviews in return of free samples and the such, often boosting huge contact numbers achieved by hitting the refresh button once every 3 seconds... Now I'm sure these must be just a tiny minority of a certain modelling underground, but if these exist, why should the web based reviews be any better than others ?

Sure the web has a big advantage: by presenting a huge quantity of information allows anyone to form their own opinion. It takes time though, and a lot of effort 'cause the most important bit of info is often hidden. But isn't research part of what we modellers do anyway ??

Giorgio

[cmatthewbacon]

But if you follow this logic, you end up in a situation where no-one can publish their review first - all must wait to see how common their view is before pressing the Print button.

Not at all... There's no need to publish only a consensus, and every reason to have different reviewers who might have different opinions. But there is a reason for editors to expect magazine reviewers not just to say "it's inaccurate and overpriced dross" but to address the kit in a positive frame of mind, make a determined effort to build it well, and explain why they think what they think. Saying that it's disappointing in a £50 jet kit not to have any underwing stores, or that the gullwing is missing on a 1/72 Spitfire is perfectly reasonable, justified criticism. If you say what you think, and why you think it, other people can chose to disagree with either the what or why, and still be informed by the fact you've said it. And manufacturers can only complain if the why is simply factually incorrect. But overall, the magazines can only cover in detail a small proportion of the kits that are released every year - surely it's better to make sure the focus is on the ones that CAN be recommended?

And yes, I've been reading Bill's threads, and also Melchies battle to accurise the Airfix TSR.2. The fact that some people will go to all that effort doesn't mean that everyone wants to, and you could perfectly honestly write a review without saying "this is an appalling kit that deserves to stay in the shelf, what could the manufacturers have been thinking, it's unbuildable, and looks nothing whatever like the subject without major cosmetic surgery everywhere".

An _objective_ review is one that takes a clear look at the kit, the issues, and the possible results without bias in either direction...

bestest,

M.

[FalkeEins]

there's no difference _generally_ between the people who build and review models for magazine and those who review them online.

..I think there is ..and it's one that's not been touched on here yet ....those who review 'on-line' are surely more likely to have paid for the kit out of their own pocket, whereas it seems to me that mags just wait for the freebies to roll in. This must surely colour any sentiment towards said product

[Colin @ Freightdog Models]

If a review is negative, the first reaction should be to ask why. If the reviewer has spotted a problem, the manufacturer should use that positively and see whether improvements are possible. This is why Colin's comment

worries me slightly. The purpose of reviews is surely to assess objectively, and to praise only where praise is deserved. As a general rule, I'd say the best way to avoid negative reviews is to make good products.

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

[AnonymousFO98]

An _objective_ review is one that takes a clear look at the kit, the issues, and the possible results without bias in either direction...

That is fine Matt, but

there is no such thing as a good or a bad kit

?

In which case- why bother to review at all then?

If all kits are neutral, then a few sprue shots, pics of decals and box art, maybe a pic or two of the kit built up would suffice.

There we are! All done

move over mate, even i could manage that- just about

I can see what you are driving at, and the objectivity is fine. But the comments at the top of the thread about lack of negativity do not support that, nor can it be objective. I am sure from what you say Graham is an honourable chap. But if he makes statements like that it leaves himself open to criticism as it can be perceived as pandering to the manufacturers, whether or not it is true.

Can't say i envy him being caught between the devil and a hard place

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

An interesitng excercise for a magazine to run - perhaps as a full article, would be a review of the same model by 3 modellers.

Perhaps one who is an acknowledged expert on the type, and a master modeller ( say Like Radu Brinzan on the 109):

One who is regarded as a good modeller, but not necessarlily possessing any more than average knowledge of the type:

And a third who is perhaps quite new to the hobby, but with a few kits under their belts.

If the same kit were sent to each for review, I think it would be great to see how the modellers own experience and knowledge shaped the final review article.

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?

Jonners