I picked this up yesterday while I was killing time waiting for an eye test. I have questions, so this is my unexpected review.
Looking at the mast head I note that Key Publishing use the Hornby brand under licence - is this a commercial brainwave or just cheating? I can't make my mind up. In any case the same mast head also states that the circulation is 26k per month which I think puts it a way behind, but in second place to RM.
There are a lot of ads, more than I expected, but a lot of unusual stuff that I've not seen elsewhere. This makes me think that either this is actively encouraged, or that the ad rates are low allowing some smaller cottage industries in. Notably there are no Peco/Ratio/Wills ads, so the flip of RM where they are predictably prolific.
Here's my main beef: I may have picked a bad example, but there is just one layout article (Gresley Beat, which is a bit like a music magazine featuring Sgt Pepper) and one shows-you-how, the rest is all about Hornby. More than that, probably 85% of the mag's written content is accredited to Mike Wild the editor; not only most of the features, but most of the reviews as well. From Key Pubs' position this looks dangerous, and from my position is deadly boring as there is only one voice and point of view.
The physical feel is OK, but not quality, but the general layout though quite in-your-face is well produced. If you just want reviews then it's worth a punt, If you want layouts, hints and tips and modelling encouragement, then one of the other three main mags are a much better bet. This then is my main question: taking all this into consideration, why is it number two and if you are drawn to a more glitzy page layout, then why not pick up the superior MR or BRM?
At the risk of stating the obvious, perhaps Hornby dominates because this is a special issue celebrating 100 years of Hornby. I've glanced through the magazine often enough on the newsagent's stands and there's usually several layout articles and they are generous with reviewing other manufacturer's products.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I find it rather dull as it's dominated by British standard gauge.
Maybe its number two as a large number of model railway enthusiasts are happy to just open red boxes and use the contents as they come?
ReplyDeleteNor entirely sure about BRM being superior...
I've a had a couple of emails about this which back your theory to the hilt. I'll pick up MR for The Nevard's articles and I think that out of the glitzy brigade (you couldn't describe the Modeller as glitzy) BRM is probably the better, but don't tell Phil I said that.
DeleteAlthough I rarely buy it I respect the Muddler because it isn't glitzy, it hasn't felt the need to radically re-invent itself unlike some of the others, any change has been evolution rather than revolution. Its still recognisably the same magazine that it was at its launch.
DeleteI don't even bother to pick it or BRM up in the news agents. Those circulation figures. Do they include digital copies perhaps distributed as part of packages? Our library gives access to RB digital a platform that distributes electronic copies of a wide range of mags. All included in one's library membership, for which the service will pay a subscription.
ReplyDeletePersonally I'm a bit sceptical.
BRM is actually quite good these days, and in some ways does what RM used to do very well, which is to run articles on small projects that develop skills but are still within the capability of that mythical average modeler.
DeleteAs I understand it the figure is the 'distubuted to the trade' and the digi-subs. PP can probably clarify this.
DeleteAs far as the name goes, my understanding was that the mag, which was originally launched by Ian Allan, was to have been called "Model Railway Constructor" but WH Smith said they had enough model railway magazines already. At the time, Hornby were flying high and by licencing the name, Smiths were happy to stock it. In the past, there was no more connection than that.
ReplyDeleteAhh... that would make sense. But what if Hornby suddenly decide to revoke the licence say to put out a publication of their own?
Delete'Airfix Model World' uses the Airfix name under licence, but does feature a lot of Airfix products. I wonder if that's part of the licensing deal?
Delete