Last few months of MR

....have been pretty disappointing. You ever get the feeling that Paul Dolkos is looking down his nose because of having "15 years of a successful layout"? What exactly constitutes a "successful" layout vs. a "mediocre" layout, or even a 'second-best" layout, if both are enjoyed and run for the same amount of time? Detail? Level of completion?

Maybe I've opened a can of worms here, I don't know.

Something a bit different is what caught my eye over the past few issues of MR...and is particularly obvious with regard to the January '06 copy. At first I couldn't quite put my finger on it. But then I realized it was the amount of "feature" content. For the first time that I can recall, the January MR's feature content was decidedly less than that of RMC! The feature material in MR could probably be read in less than an hour this time around, in sharp contrast to January issues of the more distant past (quite often the second largest issue of the year), which often took me days to work through. In fact, on closer examination the January '06 MR turns out to have the lowest total page-count of any January issue in 30 years...and is some 80 pages less in size than when the magazine was at its peak about a dozen years ago!

CNJ999

January issues are generally slimmer, having to do with less advertising and the three month lead time for most mags that runs up against the holidays.

-otto-

I don't think you're wrong about MR. They've been going downhill for years because they don't seem to care about modelers anymore.

Model Railroader magazine is fast becoming a showcase and promotional tool for their favorite manufacturers (i.e. the BIG PAYING advertisers) and targeting the general population instead of the model railroad market. Hence, it's becoming less of a modeling magazine.

Recent articles have been written specifically with promotion of major manufacturers' products in mind. And, as you noted, they are printing less and less content and more and more advertising. They don't care at all about small manufacturers, either, and their advertising needs. MR is too expensive for any but the well-heeled manufacturers and suppliers to advertise in with any regularity. In addition, they seem to think that there is no railroading outside the Midwestern USA.

Railroad Model Crafsman is a better deal these days, and they are more like what MR used to be 20 or 30 years ago. Builders' articles and prototype modeling, cheaper advertising rates are what make them more attractive to my eyes.

Maybe they think that it's the best way to compete with declining magazine readership overall since the Internet came on the scene. If that's true, then the hobby could be served by having a publication like theirs and their current format. But, at least be honest about it, and let us work on getting more traditional modelers' publications like RMC to step up and give the real model railroading community what it likes and needs in a magazine.

Mike Bartel
IHP
http://ihphobby.tripod.com

Otto Vondrak wrote:January issues are generally slimmer, having to do with less advertising and the three month lead time for most mags that runs up against the holidays.

-otto-

Actually, Otto, the September and October MRs had a decidedly smaller page-count than does the January '06 edition, while the November 2005 issue only barely equalled it! The thick MR ad issues of the pre-Christmas season are a thing of the past. I'd even be willing to bet that this January's MR contains more ads (and less feature text) than any issue in a long time.

CNJ999

Mike@IHP wrote: (Liberally snipped) I don't think you're wrong about MR. They've been going downhill for years because they don't seem to care about modelers anymore.

Model Railroader magazine is fast becoming a showcase and promotional tool for their favorite manufacturers... Hence, it's becoming less of a modeling magazine. As you noted, they are printing less and less content and more and more advertising.

Railroad Model Craftsman is a better deal these days, and they are more like what MR used to be 20 or 30 years ago. Builders' articles and prototype modeling, cheaper advertising rates are what make them more attractive to my eyes. Let us work on getting more traditional modelers' publications like RMC to step up and give the real model railroading community what it likes and needs in a magazine.

Mike Bartel
IHP
http://ihphobby.tripod.com

As an interesting tidbit of information, Mike, after a long, steady decline of its own, RMC's sales have been stabile in the past three years, at 57K issues per month. MR, on the otherhand, has lost fully 10K of its monthly readership over the same period.

CNJ999

Just to throw this out there (keeping in mind that one anecdote does not necessarily indicate a trend), I recently (~June) got into the hobby, and just last month bought my first magazine subscription -- to RMC.

I mostly based the decision from the back issues of both I have piling up now (trying to catch up on lots of missed information!), and it definitely appears to me that MR has had less and less that appealed to me. The 1958 Model Railroader issues, where Linn Wescott introduced the Twin-T for detection and signalling, seem to have more "stuff" (useful feature content) than newer issues. RMC seems to have more kitbashing stuff, though perhaps it's actually "more kitbashing stuff" that I'm interested in (like Frank Cicero's NJT stuff).

I can remember, in the early 1980's, that MR used to boast in just about every issue about how many pages they had, and about how many subscribers they had. It got so bad that readers wrote in complaining about the boasting.

Looks like MR would have done better keeping a low profile, the way RMC has always done.

It doesn't appear that anyone at MR is listening to all the complaints on this and other lists, even though this has now been going on for years: MR is continuing to pack new issues with more fluff and articles aimed strictly at the newby.

snowplough

This topic sparked my interest, so here's my two cents worth...

I subscribed to MR a few years ago after rekindling my interest in model railroading, dormant since high school (thats about 30 years ago, kids!). MR was a good choice at the time because I needed a "refresher" on the basics...everything from benchwork to rolling stock to wiring to scenery. I've since matured in my pursuit of the hobby and my interests have changed. MR isn't the best choice for me now. I've gravitated to structures and kitbashing, so RMC may be a better choice.

Publishers: What makes a financially successful magazine? Revenue from subscriptions or revenue from advertisers? I know you have to make a profit.

Readers: What do you look for in a magazine? What do you want to see?

I hope this stimulates further discussion.

Bruce J.

I'm a graphic designer, and I work as a production manager for several regional magazines here in the New York area. My collection of MR goes back to the 1940s, and I was an avid reader until about 2000 or so.

Model Railroader will always be king in two areas: production values and photography. "Production values" means things like color reproduction, graphic design, illustrations, etc. MR was founded by a job printer who understood typography and design and illustrations are important to the success of a magazine that teaches and inspires. The photographs in MR have always strived for the realistic. The photography in RMC is good, but it's never quite as good as what you see in Model Railroader. MR also has a full production staff of designers and illustrators working on a fleet of the latest Macinti (plural of Macintosh) churning out very sophisticated layouts. Since the 1980s, the magazine has always been over 100 pages, sometimes reaching 200 pages when including holiday advertising (September, October, November, and December were always the fattest). MR has also been printing in full color longer than RMC. MR has a cast of many that work on each issue- from artists to editors- look how long the masthead is in your next issue! RMC has a cast of four- three editors and an ad director. The editors also select photos and lay out the magazine! There is no art staff, so any layout drawings, maps, or illustrations are generally contracted out.

It used to be that MR used its staff and skills and high production values to its advantage. Now I feel like MR is a piece of slicked-up fluff without any substance. Ever read one of those "quick start" guides when you buy new software? That's what I feel like every article is like now. Remember when Lou Sassi would write a four page article on how to improve the looks of the Atlas telephone pole? Today, that would be a two-page spread with "Five Easy Steps to Realistic Telephone Poles" with a giant "1" "2" "3" and so on. Gone are those neat eight-part project layout series... now it's "Build this layout in three days!"

All the shortcomings I mentioned about RMC? For all of these obstacles, I think RMC is surpassing Kalmbach in content. The basic design of the magazine may not have changed in twenty years, but the increased use of color and illustration have helped keep pace. The articles are written by other hobbyists who write detailed articles and published by editors who don't mind ten-page telephone pole stories. Like Avis, "We Try Harder." And that's why RMC has a loyal following. The editors try harder to cater to the reader, not to the advertiser. And they are able to attract readers from all skill levels and age levels without reverting to the "Five Easy Steps" method.

Model Railroader inspired me to be a better photographer, but RMC inspired me to be a better writer. What do you all think?

-otto-

Keep in mind that Kalmbach has been rolling out other magazines like Trains, Classic Toy Trains, Garden Railways, Fine Scale Modeler(?), etc. that probably have a lot of the content that would years ago would have only been in Model Railroader.

So, they might be cannibalizing themselves, though as a large corporation's vice president once said to me.. "either you cannibalize yourself, or someone else will."

Wow Otto,
That was one of the most well informed and objective commentaries I think I've read on this forum, certainly in a long time. You definitely have the insider's edge as far as publishing goes and horah for using it!
I was wondering myself why MR just didn't seem to satisfy me as much as it used to, and after reading this thread, and Otto's input, I know why! It took an "insider's" level of knowledge with an "outsider's" perspective to see exactly why!
It's true, I still love the pictures in MR compared to RMC, but these days that's about it. It's sad really, because with my time/$$ situation I really need a good model mag to keep me going till I can start my next layout (in either HO or N,) and could really use the "mind-fodder" I used to get.
There realy did used to be a better mix of skill levels in the articles, one or two for beginers, more for the mid-range guys, and something for the braver "not-afrid-to-kitbash" types. Now it's mostly beginer stuff that just doesn't hold my interest. I could probably just look at the pics at the newsstand, put it back, and save my $5.00 for a cup of coffee.
OK, that's all I got for now,
Cosmo

It seems like MR doesn't have any modern-day stuff here recently, like 2005 era. Just steam engines and the 1950's (believe me, I've got no beef with the 50's or steam engines, it's just i'm sick of reading about them!) I'd like more stuff like, how to make a reasonable CP SD40-2 for beginners. And well put Otto.

Well you have to remeber that they are there to make money and if you remeber that the era that most people model is the transition period. So that is what you see most of the time.

In terms of more advance modeling the last I remember MR doing was the scratch building the Brass Steam Loco.

Chris

Thanks for the kind words, all.

Andy, regarding content, I guess you don't like RMC either because of the steam era stuff they have been featuring?

The content isn't that skewed as you may think it is. I'm interested in northeastern railroads, especially the New York Central. I can't remember the last time I've seen an NYC layout featured anywhere in the last few years, and the editor of MR is a big NYC fan! Next month someone will complain there's too much trolley coverage in RMC. Maybe there was too much DRGW in MR last month... and so on and so on. The edtors have to plan our their editorial calendar for a year in advance, and hope that they feature enough topics from around the country to keep everyone's interest. Even if everyone is not interested in DRGW (for instance), they have to find a way to present it to MAKE IT interesting to this Easterner.

Chris and I were talking about the Utah Belt and how much we like that railroad and its concepts. We've never been to Utah. We know little about SP prototypes and practices that the UB is based on. But the material is interesting, the author has a strong concept, and the material is always presented well. And that is key.

Remember Malcom Furlow's series on the G scale Colorado narrow guage the Soda Park & South Creek? That series was AMAZING. Was I interested in narrow guage? was I interested in building a G scale layout? no. But the content was presented in a way where everyone could appreciate it.

In short- you don't like the lead story this month? Wait till next month. Still not seeing an article on your favorite prototype? Do what I did and write one yourself.

(another note- most of the content in RMC is driven by the contributors, the content in MR is driven by the editors)

-otto-