SAMI

[NARSES2]

Must admit I've noticed the apparent drop in editorial standards over the last few months in a couple of magazines. Some of it's down to cost cutting and the inevitable pressures and errors this lead to. Others are down to new people coming in and not having a publication background. They learn quickly or are replaced, it's a competitive world.

Like Martin I find the new SAM format very North American although I'll get used to it, but I don't like the way the transfers and accessories are reviewed in brief - very confusing.

The huge plus however is how approachable the editorial staff are at shows and such (Jay was always one of the friendlier staff at Hannants). They listen and chat about the hobby. Yet another plus for living on a small island where people can get to almost everywhere in a day's traveling 

[Tojo633]

All
I get SAM through the letterbox on subscription but I am not sure on the new incarnation. The first issue in the new format had some horrendous background layouts specifically with the product reviews which made the individual reviews confusing in my mind. There were comments in the TSR2 issue recently reflecting on the changes including text fonts etc, some comments seemed to welcome the change others weren't too happy.
What is important to identify with in any change situation (Yes I was tortured with Change Management at Uni) is the 1st fundamental question that must be asked, and this is "Do we need to make a change?" in some cases no change is really needed, but in others a small change here and there can make a small difference. Also these changes may not be noticed too much over the duration of time, but if the changes are severe or too radically it may upset the applecart to use a phrase. Consider the various rebranding attempts that did not work, British Airways was one example.
In SAM I would welcome improvements to what was, more colour pictures, colours profiles, better quality of both, more helpfull modelling articles and also relevant modelling articles - after all that is what we are about modelling. Some of these have been promised if I recall what was in the recent issue, but in the previous issue there was an article outling the financial problems with the current/ongoing Nimrod upgrade debacle/farse whatever, personally I saw no justification or relevance for this article in a modelling magazine as an article on building the Nimrod is more important but I am sure they have already done that. Just some idle comments which maybe I should have email to the editor.
As Martin said the editor is on a learning curve, but if he gets it wrong he will be looking for a new job. If he wanted to make changes to the magazine it would have been a more prudent move to identify what the paying public wanted to see as well as what they did not want to see in their magazine. I am sure one of the magazines in the past did an online or mail poll to evaluate customer opinion before making any changes (can't recall which one).
Cheers anyway.
Sandy

[Aircav]

I hope the changes sort them self's out and it goes well but my experience of magazine changes is it usually goes down hill. I use to love getting Speed & power, Guns & ammo and Airforce monthly magazines but they all changed and that was that...............

[kitbasher]

After many, many years of slow but steady evolution, the radical makeover SAM has undergone is something of a shock to the system.  I think the layout is too 'busy' - looks great and wizzbang to lay out on a PC, but is a bit of a b*gger's muddle to read.  IMHO I think SAM stayed in front of its competitors pretty well - I've always thought it better than SAMI (which to me remains a pale imitation of SAM at its peak), Fine Scale Modeler and the rest as an aircraft modelling magazine.  But the new format is too bitty and distracting, almost like a print version of satellite news programmes with rolling banner captions, etc.  And I feel at the moment that the quality of the content in the last 2 editions has diminished a bit.  Maybe this is a perception thing, essentially a product of the radical changes brought about by the new editor.  I wish him well, and that SAM settles in to its new format and I eventually get used to it.  But I can't help feel that something has been lost, that 'style over substance' will win out, and SAM may just fade away.
BTW, I think Model Aircraft Monthly is hard to beat as an aircraft modeller's magazine - it gets the balance between builds and reference material bang on, even if the subject matter doesn't always appeal.  Long may it survive!

[Gary]

I've responded silly to a few comments but more to allow those who may have insight I am not part to to comment and hopefully defend SAMI and her Editor. However, nothing has really been forthcoming. Many years ago I began a Canadian magazine, Canadian Modelbuilder with the hope of producing about 2500 every other month. I have worked in publishing in one manner or another for nearly 20 years before I gave up and went back to university to become a teacher. So my understanding of the roles of the various players is, at least in North American context, clear.
An editor has to be intimate with the subject area and the issues regarding production, the requirement for advertising, but most of all, deeply aware of his or her audience. The chap currently wearing the editor hat at SAMI seems like a nice chap, however, in five of the last six issues of the magazine, he keeps referring to travel budgets, WW2 German armour and issues pertaining to his private life. Honesty I think he might be better suited to an armour magazine. In only one issue did his editorial focus stay only on model aircraft. I am also of the humble opinion that at least every other issue, the editor should contribute an article.
In regards to production issues, the editor is solely responsible for content. He or she is supposed to review every article for accuracy, verification, spelling, grammar and so on, before it reaches the layout stage and he or she is also responsible to make sure the articles reflect the tastes of the audience as well. These constant screw ups with captions being vague, wrong, incorrectly placed and so on are supposed to be picked up in the editor's review of the films prior to press day. Nobody, including the editor, appears to be proofreading. They seem to be laying unfairly at the feet of the layout artist and that is NOT his or her job. Try and imagine how much text and imagery that person sees daily. Proofing is ultimately the editor's responsibility.
Ads are regularly screwed up, the wrong model in an ad caption leaving one to wonder, 'If I call this company and order a Sea Hawk, will I get a Sea Fury?' and so on. It is customary for the publisher to offer free layout of ads for the purchase of publishing space. So again, where is the proofreading?
The editor's job is huge and I have mighty respect for it. It was the big reason I couldn't get my magazine off the ground. I couldn't find the right person to be the editor. I was the publisher, but that was a big enough job, too much for me to take on the editor's role as well. Besides that I am not a good enough modeler to be a legitimate contributor even to my own magazine. There was more to it, the financial dangers of running your own magazine are huge and I didn't firewall myself as well as I should have.
On comment that I very much agree with is that on a computer screen certain things have a look that might be wonderful. Design for the web and the printed page are two entirely different things and the notion that you can simply cross over a mark of someone's lack of publishing experience. The 'new school' of designers can't be made to understand this because they never lived the transition. They accept and cross pollinate their designs. I'm not saying I like or dislike the work per se, however simple matters like screen resolution and colour for web simply don't work in print media.

[NARSES2]

Interesting comments Gary, in particular I totally agree with your final paragraph on the difference been design for the web and that for printed media. The later is a skill we appear to be losing.

Personally I find the light heartiness of some of the editorials amusing and to some extent refreshing, but as I say that's a personal thing and is coloured by the fact that I know the editor to chat with. However that does not mitigate against some of the errors we see in magazines which as you quite rightly say are the responsibility of the editor to pick up. Again this is another skill we appear to be losing, yet another consequence of the "the computer says no" world we live in. Maybe my last comment is because "I'm an old fart" but in my final few years at work I did get tired of explaining to some otherwise very talented youngsters " look, just because the computer says that's the answer, it doesn't necessarily mean it is. Think about it critically and see if there was an error in the spreadsheet or input was for **** sake"

Chris