Model Railroader magazine survey

No particular thoughts on the question other than the usual ones regarding surveys. They're slanted to get the answers they want.

"Do you find the reviews useful?" Select 1 to 5. One for last five for most.

How do you answer that when you know the reviews in MR are always positive and they never trash a product?

Yes, the reviews are useful as they tell me what new products are on the market.

No, they're useless, or next to useless in telling me how reliable they are, how they track, how much they honestly pull, and how well they are made.

-- Cheers

Roger T.

Home of the Great Eastern Railway

Well it's *obvious* that the answer depends upon how interested you are in the reviews.

If you don't have an interest in it, give it a "1". If you are very interested in the reviews give it a "5".

Actually, the second question about "News & Products, pg. 8" is more directly about that -- instead of the reviews.

It seems pretty rare that MR reviews a product that hasn't already been announced in an earlier "News & Products" column.

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 10:45:48 -0700, Jon Miller posted in article ...

They did. I dropped my subscription about 5 years ago, after 25+ years. I'm registered for their forums, though, so they have my addy.

As posed ("Please base your responses on the October issue of Model Railroader"), the magazine- and "Online Extra"-related questions are meaningless.

But doesn't that make sense? Given the time from writing to distribution, I'd guess at the minimum, there is about 6-8 weeks. By the time that MR would get a product to review, it's already sitting on the hobby shop shelves. And given the (probably) short production run and the relative short period of manufacture time, it would just make sense that MR wouldn't have something six months before its release.

My only problem with MR is their perceived lack of independence. Given all of the money that some advertisers spend with them, do you really think that they are going to say "This product doesn't meet expectations and you should save your money until obvious problems are fixed."? Perhaps one can read between the lines by what they don't review... but even then, there is only so much space available for product reviews.

dlm

Yes I did also recive it by email and filled it out and sent it.

I was a subcriber last year and currently buy my issues at the local railways store or magazine store.

Brock R Bailey Victoria BC Canada

It sure makes sense to me.

Why do you say that the questions are meaningless?

Never mind replying... I can see how the questions are meaningless to *you*, since you don't have the October issue.

```````` Yes, I got it. I also got a multipage one via snail mail to fill out and mail back, both in the past week, and I'm not currently a subscriber, either.

Anyway, I can't fill the online one out yet until I read the Oct. issue. Just started last night.

I mailed the other one yesterday. Did anyone else get it?

"Paul - The CB&Q Guy" (Modeling the 1960's In HO.) "I reject your view of reality and substitute my own." -- [Adam Savage, MythBusters]

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 04:01:52 GMT, Mark Mathu posted in article ...

Yes, and perhaps other former subscribers. Presumptive of them, innit?

Expanding the last part of the survey on "Web Sites" might help them understand why their presumption is incorrect. But that would be a different survey.

Yeah, that's wrong of them. If they want to guage the changes in the October issue, they should restrict who they send the survey to. Or if they want to get a broader range of opinions, then they shouldn't limit it to the October issue.

I wonder if they think that by sending it to former subscribers they will want to buy the October issue and find it so fantastically great that they will want to re subscribe.

On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 07:23:00 -0400, Frank A. Rosenbaum posted in article ...

That would cost them a few more $$ to filter their mailing list or collect information they may not have had, although I don't think their marketing department has any budget worries. A checkbox for 'Didn't read the October issue' would have been useful, though. That's different from the 'Did not purchase' that was an option on the survey.

I don't think they're all that concerned about a broader range of opinions. They have a formula that works for them. Occasional tweaking based on input from the avid readership is part of the formula.

Yes, putting the table of contents in front of potential readers is a good strategy. Or not, if it includes yet another basic scenery or scrapyard article. But that's part of the formula.

They didn't target former subscribers. They got the email addy from their forum's registration form. IIRC, requested registration info didn't include a 'former subscriber' checkbox; it may have had a checkbox to permit sending surveys and other marketing materials as part of the 'preferences'. This survey was part of their electronic 'newsletter' mailings.