Motor Sport - red, green or...?
#1
Posted 16 February 2005 - 19:37
It may also throw up some interesting stats because - as Stuart F will testify - there are folk out there who actually like the new look but won't admit it in public for fear of being shot down in flames. This way they can have their say anonymously.
Most of us will be aware that whilst green is the colour most associated with the title, it wasn't always the case. Go back far enough and there were orange and blue covers which alternated (IIRC). Oh, and there was an advertisement on the front cover
So, get voting!
Advertisement
#2
Posted 16 February 2005 - 19:59
#3
Posted 16 February 2005 - 20:19
#4
Posted 16 February 2005 - 20:34
Originally posted by dretceterini
It could be day-glow pink, for all I care.
I just had a STP flashback moment...
#5
Posted 16 February 2005 - 20:35
Doug
#6
Posted 16 February 2005 - 21:36
The result is that it does look more modern. Unfortunately it is now so similar to other magazines that it doesn't stand out. The green cover was a 'brand image' and they should have stuck with it in some form.
They should keep the new format but work out a way to revert to green - either green on white or, maybe better, white on green.
But I wish they could decide whether they want to be Motor Sport or Motorsport. The current MotorSport is neither, and looks like a pathetic attempt to be trendy.
#7
Posted 16 February 2005 - 21:47
Originally posted by D-Type
...But I wish they could decide whether they want to be Motor Sport or Motorsport. The current MotorSport is neither, and looks like a pathetic attempt to be trendy.
Looks like?
It is!
PdeRL
#8
Posted 16 February 2005 - 22:05
#9
Posted 16 February 2005 - 22:17
No titles, no 'clever' subtitles either.
Just green and a picture.
#10
Posted 16 February 2005 - 23:14
Green indeed...
#11
Posted 16 February 2005 - 23:22
To be quite honest, the colour is immaterial to me. Although I'd prefer green, so that's my vote. What I don't like is the poor design of the current covers, with too many pictures and too much text. Plus the mixture of typefaces within the magazine (especially that bloody stencil one!!!) Remember the KISS formula?
#12
Posted 16 February 2005 - 23:29
#13
Posted 16 February 2005 - 23:50
Yes, mate - but I haven't addressed my PMs or emails yet... (sorry )Originally posted by Ruairidh
Twinny - does this mean you're back in blighty?
#14
Posted 16 February 2005 - 23:52
Perhaps subscribers to MotorSport could be offered an alternative cover to the "High Street" version which may appease traditionalists yet still enable Haymarket to promote the magazine with it's new image out there in the market place.
I have read MotorSport since 1964 and have a complete run from 1959 to date which I constantly refer to on an almost daily basis but the content of the current magazine is more important to me than the colour of the cover.
David
#15
Posted 16 February 2005 - 23:53
We pay a premium price for Motorsport in Australia, so the cover had better at least look like a premium title.
Having said that I like the old green cover with the stripes the best. I dont really find the new cover all that offensive.. although it did smack of change for changes sake.
#16
Posted 17 February 2005 - 00:13
Originally posted by Twin Window
Yes, mate - but I haven't addressed my PMs or emails yet... (sorry )
No problem, nowt there from me - just wanted to make sure you'd gotten back safe
#17
Posted 17 February 2005 - 07:14
The red however would have been more acceptable if they had incorporated the same black/white 'Motorsport' bold typeface header, rather than the bland typeface on the new ones.
Perhaps forget a background colour - have an 'arty' chequered flag background with photos placed on top?
#18
Posted 17 February 2005 - 10:38
#19
Posted 17 February 2005 - 11:00
Why?
Simply because it feels right. All those memories of reading the green stripey version right through to working on the thing in the late seventies...
Mark
Advertisement
#20
Posted 17 February 2005 - 12:20
Ross Stonefeld: "I just want the issue to be good, I don't care if it comes in a brown paper bag or a used chocolate box"
Agreed! There is something rather anal about all this agonising over the cover colour. Or is it that the contents are insufficiently gripping to hold people's attention? If a red cover attracts more readers and helps to keep the magazine afloat, that is a GOOD THING - isn't it?
#21
Posted 17 February 2005 - 12:27
Originally posted by BRG
dretceterini: "It could be day-glow pink, for all I care. What matters is the contents! "
Ross Stonefeld: "I just want the issue to be good, I don't care if it comes in a brown paper bag or a used chocolate box"
Agreed! There is something rather anal about all this agonising over the cover colour. Or is it that the contents are insufficiently gripping to hold people's attention? If a red cover attracts more readers and helps to keep the magazine afloat, that is a GOOD THING - isn't it?
In a way, I have to agree with you. It's just that I liked it green - it was distinctive.
Such things do matter to a lot of people. Can you imagine the outcry if the present day Ferrari F1 team suddenly painted their cars green? It wouldn't affect the performance of the cars, but it just wouldn't seem right.
#22
Posted 17 February 2005 - 12:47
#23
Posted 17 February 2005 - 12:48
#24
Posted 17 February 2005 - 12:52
However, the change has now been made and - as others have said - the content's all that really matters.
So I ticked the 'not bothered' box
#25
Posted 17 February 2005 - 14:07
#26
Posted 17 February 2005 - 14:11
However, the change has now been made and - as others have said - the content's all that really matters.
And the content has, over the past number of years, left much to be desired.
#27
Posted 17 February 2005 - 14:12
Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
I dont care if it comes in a brown paper bag
It's now so hideous it ought to come in a brown paper bag .
#28
Posted 17 February 2005 - 16:26
Green Ferraris? It sounds a splendid idea to me! I'm off to Maranello with my spray-gun and a big tin of BRG!Originally posted by ian senior
Can you imagine the outcry if the present day Ferrari F1 team suddenly painted their cars green? It wouldn't affect the performance of the cars, but it just wouldn't seem right.
#29
Posted 17 February 2005 - 16:42
#30
Posted 17 February 2005 - 16:49
#31
Posted 17 February 2005 - 16:59
And with the greatest respect the content of your profile makes me feel the same way about you. It's so nice to know who you're talking to.Originally posted by djellison
Content isnt up to a standard high enough to make me care.
Doug
Buy you a beer at Retromobile in Paris tomorrow? That's a genuine offer ;)
#32
Posted 18 February 2005 - 11:17
Originally posted by Eric McLoughlin
With "Thinwall Special" written in white on the flanks.
Love it!
#33
Posted 18 February 2005 - 12:18
#34
Posted 18 February 2005 - 13:36
Originally posted by Vanwall
Erm, just combining a bit of teach yerself Photoshop with some community service work, gents.
Very Good; now all we need is a space between the "R" and the "S"
PdeRL
#35
Posted 18 February 2005 - 14:29
#36
Posted 18 February 2005 - 14:54
Originally posted by VAR1016
Very Good; now all we need is a space between the "R" and the "S"
PdeRL
Oh orright then! Incidentally, I stumbled upon another option from the days when we all had plenty of hair and fully functioning knees.
#37
Posted 18 February 2005 - 17:25
#38
Posted 18 February 2005 - 17:32
The second one is more practical. Motorsport used to be easy to see on the shelf. Now I have trouble seeing it for the copies of Autosport, Angler's Weekly, Remote Controlled Badger Monthly, and Big Creamy Jugs Amatuer Fortnightly. . . .
#39
Posted 18 February 2005 - 17:55
Curiously it had elements of red on the cover, but of course, very discreetly done.
The real shocker concerns the price: sixpence monthly.
For those too young to know, sixpence (written as 6d) - known as a "tanner" - was a fortieth part of £1 sterling.
I usually use a factor of fifty for price comparisons for that period. A tanner would therefore represent £1.25 in today's money.
It seems that magazine readers as well as smokers have been hit hard in the intervening period. 20 Senior Service cigarettes cost one shilling written 1/- (= two tanners - also known as a bob - 20/- to the pound sterling).
I bought a packet today - that is to say a packet of EU-castrated Senior Service - and they cost me £5.20 i.e. £5/4/- in real money; this represents a factor of 104.
Motor Sport is priced at £4.15 (£4/3/-). This represents a factor of 166 when compared to the 1937 price.
And there are more numerous advertisements; few as attractive as their forebears to my eyes.
PdeRL
Advertisement
#40
Posted 18 February 2005 - 19:07
Petrol is £4 a gallon - £3 of that is tax that goes straight to the government
So the cost price of £1 has 300% tax added to it to make £4 at the pumps
Cigarettes are a similar case.
Magazines have no tax at all on them - not even VAT
Magazine publishers seem to work on a cost + basis - the more they put up the price , the more readers they lose, the more they need to put up the price !
In 1969 Motor Sport sold 192,000 copies per month, - now they sell 29,000 per month - the last time figures were published 6 months ago - it may well currently be lower than that !
I know of no other motoring magazine - even the heavyweight glossy art paper ones like EVO that has 178 pages ( as opposed to Motor Sports 138 in current issue, normally nearer 100 ) tyhat cost more than £3.95 - they are all far too dear.
#41
Posted 18 February 2005 - 19:55
#42
Posted 18 February 2005 - 20:07
Originally posted by Maldwyn
The colour of the cover may be a minor issue when compared to the quality of the content but are the powers that be paying attention to this poll?
Have a look at Stuart Forrest's posts...
Why is he here?
(Look at his contributions - they appear to be, shall we say, of a similar nature...)
Mark
#43
Posted 18 February 2005 - 20:11
Originally posted by Maldwyn
The colour of the cover may be a minor issue when compared to the quality of the content but are the powers that be paying attention to this poll?
Paying attention? Of course.
Surprised at anything other than a vote in favour of green from TNF members? Of course not.
About to change back? No.
Whilst I we appreciate the effort of Stuart D in setting up this poll, the colour of the front cover really isn't up for debate, and I do feel that in going over the reasons why we changed I'm simply covering old ground. That said, TNF members represent core, original Motor Sport readers. Readers who used the colour of Motor Sport as a way of finding us on the bookshelf precisely because it was so familiar. As I've already said though, we need new readers to ensure that the magazine continues for another 80 years. To do this on a crowded and competitive bookstall a publisher needs to create striking covers that reach out and grab new readers. The old style cover was failing to do this - and unless you've just discovered Motor Sport you simply cannot appreciate this fact.
We never expected red to sit easily with TNF readers, but what we did hope was that the improvements we simultaneously made to the content would sit well with you. 5 months in, and with gradual development (a process that will continue over coming issues - some exciting developments in store that WILL please TNF'ers) I think we're doing that. Because we'd like you to tell us exactly what you do and don't like, we've set up a more detailed and useful survey at www.tgmc-surveys.co.uk/motorsport.htm . We will act on the results.
As for the cover price, yes we are expensive compared to other magazines, and magazines in general do not compare well on price alone to other goods such as fuel or cigarettes. Have you, however, compared us to the cost of books? Do that on a page by page or word by word basis and you'll find that we compare really rather well. As for our price against that of other magazines, well we're a very specialist magazine without an enormous base of advertising revenue to support us (in comparison to the new car market magazines, certainly). Our cover price has, I'm afraid, to be higher to fund the magazine. Check out what those of you who subscribe are paying per issue though. You'll get a nice surprise compared to the cover price. Those of you who don't subscribe, provided that you like the content, could save a great deal of money by doing so.
Oh, and drawing comparisons to a time many, many, many years ago when we sold 192,000 copies are irritating and irrelevant. Since then a few things have changed; television has arrived, man has walked on the moon, and the whole function and appeal of the magazine is entirely different.
#44
Posted 18 February 2005 - 20:18
And good on you
A fair amount of your past and present readership is here - as I'm sure you already know...
#45
Posted 18 February 2005 - 20:51
I accept all your points; in any case you are responsible to make it grow and I am sure you wouldn't change it if growth was not the ultimate goal.
But; what if the red cover doesn't bring what is expected?
I do like the better interior layout, but I can't believe the red will do the trick.
Were there any consumer tests to see what the reactions are on the red or green? (I agree, you can't test with TNF members, we can't live without the green cover.....)
If it doesn't bring higher sales, even though with the various changes it will be difficult te determine which change causes what, do give us back the green cover.
If we have to swallow the Red cover to keep MS alive........then we'll have to accept.
Better a red MS than no MS!
#46
Posted 18 February 2005 - 20:55
Originally posted by Stuart_Forrest
...Whilst I we appreciate the effort of Stuart D in setting up this poll, the colour of the front cover really isn't up for debate...
So, what's Question 16 in your questionnaire all about then? Complete with a text box for people's views...
"What did you like or dislike about the cover? (Please write in box)"
#47
Posted 18 February 2005 - 21:13
Originally posted by MCS
So, what's Question 16 in your questionnaire all about then? Complete with a text box for people's views...
"What did you like or dislike about the cover? (Please write in box)"
Well of course we expect a few people to comment on colour. Actually though we're more interested in finding out if you like archive shots compared to new, headshots to cars, secondary features that feature pre-war single seaters or seventies tin tops. It goes on from there. We thought it might be quite controversial to say "Apart from the colour, What did you like or dislike about the cover?" though....
#48
Posted 18 February 2005 - 23:23
#49
Posted 18 February 2005 - 23:49
Originally posted by Stuart_Forrest
Whilst I we appreciate the effort of Stuart D in setting up this poll, the colour of the front cover really isn't up for debate, and I do feel that in going over the reasons why we changed I'm simply covering old ground.
I'm sorry, but I find this very dissappointing. It is very sad that those who are involved with the production of Motor Sport seem to have less interest in the history and tradition of Britain's best magazine than its readership.
#50
Posted 19 February 2005 - 01:50
Originally posted by Stuart_Forrest
Whilst I we appreciate the effort of Stuart D in setting up this poll, the colour of the front cover really isn't up for debate, and I do feel that in going over the reasons why we changed I'm simply covering old ground. That said, TNF members represent core, original Motor Sport readers. Readers who used the colour of Motor Sport as a way of finding us on the bookshelf precisely because it was so familiar. As I've already said though, we need new readers to ensure that the magazine continues for another 80 years. To do this on a crowded and competitive bookstall a publisher needs to create striking covers that reach out and grab new readers. The old style cover was failing to do this - and unless you've just discovered Motor Sport you simply cannot appreciate this fact.
I think what was argued was that the new cover did exactly the opposite of that...the green made it more strinking than any other racing magazine on the shelf. Now it's read, it's just like any other magazine. Blends in with the surrounding titles.
Besides, a new cover alone wouldn't really attract new readers if the content isn't up to standard. I haven't actually bought any of the new magazines, so I can't really comment on the latest issues.