 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Railroads / June 2004MR subscription
Below is an email I just sent to MR. Since I suspect its chances of appearing in the magazine are small, I thought I'd post it here. -------------------------------------------------------------- My subscription to MR expired with the May '04 issue. After almost 30 years I decided, for various reasons, not to renew. But I thought I'd keep an eye out for a good price offer if you made one and maybe reconsider. No such luck. Right up to the last notice the renewal was $39.95. So that was that. But because I wanted my collection to finish out the year, I decided to buy the rest of 2004 off the rack. I got the June issue the other day. Surprise! A yearly price of $26.95 for "new subscribers only". Evidently, you decided that attracting new subscribers was more important than retaining old ones. That's certainly your right, but it definitely solidifed my non-renewal decision. Just to rub salt in the wound, I got an "overdue" notice from you after that. Yep, still $39.95. Would it have hurt to match the new subscriber rate at that point? After that show of disregard for us long-termers, I wouldn't renew if you offered it for $5 a year! Or, to paraphrase the country classic: Take your rag and shove it, I won't buy it anymore. ---------------------------------------------------------------- BTW, this must be a fairly new offer. The only other newsstand copy I had access to was last October, and it was quoting the normal $39.95.  SignatureWhatsoever, for any cause, Seeketh to take or give, Power above or beyond the Laws, Suffer it not to live! Holy State or Holy King or Holy People's Will, Have no truck with the senseless thing, Order the guns and kill! Rudyard Kipling -- Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs? i certainly agree larry, and i subscribed not long ago. i will not be renewing come december. the final blow for me was a few weeks ago when i picked up 12 old mr and mrc issues at a little shop for a quarter each. wow - those mrs are great, and they're about three times the thickness of current ones. they are full of interesting articles, as opposed to the volumes of ads we get now. the mrc issues look good too, i think i'll try them next year instead. calvin. > Below is an email I just sent to MR. Since I suspect its > chances of appearing in the magazine are small, I thought I'd [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > copy I had access to was last October, and it was quoting the > normal $39.95. > i certainly agree larry, and i subscribed not long ago. i will not be > renewing come december. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > are full of interesting articles, as opposed to the volumes of ads we > get now. And if you like to build things, the even older MRs from the 60s were not as thick as the current ones, but had a lot more do-it- yourself stuff. Structures, scenery, electronics, cars, locos, whatever. SignatureWhere ARE those Iraqi WMDs? On Thu, 20 May 2004 16:49:48 UTC, Larry Blanchard <lblanch@fastmail.fm> wrote: 2000 > And if you like to build things, the even older MRs from the 60s > were not as thick as the current ones, but had a lot more do-it- > yourself stuff. Structures, scenery, electronics, cars, locos, > whatever. I let my MR subscription lapse in April after more than 40 years. I noticed that I was going through MR more and more quickly the last few years. Not enough to keep me interested. Signatureernie fisch Good for you Larry; I did not renew my sub to MR either and for the very same reason. With all the advertising that is in each issue, one would think that kalmbach could give the magazines away and still make money! In the renewal notices that I receive, there is also included a red paper stating something to the effect of "Don't buy this magazine from any third party vendors. We will not honor their cheap subscription rates!" Seems as though Kalmbach is experiencing some financial dificulties the way that they are after our money. By the way, it is not just MR, it is all the rags put out by Kalmbach that include that red paper and have such high sub rates. I like MR but I will not sub to it any more until the rates come down a bit. $26.95 a year, maybe. Not 40 bux a year though. I will just buy off the shelf once in a while if there is an article that I just can't live without. MRC is a nice mag. In fact I just bought the latest issue a week ago. I may sub to it. We'll see. Have a good one, Dan Harriman Orange, Texas Larry Blanchard <lblanch@fastmail.fm> wrote in news:2h24ncF7uqhrU1 @uni-berlin.de: > Below is an email I just sent to MR. Since I suspect its > chances of appearing in the magazine are small, I thought I'd [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > important than retaining old ones. That's certainly your right, > but it definitely solidifed my non-renewal decision. > Seems as though Kalmbach is experiencing some > financial dificulties the way that they are after our money. > I like MR but I will not sub to it any more until the rates come down > a bit. $26.95 a year, maybe. That's the first time I'd seen that price - maybe they are having some problems. Seems I'd heard that all magazines are losing subscribers, there's just too much competition from online sources. SignatureWhere ARE those Iraqi WMDs? >Good for you Larry; >I did not renew my sub to MR either and for the very same reason. >With all the advertising that is in each issue, one would think that >kalmbach could give the magazines away and still make money! I've been an amateur photographer for most of my life. I use old manual focus 35mm film equipment and am happy with it, and don't plan to go autofocus or digital anytime soon. I used to read 4 different photo mags every month, but stopped subscribing years ago. Last fall when my 11 year old son was selling magazines for school, I decided to subscribe to Popular Photography after many years of not reading it. It was 9.97 for the subscription. I've been pleasantly surprised that the magazine has not gone totally digital, but I only planned on keeping it until the subscription ran out. I figured they'd go up to 20 or 30 dollars a year, or more. Well, guess what... 1 year is STILL 9.97. In fact, if I want I can get 2 years for 14.97 or 3 years for 19.97. At the 3 year rate, that'd only be 6.6566667 a year. Or to round it off, $6.66. Yes, It's a kind of demonic price, but a HELL (pardon the pun) of a lot more affordable than 39.95 for Model Railroader renewals. I'm actually considering renewing for 3 years. I personally have not subscribed to MR, nor bought shelf copies in years. I couldn't believe a single copy price was $4.95 when I looked through one a few days ago in a grocery store. The magazine is simply not worth that much. http://www.netmagazines.com/ 6-12 weeks till it starts, mine just extended the current subscription after the last issue. Paid $14.95 with $5.00 paypal discount voucher... Steve > http://www.netmagazines.com/ > 6-12 weeks till it starts, mine just extended the current subscription after > the last issue. Paid $14.95 with $5.00 paypal discount voucher... Great price! Thanks for the tip. Steve, Thanks for the link and PLEASE let us know how this works out for you. With all the warnings issued by Kalmbach I would sure be pleased to find a lower cost source. I noticed that they also carry Railroad Model Craftsman but not Model Railroading or Mainline Modeler. Thanks again, Allen > http://www.netmagazines.com/ > > 6-12 weeks till it starts, mine just extended the current subscription after > the last issue. Paid $14.95 with $5.00 paypal discount voucher... > > Steve Member of the club I belong to was over last night for a work party in my train room - had the invoice and his first issue (MR called it a renewal, though he'd entered 'new' on the subscription form) - from this outfit. Said he'd inadvertently let his sub lapse, spotted this and gave it a try. So, seems legit. No indication what subsequent years might cost, but even one year at a net of $14.95 is a lot better than what MR charges. Makes you wonder if their insert is a desperate attempt to keep the bottom line in the black. And in spite of the insert, they are honoring the subscription... Matt > Steve, > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- > I personally have not subscribed to MR, nor bought shelf copies in > years. I couldn't believe a single copy price was $4.95 when I looked > through one a few days ago in a grocery store. > > The magazine is simply not worth that much. MRR cost 25 cents in the mid-50s when I started buying it at the local hardware store (which also sold model railroad stuff). That's $5 in today's money. No change, IOW. I wish people would stop whingeing about prices. Seems like everybody wants today's wages and decades-old prices. Just about everything is cheaper in _real_ money nowadays. Eg, gas was around 30 cents an imperial gallon in the late 50s. That's around $6 in today's money, or about $1.50 a litre - quite a bit more than the 95 cents or so we're currently paying in Ontario. (A US gallon should be $4 to $5US to match inflation-adjusted 1950s gas prices.) (Footnote on inflation calculation below.) Or look at it in terms of how long you have to work to earn what you want. You'll find that most things cost way less in earning time than they did 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago. Eg, in 1956 I worked a week at 1-1/2 times minimum wage to buy my first pair of dress shoes. A pair of dress shoes now costs about 8 hours at 1-1/2 times (Ontario's) minimum wage, or one day. A cheap TV set cost me about 7-1/2 weeks at my then wage rate. Today it would cost two to three weeks - and that's a colour set, too. The good old days never were - it's just the pink haze of nostalgia fooling your memory. Footnote: I'm using the maximum salary of a Canadian high school teacher as my base, even though teachers' salaries have _not_ kept pace with inflation. Mid 50s. the max. salary was around $3000-3500 Can. Today it's around $60,000 - $70,000, which yields an inflation-multiplier of 20. That's a "conservative" muliplier, ie, too low, but IMO is good enough for an estimate. It also reveals the reality that real prices for different goods and service have inflated at different rates. If you go to this web site (http://www.eh.net/hmit/compare/) and use the Consumer Price Index for the change in the US Dollar .... 25 cents in 1955 only equates to $1.72 in 2003 !!! >> I personally have not subscribed to MR, nor bought shelf copies in >> years. I couldn't believe a single copy price was $4.95 when I looked [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >enough for an estimate. It also reveals the reality that real prices for >different goods and service have inflated at different rates. >If you go to this web site (http://www.eh.net/hmit/compare/) and use >the Consumer Price Index for the change in the US Dollar .... 25 cents >in 1955 only equates to $1.72 in 2003 !!! I could see paying $1.99 per issue, but not 5 bucks. Even if the price equivalent works to near equal in terms of inflation- the cost per magazine should be much less due to increased productivity and new technologies. If they can't provide more with their ~$5.00 newsstand price........they're done. Tom H> > MRR cost 25 cents in the mid-50s when I started buying it at the local > hardware store (which also sold model railroad stuff). That's $5 in > today's money. No change, IOW. On Wed, 26 May 2004 07:31:16 UTC, "Tom Hannon" <thannon@_removeths.stny.rr.com> wrote: 2000 > Even if the price equivalent works to near equal in terms of inflation- the > cost per magazine should be much less due to increased productivity and new > technologies. If they can't provide more with their ~$5.00 newsstand > price........they're done. My problem is not the price, it is the content, or lack thereof. If there was content I would buy. Signatureernie fisch > Even if the price equivalent works to near equal in terms of inflation- the > cost per magazine should be much less due to increased productivity and new > technologies. If they can't provide more with their ~$5.00 newsstand > price........they're done. > > Tom H> The productivity improvements are right there, for example in the colour pictures on every page. I remember when MR advertised that it had four - count 'em, four! - colour pages in an issue.... Etc. Oh, I see, you mean _content_. I suppose you want more how-to articles, and such. Well, if nobody writes 'em, the magazine can't publish 'em. >Well, if nobody writes 'em, the magazine can't publish 'em.< MR has a style that puts off many writers that _would_ contribute to them. First, they pay you and then it might be years before you see the article. Second, they rewrite the article to fit their form and format. Some writer have said they don't even recognize their own work. These two items limit the persons who will write for them in this day and age when there are many choices to get published. > >Well, if nobody writes 'em, the magazine can't publish 'em.< > MR has a style that puts off many writers that _would_ contribute to > them. First, they pay you and then it might be years before you see the > article. Hi Jon, I always thought that they paid at the time of publication. Or has this policy changed? Second, they rewrite the article to fit their form and format. > Some writer have said they don't even recognize their own work. > These two items limit the persons who will write for them in this day > and age when there are many choices to get published. Do the other publications not do any editing at all? #$% >Hi Jon, I always thought that they paid at the time of publication. Or has this policy changed?< MR pays when the article is accepted. This could be months or years before it is published. I think I even remember when an author was dead before his article was published. >Do the other publications not do any editing at all?< Depending on the author but I know a few that are trusted so well there is little if any editing. [saves a bunch of time not having to edit] And this is done in more than one mag! ...snip... > Second, they rewrite the article to fit their form and format. > >>Some writer have said they don't even recognize their own work. Doesn't surprise me. A lot of people don't realise how badly they write. Most people seem to believe that that if they understand what they've written, so will every other reader. That's just not so. The main reason is that speech and writing aren't processed and understood the same way -- IOW, just because you can explain something clearly in speech doesn't mean that you can do so in writing. Most amateur writers write as they speak, which is in fact the best way to create a first draft. But that first draft must be edited, sometimes more than a thoroughly. :-) (The other common error that amateur writers fall into is trying to produce a "literary" or "correct" style, which _always_ results in errors.) Conversely, just because something reads well doesn't mean it will sound good or even clear when it's read aloud. (Not to mention that reading aloud is a skill very few people have mastered.) > Do the other publications not do any editing at all? Oh sure, editors everywhere obviously try to fix spelling and grammar, but standards are deteriorating (mostly because of so-called spell checkers.) For example, I'm getting more than a little tired of "low and behold," one of the stupidest spelling errors out there. I mean, low what? Or does the writer mean the reader should make a noise like a contented cow? Ah, well, back to modelling - I have to adjst a pair of couplers. >Most amateur writers write as they speak, which is in fact the best way to create a first draft. But that first draft must be edited, sometimes more than a thoroughly. :-) (The other common error that amateur writers fall into is trying to produce a "literary" or "correct" style, which _always_ results in errors.)< Wolf, In most part I will agree with you. Here is the MR take. They rewrite everything even from accomplished writers, in fact they even would rewrite a language professor's work if he ever sent it to them. I could name names and articles for years but I won't as I think that carries the discussion to far. MR does keep typos from happening that most of the other mags don't. A prime example was my latest copy of RMJ. A performance review of a proto 2K 2-8-4 complete with pictures of a Burlington diesel<VBG>. MR would never have this happen but then MR doesn't have performance reviews that have the same testing techniques that go back 20 years either. Reason for that, don't take a chance of pissing off your advertisers. The bottom line is that there is a growing group that will puts up with the typos and different style of writers for content. Something that MR is getting slimmer and slimmer on. In the old days (50 cents an issue days) there were basically two mags, MR and RMC. Current time there are many more and I subscribe to 4 of them (MR is not one of them). For me it has nothing to do with cost, it's content! When I submitted a piece for "One Person's Opinion," they only changed one sentence, and that was to reflect information that I wasn't totally familiar with so it sounded unclear. But then again, that was an opinion piece, not a step by step construction article or something like that. dlm > >Most amateur writers write as they speak, which is in fact the best way > to create a first draft. But that first draft must be edited, sometimes [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > (MR is not one of them). For me it has nothing to do with cost, it's > content! > When I submitted a piece for "One Person's Opinion," they only changed one > sentence, and that was to reflect information that I wasn't totally familiar > with so it sounded unclear. They should have renamed it Two People's Opionion! >>Well, if nobody writes 'em, the magazine can't publish 'em.< > MR has a style that puts off many writers that _would_ contribute to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > These two items limit the persons who will write for them in this day >and age when there are many choices to get published. And what magazine doesn't rewrite you? I never met one. Even the top mystery and SC authors have been rewritten sometimes to the point of un recognizability. It is a fact of periodical publishing life, everyone gets rewritten. Some people think each golden word they type should be kept sacrosanct and enshrined forever but those egos have no clue as to what the magazine needs. One month they may not have as much room for an item and must trim it, Other months they will have too much space and it must be expanded or another article of more appropriate length substituted. Sometimes the photos are so good they cut text to include more images. It isn't personal, it is just the way things are. The biggest problem for a long time was MR had among the highest standards for photos in the magazine business and many writers simply were not equipped to take photos of the caliber MR demanded, so many articles were rejected on the basis of inferior photography. Recently they have loosened up a bit and even allow high end digital photos. Still you had better be a good photographer or have a friend who is one and willing to assist or even the best article will never see publication. Sadly publication is not as big a problem for photographers as writers since MR has published numerous articles which consisted almost solely of photos. cat > Even the top mystery and SC authors have been rewritten > sometimes to the point of un recognizability. I don't recognize "SC" - did you mean "SF"? SignatureSteve Caple >> Even the top mystery and SC authors have been rewritten >> sometimes to the point of un recognizability. > >I don't recognize "SC" - did you mean "SF"? Indeed. Clumsy paws strike again. cat Well, , , Every company is doing the same thing. DishTV, Verizon telephone, and almost every service company, including most magazines that I know of. My membership in the ARRL (Amateur Radio) is the same also,I noticed the same thing, and resented it until it dawned on me that this is the "new generation" asserting themselves, and making $$$$ instead of careing about their subscribers. Get used to it!! Ron C. =================== >Below is an email I just sent to MR. Since I suspect its >chances of appearing in the magazine are small, I thought I'd [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >copy I had access to was last October, and it was quoting the >normal $39.95. > Well, , , Every company is doing the same thing. DishTV, Verizon > telephone, and almost every service company, including most magazines > that I know of. My membership in the ARRL (Amateur Radio) is the same > also,I noticed the same thing, and resented it until it dawned on me > that this is the "new generation" asserting themselves, and making > $$$$ instead of careing about their subscribers. >>>>>>>>>>>>Spoken like a true comm ie, pinko, lefty, plastic banana, good time rock and roll liberal. Think the way China, North Korea, North Vietnam, Cuba and the old USSR!!! Business is for the good of the people!! Profits are evil!!!! Down with business! Let the government be involved in businesses, not the people!!! > Get used to it!! > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > >copy I had access to was last October, and it was quoting the > >normal $39.95. > >>>>>>>>>>>>Spoken like a true comm ie, pinko, lefty, plastic banana, > good time rock and roll liberal. Think the way China, North Korea, > North Vietnam, Cuba and the old USSR!!! Business is for the good of > the people!! Profits are evil!!!! Down with business! Let the > government be involved in businesses, not the people!!! Misplaced our medications, have we? SignatureWhere ARE those Iraqi WMDs? Nicely said, Larry. I too let my sub expire back in February, partly because of cost vs. value, partly because I'm in a unique situation. The model RR club I belong to has a complete collection of MR, from Vol. 1 No.1 to the present, and maintains a subscription to keep the collection complete. And it just happens that said collection is stored at my place, so there was no point in getting 2 copies every month. I read the club's copy, then put it on the shelf with the rest of them. Nonetheless, I'd decided several months before my sub expired not to renew. I pick up a couple of other mags (RMC and RailModel Journal) at a local HS regularly, and get more out of either of them that I've gotten out of MR the last few years. Matt > Below is an email I just sent to MR. Since I suspect its > chances of appearing in the magazine are small, I thought I'd [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > copy I had access to was last October, and it was quoting the > normal $39.95. > I read the club's copy, then put it on the shelf with > the rest of them. Best solution - a club of 100 members could pass it around and everyone be done with it in a week, based on reading time alone. SignatureSteve Caple > Nicely said, Larry. I too let my sub expire back in February, partly > because of cost vs. value, partly because I'm in a unique situation. The > model RR club I belong to has a complete collection of MR, from Vol. 1 No.1 > to the present, and maintains a subscription to keep the collection > complete. And it just happens that said collection is stored at my place, > so there was no point in getting 2 copies every month. I'll probably pick up a copy at the local library now and then. I've been gradually building an index of my collection (mid 1959 to mid 2004 = 45 years) and some interesting trends are developing. I'll report when I get through. I'm not indexing articles that were interesting to read, I'm indexing construction stuff for future projects. Mostly structures, but also cars, locomotives, electronics, and anything else that I might want to go back and build. I should report that I got a very nice letter from Terry Thompson thanking me for my years as a subscriber and saying they were sorry to see me go. He said they don't do a lot of the low cost offers because they're essentially loss leaders. He also said that advertising income doesn't come close to covering the magazine costs. That surprises me! I may write back on that. SignatureWhere ARE those Iraqi WMDs? > He also said that advertising income doesn't come close to > covering the magazine costs. That surprises me! I may write > back on that. That's interesting because I receive several magazines free that are fully supported by advertising. These are subscriptions from my days in the computer industry that I still keep going. Now I'll admit that the advertisers in these magazines, such as Microsoft, Cisco, IBM, etc., probably are paying a lot more for ad space in these magazines than Walthers, Athearn, and Overland, etc., are paying for ad space in the hobby magazines. Therein probably lies the difference. SignatureRick Jones Remove the Extra Dot to e-mail me The Lake Erie & Oregon Railroad http://www.geocities.com/seventysixinchesoffun/ Baker's trade recipes on a knead to know basis. >> He also said that advertising income doesn't come close to covering >> the magazine costs. That surprises me! I may write back on that. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Walthers, Athearn, and Overland, etc., are paying for ad space in the > hobby magazines. Therein probably lies the difference. And the reason Kalmbach can't charge very high ad rates is that they would be passed on to us, and we would get even more whingeing about the High Cost Of The Hobby. There ain't no free lunch, guys! And if your work is worth a "comfortable" wage, so is the work of the people who provide you with your model railroading jollies..... >And the reason Kalmbach can't charge very high ad rates is that they would be passed on to us, and we would get even more whingeing about the High Cost Of The Hobby.< I check the cost of an ad in MR and thought the cost was outrageous compared to the other mags. But then costs are based on circulation. That's why these _good deals_ are around even though Kalmbach doesn't want current subscribers to know. Helps get the circulation up and therefor the ad prices up. >Below is an email I just sent to MR. Since I suspect its >chances of appearing in the magazine are small, I thought I'd [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >important than retaining old ones. That's certainly your right, >but it definitely solidifed my non-renewal decision. I agree with you 100% on this matter, and I've noticed other magazines use this same tactic. Apartment buildings do this too. Instead of leaving your rent the same or giving you a break starting with your 2nd year, many complexes raise your rent anywhere from a few dollars to a hundred or more a month, yet they offer new tenants the old cheaper rate, or in some cases reduced rates. You'd think they'd be more interested in preserving long-term tenants, but I honestly believe apartment buildings encourage people to constantly move in and out. I guess they must make money off people breaking their leases and such. I do not subscribe to MR because the content is lacking. When a magazine has more advertising pages than content pages (I count the "New Products" section to be advertising), I say no thank you. I get N-ScaleMagazine and The NArrow Gauge and Short Line Gazette. Both much better publications, more info and tips. SignatureWill N Scale - Credit Valley Railway www.muskokacomputes.com/CVR_Home.htm I think that of any modern magazine, any hobby Im in, 4wdin, trains, bikes, motorbikes, etc. >I do not subscribe to MR because the content is lacking. >When a magazine has more advertising pages than content pages (I count the >"New Products" section to be advertising), I say no thank you. > >I get N-ScaleMagazine and The NArrow Gauge and Short Line Gazette. Both much >better publications, more info and tips. > I guess they must make money off people breaking their leases > and such. Refusing to return security deposits is a typicl scam - most of the victimes haven't the wherewithal to fight it. SignatureSteve Caple >> I guess they must make money off people breaking their leases >> and such. > >Refusing to return security deposits is a typicl scam - most >of the victimes haven't the wherewithal to fight it. I had that happen to me. I moved from AMLI in Gainesville, GA to another apartment complex in Marietta, GA. I'd lived at AMLI for 2 years. Occassionally my work (which incidentally I am a conductor/brakeman for Norfolk Southern) takes me back to Gainesville. I have checked with them several times via mail, phone and in person and the last time I went up there, and after they'd changed management personel, I was told they had no record of me living there. Ironically, when I once visited the AMLI apartments at Town Center (off Barrett Parkway), and mentioned being a former AMLI tenant, they were falling all over me to rent from them, even to the point of waiving the security fee. After awhile I stopped looking for an apartment and bought a house. The AMLI at Gainesville had told me earlier that they were checking into why I hadn't received my deposit refund, then all of a sudden they had no record of me living there. It was only 100 dollars, but still, that's a good bit. As a side note...the complex I lived in at Marietta returned my deposit in full about a month or so after I moved out. AMLI in Gainesville has never contacted me again. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.