[Magazines] Autosport Magazine - Your Opinions (merged)

[Don Capps]

Edited in it's entirety.
Completely unnecessary in this thread.

[JJ Jet Plane]

This ones dead in the water too.......

[Suzy]

So, where do you draw the line about crashes? What will happen when Snapper Baz tries to submit a sequence of events to Club Autosport showing a driver crashing? People rave about those sequences - yet, if you take the applied "logic" here, then even showing those sequences is tabloid journalism and Ten-Tenths stoops that low at times too in the photography thread when the readers post pictures of crashes.

So, the only way round it really is to drop all photography from Autosport in case it upsets somebody.

We'll have a very serious journal of all text, no pictures, no smiles. Let's drop Jim Bamber's cartoon too because he sometimes depicts crashes in those too - and in a lighthearted way!

You think I'm going over the top do you? Well, you're right but that is the impression I get from reading this thread. Whether you like it or not, crashes do attract attention. I don't enjoy them (hell I've been at two races where a driver has died) but I've had to accept that they are part of motorsport. I detest crashes but I'm reguarly astounded that drivers walk away.

John McIlroy cannot please everybody. Neither can I for that matter. But what can he do? At the risk of repeating myself, In Gear failed because it is not what people are interested in. Autosport has had to change styles; we're constantly told how busy everybody is and how nobody has time to sit down and read stuff. How else do you explain the success of text messaging? (which is a load of unintelligable **** in my opinion). So, Autosport finds it has to move into the dumbed-down world and write short articles, have big pictures etc.

[John McIlroy]

Hi all,

If I was genuinely annoyed at ten-tenths I would not have made any attempt to reply. In such times as these, it would be considerably easier not to read any internet forums at all.

However, I do read forums, including AtlasF1, and take on board all comments that are made. All readership opinion is valid - even if it isn't what I'd obviously like to hear. There is a delicate, fragile line to tread between trying to bring new readers on board and still satisfying the hardcore following.

I make no secret of that - I've stated it several times before in various ten-tenths discussions on club coverage etc. And I am well used to resistance to any change - many moons ago I removed 'Short Weekenders' from then-Motoring News and replaced them with the basic newspaper principle of full-length rally reports, but actually the same week instead of a month out of date. And there were complaints, primarily from readers who used to enjoy Short Weekenders over their Wednesday morning breakfast...

The discussions here and elsewhere on changing the primary colour of a logo on another title are further proof. I feel desperately for Paul Fearnley and his hard-working team. They were in yesterday slaving over 'red-top' Motorsport and yet it seems their efforts have been judged on a purely, totally superficial level even before a single person has opened the magazine and read it.

However, I fail to see how any of my comments - frank though they have been - can add up to a 'crystal clear' statement that loyal readers do not matter.

In this case, there has obviously been a sizeable backlash to the accidents feature - being pragmatic, I'd obviously prefer to wait and see the balance of sales figures for that issue before drawing any conclusions on whether or not it was worthwhile. There are factors involved - loyal readership, floating readership, any long-term impact - that need to be assessed before a verdict can be reached from my perspective as Ed.

Regards,

John

[JimW]

Haymarket equals Spawn etc.

Perhaps you could give us a quick brief as to exactly what the you are talking about? :confused:

Autosport may not pander to all my preferences and I may not therefore be as regular a purchaser as they would like but I don't see the Haymarket reference. Yes, I know Haymarket are the owners and I'm sure that Autosport's priorities are set by company policy, but I'm still puzzled.

I've refreshed my memory by a quick look at the Haymarket magazines website and still don't see the problem. Dozens of magazines I don't read or even knew existed and a few I do read. None of them seem objectionable to me.

Regards

Jim

[PaulSands]

My original point wasn't about depicting crashes per-se, of course they are spectacular and do make great photo's, but about the 100 Greatest approach which really didnt seem appropriate in my eyes for a magazine that lets be honest is somewhat of a standard bearer and has always had a good reputation...it's nothing to do with harking back to "the old days" or anything like that. I certainly didn't want to prompt some of the venom and vitriol that has been forthcoming but I do still stand by my original assertion that it was cheap and inappropriate for Autosport.

[PaulSands]

Originally posted by John McIlroy
If I was genuinely annoyed at ten-tenths I would not have made any attempt to reply.

of course the question is what chance do I ever have of getting a picture published now

[Aysedasi]

Originally posted by JimW
Perhaps you could give us a quick brief as to exactly what the you are talking about? :confused:



Jim

Oh, I think I'd rather they didn't Jim, before this thread descends further into flame bait and accusation......

I'm close enough to pulling it now.

[Aysedasi]

Originally posted by PaulSands
I certainly didn't want to prompt some of the venom and vitriol that has been forthcoming....

I don't think you really did Paul. The thread has unfortunately been taken in that direction.

[Don Capps]

Sorry if I have ruffled any feathers, but had I not once upon a time had a genuine liking for Autosport I would have never a word. That I now have a generally bleak view of Autosport is simply the nature of things. As I mentioned, at some point Autosport simply stopped being of any interest to me and I very reluctantly dropped my subscription. I am not sure whether it matters -- or even should matter -- to John McIlroy or Paul Fearnley what I think. Indeed, my voicing an opinion is as much from the frustation of not being to enjoy what I once genuinely looked forward to each week as much as the displeasure at the lunacy of an oddly pitched short-term marketing ploy.

Now, I have said my last word on this and will not bother this august group any more.

[Aysedasi]

The opinion is one you're entitled to hold Don. I have a similar one, although probably gained for completely different reasons. As it happens, I still maintain my subscription in the hope that it will one day be realised that there is life in motor sport beyond F1......

But I will jump on any more flame-baiting idiocy in this or any other thread......

[TimD]

I've been away for the weekend, but I've just read through the responses with interest. I bought last week's Autosport as usual, as a reflex action, without really taking in the cover. It just went into the basket with the Motorsport News and the rest of the groceries.

John, a quick breakdown of my personal demographic ( ! ). I'm 36. I have purchased every single Autosport without fail, weekly, eagerly, since August 1st 1974. At a quick guesstimate, that's about 1560 magazines. I've been sufficiently keen on the title to go tracking down back issues so that I now have only 7 to find to complete the entire run to 1950.

Make that 8. Whereas every other edition has been carefully stored, filed, catalogued and placed on a bookshelf in chronological order along with 15 other significant worldwide titles, last week was different.

It's sitting in a waste bin somewhere in Cheltenham.

It's not the publishing of the pictures that's the problem. Every single one I have seen before as part of news reportage or in the context of a seasonal review or driver profile. It's not the reproduction of the pictures, as Redshoes suggested, in the context of a study of car and track safety it could have been a valuable article. In this context it was as useful to reasoned debate as a "Car Wars" or "Havoc" video, and I've not bought one of those in my entire life.

So the question is this: do I spend £2.80 this Thursday on another Autosport or do I invest in a prawn sandwich instead?

John, is this what you meant by backlash?

[Aysedasi]

Now that, if I may say so, is one very meaningful post........

[Andrew Kitson]

But maybe Tim ,you just might have to buy it, or sneak into the newsagents for a peek, to see how the letters page looks this week? I bet many have been received with similar views to us. If we are not happy (many of us collectors of the magazine as you are - sorry - were), what about those that do not use internet forums? Perhaps John could let us know the percentage of good vs bad response letters they have had?

[John McIlroy]

That's precisely what I meant.

As for your final question, TimD, I'm hardly in a position to give an answer. Either you'll appreciate what we've got in terms of news and features, or you won't. You might see our photoshoot of Prodrive's first and latest cars and think it's just wasted space where text could go (as some on this forum will undoubtedly think). Or see Mark Hughes putting Schumacher at Spa 1991 and 2004 into context and think 'It's just more F1' - as some on this forum will undoubtedly think.

That's the balancing act we perform every week. I'm obviously sorry that on this occasion - the first for several decades, it would appear - the issue fell short of what you expect from it. The same goes for everyone who has made similar comments on this forum. All I can continue to do is weigh up the balancing act each week and hope that your satisfaction with the product will be restored. If it isn't, then '100 Greatest Crashes' will have been a costly feature.

Andrew,

We have yet to be swamped by a sackful of mail complaining about last week's issue - although we did receive a couple of letters this morning to that effect. Equally, we received more letters praising Tony Purnell's idea for qualifying and well over 2000 completed polls on what people think of current F1...

Regards as always,

John

[Sato san]

i did try the net approach too , but to be honest ...nothing beats sitting back in your chair and having a good read of a motorsport mag ....

John McIlroy ...One thing i would say , i think we all understand that new readers need to be attracted etc ...but if Autosport can be taken back to the status of the Motorsport Bible ( as it always used to be called amongst its readers )that would surley do the trick for most people ... its some of the past Tabloid style headlines that actually make it more of a quick throwaway read for me ..

Im kind of in the middle of this one ....I really dont enjoy it as much as i used to years ago ...but then i still do still buy it .

i think your probally between the devil and deep blue sea...we know what we want to read and how we want Autosport to be ...but you need to make it profitable as well with new readers to keep it on the newsagents shelfs ..

[Andrew Kitson]

Thanks for the response John and indeed for giving us your side to the debate.
Now Tony's radical ideas to change F1 qualifying sound fantastic. No suprise that there is so much favourable comment. I just hope your ideas for the future of the magazine continue to keep us interested. Time will tell.

[ensign14]

Originally posted by John McIlroy
We have yet to be swamped by a sackful of mail complaining about last week's issue - although we did receive a couple of letters this morning to that effect.

Any in praise?

The 2000 responses re F1 is a little worrying and backs up what I have said elsewhere on the thread. I bet back in 1989 you would have got 2000 responses on the proposed *******ization of Group C. Now no-one has heard of most of the top sportscar events. 2000 people respond on F1, no-one responds on a crashfest.

[Aysedasi]

I haven't said a great deal here, although I've been bemoaning Autosport's increasing preoccupation with F1, F1 and F1 for some time now, but I would like to thank John for coming on here and giving us a bit more of an insight into the thought processes. The fact that he's prepared to come here and speak to us has to be a good thing - I'm sure there would be many more vitriolic comments if he (or someone else) hadn't.

Strangely enough, I didn't get upset about the crashes item. I didn't really think about it in the way others have - but I understand why they feel like they do.

I applauded Autosport for running the F1 poll and applauded again when the results were drawn to the attention of people involved in F1. I was also delighted with the Purnell qualifying scenario - if only the powers that be would listen......

I'm just an ordinary guy who loves motor sport but no longer swoons at the mere mention of "F1" or drools at the sight of a modern F1 car. This is why I can no longer take so much F1 and Schumacher idolatry in what I certainly used to regard as the "motorsport bible" (as previously mentioned). I'm sure Autosport needs to win new fans, new readers, but to what extent is it prepared to lose some of the old faithful?

[Andrew Kitson]

It is not the amount of F1 in the magazine over recent years that has changed my opinion of it for me, afterall Grand Prix racing thanks to Bernie is bigger in these modern times than it ever was. Even the man-in-the-street refers to all motor racing as F1, so Autosport has to feature it above anything else to sell copies. I remember in the days of Mansellmania, someone at Autosport told me that just putting Nigel on the front cover could guarantee an extra 15,000 sales.
Regarding the crash pictures,I think Tim summed it up perfectly. It is not the publishing of the pictures, we have seen them all before,indeed TV pictures of most.We know accidents happen, I've unfortunately seen with my own eyes marshals killed at Silverstone and other accidents where drivers have been killed including the fire at Brands when Siffert was lost so these pictures do not shock. I wish I had not seen these accidents 'live' but we do all look when a car goes off. But it is the way it is put together in the magazine that is shocking, a celebration of the greatest crashes in such a bold manner. It just does not suit the class of magazine that Autosport has always been. The '100' for example in big bold type with flames as a backdrop. A waste of a whole page when space is apparantely at a premium.
As others have pointed out, if the feature could have prompted debate about safety, the strength of the cars etc it could have been a useful feature. Perhaps the title of the feature upsets me most with the 100-1 countdown. As my girlfriend said to me when she saw the feature 'how do they determine which crash is best and what do they mean by best. Surely no crash can be great? She is not into Motorsports at all. So how did they?
As John truthfully points out,if new subscriptions are received it will have been worth it for them but will these 'new' subscribers expect similar features in the future? Perhaps 'The 100 Greatest Fireball Shunts' will be next. I sincerely hope not.

[Ian Sowman]

Changing tack a little - anyone who has seen Autosport Firstview today will notice that for two club meetings - Donington's Monday BARC event and the Silverstone Stowe two-dayer - had rather brief race reports this week. I say rather brief - I mean zero. Results only, no words. A sign of things to come? I hope not.

It was, as we know, a ridiculously busy weekend but MN carried reports of each meeting. This is perhaps one step too far...

[Aysedasi]

No crashes to photo.........?


(Sorry, that was cheap, but.......... )

[Chris Gray]

One thing I was miffed at with the issue that everyone's on about is that it said "16 pages extra" (or words to that effect) on the cover. The extra 16 pages was just one big advert for SEAT!!

[Aysedasi]

Not a lot on this week's letters page..........

........about last week's issue..........

[Fuzzyfelt]

This might be slightly off topic but....
I was scanning some websites for motorsport pictures to download when a thought struck me. The point of a racing car is to move (quickly) and the point of a photograph is to capture a moment. It could be argued that a picture capturing the kinetic energy of a crash or accident is inherently more interesting than a photo of a car (apparently) static on a track.

I know this sounds like an apparently flippant point to make but (imho) both photography and motorsport are (or should be) highly aesthetic.