[Magazines] Autosport requests your input on redesign

[MrTTraces]

Dear Autosport,

I do love these AA meetings (Autosport anonymous).

I have been a subscriber to your magazine for 7 years I think (I’ll have to check my dates to be accurate). I’ll be honest; the quality of the magazine is not as good as it used to be a few years ago but despite my repeated threats to myself to cancel my subscription I haven’t.

What I would like to see in the mag….

First of all I would like to see less F1 in the mag. F1 is more political these days and isn’t as good as it used to be, (the voices in my head keep telling me to stop watching but like my autosport subscription I can’t bring myself to do it). I have no doubt the Hamilton penalty fiasco will dominate this week but do we really need pages and pages of F1?

Autosport should not be using tabloid style tactics and headlines to chase readers, in my opinion it cheapens the magazine.

How about extending the results round up? Instead of cramming it into 2 or 3 pages and giving just 1 paragraph or small report why not dedicate several pages to it. How about a 2 page spread for each continent (USA, Europe, Australasia and Other) and extending the race reports a little, maybe adding more reports in that under the current format would not get printed due to not enough space.

Why not bring back the crossword and maybe a weekly motorsport quiz offering a motorsport related prize.

One last thing (for the moment), why not invite readers to submit race reports, this would encourage young people looking to get into motorsport journalism to write stuff and sharpen their skills. I’m sure there are club race meetings or foreign races for the results round up that you haven’t got covered. Ok not all the reports will be of magazine quality or even basic quality and it would be once in a blue moon that you’d use one but how about a small section giving readers feedback for them (possibly featured on a 2 page spread after the letters page incorporating the crossword, quiz, maybe extending the letters page itself).

I hope this makes sense.

Thank you

[the sniper]

Originally Posted by Pete Fenelon

As for this week's "IS MEGA BRILLIANT STUNNING F1 FIXED?".... several pages wasted just to say "Er, no, but some fans who don't like Bernieworld think so, but no, we don't want to lose our passes". Waste of valuable trees.

What, did you want them to lie and say it is? I didn't expect to, but I agreed with their analysis of the situation, they didn't get rapped up in Hamilton bias, they pointed out to people that he was technically in the wrong but explained the problems with the FIA and why he shouldn't of been punished. I thought this was important as a lot of people have just rejected any reason why the FIA could have viewed the incident as a breach of the rules, just believe the whole thing was because the FIA are biased towards Ferrari.

Originally Posted by Super Hans

Super League Formula received a glossy build-up and a lot of positive comment, when I'd like to have seen it dismissed as the insult to our intelligence it clearly is.

I fully agree with you on this, I thought Super League must have been paying them to write nice things, as the series is a pointless pile of poo!

[Fiorentina 1]

Oh ya, and the number 1 thing you can change is the lame tabloid headlines on the covers like in this weeks Autosport. Come on, what does having, "Is F1 Fixed?" do for the sport or for autosport's reputation as the world's leading racing weekly? Why couldn't you have something like, "Hamilton Stripped of Brilliant Win" or something like that. Next thing you'll have headlines on the cover about who the F1 drivers are dating....

[Pete Fenelon]

Originally Posted by the sniper

What, did you want them to lie and say it is? I didn't expect to, but I agreed with their analysis of the situation, they didn't get rapped up in Hamilton bias, they pointed out to people that he was technically in the wrong but explained the problems with the FIA and why he shouldn't of been punished. I thought this was important as a lot of people have just rejected any reason why the FIA could have viewed the incident as a breach of the rules, just believe the whole thing was because the FIA are biased towards Ferrari.

I agree with you. And I think that deserved about half a page, tops, not screaming banner headlines and pages of hyperbole.

[Chiefy]

Some (constructive?) criticism, actually, on your review of Formula Football's opener in Donington: your reporter was fly-tipping soccer puns like they were going out of fashion. First half? Second half? Slide tackles?

I get the joke. It was kinda funny. But it'll become impossible to read if that's how it's going to be time and time again.

No other criticisms, though.

Thanks,
Chiefy.

[haddock]

I've written at great length a couple of years back on what I want from motorsports writing more generally - see

http://motorsportsramblings.blogspot...ite-stuff.html

But in short - longer word counts, more coverage of non-F1 racing, less tabloidy news section and KEEP Mark Hughes.

[Snapper Baz]

Ok Andrew,
as you may know I help with race reports and pics in the mag every so often but have bought every issue since 73' when Stewart won at Monaco (at least I think he did as it was a long time ago!). I always started at the front of the mag in those days but for the last 6 or 7 years I now start at the back first-its far more interesting. National Motorsport is where my main interests lie and with many others, the news, the pics and race reports...I then continue to thumb through from the back and then glance at the F1 stuff.

Sure I like F1 but to me NASCAR and IRL is much more exciting and miles more interesting to watch and read yet it gets a fraction of the coverage it deserves where as F1 gets far too much coverage. If I want to read endless amounts on F1 I go and buy F1 Mag or just watch the "race"-I don't need all the hype thrust in my face page after page...even the star letter is 99% on a F1 topic!

Myself and Dud Candler did a lot of race coverage for "Ingear" magazine..I also did pictures to go with the race reports. It was doomed as could be seen after the first 5 or 6 issues as they tried to cover too much (by that I mean too many diverse arears of the sport) though a lot of that was because people were supplying stuff for free so they used it. But...it had the right idea in that National motorsport was being given the space it deserved which Autosport wasn't/isn't sadly.

It also seems that a historic event gets more space as a certain editor likes that sort of stuff with other meetings suffering because of it. In my mind expand the national/club scene along with NASCAR & IRL (sometimes I have seen a Brazilian touring car event get twice as much coverage as a NASCAR round...what the hell!) maybe a small section on marshalling each week...after all that is huge population that buys the magazine and cut the F1 coverage down a lot!!

It is a great magazine and always has been but there is room for improvement in some areas...how about offering Autosport subscribers a drastic subscription on F1 mag unlike their (F1's) normal subscribers...that way you kill two birds with one stone? Keep up the good work there in Teddington!!

Baz

[Mike E]

The (not) surprising thing about all this is we are all saying the same things: less F1 on the cover, more acknowledgment of other categories, fewer daft attention grabbing headlines, more grown up writing, more technical features (like track tests), a sense of the history of our fantastic sport.

[ian beckett]

It is interesting that the recurring theme of comments seems to be a desire to see less F1 related material.I hope that Autosport will relay these sentiments to the powers that be of this branch of the sport?

[robert2000]

To be honest, I wasn't sure what to write about this until I saw this week's edition.

Please stop talking down to readers. Case in point...

Originally Posted by Autosport

The evidence says Formula 1 is not fixed - the problem is a lot of fans think it is.

Now, instead of saying about how it's a contentious issue and just presenting the facts, Autosport forces an opinion on the reader. Myself, I don't think F1 is fixed, but by presenting statements like this you are implying that a lot of fans are stupid, can't make up their own minds or are ferocious nationalists. Please just report the facts.

Examining "Pundit's Corner", where "Autosport's experts give their verdict on the Hamilton penalty", leads me to believe that as well as some egotistical editorialising we have an unwillingness to present both sides of the argument. Wouldn't it have been better to get two people in F1 with opposing opinions to write half a page each and let the reader come up with their own conclusion?

Also, I'd prefer more intelligent writing. Autosport seems to be heading towards tabloid journalism at the moment. What else would I like to see - longer word counts, fewer attention grabbing headlines, more historical features, less coverage of F1 (a 14 page race report!), the acknowledgment of NASCAR as a real category and not restricting it to two columns when Formula Renault 3.5 gets several pages, more club/national coverage.

Also, features like good week/bad week suggest you are trying to cater to people with tiny minds. I'm not an idiot, I've read the articles and watched the races, so please don't waste space on the page that you could be using for categories that don't get as much coverage as others.

Thanks.

[driftwood]

Just found the thread didnt read all the posts seems most are saying the same thing

I have nearly 40 years of Autosports in my collection ( oddily enough i am relocating some now and cant help flicking through a 1984 or 89 or 94 issue as i move the boxes) but for the last 3 years I have bought only a handful of them normally when i am in them from the weekends racing or when i have placed a damned expansive advert in them

Every month the young sales rep phones me to part with my ££ and i keep telling the guys ( they change every 5-7 months! ) to tell the heirachy that the magazine is **** and the real racers have stopped buyng it so why shuld i advertis ein the magazine?
OK they may have 400 000 weekly sales but i dont want the Sun reader type who just watch the GP at the weekend never visit a club race as they do not read my advert to buy my goods

I find the stories poor waffling on for 8 pages about F1 and did Hamilton fart in his car in the test or the race
Club racing scene is poorly reported race reports slashed to the point of did they actually turn up to race
The results are so small and i can never read the circuit or date in the daft format they have so i either look at a foto to guess the track or look at a formula and fastest lap to deduce the track ( i am getting good at that!!)

The For Sale section for cars n parts is so expensive to advertise in they have barely 2 pages each week if you look at a mag from 10 15 20 years ago 3-5 pages of cars parts for sale
Now it is full of REGULAR ADVERTISERS BOOK SHOPPS TRAILER TRUCK SUPPLIERS ETC how dull is that

Motoring news is now called Motorsport news and owned by Haymarket so what is the point of that the same race reports gossip is reported
I have for 5 years told teh sales rep to get the Fat controller fo AS to actually call me listen to what folk like me have to say
I am a racer a trader a race car fan ( i have 10 cars) and have a library of 35-40 years worth of AS mags and much prefer reading the old mags and with the current format of AS i do not waste my hard earned ££ advertisng in the magazine as the real racers who i want are not buying it anymore
I bet the man man does not even read ths thread
I await his direct email to me wanting to converse with me

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by driftwood

OK they may have 400 000 weekly sales but i dont want the Sun reader type who just watch the GP at the weekend never visit a club race as they do not read my advert to buy my goods

Is Autosport's circulation really 400K/week ? If so then a good chunk must be Sun reader types who buy it for the tabloid-esq rubbish. That would also explain why the magazine format's so different from the 70s and 80s where its appeal rested with the real motorsport fan. It would follow therefore that our opinions here are less relevant.

If Autosport's circulation's significantly less than 400K... then I take back all of the above !

[driftwood]

its irrelevent what the circulation is the whole thing is geared towards the sunday gp viewers who are not real race car fans
i know zilch about tennis but i do watch wimbledon each year im sure there are 2 tennis magazines 1 for dummies with words of no more than 2 sylables and the real tennis fans with the real news and info not " gossip" irrelevent info as we get with AS these days
as an advertiser i dont want the sunday viewers i want the real race guys but they have turned off from the magazine and at the price sthey charge for advrets i take my ££ elsewhere and spend it to get a better effect

i dont think ive read an AS over the past 3 years from cover to cover yet i will read an older magazine its just a far better magazine back then

[Pete Fenelon]

400,000?

I think they'd be happy with a tenth of that.

The latest ABC figures I can find (to year end 2006) show 38.5k copies.

I don't want to speculate on what it's done in the last 18 months - the general downtrend in magazine sales combined with the Hamiltonmania probably mean it's still something like that.

[John Turner]

Dead right, Davyboy and Pete; if it were 400,000, I'm sure that Andrew would not have felt the need to start this thread.

I've tried to avoid getting into this discussion, not least because I've given my views on previous threads, but I do have to pick up on something else you have said, Drifty, and that is the statement that the 'whole thing is geared to sunday GP viewers'. Whilst many of the views expressed here agree that there is too much F1, to say that the 'whole thing is geared' to it is clearly inaccurate, unless, of course, you only read the F1 stuff. As for the 'man man' not reading this thread, I'm assuming that you mean the 'main man', but who do you mean, if not the Editor, since he would hardly have started this thread if he wasn't going to read the replies!

I'm also interested in Baz's comments about the reports on historic racing 'because a certain editor likes that sort of stuff with other meetings suffering because of it'. Do you mean Kevin Turner, or are you suggesting undue influence by Marcus Pye? I'm not sure how the club reporting has suffered, and certainly not in isolation, since the bane of any reporters life is the restriction on wordcount and that applies across the board. It will not surprise you to know that I would like to see more reporting of historic events, especially from those held in Europe. On the other hand, I'd also like to see a few more words allocated to each of the club race meetings, certainly enough so that each race gets more than a couple of sentences. However, being a simple soul, I wouldn't want to see a reduction in pics or font size to compensate.

I genuinely believe that the mag has improved over the last couple of years from its lowest point, the oft mentioned '100 best crashes' period and certainly the history of the sport has been better catered for recently. I suppose at the end of the day, I'd have to agree that both the F1 element and tabloidal approach to some of the issues is too high for my personal taste, although I can understand why it is so, since it is symptomatic of a society where attention span, on the whole, seems lower. There aren't any easy answers, that's for sure.

[redshoes]

This many pages in and I'm mostly repeating what has already been said - less emphasis on F1, less tabloid headlines, broader coverage of the sport at all levels. I can understand the Catch-22 with F1 coverage - you report F1 because that's what people know, but how do they get to know about other areas of the sport that you don't write about.

Rally news seems a bit odd. Other areas expand or contract based on the amount of news in any week but rallying always gets two pages, never more, never less. Some weeks it feels like there could be much more, other weeks it seems like you are struggling to fill the space.

Not something I would necessarily be interested in myself but autosport.com has been running MotoGP news for some time. Any plans to follow their lead and include bikes?

Tied to the events page, how about taking one (or more) of the (club/national) series racing this week and doing a "bluffer's guide". What the series is all about, what to expect on track, who are the drivers to watch out for, that sort of thing.

On the subject of the events guide, more details of what's on - some weeks we just get "BARC" or "BRSCC" which could be almost anything. Expand it to include rallying, not necessarily every stage rally but at least the major British and International events, and hillclimbs.

[Pete Fenelon]

What's the overlap between the MotoGP/SBK fanbase and the four-wheeled racing one these days though? And would those of us saying "less F1" just start saying "less two-wheel stuff"? I fear a magazine trying to cover F1 and MotoGP in sufficient depth to please the fans of either would annoy the "other camp" and squeeze out almost everything else...

And similarly, what's the overlap between racing and tallying fans? I doubt anyone would buy Autosport just for the rally coverage, and given the pretty dire state of the WRC these days maybe rallying belongs in MN and the pages used for more national/international racing coverage....?

The obvious divide is "F1 Racing" - F1 only; Autosport - other international and national racing; MN - national and international rallying, short-circuit and speed events; new mag covering MotoGP/SBK/BSB/etc...

[redshoes]

You're right about the lack of overlap between 2- and 4-wheel fans, which is why I was surprised that the website started MotoGP coverage. It was more a question if this was the way forward rather than a suggestion that it should be.

I think there is an overlap between racing and rallying fans. I'm not talking about the 'balaclava and bovril' brigade, they are still much better catered for by MN. In the same way that there are casual F1 fans, I can't be the only casual WRC fan.

[Snapper Baz]

At the end of the day we all have our own interests within motorsport...I also love the NHRA drag scene but I doubt it will ever make it into the mag on a regular basis-if at all despite its massive following over the pond. The Ed's have to make a difficult choice on what and what not to include and how much each meeting/race should run to word copunt wise.

I also like historic racing but it seems to me that the meetings here in the UK suffer because there were some historic F1's in Mongolia or tin tops in Vietnam or where ever over the same weekend. Lets just stick to the UK's weekend events and cover them properly along with the major series like Ausie V8's, IRL, Sports Cars, Nascar and Rallying ...oh and a bit of F1 to keep everyone sweet! ...and perhaps keep 24hr lawn mower racing in Gardeners Monthly and not in place of some real racing that could have been reported on!!

[Rob29]

Please no 2 wheel stuff.This is one thing that annoys me with the general media when they lump car & bikes (even boats)together as 'motorsport' Soccer fans would not want to read about Rugby?

[John Turner]

Originally Posted by Snapper Baz

I also like historic racing but it seems to me that the meetings here in the UK suffer because there were some historic F1's in Mongolia or tin tops in Vietnam or where ever over the same weekend.

Baz, I'm sorry, I don't want to take this too far off track, because it is only a small part of the debate, but please give us some real examples. I really want to know, because I'm struggling with this one. If you are referring to meetings such as the LMC, Spa, Monaco, Pau, Nurburgring 'Old Timers', etc, surely they should be in, not least because the Brits heavily support these events with their entries.

Definitely keep 2 wheel events out of this.

[Dutton]

I don't object to there being motorcycling stuff in Autosport from an ideological perspective (it is automotive sport, and all that). That said, from a practical perspective, it would likely be best to leave it out: it would just compound already existing problems.

Drag racing I wouldn't want to see picked up in any real manner, but that is simply from a totally selfish perspective (drag racing just does nothing for me whatsoever). In the end, the only logical objection to it could be the same practicality based reasons as above; I cannot see any coherent ideological reasons to exclude drag racing, given it is motorsport.

[davyboy]

Please no bikes in Autosport. That will really drive people away. Motor racing fans buy Autosport to read about car racing... the bike fraternity have plenty of their own mags.

[driftwood]

Mr Turner Sir
please allow me the opportunity to exagerate at least 3 times on a thorny subject
1 it allows me to vent my spleen
2 it gets others thinking
3 i like pouring scorn on the AS SUBJECT AS IT DOES NEED ADDRESSING!
Ive told the sales guys this for years

I must also say well done to the Editor Andrew of being brave enough to make the posting at least he gets to hear what folk think and ive had a PM from him so he is reading the posts!
now im off to exagerate elsewhere about my last race girl i pulled in the pub last night and to go fishing

[Super Hans]

Originally Posted by redshoes

In the same way that there are casual F1 fans, I can't be the only casual WRC fan.

Nope, I am one of your number.

I'm passionate about racing, first and foremost, but I like to keep abreast with goings-on in the WRC and BRC, so the current rallying content in AS (2 news pages, BRC & WRC reports) suits me down to the ground.