[Magazines] I've done it - I've cancelled Autosport

[ensign14]

Originally Posted by AvdB

It's not the job of Autosport to don rose-tinted specs and bang on about how much better things used to be.

No, that's Motor Sport's job.

I still subscribe cos it is the only place for current Roebuck and Mark Hughes and Pye and to read about the obscurities like Antonio Tosspoti signing for Cheatem Racing in Formula Finance and so on. And when I have a month I would compare today's Autosport with a 1950s issue when the A40 race at Charterhall was considered more relevant than the whole of the Champcar series and an issue was 32 pages. Not saying there's no room for improvement, but there is some rosetintery going on...

[AvdB]

If you think the cover line tells you everything you need to know about what's in the mag, that's your loss. It doesn't. Get over the fact that F1 is on the cover.

[ss_collins]

I agree with andy some of you are being a little harsh - imagine there was no Autosport - you'd all want something like it. There would be nothing sat beween MN and Racecar Engineering.

But I do find sometimes I skip out a lot of Autosport - a lot of the reports I find very turgid. A slightly more dramatic or poetic style (see 1950's reports) would be good for me at least. For news its unrivalled in English (but Autosprint is its match if you speak italian). There is room for improvement (isn't there always?) but as for cancelling my sub? not a chance in fact I get one and my boss gets one.

What might be fun is for AS to reprint some race reports verbatim from the 1950's or even 1930's (Autocar), I've had a chance in the pas to read a lot of them (I used to spend my lunch breaks from MN in LAT reading old issues and looking through the archive)but many have not.

I would never ignore reader complaints and I'd try to act on them all but it does seem that a lot of people like to knock AS. However its circulation has fallen rather a lot in recent years. But this is common to all mags in motorsport bar Racecar which is a slightly different thing anyway as it only covers technology.

No, that's Motor Sport's job.

now theres a mag thats gone rubbish

[Born Racer]

Andrew, do you have any figures you can give regarding casual readership? From some previous posts, I've got the impression that a large amount of Autosport's sales is based on casual F1 fans, who may be swayed into a spontaneous purchase by the front cover.

Surely that can't be a sustainable audience though. I would've thought people like me who follow motosport regularly would make up the core audience. Chasing the casual F1 fan who laps up headlines like 'It's War' (when it's probably not a war between Hamilton and Alonso and has been grossly exaggerated..apparantly the swearing between Hamilton and Ron Dennis never took place, but yet if it didn't, someone irresponsibly reported it), seems to me only good for a quick fix sale, but does not appeal to the die-hard fans, who have the advantage for you as a magazine of not being fickle and only into F1 because it becomes popular occasionally, but being genuine fans.

I'm genuinely interested in any information you may know on your readership, and hope you understand my point, and don't take this the wrong way.

[ss_collins]

I'd say its unlikely Andy will tell you exact demographics for the AS readership. But I think a lot of Autosports decline in sales relates to F1 being a bit boring. Sportscars being thrilling at the moment hasn't boosted them either so what does that tell you about the readership

[AvdB]

Hi Sam,

I think the poetic style you refer to is a product of the times. It's like comparing a Stuart Hall football commentary to Peter Drury. Also, those old reports were the only place you could ever find that information. There's so much media now that going to some of the lengths Lyons or whoever went to would come over as trite or overly effusive.

But I've made a conscious effort to try to make the reports read more like features, but not all the writers get it. There just simply isn't time to rewrite them all. For what it's worth, I think Mark Hughes's reports are the best we've ever had.

One of the first ideas I had when I joined the mag was to run the old reports, but it's not as easy as you'd imagine. I think we may do it occasionally for a special occasion, but it wouldn't ever be more than that.

Circulation-wise, there's been a lot of nonsense written about that on here that stems back from someone trying to big up Evo (which is in sales freefall). The fact is that during the late 1980s, when Mansell started winning, the sales started to rise. And rise. And rise. By the time Damon Hill won the title we were nudging 80,000. As Damon's career started to slide, so did the sales.

This year - due to Lewis Hamilton - for the first time in a decade, our sales are up year on year. The printed word is in almost certain inextricable decline. The fact that we are bucking that trend, I believe, is an endorsement of the quality of the magazine, and of the sensational job Lewis Hamilton has done in moving motorsport back on to the front pages.

Long may it continue.

[ss_collins]

The old style itself would perhaps be better because of the modern times - with youtube and digital TV its hard to miss anything, Franchittis shunt(s) are a good example.

But what you don't get online or on TV is the feeling of really being there, something Gregor Grant (I think) captured brilliantly all those years ago. Andy go to the bound issues (I think of Autocar) and find the report of the 1935? Grand Prix De France - it the most incredible piece of motorsport reporting ever - you could be there sat in the crowd on that hot day. The race was kind of incidental. I quoted it in Autodrome - anyone with a copy to hand could advise of where the quotes came from.

- much the same with the 1953 (I think) Grand Prix at Reims "the race of the century" according to Autosport, Hawthorn won it but the report was superb.

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by AvdB

If you think the cover line tells you everything you need to know about what's in the mag, that's your loss. It doesn't. Get over the fact that F1 is on the cover.

Thank you for insulting my intelligence again.

I am an ardent F1 fan in
fact I am proud to say that apart from many British GPs I've attended others including the inaugural Turkish event. You assume my feelings are aimed at the lack of other events. No, I'm afraid I don't read the Sun, Mail, Mirror or any other tabliod and likewise your headline screamed sensationalism at me thus I didn't need to read it. Jumping to wrong conclusions would appear to be your magazine's problem then.

I agree we don't want rose tints because things are different now but Autosport has forgotten about the enthusiasts and now aims at the sensational.

I think I'll start buying Nuts because at least it does what it says on the label.

[AvdB]

Utter nonsense.

Yes (and I'm going to have to get patronising here, because you don't seem to want to get it) we use big letters and simple messages on the cover. The cover is there to draw in the casual reader.

The content of the mag, the meat if you will, is there for the enthusiast. And we care about them as much as we always have. That's why we have a 2-page report from BRSCC at Rockingham this week. Do you think a casual Lewis Hamilton fan gives a toss for that?

The content of Autosport is as in-depth as is possible given the space available.

Racecar may be more technical. But F1 tech directors have admitted they look at Anderson/Piola's tech review to see what other teams are doing. How low-brow is that?

If you think Nuts and Autosport are the same thing, you don't need me to insult your intelligence...

[JimW]

I buy Autosport about as often as I read this thread - that's nearly every week. (Yes I know that a sub would make economic sense but let's keep away from that .)

Equally many weeks I wonder how they can find filler articles when there is neither a GP to preview or to report on. So that makes the autumn/winter/spring a bit thin and full of footie-style nonsense and speculation.

But still the writing by their columnists, their wide coverage (well except for rallying which is v. poor) and the photography drags me back. I still want the club coverage to double and the F1 to halve but I'm not blaming AS for that being uneconomic. Well, not much anyway.

Thanks for engaging in the debate Andy.

Regards

Jim

[Knowlesy]

I finished reading this weeks Autosport whilst making/eating my tea.

This really concerns me.

[Peter Mallett]

Andy,

You admit that you wish to attract the casual readers thus by implication, loyalty is low on your priorities. I've been taking the mag since 1971 for what it's worth.

Good luck.

Headlines screaming the kind of nonsense you put out last week are clearly putting me and I suspect, others off.

[AvdB]

Peter,

I'm sorry but I don't understand how trying to attract a new reader with a clear and simple cover proposition undermines the loyalty to the regular reader to whom we cater with the depth and breadth of content inside.

As I stated in an earlier post, sales were in decline following the retirement of Damon. Just relying on a loyal fanbase was taking us into dangerous territory. Autosport has to work as a business proposition, and the fact is that F1 does have the ability to draw in significant numbers of extra readers. It's no coincidence that the best-selling issues of the year have been the season previews and the Lewis wins.

Which cover was it that offended you in particular? I would be interested to know exactly what it was about it that put you off. Clearly it's not a good state of affairs if the cover has that effect.

I am extremely interested in what the readers think of the mag, I'm just tired of the 'there's too much F1, why don't you do more sportscars argument'. Any genuinely constructive feedback is really welcomed and will be incorporated into my thinking as I plan future issues.

But if anyone can read 50,000 words while making some food... well it must be a damn fine spread.

[Knowlesy]

There was a letter in todays issue that criticised a cover recently. Now certainly I held great derision for the "It's War!" cover and so found myself in 100% agreement with the complaint.

You can get away with having F1 on the cover, although it's not ideal for us lot. But the tabloid-style headlines are really quite unsettling. It's a fine line between declaring F1 war and fake reporting of Great White Sharks in Britain's seas...

[luke]

I subscribed to Autosport from 2002 to 2005. I also bought the mag since 2000 on and off. This year I haven't bought a single copy.

Since I started to buy the mag 7 years ago I noticed a dramatic rise in the tabloid style. More pictures, less info. The race reports are rather erm...thin and un-interesting. The Formula 1 coverage I'll give it what it deserves very good. But I was one of those fans at the time that didn't have sky and my main way of following non F1 was my Saviour with Autosport.

Since for example the CC and IRL race reports are now very thin and uninteresting I only really read the magazine well used to for the F1 coverage.

Also the NASCAR and other coverage of sports cars and club racing of just a column and a side pic is rather lazy. Sure F1 is your main focus and I agree and support that. I just think Autosport need to be more solid and as well as appealing to the casual stroke F1 fan, appeal more to the all rounder by having better race reports for other series.

I thank AvdB for being understanding and I hope you understand where I am coming from.

I have always been a fan of the Autosport style mag, I just feel the whole tabloid and less detailed side to the magazine along with thin coverage for non F1 is one of the reasons why I lost interest. But I will buy the latest copy tomorrow as I haven't for a while and give my verdict. I'm part of Hamilton-mania so I should enjoy it.

[Graham Goodwin]

Originally Posted by AvdB

Circulation-wise, there's been a lot of nonsense written about that on here that stems back from someone trying to big up Evo (which is in sales freefall).
.

Interesting! - What figures are you referring to for EVO Andrew? And What are your own overall circulation figures now?

[Alfa Fan]

Here's some suggestions;

• Vary the top story more, just because it's the top F1 story, doesn't make it the top story. Take this week for example, how is "Ferrari targets title turnaround" the latest headline from motorsport? Or even F1? It's just pure speculation.
• Too many big pictures in the news section. Pages should be filled with news and articles, with occasional pictures when they are relevant to the story.
• More stories that offer genuine insight rather than just rewritten team press releases.
• The Week In Picutures is such a waste of two pages....
• US racing is still by-in-large ignored by the magazine in the news section.
• Ok, if you have to have a tabloid-style headline on the front page, at least drop it in the rest of the news. Just report the news as it is.
• Both columns in the magazine are on F1. Nigel Roebuck saying: "it was better in the old days" 51 times and year and Mark Hughes telling us "how wonderful the hidden stories in F1 are" How about one colum written about F1, and the other never about F1?
• Too many pages in the magazine are wasted with pointless pictures.
• Analysis of this weeks: Red Bull article, took 5 pages instead of 3; Doornbos article, 2 pages instead of 1, Woman in Motorsport, 8 instead of 5
• No complaints about the motorsport reports (apart from the F1 one is always FAR too long, no F1 report this week tho)
• Club Autosport is fine as it is.

[Joe Taylor]

Originally Posted by Alfa Fan

Here's some suggestions;

• Vary the top story more, just because it's the top F1 story, doesn't make it the top story. Take this week for example, how is "Ferrari targets title turnaround" the latest headline from motorsport? Or even F1? It's just pure speculation.
• Too many big pictures in the news section. Pages should be filled with news and articles, with occasional pictures when they are relevant to the story.
• More stories that offer genuine insight rather than just rewritten team press releases.
• The Week In Picutures is such a waste of two pages....
• US racing is still by-in-large ignored by the magazine in the news section.
• Ok, if you have to have a tabloid-style headline on the front page, at least drop it in the rest of the news. Just report the news as it is.
• Both columns in the magazine are on F1. Nigel Roebuck saying: "it was better in the old days" 51 times and year and Mark Hughes telling us "how wonderful the hidden stories in F1 are" How about one colum written about F1, and the other never about F1?
• Too many pages in the magazine are wasted with pointless pictures.
• Analysis of this weeks: Red Bull article, took 5 pages instead of 3; Doornbos article, 2 pages instead of 1, Woman in Motorsport, 8 instead of 5
• No complaints about the motorsport reports (apart from the F1 one is always FAR too long, no F1 report this week tho)
• Club Autosport is fine as it is.

I'm going to disagree with you on most of your points:

1. F1 being the top story: Whilst it could be varied more, I accept the fact that F1 is still widely considered the pinnacle of motorsport and will therefore merit Top Story most weeks

2. I agree that there are sometimes a few too many pictures in the news stories

3. Agreed, but I understand that it may not be possible

4. I like the week in pictures and I find the quotes of the week to be interesting soundbites, but imho, either reduce the number of large pictures in the news section, or drop the week in pictures

5. I find the US news to be plentiful

6. I can't really see many tabloidy headlines inside, and even so, shorter headlines means more room to report the story

7. I find the Roebuck and Hughes columns informative, insightful and usually the highlights of the magazine (along with Bamber). With regards to the columns being only on F1, a) refer to point 1, and b) there is a column never about f1 on the letters page each week.

8. I'll agree with that one, there is too much space used on pointless picture titles e.g. women in motorsport. Good articles behind the titles though

9. Most race reports fine, F1 length fine (really helped me to understand what happened at Nurburgring - a race I missed), Sportscars could be a bit longer because 2 pages can't really do justice to a 6 hour race

10. Club Autosport is fine, agreed.

So in summary, I'm primarily a sportscar fan, I've been reading Autosport since 1997, and I use it for information on pretty much every type of motorsport except for sportscar racing for which I use dsc because it provides far more in depth coverage of a minority sport. Improvements not stated above that I'd like to see are:

• Longer Nascar race reports
• Maybe more columns on non-F1 (i.e 2 or 3 rather than the current 1)
• Moving the tv guide to the back of the magazine again (it was so much easier to quickly check by turning the back page over than searching for page twenty-something)

[old man]

Well we now have AvdB's comments and we have obviusly riled him but my position in trying to bring out these comments was to find out what the thinking is and now we know.

I first bought Autosport as schoolboy back in the 1950's and have done so virtually every week since, I still have 30 years of copies either here or in my son's garage and I am sorry Andrew but you do not give depth of coverage on many things. The LMS Spa race was a prime example, look at the depth of GT coverage on that report, others here have also pointed out their favourites. I may be a sad old sod but I love the sport and for me the highlight of the week was when AS was available, I picked it up at the newsagents rather than wait and was guilty of reading it when I should have been making calls.

But you are right, that was in the days when the news it contained was news. Now we know instantly when a thing happens, yesterday I was on the phone to someone who was not near a computer actually telling him as the lead of BGT race changed on the live timing, you cannot compete in print with that or with the speed of web based media and have rightly joined them, but you can complete with in depth technical pieces, proper analysis of why races other than F1 are won and lost, with columnists like Roebuck and Hughes. If you have to be a tabloid to meet your budgets perhaps we must put up with it but many long standing enthusiasts with a real love for the sport feel let down by the present magazine, to many of us at one time Autosport WAS the sport, it isn't now. Yesterday's F1 race was boring but I bet you don't say so

[AvdB]

What really riles me are these tabloid accusations. I really wonder if you know what that means.

A sharp headline? Surely not.

Sensationalist reporting? Closer. And we just don't do that. Autosport articles are well-researched, written in measured and considered tones and are above all informative. Re-written press releases, which pass as news on the web, do not make the pages of this magazine.

Yes, we may 'dumb down' on the cover, for want of a better phrase. And I have some sympathy with loyal readers who may feel irritated or patronised by this approach. But the mag has to work as a business propostion, and this means trying to maximise the sales of every issue. It's a policy no different from every other magazine on the news stand.

I wish it was different. I wish I could put a beautiful shot of a 908 (the Peugeot, not the Porsche) on the cover without committing sales suicide. I would probably be sacked if I did this.

I've been reading Autosport for over 20 years and I honestly think the coverage is as good now, if not better, as it was when I started reading it. And if ever I doubt that, I just need to look at the 1982 issue after Niki Lauda tested a Brabham and the story was a brief...

[kelvin88]

I have a question Avdb, and its not a dig in anyway. I wondered, after the excellent report on the Daytona 500 that i seem to remember reading in Autosport at the begining of the year, why Nascar has now been shortend to a paragraph, yet Champ Car and IRL get good race reports. Is it to do with British drivers in these events or is there other reasons?

[AvdB]

Fair question.

The 500 got a bigger report because of its standing as the big NASCAR race. The reason the other reports are shorter is due partly to NASCAR races tending to all boil down to what happens at the final caution, rendering the previous four hours pointless. Also we don't really have the space.

IRL and Champ Car do also have a larger British/European presence, which works in their favour. We are currently discussing upping the NASCAR coverage of the other big races for next year - Brickyard etc - but I haven't decided yet.

How many of you would like to see larger NASCAR reports?

[kelvin88]

Well i certainly would, mainly because i don't have the facility to watch it on television. But i also understand it may not be popular with many European fans. You have an impossible task in that you can't please everyone. I wouldn't like your job and it's a credit to you that you have come on here and put your points forward.

[old man]

Quite agree Kelvin, everybody can do other peoples jobs but as a reader I am dissatisfied and Andrew has given me reasons that I understand, but it does not make me satisfied with the magazine. I am older now and perhaps grumpy and harder to please. It seems to me that Andrew when attracting the casual reader has an opportunity to entertain him with more than F1, to attract him to other sections of the sport, to show him what he is missing, does the magazine do that, I am not sure it does.

[Adam43]

Readers Verses Autosport
Our EXPERTS Analyse the Crisis on the News Stands
I still subscribe to Autosport, it is my way to catch up with series that I don't have time to follow on telly or get to the race meetings for. I also think the results side of Autosport.com is excellent and I use that. That is what keeps me hanging on. It is the best general motorsport mag I can get, but what else can I buy? A bit like F1, it is the pinnacle as much because of the lack of ,and poor showing from the, competition than it is from its own quality. At least F1 continues to grow.

Cover Up
Taking the cover "issue" (that word is for Roebuck!). The cover reflects on the magazine. It gives the impression you don't know what you are talking about! That seems to be impression some above are getting. We know why you do it, it doesn't mean we like it.

Your cover is there to attract people, it seems it is also turning people away. Perhaps it is not surprising that it can have that effect.

Originally Posted by AvdB

What really riles me are these tabloid accusations. I really wonder if you know what that means.

A sharp headline? Surely not.

Sensationalist reporting? Closer. And we just don't do that.

Really? you actually believe all that you write then? Perhaps so, but again this gives the impression you don't know what you are talking about. It is a bit like cry wolf sometimes. The good stuff gets lost in some of the cover stories.

Whether people are expressing correctly it when they say "tabliod", doesn't mean they aren't on a different wavelength to the current style adopted by Autosport.

The Right Balance
As for the balance of Sportscar, club, F1, etc: As I've said before, I think you have that bit about right, in terms of quantity. However if nothing of significance has happened in F1, then we get the impression you exaggerate something else to fill the pages. We understand why you might do this, but it doesn't mean we like it. On the specific NASCAR point, I'd like to see more. Perhaps a full page on the bigger races (more for the really big ones) and half for the others?

Readers SLAM Autosport

Autosport articles are well-researched, written in measured and considered tones and are above all informative.

Again, I read some articles and don't get the impression that this is the case.

Yes, we may 'dumb down' on the cover, for want of a better phrase. And I have some sympathy with loyal readers who may feel irritated or patronised by this approach. But the mag has to work as a business proposition, and this means trying to maximise the sales of every issue. It's a policy no different from every other magazine on the news stand.

We understand why, but don't like it!

I've been reading Autosport for over 20 years and I honestly think the coverage is as good now, if not better, as it was when I started reading it. And if ever I doubt that, I just need to look at the 1982 issue after Niki Lauda tested a Brabham and the story was a brief...

I happen to have every 1982 Autosport. They a good examples of being "above all informative". 2007 magazines aren't, IMHO.

Lewis: The Saviour

This year - due to Lewis Hamilton - for the first time in a decade, our sales are up year on year. The printed word is in almost certain inextricable decline. The fact that we are bucking that trend, I believe, is an endorsement of the quality of the magazine, and of the sensational job Lewis Hamilton has done in moving motorsport back on to the front pages.

I am afraid that the Hamilton effect is the only reason, as you have identified it is not quality that you need to get these short term fickle bunch

I know you need to move with the times, but surely not everything from Jenks (wrong mag I know!) era is irrelevant now?

I think most of us understand the reasons for the decline of Autosport, the reasons for the desperate covers, the need for the story and the reasonings behind the editorial decision. However, it seems, many still don't like the outcome: Autosport seems to be losing both the Peter Mallet's and the lukes! I suppose from a business poin of view, the question is are enough Lewis readers replacing them? If you want to think Long term, rather than next weeks sales, will they stay?

Originally Posted by old man

...I am dissatisfied and Andrew has given me reasons that I understand, but it does not make me satisfied with the magazine. I am older now and perhaps grumpy and harder to please. It seems to me that Andrew when attracting the casual reader has an opportunity to entertain him with more than F1, to attract him to other sections of the sport, to show him what he is missing, does the magazine do that, I am not sure it does.

I too would like to thank Andrew for his time. Your post sums it up for me though. Even if we understand why, it seems that some of us are disillusioned with Autosport at the moment.