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

[Craig]

Dear Mr Antill

Subscription Account Number-******

Thank you for your e-mail regarding the cancellation of your subscription to Autosport.

We are sorry to hear that we are losing a valued subscriber and hope that you will continue to read our publication from time to time.

We can confirm that we have cancelled your subscription on its expiry which is the issue dated 12th July 2007 and no further payments will be taken.
Please ensure you also cancel these instructions with your bank.
If we can be of further assistance please do not hesitate to contact us.
Kind regards

Suzanne Hughes

Wow, that feels odd! I cancelled my subscription previously as I didn't like the direction the magazine was heading with it's '101 greatest ever crashes' feature or whatever it was called. But I found I ended up buying it each week at the store anyway so I I ened up resubscribing.

Got to be honest and say I can't see any likelihood of me doing that again this time. Which is sad as I've been buying it every week for nearly 20 years and I have every single issue sold going back to the late sixties.

I, like many other long-term subscribers, have just found the magazine drifting away from what I want to read. F1 is just not interesting to me. It used to be, sure, but not these days I'm afraid. Filling 2/3 of the magazine with F1 just ain't gonna interest the fans of the sport - they want to read about all classes of racing. Everything that's not F1 seems to be an afterthought and hidden away as if they're embarassed by lowering themselves by printing a report from a FFord race or whatever.

This week's lack of Le Mans Supplement was the final nail in the coffin as far as I was concerned. What possible use is a 'PREVIEW' when the majority of people are going to be at the track already? I'm sorry, but that is just a way of boosting sales by forcing subscribers to buy an additional copy trackside. Ridiculous.

How about everyone else who is a long term reader? Do you still subscribe? Have you cancelled? What do you think about modern-day Autosport?

[pmoloney]

This is a very timely post ...and one which I ironically spotted whilst on the autosport "My Page" of headlines!!

I subscribed to Autosport in January at the show and was lured to be honest by the free gift of a signed Aston martin LeMans car which incidentally fetched £45 on ebay!!

I'm on th edoorstep of cancelling my subscription as I'm just not interested in a magazine of F1 and Rallying... not to mention Nascar! I figured it'd be a lot more balanced than it is so I'm sorry to say it, but I'll be cancelling my subscription pretty shortly (assuming I'm not in a 12 month contact or something daft!). I don't want to, but I just can't justify the cost vs the content.... F1 is done to death on the web for free! And I have the last 3 weeks issues sat in their wrappers still...that's how interested I am!

[diz]

After many years.I bit the bullet and cancelled last December - after spending more money with Haymarket than I would like to add up.
I now sneak a look at the newsagents, but 30 seconds is enough to see that their club racing coverage hasn't improved and very little else in there interests me.

[John Turner]

Originally Posted by diz

..... but 30 seconds is enough to see that their club racing coverage hasn't improved and very little else in there interests me.

Ok, diz, so what exactly about it do you want to see improved, bearing in mind my comments about what happened to 'In Gear'.

[Woolley]

Heading towards it. I attended the most amazing Shelsley meeting - one of the best day's motorsport I've ever been to and they gave it under half a page while another F1 borathon got half a magazine. Not many years ago there would have been a proper news story.

Increasingly I find that when the next magazine arrives I'm not half way through the last one. I don't think it will be long before I finally give up. This week's Hamilton extravaganza (I like the guy, and what a driver, but please - give us a break) might just push me over the edge.

[safc_fan89]

Considering there is F1 Racing for F1 articles and so on, it does seem strange that Autosport is just crammed full of F1 stuff. I'm not a subscriber, never will be, just thought I would say that.

All I do is read anything that looks interesting when in the shop. It's not worth 3 quid.

[Aysedasi]

I'm really agonising over this Craig. I know its no longer the magazine for me - I knew that throughout the Schuey 'idolatry' years but having had a subscription for so long (and having bought it regularly before that) it still seems a hell of a wrench. It just disappoints me enormously to have reached this point - so unnecessarily in my opinion. But then so much gets sacrificed these days on the altar of the great God - F1, doesn't it? Nothing much else really seems to matter to the publishers - after all, they're only real concern is to sell copy.

My missus has been telling me to cancel my subscription for several years, as I rarely read the mag for more than 10 minutes these days....

For me though, the phenomenally crass decision to delay the Le Mans Guide this year is pretty much a clincher. Just an unbelievable snoot being cocked to the Le Mans fans......

So yes, I'll be sending the same email, probably later today.

With a twinge of sadness.

[bella]

i've had a subscription to autosport for 10 years now, and to be honest, it's good bogside reading - half interested idle amusement. in the time i've been subscribed, the internet has vastly increased in usefulness. most of the coverage i'm interested in is replicated online somewhere.

having said that, i think i'll stay subscribed for a while yet. the full content of the magazine isn't available online, so until then the paper copy still fulfils a function.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by bella

.....so until then the paper copy still fulfils a function.

As bogside reading material, are you suggesting the same function as Craig had for Sam's mag last year?

[AvdB]

Dear all,

I'm sorry that many of you feel this way. The team here works unbelieveably hard (yesterday we all pulled a 16-hour shift and we were in at 7am this morning), to try to make a modern magazine that is still relevant at a time when the internet makes news delivery instantaneous.

The counter this, we have revamped the way we tackle news, adding more analysis than straight reportage. You will not find this anywhere else on the internet.

There is a definite misconception of our F1 bias. F1 will always be the cover - as I've explained before, nothing else sells. It would be commercial suicide to ignore this. However, inside the magazine F1 rarely gets more than 25 per cent of the coverage, and usually around 10/15 per cent.

There is no other magazine that covers WRC, BTCC, WTCC, DTM, British F3, Euro F3, GP2, Wolrd Series, ALMS, LMS, FIA GT, Champ Car, IRL, BRC and national racing such as British GT, Formula Renault, Formula BMW, Palmer Audi, Britcar etc etc, to the level we do. FACT.

There is more racing that ever at the moment and I have a finite number of pages in which to cover it all.

If you have any constructive comments on how we can do this better, I'd love to hear them. But to bash us for being F1-centric is mis-guided and just plain incorrect.

Best,

Andrew van de Burgt
Editor, Autosport

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by AvdB

But to bash us for being F1-centric is mis-guided and just plain incorrect.

With respect, that is how it appears to so many of us. For me - for years it has appeared that way. Perhaps my problem is that F1 has gone through such a deadly boring spell over the last 10 years or more (and I confess I was never a Schuey fan, so that didn't help), that even 10-15% seems like 70-80%.....

But let's face it - pick up an issue from the 80s or early 90s and I'm sure you can see what the sportscar fans are on about. You admit it yourself - you're gonna feature what sells mags - and I don't blame you for that - Autosport isn't a charity, after all, but when you put financial viability at the top of the publication considerations, you're bound to upset some sections of the motorsport loving public. I guess we can be pleased that you're coming here and listening and responding to our criticism.

I still maintain the decision to delay the Le Mans guide was unforgiveable. Absolutely 100%, utterly and completely unforgiveable. That's my opinion and the majority of your readership may disagree with me. That's life.

[AvdB]

In the 1980s and 1990s Group C had factory entries from Porsche, Mercedes, Jaguar, Toyota, Nissan and some very strong privateer entries. In the 2000s, it's had Audi. At least Peugeot have joined the party this year.

When the quality of the field matches the Group C era, so will the coverage. Le Mans still gets a 12-page report, however.

The decision on the issue date of the supplement has not gone down well. I admit that. I'm confident this will be taken into consideration for next year.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by AvdB

When the quality of the field matches the Group C era, so will the coverage. Le Mans still gets a 12-page report, however.

Hmmm. Shame the coverage of F1 didn't reduce likewise when the standard of the racing deteriorated.

Whatever we say isn't going to change your mind. That's perfectly clear from the quote. In fact, I'll challenge Autosport to abide by that rationale if and when our chosen arm of the sport does match the Group C era. I still wager that it will never even begin to challenge the ever-glossier coverage of F1.

The decision on the issue date of the supplement has not gone down well. I admit that. I'm confident this will be taken into consideration for next year.

Stone me! I should bally well hope so.....

[Alfa Fan]

Just picking up the 24 May edition to use as an example.

Lets review the contents:

Front Cover = 5 stories - ALL F1, surely the Indy 500 preview was worthy of making the front cover in some description?

Your editorial, again about F1, and again just on pure speculation about F1 using green fuels

Followed by 8 whole pages of F1 news! And then the waste of space that is "The Week In Pictures". Would be far better to replace that with news articles.

F1 got more news pages than everything else put together!

Moving on from the news, onto the two editorial sections, and guess what? Both on Formula 1, as usual. Running total upto at least 10 pages of F1 out of 24 "proper" pages so far!

Then a four page F1 feature, and a further two pages on someone you bill as "a future world champion"

Four page preview on Indy?! One of the biggest races of the year! Where's the indepth review of the qualification process?

Then 6 pages on WRC, which for the most part nobody really seems to care about any more. The report focuses only on the front runners and there's little mention of any one other than the WRC runners.

Then just 14 pages on all of the international motorsport events. Thats less than the length of the Monaco GP report! Which even your writer said there was nothing to report on!!

The Club Racing section is one of the better bits, as generally its the only section of the magazine Lewis Hamilton & F1 don't appear in now.

Moving onto the May 31 addition, its absolutely UNFORGIVEABLE to have the Lewis Hamilton tabloid sensationalism as the headline rather than the Scottish winner of the Indy 500. Why not reverse the pictures? Rather than having a loser on the front cover?

I was even more shocked to see the Lewis Hamilton thing was Top Story rather than Dario's win!

Not until Page 16 is Dario even mentioned! Another 14 page GP report on a race where there were 0 genuine overtaking moves in what must rank as one of the most boring races ever.

Indy on the otherhand, gets only 4 pages! 4!

How about cut the F1 coverage in 1/2 and increase coverage of everything else? Or even better, drop F1 altogether and let F1 Racing become a weekly whilst Autosport concentrates on proper motor racing?

[John Turner]

I've already declared my interest in the Le Mans Supplement thread, so I'm not about to repeat it. However, I think that Andrew VdeB's response and clarification is an admirable defence and explanation. Whether we like it or not, to remain commercially viable, I think that, very sadly, Autosport is unable to make true motor racing fans their main sales target. On top of that, they are also competing against the 'instant' news availability provided by the internet. It must be having a substantial impact on sales, although, I personally, still like to be able to sit down and read the printed word on a page rather than have my face in a PC the whole time. Of course, I'd like to see a rebalancing of the content with rather less F1 and more on GT/sports cars and club racing, but I guess that Haymarket know best where their greatest sales potential lies. In respect of club racing we know what happened to the last publication, 'In Gear', that tried to address the interest in grass roots motor racing, even though it was only a monthly.

Originally Posted by Alfa Fan

Four page preview on Indy?! One of the biggest races of the year! Where's the indepth review of the qualification process?

Outside of North America, do you think that there is much demand for a review of the qualification process?

Originally Posted by Alfa Fan

Moving onto the May 31 addition, its absolutely UNFORGIVEABLE to have the Lewis Hamilton tabloid sensationalism as the headline rather than the Scottish winner of the Indy 500. Why not reverse the pictures? Rather than having a loser on the front cover?

Whilst I agree with the point that you are making (I've made the same one before, more than once!), I'm not sure that this is the best example to pick. Afterall the front cover was in blue (a rare occurrence in itself) in celebration of Dario's win, and by having Hamilton on the front (Yes, I hate Hamilton Hype, too) it also maintained the interest of the 'F1 only' fan. A balancing act rather well achieved on this occasion!

Originally Posted by Alfa Fan

How about cut the F1 coverage in 1/2 and increase coverage of everything else? Or even better, drop F1 altogether and let F1 Racing become a weekly whilst Autosport concentrates on proper motor racing?else? Or even better, drop F1 altogether and let F1 Racing become a weekly whilst Autosport concentrates on proper motor racing?

A great idea, but don't you think that it has been thought of before? And, if they thought it would work by maintaining or increasing sales, would it not have happened by now?

Now to those of you discussing circulation figures, can you explain to me why you are comparing apple with oranges? (Edit - NB you will note that this is a long post and I was typing this out before I read Andrew's and subsequent posts, but I'm leaving it in, since I still think it valid- JT). What has the circulation of EVO (which I also read incidentally!) got to do with any of the motor racing magazines, especially when two of the latter are weeklies? There are many more people interested in the their road cars than have more than a passing interest in motor racing, so it is hardly a surprise that EVO outsells them. In fact, the only racing mag above Autosport on that list is F1 Racing, another monthly, and also a Haymarket publication, and that rather gives support to Autosports view that they need to target primarily F1. It's a sad fact of life but it's a commercial decision that necessarily requires it to target the LCD in the motor racing world, the F1 fans, many of whom have absolutely no interest in motor racing per se, unlike most of those who post on here.

[Lightning Bug]

Originally Posted by Alfa Fan

Four page preview on Indy?! One of the biggest races of the year! Where's the indepth review of the qualification process?

Why would you want to read that? Are you having trouble sleeping?

[Alan Raine]

I may be cancelling my subscription soon, mainly as I don't have time to read it and when I do have time I can't really be bothered! I seem to have got through only a small part before the next one arrives.

I do agree that it has become a bit sensationalist, but that's the way most mainstream mags seem to have gone. When I first started buying in the late 60's it devoted a lot of space to club racing. Now it's just a few pages at the back. I'd rather see more local stuff than the odd saloon race in South America or Scandinavia which is of no interest to me whatsoever.

I take both Autosport and Motorsport. Both have good editorial staff who obviously love their sport. Motorsport is good as I'm of an age where it's content appeals to me. Perhaps I'm just getting to old for Autosport!

[Ian Sowman]

I'm not sure how you can improve what used to be known as Club Autosport other than by:

- allocating more space
- varying the features a little bit more... and allocating more space to them.

I suspect sports car fans would like more space for their interests, as would American racing fans, as would rally fans, and so on. Sadly, space is finite (yes, you could make the magazine twice as thick, but costs would spiral and sales (magazine and advertising space) wouldn't).

Autosport can only ever offer a broad-brush approach these days, and naturally F1 gets the biggest swipe. It is the pinnacle. Special interest groups (club racing fans, sports car fans, rally fans, etc) have to be served by other media - magazines, websites or whatever. Sadly, there just isn't enough interest to publish in any kind of viable format in these sectors.

[John Turner]

Exactly, Ian, disappointing though it is!

[Woolley]

Let's look at this slightly differently for my 'constructive' bit (and I do appreciate the editor coming on here to ask - well done.

When I first bought the magazine in the early 80s I watched F1 on tv. As a result of buying the magazine I learned about all sorts of other branches of the sport. As a result of the coverage of ETCC and a good preview I attended my first race meeting at Donington - ETCC in 83, I think, and then went to Silverstone for GrpC later in the year. This was because the magazine educated me and gave me information on other stuff in a way that made me want to see it.

Where I think the magazine lets us down now is that it doesn't do that enough. Fair enough, F1 on the cover sells issues, and a reasonable amount of coverage of it is to be expected (and Roebuck is still essential reading for me), but there's not enough similar in depth coverage of everything else to attract the F1 fans to the rest of what the sport can offer.

[Dutton]

For the benefit of Andrew, I will say that I lived in the UK from birth until December 2004 (born 1981). I now live in Calgary, Canada.

Originally Posted by AdamAshmore

However it is the quality of those 103 pages that is getting me down now. I don't mind the F1 quantity, I am an F1 fan and as established it is required. However it has become too tabloidy (for want of a better word) now. There is also a frustrating cry wolf aspect too. The desperate need of a lead F1 story leads to stories that are seemingly made-up (or exaggerated). These are given as much weight as a real story. I wonder how Autosport can put its name to some of these stories.

This basically sums up my take on it. I would, however, still argue that a bit less F1 wouldn't hurt. Or, at least, have the same quantity but just increase the standard. Having an additional 5 pages just to have an additional 5 pages is not of any use to anyone, as it will tend to be filled with what is, in essence, nonsense.

I have never been a subscriber, but would buy it (virtually) every week in the UK. It became less certain, although still thoroughly regularly, from about about 2001. Since arriving in Canada I have got it far less commonly; for the most part, this is due to it being pretty hard to come by, but even when I do spot it I have to have a look in it before buying (I usually do get it, but not always).

In the UK I kept getting it regularly as there was not really much in the way of alternatives (plus I got what alternatives there were anyway...). In Canada, this has been brought to the true extreme (it is the ONLY option).

I would agree with comments suggesting that more interviews/features/analysis that focuses on non-driver people/aspects of the major sports would be an excellent thing. At worst, more interviews with drivers would be fine. Just anything that isn't simply filler that rambles on about not a lot. Interview wise, though, actual worthwhile questions, and what not, rather than all the usual things which you learn next to nothing from. Massive long race reports on the likes of F1 are, IMO, of limited value as the great majority of those reading will already have seen the race. That is not say don't have the report, but it would be quite possible to have a succint one that leaves open pages for other aspects of coverage (I'm not saying different categories, necessarily, but rather different aspects).

For the things that receive little-to-no TV coverage (if any at all, then certainly not live, and most probably severely abridged), well, then, it all comes down to having in-depth race/event reporting (IMO, at least). It needs to serve as the eyes for the reader. This is part of the reason that less pages devoted to F1 could be helpful (would allow for more coverage of such alternatives). Or, even, if reports in this regard cannot really be increased, then, well, have more comprehensive listings of standings/results.

There is another reason to have said enhanced coverage of "other":

Originally Posted by Woolley

When I first bought the magazine in the early 80s I watched F1 on tv. As a result of buying the magazine I learned about all sorts of other branches of the sport...the magazine educated me and gave me information on other stuff in a way that made me want to see it.

Where I think the magazine lets us down now is that it doesn't do that enough. Fair enough, F1 on the cover sells issues, and a reasonable amount of coverage of it is to be expected (and Roebuck is still essential reading for me), but there's not enough similar in depth coverage of everything else to attract the F1 fans to the rest of what the sport can offer.

This is just so important to me. It certainly served me in much the same way, and, I would think, a great many others. If this aspect is allowed to die off, well, then the F1-dilemma becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts.

The more F1 appeal is critical to sales, then the more attention is given to F1 (consequently less attention to others); the less there is given to others, then more people that only know F1 will increase: this means that F1 appeal becomes even more critical to sales, which means even more attention is given to F1 (consequently less to others). This means more people only know F1, which means...

As far as the cover goes, I don't really care what is on it so long as it is done well (crudely sensationalist headlines suck regardless of what, or who, is involved).

In the end, I think I am in the same general place as others seem to be:

1) Ideally, reduce the F1 a bit: given understanding for the commercial pressures, at least do not increase it anymore.

2) Improve the standard of the journalism throughout. The "tabloid effect" that many others have been refering to is completely real. It is not a good thing.

3) Arguably a sub-section of (2), but it seems to be getting treated as seperate thing in this thread. Whilst the need for an F1 dominated cover every week is utterly understandable, the sub-headlines can surely cover a great variety of things. The picture and main headline being F1 is a quite understandable commercial reality (very few, I think, begrudge Autosport this). Even in the event of nothing but F1 on a cover, at least make it tasteful and with some adherence to respectable journalistic integrity (resiting sensationalistic-tabloidesque approaches).

[Aysedasi]

Nah, you don't need that - I go back to an AutoSchueySport issue if I need something soporific.......

[bella]

maybe now news isn't as pivotal as it used to be (hands up all those who used to catch the late bus home so they could run off into town to pick up the new autosport on a thursday when they were at school...), and we're all more used to forming instant opinions and expressing them far more freely online, it's less paletable to spend time reading what is essentially an entire magazine full of someone elses opinions. i tend to find the f1 reports very based around what a single journalist thinks rather than factual analysis.

opinion is good, although i suppose columns like nigel roebucks are more like experience rather than opinion. and there will always be a place for that.

[Aysedasi]

Nigel's column is the one aspect of AS that I think I will miss.

[Charlies]

I understand the need to put F1 on the cover, but some of the Hamilton coverage has been more tabloid than I care for.

To be honest I never read the F1 race report, or often the WRC, because I've seen them on TV; I know (largely) what happened. The news section is more interesting for the sportscar/touring car coverage that isn't so prominent on the internet. Most of the F1 news I've already read on the web.

Having said that there was a good article on Adam Carroll and Bruno Senna not long ago. I'd like to see more interviews than race reports.

I've never subscribed, but I've been buying it for ten years; it's become part of my week so it would be difficult to stop.