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

[Ian Sowman]

I was in the middle of typing this much earlier:

Sure, there must be lower overheads associated with producing websites compared to magazines, but there are still very significant costs involved.

Let's say you wanted to cover UK club racing on a commercial site. To cover race meetings alone with a journalist and photographer you're looking at at least £250/day (and possibly much more) to do it in any kind of depth (which you would have to do, otherwise what is the point?.) Say there's 12 days of action in any given weekend - that is £3,000. Say 36 racing weekends in the year - you're looking at £100,000 plus just to cover that.

You'd need perhaps one or two people working on it on a reasonably full time basis, so add in some salary costs. And some freelancers for features. Then starting thinking about other overheads.

I don't see how you can make it viable - I know that ff1600.co.uk wasn't, and we only covered a narrow segment.

In answer to Mr.Jingles - magazine-wise there isn't an awful lot of choice; nor is there anything truly credible online.

[badgerbaiter]

two comments to make here:
1) the white borders were the best.
2) bring back GPI!

[mountainstar]

I cancelled my subscription almost 2 years ago now. I don't think since 1995 the magazine has changed all that much since then. I think I'm the one that has changed and my interests have changed as well.

Autosport a few years ago did a scan of the whole magazine available to subscribers for reading on the internet, but that was in the days before the technology was really ready for it and I don't remember them continuing to do that for long. Times and technology has changed though and I like what Motorsport News in Australia has done with their easy to read internet weekly. They offer it for free, but I would gladly pay for it. One of the problems with autosport here in the usa, is the postage and now currency exchange rate which makes it expensive at $7.25 + tax for a weekly. By going to a internet version of their weekly, I would certainly pay $40-$50 a year to read it, rather than pay $200+ for a sub and have all that postage cost to carry.

[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).

[Super Hans]

It's not perfect (what is?) but it's still something I read religiously from cover-to-cover each week. They have to strike a fine balance between maintaining the interest of the hardcore fan, whilst being accessable to the newcomer. This is the reality of the market.

I cancelled my subscription for the sole reason that it was always delivered whilst I was at work, so I'd have to wait until I got home to read it. Whereas I now get it hot off the press on Thursday morning!

[Lightning Bug]

Originally Posted by Alan Raine

I've just realised I've not read an F1 report in Autosport for years. I've already seen it on the box and picked up the gossip on the Internet so I just don't bother reading it.

Might be worth giving it a try. The F1 reports have been much better since Mark Hughes started doing them. OK, we all know what happened, but when I'm reading Hughes's stuff I often think 'oh, so that's WHY that happened'. I often feel I've understood the race a lot more when I read his report.

Even his Monaco 'this is not a report' thing was good. It really got into why Ron Dennis, Alonso and Hamilton did the things they did. To be honest, I got bored with 'Fisichella came into the pits on lap 47' type stuff years ago - we all know that from TV. But Hughes goes a lot deeper and it's worth reading.

[ensign14]

Hughes puts a bit more into the reports. After all, x passed y on lap z is basic factual information, but that's available elsewhere. The more considered thinking behind it is where print media win out over net.

[Knowlesy]

Hughes talks out of his arse often though. Yes, by all means, expand the scope of race reports. But please do not make me read about fuel corrections or the sensationalist abomination that was the Monaco report. To be fair, they aren't as pompous as Windsor's race reports in F1 Racing.

To be fair on Mark, he does give some good information at times that perhaps was missed over the weekend coverage.

But I always preferred Roebuck's reports myself.

[Dutton]

Yes, well, F1 Racing race reports are getting worse all the time. A couple of years ago I was thinking it would be hard for them to get worse...but time has proved me utterly wrong on that account.

As far as race reports are concerned, I think having account of who pitted when, fuel-correction, fastest laps, and all that stuff, are important. HOWEVER, there is no need for it to be in the written word (very wasteful). Tables/charts/graphics are by far the most succint way of providing that information.

As others have said, race reports should be analysis (considered, useful, relevant - as opposed to worthless rambling/sensationalist musings).

[safc_fan89]

I doubt anyone buys F1 Racing because of the race reports. I can't stand Windsor's race reports...they show no insight at all and he only ever focuses on one driver.

I used to buy Autosport from time to time, but I have stopped recently because it is all on the website or on other websites. It's not good enough to justify paying £3 every week.

[Knowlesy]

£2.90 actually.

[mountainstar]

One wonders then if it's time for a change to more features, opinion, interviews etc.

[Dutton]

That seems to be general theme I am seeing in this thread (certainly regarding the "big" ones).

HOWEVER, it is of paramount importance that such things are done properly.

Perhaps before contemplating changing things too much, it would be best to sort out the systems so that what is currently done is done properly.

[Woolley]

Mark Hughes is, I believe, a quality journalist, and his reports are extremely well written on so many levels. His problem, I believe, is that what he is trying to make interesting is, in fact, extremely dull.

[Knowlesy]

He does not come across terribly well in his reports though.

Roebuck's reports enthused me. They gave an accurate picture of the race with the typical Nigel humour thrown in.

Hughes' writing style seems to have worsened in some way over the years, probably influenced by what Autosport demands nowadays I guess. Going back years and years, before he did F1 reports, he was a very good writer but nowadays he just seems either speculative or bland. He is a very knowledgeable guy obviously, but I don't think he utilises this so well in his F1 reports. F1 hasn't got any duller really over the past decade, so this is not exactly the fault of the sport itself!

[Super Hans]

F1 Racing is an appalling magazine. I buy it now and again, but I always hide it inside a copy of Razzle to spare my blushes at the counter.

[Woolley]

Originally Posted by Knowlesy

F1 hasn't got any duller really over the past decade, so this is not exactly the fault of the sport itself!

I'd disagree with you on that one. I used to watch it 10 years ago, but now - an occasional dip into the highlights but otherwise nothing. Max has acheived his aim of turning it into a chess match. Except you can see the strategy in a chess match. And therein lies Mark's problem, which is fundamentaly the same one I had trying to explain why the England-WIndies world cup match was actually really exciting.

Where Mark excels is usually his 'first-session' side-bar which is quite beautiful. But then that's the nature of the sport. Fantastically thrilling cars, astonishing drivers, no sport or visible competition whatsoever. And Autosport suffers by nailing it's colours to that mast. It used to be filled with journalists who were in love with the sport, and would give proper coverage to an exciting hill-climb, a brilliant club race, an intriguing endurance encounter or just a really good personal feature. And more to the point, made me want to experience all of that.

[Knowlesy]

People have complained about F1 being boring since time begun though, nothing has changed in that respect. From a personal standpoint, some races are tedious, some very good same as always really. Although some aspects have certainly changed for the worse, I don't think the races are any different on the whole apart from the fact it never rains these days and some of the tracks are uninspiring!

Autosport just needs to reduce its F1 coverage as a whole. As has been said, if there is nothing to report they will report something!

I would have liked to have seen an article on the recent Eldora "Prelude to the Dream" dirt track event for example. As it was, I was grateful for the pathetic one picture and a neat contribution from Robin Miller!

[Adam43]

On the Lewis effect, when mentioning Tony Brise in the DFV article, they felt the need to inform us that he was "the Lewis Hamilton of the mid-'70s".

I hope this was meant as a joke by the author, because otherwise it is very patronising and probably wrong.

[Dutton]

Unless Lewis Hamilton has the ability to time travel, the is no "probably wrong" about it.

One can but pray it was some kind of joke, but, sadly, this is not that likely.

[Suze]

I stopped reading AS regularly when I moved out of my parents - ie, I could no longer read my Dad's issue every week as he was a subscriber There was nothing that inclined me to subscribe myself and I haven't done, though I will read it every so often. I'm much more likely to buy a copy of MN as it's more club motorsport based, rather than the "big name" series as AS always features.

I much prefer the concept of club based magazines and others such as F1 Business...though I very rarely buy the latter due to the cost

[ss_collins]

I still find Autosport the best source of international motorsport news - its still unrivalled, but it could do with being a bit less sensationalist at times. Features wise I think its not as good as it has been in the past, but I'm confused by what Autosport is today - is it a news and reports mag like MN or is it a features mag? or is it a bit of both? An what do the readers want anyway?

[Adam43]

It should be less like a tabloid newspaper.
Its analysis should be more intelligent, presented better, explained and qualified.

Basically it should develop a sense of perspective.

[Dutton]

I think that, in essence, is what everyone wants.

For sure, making what currently exists better is the best starting point (before thinking about altering ratios, and what not).

[Suze]

The MN cover this week [Aston Martin from LM on the front] is what I wish Autosport could be....it's a great acheivement for AM. Instead, I presume the cover will be Lewis, though not yet seen this week's issue.