Has anyone else noticed , , ,
09-26-2018, 11:30 AM
#1
Has anyone else noticed , , ,
Just how thin the magazine (Model Aviation , of course) has been lately ?
Last month's was thin but I think this newest (October 2018) is even thinner .......
Last month's was thin but I think this newest (October 2018) is even thinner .......
09-26-2018, 11:55 AM
#2
There's been so much attention drawn to them that there's not too much they can put in there without being ridiculed one way or another. Or did you mean you wanted more content actually related to the building and flying of model aircraft?
Last edited by Tipover; 09-26-2018 at 11:58 AM.
09-29-2018, 05:01 PM
#7
there's this new thing called the "internet" that has chipped away at the size of a lot of the hobby and sport magazines and just about obliterated the brick and mortar hobby shops, all over the world !.
09-29-2018, 05:16 PM
#8
10-23-2018, 10:35 AM
#10
I don't keep my old magazines , I leave them in Doctor's offices and other such places for other people to read . If anyone reading has some old M.A. magazines around I'd be curious what the page count was on the magazines a few years ago , today's M.A. feels half as thin to me as I recall the ones of a few years ago .
Last edited by init4fun; 10-23-2018 at 10:54 AM.
10-23-2018, 12:40 PM
#11
10-23-2018, 12:57 PM
#12
Could fewer manufacturers have anything to do with that? The hobby overall is shrinking , it does not take a brain surgeon to see this. Of course you will claim that 700,000 MR owners are part of the hobby. On this we will disagree. IMO most of those were purchased as a camera platform where the owners actual hobby is photography. And a fair share of those were flown a few times and put away. I would be surprised if the FAA registration numbers didn’t decline over the next few years as the newness of the MR fades.
10-23-2018, 01:52 PM
#13
Could fewer manufacturers have anything to do with that? The hobby overall is shrinking , it does not take a brain surgeon to see this. Of course you will claim that 700,000 MR owners are part of the hobby. On this we will disagree. IMO most of those were purchased as a camera platform where the owners actual hobby is photography. And a fair share of those were flown a few times and put away. I would be surprised if the FAA registration numbers didn’t decline over the next few years as the newness of the MR fades.
10-23-2018, 02:26 PM
#14
I actually can agree with that. For the past couple of years I usually take 10 minutes to skim through the mag and then it hits the garbage can. I grew up reading construction and competition articles in MA, RCM, Flying Models and Model Builder. I don’t like the magazines that are mainly advertising and ARF reviews that all claim how great the airplane flies when anyone with any experience can clearly see the thing is a pig.
10-23-2018, 04:18 PM
#16
Very true. I'm sure it's somewhat different from when I wrote a helicopter column in a small SF based R/C magazine. When I did a review the final copy had to be approved by the manufacturer. I was a little different in that if I encountered an issue I would discuss the issue with the manufacturer and would publish the solution within the article. Most times the manufacturer would implement a fix prior to the review being published. I imagine these days distributors such as Horizon will contract a Chinese company to build a certain model and have to commit to a certain number. Some end up being duds and are discontinued at the end of the first run.
10-24-2018, 04:56 AM
#17
the market is simply changing,.... magazines have to cater to what sells for their security. advertising ARFs and drones is where the money and the interest lies these days. it is true that manufacturers are dwindling, the whole scope of computer aided design is geared towards universal similarity in design and manufacturing process, so there is less source for funding the magazine, forcing the AMA to drain the coffers to keep it in the mailboxes.
I figure it won't be long before the AMA goes online magazine only.
I figure it won't be long before the AMA goes online magazine only.
10-24-2018, 08:07 AM
#18
I imagine there is a certain set of guys who will always prefer a hard copy. I am also a member of NSRCA and they have an option to get a hard copy of their magazine/newsletter at an additional cost to their base 40.00 annual membership. AMA doing the same may be a way of saving money or the reduction of printing volume may drive up the printing costs per copy. For all we know it may have been something they checked into already.
10-25-2018, 02:41 AM
#19
"it is true that manufacturers are dwindling, the whole scope of computer aided design is geared towards universal similarity in design and manufacturing process, so there is less source for funding the magazine, forcing the AMA to drain the coffers to keep it in the mailboxes (emphasis added)."
https://www.modelaircraft.org/execut...018-ec-minutes
10-25-2018, 05:25 AM
#20
I'm sure there may be some folks who will complain about having no hard copy , but with a hobby as technological as ours , how many of us "techies" have no internet access ? In fact , where the FAA sUAS registration is an on line service (that I saw no means of doing otherwise , I saw no option for renewing by mail , unless I missed it ?) it's very likely that in the near future anyone without internet access won't be flying (legally) anyway .
(The above quote was taken from a thread where it was reported that a certain advertiser was conspicuously absent from the November 2018 M.A.)
10-25-2018, 07:40 AM
#21
Yes Franklin , when this is the sentiment of the average AMA member concerning the magazine maybe it is time to cut the losses and go on line only ?
I'm sure there may be some folks who will complain about having no hard copy , but with a hobby as technological as ours , how many of us "techies" have no internet access ? In fact , where the FAA sUAS registration is an on line service (that I saw no means of doing otherwise , I saw no option for renewing by mail , unless I missed it ?) it's very likely that in the near future anyone without internet access won't be flying (legally) anyway .
(The above quote was taken from a thread where it was reported that a certain advertiser was conspicuously absent from the November 2018 M.A.)
I'm sure there may be some folks who will complain about having no hard copy , but with a hobby as technological as ours , how many of us "techies" have no internet access ? In fact , where the FAA sUAS registration is an on line service (that I saw no means of doing otherwise , I saw no option for renewing by mail , unless I missed it ?) it's very likely that in the near future anyone without internet access won't be flying (legally) anyway .
(The above quote was taken from a thread where it was reported that a certain advertiser was conspicuously absent from the November 2018 M.A.)
As for the November issue, I don't have mine. What retailer is absent?
10-25-2018, 10:22 AM
#22
Have to log in, but read July 2018 EC minutes, section 5 specifically (CFO) to get an idea of the warnings being given to the EC.
https://www.modelaircraft.org/execut...018-ec-minutes
https://www.modelaircraft.org/execut...018-ec-minutes
I can’t help but notice that on most sources you quote you use cut and paste but ask guys to log onto the AMA site when you want them to see something there. Any reason for that?
10-25-2018, 10:46 AM
#23
For years the EC minutes were available on the open portion of the website (i.e. you could read them w/o first logging in as a member). I would post directly. But when they rolled out the new website, they moved them to members only. I don't quote members only material on an open forum. Now I just steer members to it.
Any financial data I quote comes directly from IRS990 filings, which are public documents (required of non-profits). The members only financial reports contain much of the same info, but I always ensure that I can trace info back to an IRS filing (have them all, back to 2007).
10-25-2018, 12:26 PM
#25
As for cutting losses, sound good as long as it results in dues reduction. What would be frustrating to me is see them cuts losses only to put more money into covering staff costs (other major chunk of budget, approx 25%).
As for the November issue, I don't have mine. What retailer is absent?
As for the November issue, I don't have mine. What retailer is absent?