RAF collection magazine finished?

[Tim McLelland]

I hear a rumour that the fortnightly RAF magazine partwork has been scrapped after only ten issues. This true?

If it is, then you have to thank Eaglemoss for producing such a poor publication and ruining the chances of anyone else doing a good one for years to come - thanks for nothing! Doh!:confused:

[philrigger]

What RAF magazine?

'We knew how to whinge but we kept it in the NAAFI bar.'

[Tim McLelland]

The fortnightly partwork which has been in newsagents for the past few months (and was advertised on telly). Not the also-defunct RAF Magazine (which I understand is coming back eventually with another publisher).

[Regie Mental]

Tim, Chox, or whatever you're called today. The RAF Collection has gone but just 'cos you didn't write it doesn't mean it was c**p. Fact is the demand for a part-work on the RAF just isn't there.

[Proman]

'Fact is the demand for a part-work on the RAF just isn't there'.

If you believe Col Tim Collins, demand for the RAF isn't there either. The worrying fact is that there is neither the level of public interest or support for the RAF there was once. As each station closes, so another community loses interest and moves on.

[Tim McLelland]

What nonsense Regie!

Basically RAF Magazine folded because Titan Publishing didn't have a clue about the RAF or aviation, which is why the RAF(DPR) has now decided to place the magazine with an aerospce publisher.

The RAF Collection partwork was just a bad idea right from the first issue. Apart from the fact that it was astonishingly small for the cover price, the free gifts were rubbish (who the hell wants a reprinted Daily Mirror and yet another copy of the over-published Pilots Notes from WWII?) and the content was very disappointing. The publisher patently didn't grasp that most people wanted to read about modern operations, and didn't want half the magazine to be wasted on historical (ie- WWI/II) coverage that they could pick-up in a library book. It's that simple.

The "fact" certainly is not that there isn't any demand for an RAF partwork, it's that there's demand for a partwork that is worth collecting, and this one patently wasn't. The annoying aspect of this (as I said earlier) is that it will deter other publishers from considering the idea now. Let's just hope that when someone else finally does have another go sometime in the future, they make a much better job of it!

[Wyler]

My favourite publication of late is the glossy pamphlet that tells me how to talk to disabled people. How much did that cost?

Lets have a no holds barred magazine with semi naked women bending over. That tends to sell. You could have 'kiss & tell' sections, Paparazzi photo's of OC such and such fondling the troops at the xmas bash. Just go into the troops accom in MPA at 2300 on a Friday night. That should yield enough for a bumper issue covering all of the above. As for prizes. How about a Typhoon Willy Warmer, E3D recipe book or a raffle for a correct JPA Pay Statement.

Or why don't we just forget the whole thing and concentrate on something a tad more important.:hmm:

[Jackonicko]

Correct in parts, Tim.

Said magazine failed its test launch (in Tyne Tees TV area, I believe) without ever being available nationally. How it ever passed research groups and scored highly enough to be tested beats me.

While they printed at least four issues, I believe that only three were ever distributed.

When each issue devoted nine or ten of its available pages to a chronological history, ensuring that the first, vital, habit-forming issues were one-third WW1, the RAF collection was doomed to failure. When the modern coverage was weak, lacking in enthusiast-pleasing detail, and supported by mediocre photography, this was doomed to fail.

The lesson other partwork publishers willl draw is that aviation and the RAF doesn't sell, when the lesson should be that utter $hite doesn't sell.

Blaming Eaglemoss may be harsh, too. The RAF itself had a degree of editorial control over the magazine, and may well have been responsible for the content that turned readers off. Eaglemoss was warned by large numbers of people what was going to haappen, and I believe that their concerns were pooh-poohed by DPR.

[Ewan Whosearmy]

The feedback I got regarding The RAF Collection was that Eaglemoss didn't really know what it was doing (a la Titan); they relied on people that were not up-to-date with modern RAF operations and technologies to write the content (with one or two noteable exceptions); they wouldn't listen to the advice given to them by the experienced and respected aviation partwork editor they hired in at the last-minute; and the RAF was as helpful as ever... Little surprise it flopped. They did have fun classifying "Project Roger" as Top Secret Super Squirrel, though.

[Tim McLelland]

[QUOTE=Jackonicko]The lesson other partwork publishers willl draw is that aviation and the RAF doesn't sell, when the lesson should be that utter $hite doesn't sell.
QUOTE]

My thoughts exactly.
I've had quite a bit of communications with DPR(RAF) recently, and although it's fair to say that they do exercise far more control than they used to, I think it would be wrong to "blame" them in any way for the failure of the partwork magazine. My experience of Eaglemoss was brief, but enough to convince me that they didn't know what they were doing. All well and good, but as you say, it will send the wrong message to other publishers. Pity it was ever published.