Amateurish "New" RAF News
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: All Bar One
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TSTK - my post was not aimed at you. I agree with what you had posted earlier. I have seen piles of 'glossies' from all sorts of organisations and have wondered about just how broad their appeal is. I have wondered in the past where the funding comes from, particularly those with no advertising content. There is a place, I think, for Commanders bulletins and other material that informs the masses. There is a place for welfare stuff too. But you sometimes wonder about the quality of these things that are produced - you see large piles of unread magazines on tables in crewrooms and teabars the will not be picked up until someone dumps them in the bin. Now THAT is annoying!
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: In a shed
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skipping rapidly past AIDU's latest mature contribution to the debate.....
Just to say that I understand that the mandate to the management of RAF News is to produce the paper every fortnight at no cost to the public purse, balancing staff, production costs etc with money from advertising and sales. I also understand that Soldier, for example,receives a hefty subsidy from the Army - and sells advertising,merchandise etc.
The 'new-look' RAF News looks like the new, inexperienced team were trying to change too much, too quickly. One would hope content, lay-out and basic proof-reading will improve in time!
Just to say that I understand that the mandate to the management of RAF News is to produce the paper every fortnight at no cost to the public purse, balancing staff, production costs etc with money from advertising and sales. I also understand that Soldier, for example,receives a hefty subsidy from the Army - and sells advertising,merchandise etc.
The 'new-look' RAF News looks like the new, inexperienced team were trying to change too much, too quickly. One would hope content, lay-out and basic proof-reading will improve in time!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: By a lake in the North...
Age: 44
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to say that I agree with the majority in that the new layout and general style of the RAF News is amateurish at best. To my mind it's heading toward a US-style vision of gung-ho fighter jocks (the ridiculous sports car article), seemingly in an ill-starred attempt to make the RAF more modern and cool to those who we are seeking to recruit. Have those in charge forgotten that the RAF news is less a recruiting tool and more an in-house publication? The layout has more in common with the cobbled-together student newspaper my school used to push out once a term, put together using an ageing Acorn A3000; and even the fonts are tough on the eyes. Even those insidious full page 'advertising features' sneakily masquerading as real stories are present. Sort it out chaps...
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South West
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Read it yesterday in Main Building - thought it was awful - what is the significance of the feature on "My Name is Earl "? Nice to see aircrew charging around in freeby cars - good advertising for the car company but does it really warrant a centre page spread when the RAF is doing so much around the world at present ? Thought the article on drinking was pretty pointless in its approach and rather an own goal - in particular the comments about guys travelling from Kabul to Kandahar and a list of the illegal drinks they were carrying.
Given that this is a representative publication that is available for the public to read, I thought it was amateurish, poorly produced and not very professional.
I've seen Squadron newsletters with more incisive and appropriate (and better spelt) input
.
Waiting out.
Given that this is a representative publication that is available for the public to read, I thought it was amateurish, poorly produced and not very professional.
I've seen Squadron newsletters with more incisive and appropriate (and better spelt) input
.Waiting out.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Somerset
Age: 68
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Finally managed to buy the latest issue today. Page 3 was something to drool over, particularly as IV(AC) have such a nice fin this year, and the centre spread was outstanding (and interesting). Well done the VOC.
The placing of the schools adverts pp 5,7 & 8 could have been planned better; buried in the midst of them is a small article about our folk in Kandahar helping the locals. That should have had far greater prominence in my view; that is the kind of pr that can save lives of our guys as well as enhance the corporate image. Was the new editorial team's last posting on the Guarniad perhaps?
And finally,
In the reunions bit at the back there's a chap called Derek Stevens wants to know if ex-members fancy a reunion. Of what isn't mentioned. If he means the RAF, how big a venue would it have to be?
The placing of the schools adverts pp 5,7 & 8 could have been planned better; buried in the midst of them is a small article about our folk in Kandahar helping the locals. That should have had far greater prominence in my view; that is the kind of pr that can save lives of our guys as well as enhance the corporate image. Was the new editorial team's last posting on the Guarniad perhaps?
And finally,
In the reunions bit at the back there's a chap called Derek Stevens wants to know if ex-members fancy a reunion. Of what isn't mentioned. If he means the RAF, how big a venue would it have to be?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Nigit
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, since we've started to include other glossies in the thread, what about "Spirit of the Air". A bigger load of self-serving irrelevant bilge I've yet to see. I
f the powers that be are trying to enforce "ethos" upon our membership, why is it full of articles of (largely) no interest or relevance to us? It does nothing for me and I would be very surprised if it holds the interest of a 20 year old SAC(T) in the teabar.
As far as I can see, it's full of articles by Gp Capts and Wg Cdrs trying to raise their profiles eg. "The Importance of Logisitics in Today's Expeditionary RAF" by Wg Cdr I M Blunt BA MIPD MRAeS RAF - SO1 B&S(Pol) DLO. I'm surprised you can get people out of the crewrooms for wanting to read stuff like that...
Tripe
And annuver fing...
6 MONTHS? What a bunch of muppets! Why can't they get even a simple fact like the length of flying training correct? If they'd said "...the course which is up to 3 years long in just 4 months" they would have been more accurate. (Bearing mind he is sampling EFT, BFJT and RWAFT...)
And since when have 18 Sqn operated all 40 of the RAF's Chinooks. Bloody amateurs... and so are the editing team of the RAF News....
f the powers that be are trying to enforce "ethos" upon our membership, why is it full of articles of (largely) no interest or relevance to us? It does nothing for me and I would be very surprised if it holds the interest of a 20 year old SAC(T) in the teabar.
As far as I can see, it's full of articles by Gp Capts and Wg Cdrs trying to raise their profiles eg. "The Importance of Logisitics in Today's Expeditionary RAF" by Wg Cdr I M Blunt BA MIPD MRAeS RAF - SO1 B&S(Pol) DLO. I'm surprised you can get people out of the crewrooms for wanting to read stuff like that...
Tripe
And annuver fing...
RAF News - "Prince William is to complete the RAF's six month flying training course in just 4 months.
And since when have 18 Sqn operated all 40 of the RAF's Chinooks. Bloody amateurs... and so are the editing team of the RAF News....
Last edited by ProfessionalStudent; 12th Jan 2008 at 08:54. Reason: Addition of further rant...
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talk Shy said:
My point was (though undoubtedly badly made) that given the relatively low potential readership I question the commercial viability of such mags. I used 'Active' as an example, but there's hundreds of glossies every month. As an aside, the previously mentioned Soldier magazine is undoubtedly one of the best of them.
My point was (though undoubtedly badly made) that given the relatively low potential readership I question the commercial viability of such mags. I used 'Active' as an example, but there's hundreds of glossies every month. As an aside, the previously mentioned Soldier magazine is undoubtedly one of the best of them.
The RAF News relies very little on the likes of Smiths and Tesco, so distribution costs are zilch. The stock that its printed on is crap and cheap, and production costs are low (can you imagine how much it would cost a 'real' title to get decent air to air shots?). Ad sales are subbed out to Mongoose Media (or were until the relaunch - not sure about now - and their rate card is obscene: http://www.rafnews.co.uk/default.asp...torial_id=4237 ).
There would be a great case for producing an alternative mag, but market penetration has proved to be the issue in the past, not to mention getting the same measure of official support from the RAF as it gives the News (after all, it owns it).. although it'd be interesting to see if a new title publisher could take on the MoD demanding equal route to market status, under EU legislation.
Stn mags are good business. A bad issue on a quiet stn should still make about £500 profit net. All the eds copy is provided by career advancers so that costs nothing, there are no distribution costs and no returns. A so so issue for a good unit will make in the region of £2,000, and then its anything above that. If you have say, 12 of these contracts, the business model soon starts making sense. Low costs + great demographic = £.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: In a shed
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Al R, just a couple of points: RAF News relies very heavily on WH Smith's wholesale newspaper distribution - so costs in that area are high (not zilch!). More than half of its sales are through Smiths and other 'High Street' newsagents.
And Mongoose Media's rates are vey much what the market will stand, and are usually the opening point for negotiation. Very few adveristsers pay 'rate card' for any publication these days.
And Mongoose Media's rates are vey much what the market will stand, and are usually the opening point for negotiation. Very few adveristsers pay 'rate card' for any publication these days.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Lota,
Sure, I understand the basis of rate card, but its still a good rate. Negotiate, say, 60% and you're still talking about £1400 a page for display advertising, dropping to maybe, £700 for late space.. and thats twice a month don't forget. I'm not knocking them, it makes good business. Work out the ad/ed ratio, take into account the stock used, the minimal overhead (unless they pay rent at HW now) and its a good model.
As the publishing factors, Mongoose should net at least £22,000 (+vat) an issue - they'll do all the invoicing too and give maybe 33% to the RAF. In fact, they should be contracted to give at least 33% to the RAF for a contracted minimum period if anyone at the RAF knows their stuff, so the RAF bean counters won't care if circulation is soft. Thats £16,000 a month heading to the MoD. Eds staff costs certainly won't cost the earth, I know what Smiths charge to get onto High Street and Travel (I accept your point though) and it'll still more than (barf) wash its own face. Its a nice earner.
Sure, I understand the basis of rate card, but its still a good rate. Negotiate, say, 60% and you're still talking about £1400 a page for display advertising, dropping to maybe, £700 for late space.. and thats twice a month don't forget. I'm not knocking them, it makes good business. Work out the ad/ed ratio, take into account the stock used, the minimal overhead (unless they pay rent at HW now) and its a good model.
As the publishing factors, Mongoose should net at least £22,000 (+vat) an issue - they'll do all the invoicing too and give maybe 33% to the RAF. In fact, they should be contracted to give at least 33% to the RAF for a contracted minimum period if anyone at the RAF knows their stuff, so the RAF bean counters won't care if circulation is soft. Thats £16,000 a month heading to the MoD. Eds staff costs certainly won't cost the earth, I know what Smiths charge to get onto High Street and Travel (I accept your point though) and it'll still more than (barf) wash its own face. Its a nice earner.
Last edited by Al R; 13th Jan 2008 at 14:53.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just picked up the latest issue. Front page stories related to (1) an episode of Coronation Street and (2) the opening of a multi-faith prayer room at RAF Linton-on-Ouse 
I couldn't bring myself to open it and read further. I don't think that I will be renewing my subscription
I couldn't bring myself to open it and read further. I don't think that I will be renewing my subscription
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh well, it's hardly surprising that RAF News has gone the same way as everything else. As lots of you Ppruners know, I spent over a year persuading the RAF's PR people to produce a really good book to celebrate this year's anniversary and it was like banging my head against a brick wall. When I finally did get the go-ahead it was with a sort of grudging acceptance that was as if they were doing me a favour - not vice versa. Then after another year, the guy overseeing the project just pulls the plug and hasn't even got the common decency to explain why. When I even ask CAS, he tries to avoid giving a straight answer. Now they've persuaded the publisher to do a book based on what the RAF man wanted - rather than the guy who pushed for the idea for a year - and use another guy's photographs... but steal my book title. Classy eh?! Glad I still got paid but it kinda somes up what these muppets are like to work with.
Needless to say, I exchanged more than a few words with them, and pointed-out that they'd presided over the God-awful RAF partwork collection (eugh!) which failed miserably, then the hopeless "RAF Magazine", and to crown their achievements, they were now presiding over the legendary "Spirit of Misadvanture". I congratulated them on adding the anniversary book to their list of disasters funded by the taxpayer, but I should have known they'd be back for more. Now they seems to have even destroyed RAF News. Gawd bless 'em. The sooner these folks join the dole queue, the better for the men and women of the RAF who do a real job, rather than just sitting in an office contemplating their perceived self-importance.
Needless to say, I exchanged more than a few words with them, and pointed-out that they'd presided over the God-awful RAF partwork collection (eugh!) which failed miserably, then the hopeless "RAF Magazine", and to crown their achievements, they were now presiding over the legendary "Spirit of Misadvanture". I congratulated them on adding the anniversary book to their list of disasters funded by the taxpayer, but I should have known they'd be back for more. Now they seems to have even destroyed RAF News. Gawd bless 'em. The sooner these folks join the dole queue, the better for the men and women of the RAF who do a real job, rather than just sitting in an office contemplating their perceived self-importance.
Glad 'm not the only person to have appreciated that the second edition of the "new" RAF News is such a massive improvement over the comic that masquerade as the first. Oh no hang on.................................RAF News please take a look at every single page of Navy News and sort your lives out.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No professional interest as such - I simply went to a publisher, spent ages convincing them it would be a good idea, and then spent a year trying to convince RAF PR that it was a good idea. The PR man had already decided to do a book but evidently it was going to be another dull "RAF Book" like all the other ones that have come along. I whined and bitched for ages, trying to convince them that they could do something really good for a change but they just kept saying it was too difficult to do, and couldn't I just put something together using stock RAF images. It really was like bashing my head against a brick wall.
Finally, they grudgingly agreed that they'd give the book support if it was only done within normal day-to-day activities and that nothing was arranged specifically for me. Even then it had to be with the provisio that it was an "official" book with their silly new corporate logo on it, and that they'd have the right to edit or re-write the final text and images. Then it all had to be tied-up in a contract but after a whole year they were still incapable of getting one ready to sign!
So after that, I was simply commissioned by the publisher to deliver the goods and get on with it. I was left to contact all the bases and squadrons myself, and try to get things moving, which is hard work. The only help from the PR guys was the occasional emails sent out to try and hurry people along, but it was a ludicrous situation, being forced to deal with Media Officers who couldn't be ar*ed to help, but had to be "kept in the communications loop" otherwise they complained! Okay, some of these people were really helpful but lots of them just couldn't be less interested.
Then, after plugging away on the job for a year, the PR man announces that he's becoming increasingly dissatisfied with my attitude during visits to stations. I asked what this meant, as everywhere I'd been, the people were all very helpful and friendly, as they always are. He wouldn't explain what he meant, so I said I needed to know who had said what, as it was obviously gossip from someone who perhaps didn't like me for some reason. The reply I got was that I was "accusing (him) of telling lies" and therefore he would "pull the plug" on the whole project. No explanation or anything, he just picks up his ball and runs home.
The guys on the squadrons were gobsmacked, and couldn't beleive what he'd done, but guessed he was obviously some pen-pushing prima donna who's butt I was perhaps meant to kiss a little harder. But that was the end of it - or so I thought. I then found that he'd gone back to the publsiher and persuaded them to produce the book (with my title) but using another photographer's pictures and words, based on his own ideas - ie, use someone who would produce the book he wanted, rather than the one I had in mind.
The whole business was ludicrous, and I told both him and CAS what I thought. He was responsible for the hopeless partwork magazine (which I saw weeks before launch and said to people at the time that it was rubbish). Then he managed to get involved in the RAF Magazine, with a publisher that hadn't got a clue about the RAF or aviation, but still insisted on exercising so much control over the magazine's content that the publisher gave up. And then he goes for his hat trick by ruining what would have been the best book on the RAF that they'd ever had - although I'm sure they'll insist that whatever finally appears in April is of course marvellous!
So it's hardly surprising that that the poison has now spread to RAF News too. I guess they'll just keep going until there's nothing left to destroy. Hope some of you folks write to CAS and suggest that this idiot gets a posting to something more appropriate - maybe Cadet Liaison Officer at RAF Mount Pleasant?
Finally, they grudgingly agreed that they'd give the book support if it was only done within normal day-to-day activities and that nothing was arranged specifically for me. Even then it had to be with the provisio that it was an "official" book with their silly new corporate logo on it, and that they'd have the right to edit or re-write the final text and images. Then it all had to be tied-up in a contract but after a whole year they were still incapable of getting one ready to sign!
So after that, I was simply commissioned by the publisher to deliver the goods and get on with it. I was left to contact all the bases and squadrons myself, and try to get things moving, which is hard work. The only help from the PR guys was the occasional emails sent out to try and hurry people along, but it was a ludicrous situation, being forced to deal with Media Officers who couldn't be ar*ed to help, but had to be "kept in the communications loop" otherwise they complained! Okay, some of these people were really helpful but lots of them just couldn't be less interested.
Then, after plugging away on the job for a year, the PR man announces that he's becoming increasingly dissatisfied with my attitude during visits to stations. I asked what this meant, as everywhere I'd been, the people were all very helpful and friendly, as they always are. He wouldn't explain what he meant, so I said I needed to know who had said what, as it was obviously gossip from someone who perhaps didn't like me for some reason. The reply I got was that I was "accusing (him) of telling lies" and therefore he would "pull the plug" on the whole project. No explanation or anything, he just picks up his ball and runs home.
The guys on the squadrons were gobsmacked, and couldn't beleive what he'd done, but guessed he was obviously some pen-pushing prima donna who's butt I was perhaps meant to kiss a little harder. But that was the end of it - or so I thought. I then found that he'd gone back to the publsiher and persuaded them to produce the book (with my title) but using another photographer's pictures and words, based on his own ideas - ie, use someone who would produce the book he wanted, rather than the one I had in mind.
The whole business was ludicrous, and I told both him and CAS what I thought. He was responsible for the hopeless partwork magazine (which I saw weeks before launch and said to people at the time that it was rubbish). Then he managed to get involved in the RAF Magazine, with a publisher that hadn't got a clue about the RAF or aviation, but still insisted on exercising so much control over the magazine's content that the publisher gave up. And then he goes for his hat trick by ruining what would have been the best book on the RAF that they'd ever had - although I'm sure they'll insist that whatever finally appears in April is of course marvellous!
So it's hardly surprising that that the poison has now spread to RAF News too. I guess they'll just keep going until there's nothing left to destroy. Hope some of you folks write to CAS and suggest that this idiot gets a posting to something more appropriate - maybe Cadet Liaison Officer at RAF Mount Pleasant?
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Liechtenstein
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I simply went to a publisher, spent ages convincing them it would be a good idea, and then spent a year trying to convince RAF PR that it was a good idea.
I whined and bitched for ages
Finally, they grudgingly agreed that they'd give the book support if it was only done within normal day-to-day activities and that nothing was arranged specifically for me. Even then it had to be with the provisio that it was an "official" book with their silly new corporate logo on it, and that they'd have the right to edit or re-write the final text and images.
I was left to contact all the bases and squadrons myself, and try to get things moving, which is hard work.
The only help from the PR guys was the occasional emails sent out to try and hurry people along, but it was a ludicrous situation, being forced to deal with Media Officers who couldn't be ar*ed to help, but had to be "kept in the communications loop" otherwise they complained!
Then, after plugging away on the job for a year, the PR man announces that he's becoming increasingly dissatisfied with my attitude during visits to stations.
The guys on the squadrons were gobsmacked, and couldn't beleive what he'd done, but guessed he was obviously some pen-pushing prima donna who's butt I was perhaps meant to kiss a little harder.
The whole business was ludicrous, and I told both him and CAS what I thought.
Hope some of you folks write to CAS and suggest that this idiot gets a posting to something more appropriate - maybe Cadet Liaison Officer at RAF Mount Pleasant?