Amateurish "New" RAF News
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear, there's always one...
Well rest assured, all the comments you've so carefully quoted have all been expressed directly to the people concerned, but whatever makes you happy I guess...
Take it you haven't actually got anything of interest to say other than post sarcastic comments about someone who has? Oh well
Well rest assured, all the comments you've so carefully quoted have all been expressed directly to the people concerned, but whatever makes you happy I guess...
Take it you haven't actually got anything of interest to say other than post sarcastic comments about someone who has? Oh well
I don't know who bumped you off the RAF book, Tim, or why, but you're obviously riled about it sufficiently to want to wash the dirty laundry here, and you have my sympathies, for what little that's worth.
But I would have some confidence that the bloke who took it on after you will have done a pretty good job. Better than you or I would have done in some areas, I'd venture, perhaps not in others.
I don't think that slinging mud at previous 'sponsored' books (like Dibbsy's, for example) is all that helpful or fair - since none of them deserve the kind of criticism being levelled at the most recent issue of RAFN, which I really must look out for......
But I would have some confidence that the bloke who took it on after you will have done a pretty good job. Better than you or I would have done in some areas, I'd venture, perhaps not in others.
I don't think that slinging mud at previous 'sponsored' books (like Dibbsy's, for example) is all that helpful or fair - since none of them deserve the kind of criticism being levelled at the most recent issue of RAFN, which I really must look out for......
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Riled is perhaps the wrong choice of words but I did find the saga quite ludicrous. I don't think explaining what happened is "washing dirty linen" though - I think it's important to tell a wider audience just what sort of nonsense goes on.
I'm sure Jamie Hunter will have done a good job on whatever sort of book they've finally produced but that slightly misses the point. It's pretty shabby to spend over a year insisting that a really ambitious and worthwhile book can't be done, only to find that after you've pushed long and hard enough, they suddenly accept that it could have been done all along. Then to simply abandon the project because someone evidently has some sort of personal issue with me is hardly the way to run the PR of the RAF, at least not in my opinion. Then it just becomes even more ludicrous when you find out that they've gone behind your back to steal your original idea, adapt it to suit the tastes of one person (the same one that was responsible for the other publications) and use your suggested title too without even having the common decency to tell you why any of this has been done. It's the kind of action you'd expect from a third-rate company but certainly not what I'd expect from the Royal Air Force.
As for John Dibb's older book, I don't think it was "sponsored" as such, in fact as I understand things, the book I was doing was the first one to have fallen victim to the new regime of corporate branding and complete editorial control, etc. From everything I managed to find-out about the sad saga of the RAF Magazine, it seems it was a similar situation which prevailed there and ultimately led to the magazine's closure (some would say not a moment too soon!). Likewise, the sorry aspect of the partwork publication is that it effectively discourages any other publisher from even thinking about producing something similar (and hopefully much better). I mean, if you were a publisher and you'd seen what a failure the partwork was, would you be inclined to throw money at another one, especially when the RAF PR men will want to wrap you up in ridiculous editorial control, branding and copyright nonsense and so on?
I just don't know what these people are playing at. They're supposed to be promoting the RAF and yet they simply lurch from one self-induced disaster to another, and now they've evidently turned their attention to RAF News too. I'm not the only person to think this way but I guess I'm the only one that is sufficiently saddened by it to say so, or perhaps it's because I have no agenda which requires me to say appropriately politically-correct things to the right people!
It's tragic that a respected fighting force like the RAF should be left at the mercy of people who claim to be "PR-ing" the RAF but consistently manage to look like a bunch of amateurs. For heaven's sake, have we really reached a point where the best that can be done in terms of public presentation is the Spirit of Misadventure while they can still manage to devote their attention to producing sneakers (gawd help us) and seeking license fees from model kit manufacturers to print RAF roundels?! It never used to be like this and yet the sorry tale of RAF News suggests that the situation isn't getting any better!
I'm sure Jamie Hunter will have done a good job on whatever sort of book they've finally produced but that slightly misses the point. It's pretty shabby to spend over a year insisting that a really ambitious and worthwhile book can't be done, only to find that after you've pushed long and hard enough, they suddenly accept that it could have been done all along. Then to simply abandon the project because someone evidently has some sort of personal issue with me is hardly the way to run the PR of the RAF, at least not in my opinion. Then it just becomes even more ludicrous when you find out that they've gone behind your back to steal your original idea, adapt it to suit the tastes of one person (the same one that was responsible for the other publications) and use your suggested title too without even having the common decency to tell you why any of this has been done. It's the kind of action you'd expect from a third-rate company but certainly not what I'd expect from the Royal Air Force.
As for John Dibb's older book, I don't think it was "sponsored" as such, in fact as I understand things, the book I was doing was the first one to have fallen victim to the new regime of corporate branding and complete editorial control, etc. From everything I managed to find-out about the sad saga of the RAF Magazine, it seems it was a similar situation which prevailed there and ultimately led to the magazine's closure (some would say not a moment too soon!). Likewise, the sorry aspect of the partwork publication is that it effectively discourages any other publisher from even thinking about producing something similar (and hopefully much better). I mean, if you were a publisher and you'd seen what a failure the partwork was, would you be inclined to throw money at another one, especially when the RAF PR men will want to wrap you up in ridiculous editorial control, branding and copyright nonsense and so on?
I just don't know what these people are playing at. They're supposed to be promoting the RAF and yet they simply lurch from one self-induced disaster to another, and now they've evidently turned their attention to RAF News too. I'm not the only person to think this way but I guess I'm the only one that is sufficiently saddened by it to say so, or perhaps it's because I have no agenda which requires me to say appropriately politically-correct things to the right people!
It's tragic that a respected fighting force like the RAF should be left at the mercy of people who claim to be "PR-ing" the RAF but consistently manage to look like a bunch of amateurs. For heaven's sake, have we really reached a point where the best that can be done in terms of public presentation is the Spirit of Misadventure while they can still manage to devote their attention to producing sneakers (gawd help us) and seeking license fees from model kit manufacturers to print RAF roundels?! It never used to be like this and yet the sorry tale of RAF News suggests that the situation isn't getting any better!
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: In a shed
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tim Mc
It's a sad and sorry tale you relate. However,it is my certain understanding that RAF News - 'old and new' is not part of the RAF PR or corporate comms (or whatever it's called these days!). It comes under RAF welfare(or whatever that's called these days!
)
It's a sad and sorry tale you relate. However,it is my certain understanding that RAF News - 'old and new' is not part of the RAF PR or corporate comms (or whatever it's called these days!). It comes under RAF welfare(or whatever that's called these days!
)
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe so, but it seems unlikely that the PR people wouldn't have had their finger in that particular pie too at some stage! Wonder if there are any folks on here who have any experience of the ways in which our American cousins handle such publications etc.? Might be interesting to know how they handle things these days?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: South West
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The second issue doesn't seem to have improved in quality but at least there's a tribute to the previous team, Adrian Rondel and Andrew Wise et al.
If you're interested in reading the tribute, it's tucked away in the bottom right-hand corner of page 3!
N Joe
If you're interested in reading the tribute, it's tucked away in the bottom right-hand corner of page 3!
N Joe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Area 51
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tim
You still banging on about this? I've heard both sides of the story and am pleased that the person you continue to harangue does not lower himself to your level by slagging you off on a public forum. Or perhaps that's the point, you know he won't do so? From your comments he is easily identifiable and as such I consider your comments amount to slander - moderators take note.
Fact is you had a fantastic opportunity which many journos would have given their right arms for and you blew it. Fast jet rides are hard to come but by plastering the images taken from sorties on spotter web sites instead of keeping them for the book showed a lack of understanding of the privileges you were receiving.
Also the change in personnel at RAF News came about when they moved from Innsworth to Wycombe. Whilst this thread is a convenient hook for you to air your grievances, you really do need to get over it mate. Perhaps you should consider putting your efforts into updating your previous opus 'The Virgin Gay Guide'?
Reg
You still banging on about this? I've heard both sides of the story and am pleased that the person you continue to harangue does not lower himself to your level by slagging you off on a public forum. Or perhaps that's the point, you know he won't do so? From your comments he is easily identifiable and as such I consider your comments amount to slander - moderators take note.
Fact is you had a fantastic opportunity which many journos would have given their right arms for and you blew it. Fast jet rides are hard to come but by plastering the images taken from sorties on spotter web sites instead of keeping them for the book showed a lack of understanding of the privileges you were receiving.
Also the change in personnel at RAF News came about when they moved from Innsworth to Wycombe. Whilst this thread is a convenient hook for you to air your grievances, you really do need to get over it mate. Perhaps you should consider putting your efforts into updating your previous opus 'The Virgin Gay Guide'?
Reg
