Is MBUK value for for money?

mfin

jstock wrote:

If you google "mbuk circulation figures"

this thread is the first search result...for now anyway

Really? 'MBUK circulation figures' ?? surely if people keep writing 'MBUK circulation figures' in these posts then it will remain high up in google when people type in 'MBUK circulation figures' ...oh and then they'll read about all this instead (of stuff directly about MBUK circulation figures). By the way, what are the figures?

supersonic

45000 per month at the min.

MBR is 35600, which curiously is exactly the same number of Orange and Specialized owners in the UK, while WMB lags a bit on 17300.

mfin

supersonic wrote:

45000 per month at the min.

MBR is 35600, which curiously is exactly the same number of Orange and Specialized owners in the UK, while WMB lags a bit on 17300.

That seems to be a very good figure for MBR then seeing as its genre specific and no-one young seems to like it, good on them. I expected MBUK to be a lot more really. Just goes to show. I think WMB always has trouble cos of its title, it sort of implies that if you already own a bike and are not in the market for a new one then there will be nothing of interest in there, but there is.

supersonic

MBUK used to be around 60000, but WMB was created by them to cater for those wanting a different style and subsequently the figures dropped,

MBR seems a lot more widely available than WMB too.

mfin

But at 45,000 it must be the 'leading mountain bike magazine' and must be brilliant mustn't it? No. I still think next to no-one at the moment would find it value for money cos it tries to be everything but appear a bit 'teenagey' as well. If its gonna do that it might as well go the whole hog ...really go for it , maybe have a little agony aunts column and health feature stuff on whether you can catch aids from doorknobs.

I'm not saying its a better magazine, just more focused on a narrower demographic but I bet the average reader of MBR thinks they get value for money cos its well done and focussed for what it is.

supersonic

It is the best selling magazine, yes. It appeals to an audience, the figures are actually rising. To be honest it has been like this for the last 10 years or so, with the 'evolving' reflecting the market and to keep it fresh. Same thing, packaged different.

It may not be the best read for you, or me to be honest, but it is for a lot of people who do enjoy it. New writers, new features, but a variation on the theme.

I don't think they are going for a younger and younger audience: we are just getting older ;-)

s-worksenduro

Just wanted to add this from Wikipedia, talks about their target market.

Future Publishing's readership demographics research has indicated the magazine's readership to be 98% male, with an average age of 24.5 and an average income of £36,000.

I personally stopped buying MBUK about 18 months ago because the main reason I got it was the wrecked and rated and grouptests, but the quality of these is so bad, there is absolutely no useful information held in the reviews. This is becoming clear on this website as well, looking at the reviews, it is just regurgitated sales spiel from the manufacturers. They do seem to be getting lazy, they have reached the top, become complacent and all of the long term readers are suffering.

I now just buy a packet of cookies, and go and chill out in my LBS for a few hours, much cheaper, you learn more about the gear, more about local routes and meet new riding buddies!! This is the future! Get involved!

supersonic

Average income of 36k?!!!

Ruddy hell.

Anonymous

36,000

almost the same number as MBR readers

and orange or specialized owners

apparently

noodleman

I agree that MBUK seems to want to be all things to all men (and women) but seems too vague and a wee bit childish but i guess it's all about target audiences and if anything it does seem slightly more geared towards the more extreme end of MTB ( freeride, downhill ) type of riding. I Find WMB is a slightly more mature mag aimed more at XC which suits me fine so that's the one i subscribe to.
Just pick your fave and stick with it, although it always seems such a wait for the next one to pop through the letterbox, tempting me to go and buy something else in the meantime.

Anonymous

although it always seems such a wait for the next one to pop through the letterbox, tempting me to go and buy something else in the meantime.

That's because there is very little real content in the mag.

You turn six pages before getting to the contents page.

When you do get to a feature it is simply a few boxes with just a wee bit of text and a big picture of a scruffy, unshaven dirty looking mcfly lookalike riding the same old lapierre or commencal.

But 45,000 teens love this every month.

They are supposed to have an average income of 36k too

supersonic

Could be worse, could be MBR.

Which again comes down to we buy what we like.

Anonymous

Actually its 5 pages before you even get to see what's in it.

Clearly the advertiser comes before the reader.

45,000 readers @ £3.99 = £179,550.00 per month

Does one months advertising revenue generate more than that?

You call them readers but these readers BUY the magazine

This thread started by asking if MBUK is value for money and the general feeling here is NO

Personally I would rather pay an additional £1 per month for the mag just to have all the adverts put in a simple pull out section and separate from the features so its easy to throw away.

but would that expose the bare bones of the magazine?

Anonymous

supersonic wrote:

Could be worse, could be MBR.

Which again comes down to we buy what we like.

Or de we simply make do with what is available?


I do agree about MBR though. I wouldn't give an MBR writer the sweat from the crack of my arse

supersonic

Is any mag good value? it is if you enjoy it. So far, of the half dozen or so people who have replied ehre the consensus is no.

MBR is no different, apart from the editorial it is page 16 before we see an article.

supersonic

jstock wrote:

supersonic wrote:

Could be worse, could be MBR.

Which again comes down to we buy what we like.

Or de we simply make do with what is available?


I do agree about MBR though. I wouldn't give an MBR writer the sweat from the crack of my ars*

Lol, we agree there. I do buy it out of interest, mainly so I can moan about it.

The Northern Monkey

The 1st thing i notice about MBUK when I read it is all the mistakes!
I actually said something about it because it was so terrible!!

grantway

always take a look at southerndownhill.com web site all free

mfin

supersonic wrote:

Could be worse, could be MBR.

Which again comes down to we buy what we like.

No we don't, its not that simple, SOME of the content its alright but there's not enough of it and its lazily done, it can be fixed and improved AND appeal to all the target audiences not at the expense of any of them.

Once you've got a captive audience it gives you license to do what you want with your media cos within reason there is not much 'choice' out there and people will 'buy anyway'. That's what's at the heart of this. A lot of people are buying a few magazines cos one 'favourite' a month is not enough and they want more.

Its simple, it can be improved but the people involved in the magazine probably don't care that much about it. I don't believe its been thought about properly, not for one second, they're more likely to think a new zany font looks 'wicked' than sitting down for an extra 4 hours at night and perfecting some good copy.

People are saying there's no 'meat' in the articles, just pictures and a few token boxes. If they addressed that with some serious effort the youngster's aren't going to come on here saying 'excuse me, cos I am young I am a bit thick and do you you think we can we have more pictures please and less writing', I bet they just won't.

Like I said, photos fill pages quicker than writing by far, and when adverts are packed full of photos you can find yourself flicking through 30 odd pages in the first minute thinking 'there's nothing in this magazine'.

I think it should be addressed, I think the magazine can be better quite easily through hard work, care and attention, I think they've let it slip and if they want a mag that covers everything then they can still make it the best they can. Sure they all have the ability (well, maybe not all) but if people don't say then who else is going to say when they just assume they have it right due to sales figures.

mfin

supersonic wrote:

Is any mag good value? it is if you enjoy it. So far, of the half dozen or so people who have replied ehre the consensus is no.

MBR is no different, apart from the editorial it is page 16 before we see an article.

Well, actually, love it or hate it go have a look how many words are written in and how much of that is original non-regurgitated stuff. Yes, magazines have adverts by nature but go have a proper look at each one, see how much there is to read.

I'm not defending MBR, its a different kind of mag... my point is that MBUK has lost any focus and become a slave to style over content and lazy page filling.

supersonic

Most people buy a mag because they enjoy the content, or feel they will, unless they are like me and buy MBR. Mind you I only buy it 2 or 3 times a year when I like what I see on a cover. I don't buy the others as they never seem to interest me. If the content has really drained away, then the subscriber on a contract would be worse hit. I am not sure people just buy anyway, we do have a choice! Flick through the mag, if it looks bad, don't buy it if you feel things really are changing for the worse.

There are more ads, but then again the mag is 40 pages more than it was a few years ago. Maybe 40 pages of ads - I feel it creates an illusion though.

I see your point on the content, but it is only your opinion. I personally don't think it is as bad as that. Of course many will agree, many will disagree. Lots do like it, and sales are rising.

The Northern Monkey

mfin wrote:

supersonic wrote:

Is any mag good value? it is if you enjoy it. So far, of the half dozen or so people who have replied ehre the consensus is no.

MBR is no different, apart from the editorial it is page 16 before we see an article.

Well, actually, love it or hate it go have a look how many words are written in and how much of that is original non-regurgitated stuff. Yes, magazines have adverts by nature but go have a proper look at each one, see how much there is to read.

I'm not defending MBR, its a different kind of mag... my point is that MBUK has lost any focus and become a slave to style over content and lazy page filling.

Also, MBUK seem to change their rating of bikes etc for no reason at all.... one of the "superbikes" is now crap.... apparently.

There's quite alot of brown nosing in the mag.

mfin

supersonic wrote:

Most people buy a mag because they enjoy the content, or feel they will, unless they are like me and buy MBR. Mind you I only buy it 2 or 3 times a year when I like what I see on a cover. I don't buy the others as they never seem to interest me. If the content has really drained away, then the subscriber on a contract would be worse hit. I am not sure people just buy anyway, we do have a choice! Flick through the mag, if it looks bad, don't buy it if you feel things really are changing for the worse.

There are more ads, but then again the mag is 40 pages more than it was a few years ago. Maybe 40 pages of ads - I feel it creates an illusion though.

I see your point on the content, but it is only your opinion. I personally don't think it is as bad as that. Of course many will agree, many will disagree. Lots do like it, and sales are rising.

Yep. It would be nice to see it improved though. Im sure sales are rising of all these mags as mountain biking is getting more and more popular, more money is piled into it and more people join in. I'm sure its no reflection whatsoever of MBUK being an improved magazine. It doesn't sound like I'm the only one who'd like to see a bit more effort put into it. Nuff said.

Anonymous

My favourite is WMB.

MBUK lacks content but is definately #2

MBR has a nice feel and the ride pull outs are good but the rest is shit

Singletrack is posh gash that only gets published after they've sent out the begging letters for money to publish it with.

Dirt...well dirt is dirt...for chavs.

supersonic

I wonder if there is a market for another mag? A more in depth look at the dirt, DH and trials scene but written in the style of WMB with an equal amount of content? It seems that 'cool' and 'young' is much more associated with these riding disciplines.

I do agree too that general writing style ie use of English, correct punctuation etc is essential, but as is the mag's style, sometimes I think it is actually purposely overlooked in places.

WMB ticks all my boxes, but then again I am slightly biased here! I feel MBR could be so much better if it wasn't so focussed on riding downwards with long travel, short stems and slack angles! But maybe that is where its market actually is!

lugsey2k5

dont know if any one has mentioned this but has any one ever straightened up the photos so the horizon is level and trees grow upward and noticed how exagerated the hills are in mbuk pictures

neil_sheehan2000

jstock wrote:

You all write well

Hmmm...

To be honest, I have no idea how to write well about mountain biking- whilst it's happening it's all fairly indescribable- but whenever I buy MBUK and read 'Gee just flew down the hill like his pants were on fire- he was AWESOME! and the rest of the pack were left CHOKING ON HIS DUST!!', I do wonder where the poetry is in this sport of ours. The opening five minutes or so of Dog Town and Z-Boys features an article by Craig Stecyk that makes you feel that skateboarding is massively important and really makes you interested in this new world. I've yet to find that quality of writing in any mountain bike magazine.

Anyway, that's my little ride around on the high horse...

p.s. who said Dirt was for children? I find it quite ineresting and mostly well written in comparison to some other stuff. Can barely comprehend most of it though since I know next to nothing about the DH scene and they don't seem too keen on illuminating me.

Cheshley

Future Publishing's readership demographics research has indicated the magazine's readership to be 98% male, with an average age of 24.5 and an average income of £36,000.

Male
24.5 years old
£36,000 annual income

I suppose one out of 3 aint bad......... :oops:

Mrs Toast

Cheshley wrote:

Future Publishing's readership demographics research has indicated the magazine's readership to be 98% male, with an average age of 24.5 and an average income of £36,000.

Male
24.5 years old
£36,000 annual income

I suppose one out of 3 aint bad......... :oops:

I think the annual income is household income, so is probably skewed by people who live with partners (or parents... )

mfin

lugsey2k5 wrote:

dont know if any one has mentioned this but has any one ever straightened up the photos so the horizon is level and trees grow upward and noticed how exagerated the hills are in mbuk pictures

Spot on. Style over substance... it makes for dramatic looking photos but in turn has a completely exagerrated perspective as to what the person is actually riding over. Its all very well for stylistic shots in adverts but its ridiculous really for magazine content, its self indulgent crap.

Mountain biking doesn't need real life to be exaggerated in order to be compelling... just like action films that have to make explosions massive, its the same thing.... Bond having his car shot to pieces for 15 mintutes of stylistic editing and in the end getting out and brushing himself down like it could happen OR a real, single continuous take of a real-life stuntman skiing off a cliff to open a parachute a few seconds later? Which one is more exciting? ...one's made up, the other one is bullshit.

Plus, its lazy, turning the angle on that kind of shot all the time will easliy give that 'pseudo dramatic effect' and duely make a totally unskilled and average photo look more dramatic, thats why they do it, try it yourself ...then try to take a decent 'literal' shot that requires compositional skills and vision, its not easy, but... there are lots of fantastic photographers out there who can do it. They would puke at the cheap tricks routinely pulled by 'rotating all the time' when they would probably love to get the opportunity to show their skills and get some work. It's a cop out. (Look at some of the shots in MBR or example. Not 'rotated' every time but good stuff, takes a while to do.... takes skill and passion to do that rather than to just manipulate something to look stylistic in photoshop).