MGCC Safety Fast club mag - good news!

[colintf]

Courtesy of the MGCC T Register website : -

"
OCTANE MEDIA 20 March 2007

After a lively debate at the MGCC Council meeting on Saturday 17th March, during which the arguments from both sides were explored in fine detail, there was a majority vote in favour of returning to an in-house magazine. The timing of the change and the route by which this will be done is currently under discussion. It follows that the ‘tie up’ with “MG Enthusiast” will cease when the change is introduced and we understand that the decision of MGCC Council has been conveyed to the magazine.

The ‘T’ Register Council Voting Member (John James) voted in favour of ‘returning “Safety Fast!” to the members’. As ‘T’ Register members know, we were presented with a ‘fait accompli’ of a drastically cut down “Safety Fast!” in late 2005. Now we have the opportunity, not only to return to “Safety Fast!” as it was, but to expand it and to really improve it.

As a member of the “Safety Fast!” Editorial Committee, I intend to seize that opportunity. Watch this space!

John James"

[Dave Kerley]

I will probably draw some derisory comments for this reply, but I think that is a bit of a shame. I thought that one of the reasons for joining with MGE was that with all the different type registers producing their own monthly/quarterly magazines, there was only really a need for an update in the club mag - thus it could be made smaller and more cost effective.

Is it realistic to expect that a re-expanded Safety Fast will have the same/better editorial content than what we are currently getting from MGE + SF. Looking back at pre MGE Safety Fast's, it was a club magazine with type and regional/centre newsletters, a couple of pages of news, letters page, and the odd piece about a run plus classifieds - and was very much written by the members.

All of this was carried into the smaller version, which left the articles regarding rebuilds, historic cars to professionals, with also a large news and classifieds section.

Having looked at copies of all 3 publications (MGE, larger SF and smaller SF) I feel this to be a backward step. I for one will continue my subscription with MGE.

[colintf]

Don't get me wrong, I will also continue to subscribe - but we the MGCC must of been losing money

i.e join and get free subscription or subscribe and get free membership - either way we must of lost!

For me I'm pleased we're going back to seperate publications - this is now a chance to improve the "Safety Fast" as per my original posting!

I'm surprised that yours is the only comment so far though!!

[Chris Tideswell]

That for me is a shame I hope the new Safety Fast doesn't revert back to treading water for years like the old one.

There seems to be a general lack of value in the MGCC only bolstered by the MGF register and the MGE, it has to be said that I' am only a member of the MGCC to get access to the MGF register otherwise I wouldn't bother I certainly didn't when I owned a Midget.

[Rich Stone]

Chris, I have to say I agree with you totally. I have never been a really big fan of Safety Fast! Everything I need from the MGCC I get in FastForward now. I also enjoy the up-to-the-minute reports in MGE and have been a subscriber since it's revamp. It would be a shame if I had to go back to paying twice as much for just MGCC membership and the magazine I really want to read.

Colin, you say they must have been losing money with this deal but, correct me if I'm wrong, the whole venture was because of this reason in the first place and to try and bolster MGCC membership. I'm sure there are many club members who wouldn't have been, if it wasn't for this deal, and this is bound to come to light when existing subscriptions come to an end and membership renewals fall. It's very similar to a case when I was involved with a club that got members from a dealer enrolling people when they purchased a new car. Once the subscription ran out, the vast majority never joined again.

Can I just add that this is my personal opinion and is not meant as a derogative remark to the producers of SF! who I appreciate put alot of commitment and hard work into the publication. It's just not my kind of magazine!

Rich.

[steve]

dwkmgf said:

I will probably draw some derisory comments for this reply, but I think that is a bit of a shame. I thought that one of the reasons for joining with MGE was that with all the different type registers producing their own monthly/quarterly magazines, there was only really a need for an update in the club mag - thus it could be made smaller and more cost effective.

Is it realistic to expect that a re-expanded Safety Fast will have the same/better editorial content than what we are currently getting from MGE + SF. Looking back at pre MGE Safety Fast's, it was a club magazine with type and regional/centre newsletters, a couple of pages of news, letters page, and the odd piece about a run plus classifieds - and was very much written by the members.

All of this was carried into the smaller version, which left the articles regarding rebuilds, historic cars to professionals, with also a large news and classifieds section.

Having looked at copies of all 3 publications (MGE, larger SF and smaller SF) I feel this to be a backward step. I for one will continue my subscription with MGE.

I totally agree Dave, IMHO this really is a retrograde step if it does revert back to how things used to be

[colintf]

some good points made so far!

can't help feeling though that if it was put to a vote (by each member) that the result would of been in favour of going bacxk to Safety Fast. I base that comment listening to many other MGCC members outside of the F Register!

We are afterall, a young register with the MGCC made up of relativley young people!! Maybe it was too big a change too quickly for most of the membership?

[John Ponting]

I had an MGE subscription before the change and I will take out an MGE subscription after the retrodrgae change back.

SF takes less than 1 mug of coffee to read. If I miss out the bits that don't really interest me then it would only need an expresso.

Sorry to the people that write SF buts that's just my view.

[Adrian Clifford]

I was at that meeting, the decision took an enormous amount of time with various debate being given, both for and against.

The result went 17-13.

What you are not aware of was a major change in the future production of MGE that left us in an untenable position, something had to be done quickly to preserve the magazine and ensure it's future.

The production team had a very large say in what was to happen, obviously, the future with the new deal thrust upon unexpectedly us looked insecure therefore the decision was, as you can see, quite close.

It is for sure a financially orientated one that was made but the quality and future depends upon the contributors (as does FasTForward of course) consider we are lucky with having our own, good successful magazine just as we want it, but don't forget other Registers, Centres and Branches don't have that facility and a majority decision was made.

I believe if you had seen the new deal laid on the table it would have made you think twice about the furure of SF/MGE. Whatever your view and of course everybody is entitled to theirs SF is safe, now we all need to make it better (but not at the expense of FasTForward though).

[Dave Kerley]

Thank you Adrian for providing details of the reasons why the decision has been made.

I still think that an improved SF is a long way off. The contributors to magazines like MGE are in the main professional journalists (as well as petrolheads) and are able to cut to the chase without losing the emphasis of the article. I fear that us amatuers will find it more difficult to produce such focused work (and that is not meant as a red flag to anyone who has contributed to FasTForward or SF - just a comment on reality).

Perhaps the MGOC magazine could be used as an example, focused articles written by members for members and with a good cross section of content - news, historical, rebuilds etc. (although I think they have an editorial support team based in one place - presumably the SF Editorial committee is not similarly placed?)

[andrew]

I will go back to subscribing to MGE and will be letting my subsription to the MGCC and SF lapse. I think between MGE , FastForward plus our own MGCC (VIC) Wheel Spin I will still get the full MG picture.

[Adrian Clifford]

Dave, I believe that the MGOC have a professional staff of 63 based at Swavesy, put's us a bit in the shade I think.

[Davidt6dcm]

Always knew this might happen from start, Does it mean our MGCC Subscription will now be a lot cheaper re the cost of £3.75 per month of MGE that we will now not be getting is taken out, SF does not really do it for me anymore and takes me less than Johns Expresso to flick through and bin mine,the quality of it will rear it's head again now i fancy,i will not be paying for new MGCC subscription if it goes up again with these new changes Rep or not, FTF mag alone would do for me with cheaper membership if we can have a choice,Dave

[Adrian Clifford]

Dave, we can only hope that the new in house combined magazine will cut the mustard as the decision was not taken lightly, believe me.

To say this issue took up hours of time and debate is not an exageration, however that is not criticism.

I have a 12 page document which formed the backbone of the decision making, I could not copy it all to here, hopefully the next issue of SF will have the relevant section outlined and the reasons behind the decision but it centred around changing the deal that we currently have with Octane to a new one with Hot House Publicating.

Therefore, change was, in one sense, forced upon us, it was not an idea to save money, rather to safeguard money and the future of the magazine that has served the club for decades. It also has a trial period set of 6 months.

[Rich Stone]

adrianclifford said:

Dave, I believe that the MGOC have a professional staff of 63 based at Swavesy, put's us a bit in the shade I think.

MGOC only actually have 3 permanent staff working on the magazine; The editor and 2 editorial assistants .10 years ago, I worked as an editorial assistant for them for a while (Is it really that long ago?!?). Everything else is written by regular contributors, like Roger Parker (although he is an employee, that is as a technical advisor). They do have staff who put together advertisements for regalia and spares but they are from different departments and it's for their own stuff.

Perhaps if SF! had a proper editorial staff and then encouraged regular contributers like the MGOC, it could match it. Alot of MGOC content is focused on the business side of the club, whereas MGCC could expand without promoting conflicting interests. SF! has always has always had a bias towards centre and register news, but there needs to be a better balance with technical articles, features on specific cars, etc. That's where MGE has been good. I suppose we'll just have to wait and see what happens...

Rich.