| Home | Log In | Register | Our Services | My Account | Contact | Help |
You are NOT currently logged in
Register now or login to post to this thread.
Andy
- 21 Apr 2008 00:36
Shares Magazine was totally revamped this week.
Out has gone the tabloidy style, and aticles on small caps, in has come long articles by market 'experts' and large cap reporting.
The Prospector has been axed.
I am disppointed with the changes, and wondered if anyone else here subscribed or bought Shares, and had a view they wold like to share?
Out has gone the tabloidy style, and aticles on small caps, in has come long articles by market 'experts' and large cap reporting.
The Prospector has been axed.
I am disppointed with the changes, and wondered if anyone else here subscribed or bought Shares, and had a view they wold like to share?
hangon - 21 Apr 2008 01:34 - 2 of 184
Maybe Shares are focussed on larger caps, since small-caps are likely to go under in the Credit Crunch....although both have fallen "lots" - Banks and Housebuilders are starting to look attractive - except we think they will fall further.
Who would believe a Bank would be contemplating the largest Rights Issue ever?
When I saw the mag on the Newstand I had to look at several pages before I recognised it as "Shares" - Is this presentation the best they can do? Personally I think clarity of print, that's black ink on white is the very best......it allows me to mark-up the text which you cannot do when it's "reversed-out" and I don't like any grey text ( although IC uses this ruse sometimes) and Shares is very small. Combined with the "screen" it makes text "look fuzzy", IMHO.
Very "arty" of course, but I want to be able to read it on the train - at the office you can use a desk lamp; but it's not as easy to read as IC.
WOODIE - 21 Apr 2008 07:25 - 3 of 184
the text is to small to read for my eyes,the black on grey background makes it very hard to read.
Andy
- 21 Apr 2008 08:14
- 4 of 184
Woodie,
I agree, the Index page is too small for me to read too.
I agree, the Index page is too small for me to read too.
WOODIE - 21 Apr 2008 08:19 - 5 of 184
i thought it was my eyes lol
cynic
- 21 Apr 2008 08:23
- 6 of 184
DID NOT LIKE IT AT ALL!
required field - 21 Apr 2008 08:29 - 7 of 184
I prefer the old version !
lelael - 21 Apr 2008 08:42 - 8 of 184
this version seems very formal (boring), prospector was also a favourite of mine.
halifax - 21 Apr 2008 08:52 - 9 of 184
Not reader friendly at all, if I want economic views I read The Economist. I thought Shares mag was an alternative to the IC, not any more. I wont be renewing my subscription if it continues like the last edition.
Petal - 21 Apr 2008 09:05 - 10 of 184
I am incredibly disappointed & have just re-newed a 2 year sub to the shares mag., I knew & cherished. I hope for a re-fund. Does anybody know where to go from here for good share buying advice ?
No tickers, in the new 'sophisticated ' shares mag., no results round-up, very little green, orange, red share buying opinions. Lots of waffle & lots of analysts inaction. Don't we want lots of shares journalists buy/sell advice ? A cross between a colour supplement, the economist & IC. What a shame !!!
No tickers, in the new 'sophisticated ' shares mag., no results round-up, very little green, orange, red share buying opinions. Lots of waffle & lots of analysts inaction. Don't we want lots of shares journalists buy/sell advice ? A cross between a colour supplement, the economist & IC. What a shame !!!
Andy
- 21 Apr 2008 09:14
- 11 of 184
Petal,
I certainly agree with your "loads of waffle" comment!
This has left a hole in the market IMO, it will be interesting to see if it is filled by a new magazine with features such as Shares had.
Moneyweek is probably the closest, although that is also heavy on economy features, it also features some share articles, and market comment, and has a broker recommends and tipster feature at the back.
Moneyweek is cheaper, brighter, and a lighter read IMO.
I certainly agree with your "loads of waffle" comment!
This has left a hole in the market IMO, it will be interesting to see if it is filled by a new magazine with features such as Shares had.
Moneyweek is probably the closest, although that is also heavy on economy features, it also features some share articles, and market comment, and has a broker recommends and tipster feature at the back.
Moneyweek is cheaper, brighter, and a lighter read IMO.
billco - 21 Apr 2008 09:52 - 12 of 184
Agree with Petal above. Just renewed for a year after a long break - thought the new offering totally dire.
cynic
- 21 Apr 2008 10:00
- 13 of 184
MANAGEMENT NEEDS TO TAKE NOTE!
THE MESSAGE FROM SUBSCRIBERS IS LOUD AND CLEAR AND WILL BE VOTING WITH THEIR FEET IF ACTION NOT TAKEN
I CERTAINLY SHALL NOT RENEW SUB ..... TOTAL WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY IN ITS PRESENT NEW FORMAT.
WHO DID THE MARKET RESEARCH BEFORE THIS RADICAL CHANGE?
SACK THEM!
THE MESSAGE FROM SUBSCRIBERS IS LOUD AND CLEAR AND WILL BE VOTING WITH THEIR FEET IF ACTION NOT TAKEN
I CERTAINLY SHALL NOT RENEW SUB ..... TOTAL WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY IN ITS PRESENT NEW FORMAT.
WHO DID THE MARKET RESEARCH BEFORE THIS RADICAL CHANGE?
SACK THEM!
2517GEORGE
- 21 Apr 2008 10:12
- 14 of 184
I agree with the majority of comments above, I was very disappointed. My family pay for the annual subscription by way of a birthday pressie for me every september, if this format continues I shall tell them not to renew.
2517
2517
Strawbs
- 21 Apr 2008 10:26
- 15 of 184
I didn't bother renewing my subscription when it ran out last year, as I wasn't (still not) actively interested in equities. I did still buy the occasional copy though if something caught my eye, which is the same approach I've always used with Investors Chronicle. I was rather surprised when I picked up this weeks issue and had a thumb through. At first I thought I'd picked up the economist or something by mistake and had to double check the front cover. I was disappointed to see that many of my former favourite columns and features had gone or been redesigned/scaled back. Perhaps the redesign reflects a more somber market (economic) backdrop and changing readership. Personally I would say the new style makes me less inclined to buy a copy, but I'll continue to thumb through it anyway and will buy if I see enough to interest me.
Strawbs.
Strawbs.
halifax - 21 Apr 2008 10:36 - 16 of 184
Surely the editor should have consulted the readership before making such drastic changes to the format and content?
johnmason - 21 Apr 2008 11:19 - 17 of 184
I switched from IC to shares 3 years ago. I felt IC had been delivered by mistake!
The forthcoming weeks diary for results and ex divs.was missing which is one of my main reasons for buying the magazine. I am an old fashioned investor and too much space is now given to the type of vehicles which distort the market and lead to short termism.
Perhaps the title needs changing too.
The forthcoming weeks diary for results and ex divs.was missing which is one of my main reasons for buying the magazine. I am an old fashioned investor and too much space is now given to the type of vehicles which distort the market and lead to short termism.
Perhaps the title needs changing too.
queen1 - 21 Apr 2008 12:51 - 18 of 184
I'm in full agreement with all - lots of the good stuff gone, no recommendations and pages of press and analyst comment that can be picked up everywhere else. It's a real shame.
cynic
- 21 Apr 2008 12:54
- 19 of 184
WHY IS THE MANAGEMENT OF THIS UNIVERSALLY CONDEMNED INNOVATION NOT STEPPING UP TO THE PLATE?
Andy
- 21 Apr 2008 13:12
- 20 of 184
petal
They are offering refunds, which is very decent of them IMO!
All,
I have decided to cancel my subscription, as clearly they will not reverse the decision to change the content, nor the format of the revamped edition.
Anyone thinking of either subscribing or unsubsribing, the phone number to ring is 01444 475661.
The guy was very friendly, and offered me a refund on the unused portion of my account, which I accepted.
To unsubscribe, you must email Shares, you must quote your customer number, and the email address to use is;
shares.subs@quadrantsubs.com
To unsubscribe you need to know your customer number, which is something like 00060xxx, and I think is on the address label of the magazine when it arrives, or you can ring the number above and they will give it to you.
I have decided to take up the free 3 week trial for Moneyweek, as the content is nearer to my particular investment interests.
http://www.moneyweek.com/file/194/subscribe-from-not-logged-in.html
They are offering refunds, which is very decent of them IMO!
All,
I have decided to cancel my subscription, as clearly they will not reverse the decision to change the content, nor the format of the revamped edition.
Anyone thinking of either subscribing or unsubsribing, the phone number to ring is 01444 475661.
The guy was very friendly, and offered me a refund on the unused portion of my account, which I accepted.
To unsubscribe, you must email Shares, you must quote your customer number, and the email address to use is;
shares.subs@quadrantsubs.com
To unsubscribe you need to know your customer number, which is something like 00060xxx, and I think is on the address label of the magazine when it arrives, or you can ring the number above and they will give it to you.
I have decided to take up the free 3 week trial for Moneyweek, as the content is nearer to my particular investment interests.
http://www.moneyweek.com/file/194/subscribe-from-not-logged-in.html
Andy
- 21 Apr 2008 13:21
- 21 of 184
All,
NB the Moneyweek free trial involves giving your bank details and cancelling after the 4 free editions, which may not be acceptable to everyone.
Normally I refuse such offers, but on this occasion, as I already know the mag, I have accepted.
NB the Moneyweek free trial involves giving your bank details and cancelling after the 4 free editions, which may not be acceptable to everyone.
Normally I refuse such offers, but on this occasion, as I already know the mag, I have accepted.
carsie68 - 21 Apr 2008 13:41 - 22 of 184
I agree with all the foregoing comment about the new format. It is good to have a forum to share concern. Will it make any difference though?
Grandma - 21 Apr 2008 13:57 - 23 of 184
I have bought "Shares" since the very first copy & absolutely hate the new format.
Apart from everything else, they have never understood that, after the first
reading, the index is the most important page, as we want to look up a particular
company later.
Please everyone- write or e-mail them to express displeasure.
Apart from everything else, they have never understood that, after the first
reading, the index is the most important page, as we want to look up a particular
company later.
Please everyone- write or e-mail them to express displeasure.
spitfire43 - 21 Apr 2008 13:59 - 24 of 184
Unfortunately my copy hasn't arrived yet, but had a look at it online, will reserve judgement untill my copy arrives.
But even before I was thinking of a change to IC which have improved there format recently. Shares need to be careful, they could lose a large following if they don't take notice of comments on here.
But even before I was thinking of a change to IC which have improved there format recently. Shares need to be careful, they could lose a large following if they don't take notice of comments on here.
Andy
- 21 Apr 2008 21:38
- 25 of 184
spitfire43,
I think it's too late, they have made the change in an effort to move upmarket and grab some of the IC's readers IMO, so the old Shares Magazine is now history.
I think that policy will fail, and they will certainly lose some readers from the existing subscribers, leaving them with lower circulation, IMO.
I think it's too late, they have made the change in an effort to move upmarket and grab some of the IC's readers IMO, so the old Shares Magazine is now history.
I think that policy will fail, and they will certainly lose some readers from the existing subscribers, leaving them with lower circulation, IMO.
kimoldfield
- 22 Apr 2008 10:55
- 26 of 184
In my opinion the new content should have been an addition to the old Shares, not a substitution. I hate the Company index and hope to see this changed immediately, back to it's old format, but it is ok at the back of the mag. Never have liked a grey background for printing on - doesn't work!
spitfire43 - 22 Apr 2008 18:58 - 27 of 184
Just read this weeks edition, it didn't take very long. I had thought the magazine was becoming contents poorer recently, but this new format is awful. No results section, no trading section, not many imputs/views from the from magazine. They just seem to re-write views from city analysts. It used to be 80 pages of content, now it is down to 60, WHAT A WASTE OF SPACE.
I have 4 month's to run on my subscription, unless they improve the content I will be subscribing elsewhere.
I have 4 month's to run on my subscription, unless they improve the content I will be subscribing elsewhere.
argos7
- 22 Apr 2008 19:45
- 28 of 184
agree with everything written to make a change in format without even mentioning it in previous issues is poor customer service, I will be cancelling my direct debit straight away!
HARRYCAT
- 22 Apr 2008 22:02
- 29 of 184
Personally I also agree that it's a shame the format has changed & become more like the competitor mags on the market, but I doubt that SHARES have gone in to this without doing some market research, so I imagine they realise that they are going to lose some readers, but gain others. It's all about market share, so presumably they are hoping that there is going to be a net gain in readers.
Andy
- 23 Apr 2008 08:38
- 30 of 184
Harrycat,
Clearly so, but with the Investors Chronicle and Economist having loyal readerships, I think they have taken a big gamble.
If you changed the content of the Sun newspaper to that of The Telegraph, I think circulation would decline quickly, and they are risking the same thing here.
Comparing last week's IC to Shares, the IC wins for me.
Clearly so, but with the Investors Chronicle and Economist having loyal readerships, I think they have taken a big gamble.
If you changed the content of the Sun newspaper to that of The Telegraph, I think circulation would decline quickly, and they are risking the same thing here.
Comparing last week's IC to Shares, the IC wins for me.
Stegrego - 23 Apr 2008 12:30 - 31 of 184
Im a subscriber but wont be for long if this format persists.
Utter garbage
Utter garbage
spitfire43 - 24 Apr 2008 07:36 - 32 of 184
Just flicked through the mag online, what a shame they haven't listened. Investers Chronicle must be thinking christmas has come early.
If they were listed companies the analysts that Shares love to quote would be advising of shorting shares all the way down, and go long on IC.
If they were listed companies the analysts that Shares love to quote would be advising of shorting shares all the way down, and go long on IC.
2517GEORGE
- 24 Apr 2008 07:40
- 33 of 184
spitfire43--------Whilst we are all disappointed with the new format, it will take time to change it back, IF they are going to.
WOODIE - 24 Apr 2008 07:41 - 34 of 184
spitfire looked online earlier,read the letters page at the back,they will listen to feedback.
halifax - 24 Apr 2008 09:14 - 35 of 184
What is the connection between Shares magazine and Moneyam? Who owns what?
WOODIE - 24 Apr 2008 09:38 - 36 of 184
halifax there are both part of msm magazines ltd
halifax - 24 Apr 2008 09:43 - 37 of 184
So do you think Moneyam might be re-vamped sometime soon?
WOODIE - 24 Apr 2008 09:52 - 38 of 184
nice one, it could happen only time will tell,but i dont think so.
cynic
- 24 Apr 2008 09:55
- 39 of 184
no need to write a letter .... i would be extremenly surprised if the management do not read this thread too .... if they don't, they should be shot as indeed they should be if they do not respond and take action
halifax - 24 Apr 2008 10:04 - 40 of 184
The cost of producing Shares mag. should be greatly reduced since the bland format was introduced.
Bullshare
- 24 Apr 2008 10:06
- 41 of 184
Editor replies:This transformation was always likely to generate a healthy response from readers and we have received several emails and letters commenting on the changes to Shares I would have expected nothing less. I would like to reassure readers that while the changes we have implemented to date are dramatic, the look and feel of Shares remains an ongoing and evolutionary process.
I hope that in this, the second issue of the new look Shares, you will note several adjustments that will address many of the issues that you, and other readers,
have mentioned proof that we are listening to your feedback. Other modifications will also be will also be brought in over the next few weeks. Please keep your
feedback coming in on this continuing process.
I hope that in this, the second issue of the new look Shares, you will note several adjustments that will address many of the issues that you, and other readers,
have mentioned proof that we are listening to your feedback. Other modifications will also be will also be brought in over the next few weeks. Please keep your
feedback coming in on this continuing process.
evilratboy - 24 Apr 2008 10:14 - 42 of 184
What a disappointing new format !!!. It was only a few months ago, readers were praising the magazine for all the great new look colour photos. The magazine looked great. So,what do they do, rip it all out !!!! I am so annoyed by this.
I also wrote an email to the editor last week after looking through the new format magazine. I have been a subscriber for years and the new format is terrible.
Out with the short and snappy articles and in with the long winded articles. It used to be a fun and "light" magazine to read or browse through. Now its very difficult to read and its turning into a boring investor magazine.
For me, what separated the IC and Shares magazine was the bright and snappy format of Shares magazine.
I see todays magazine format is just as bad as last week, despite the editor saying some things have been changed and the magazine is evolving.
Well, for me, it has 1 more week to "evolve" back to a decent format, or my subscription is canceled and I move to another magazine.
I also wrote an email to the editor last week after looking through the new format magazine. I have been a subscriber for years and the new format is terrible.
Out with the short and snappy articles and in with the long winded articles. It used to be a fun and "light" magazine to read or browse through. Now its very difficult to read and its turning into a boring investor magazine.
For me, what separated the IC and Shares magazine was the bright and snappy format of Shares magazine.
I see todays magazine format is just as bad as last week, despite the editor saying some things have been changed and the magazine is evolving.
Well, for me, it has 1 more week to "evolve" back to a decent format, or my subscription is canceled and I move to another magazine.
halifax - 24 Apr 2008 10:14 - 43 of 184
Why waste time just return to the old format and improve the journaists research.
WOODIE - 24 Apr 2008 10:15 - 44 of 184
thanks bullshare i did not know how to copy the above from the online version.
we will wait to see what modifications will take place this weeks issue has not arrived so unable to see the changes from last week.
we will wait to see what modifications will take place this weeks issue has not arrived so unable to see the changes from last week.
halifax - 24 Apr 2008 10:19 - 45 of 184
Woodie you can see them online. Perhaps they are moving to not printing the mag?
PARKIN - 24 Apr 2008 10:25 - 46 of 184
I dont think there's any need to say anything its all been said already
it great shame its been changed
it great shame its been changed
evilratboy - 24 Apr 2008 10:32 - 47 of 184
Hi Parkin - Its true, much has been said already, but everyone needs to speak up and voice their opinion of the new format and let the Shares management know thats its unacceptable.
cynic
- 24 Apr 2008 10:36
- 48 of 184
EDITOR
Perhaps you would care to explain the rationale behind transforming (many would say wrecking) the old and much-loved format.
It very much has the feel of a new broom being brought in who feels he has to flex his muscles without proper forethought, merely to show what a tough and innovative(?????) chap he is.
Perhaps you would care to explain the rationale behind transforming (many would say wrecking) the old and much-loved format.
It very much has the feel of a new broom being brought in who feels he has to flex his muscles without proper forethought, merely to show what a tough and innovative(?????) chap he is.
johnmason - 24 Apr 2008 10:37 - 49 of 184
Second revised issue arrived in post this morning . Finished with and in the bin already. It's worse than last weeks!. Articles very shallow, charts with no proper headings. The buy back article shows a chart - are the numbers shares?, money? if money is it millions? very weak.
To add insult to injury look at the subscription rates at the back and they go up from 29.99p a quarter to 31.99 a quarter.
Subscription cancelled.
To add insult to injury look at the subscription rates at the back and they go up from 29.99p a quarter to 31.99 a quarter.
Subscription cancelled.
Andy
- 24 Apr 2008 10:37
- 50 of 184
Woodie,
Well they haven't listened so far!
They have bolded the index and slightly increased the font size, but I bought Shares for the CONTENT, ie small caps, and resource stocks, and that has gone forever, and been replaced with comments on FTSE large caps, of which there is plenty elsewhere in the media already.
They are ignoring mining stocks, which is simply ridiculous.
Moneyweek is the closest now for small cap and mining investors IMO.
Well they haven't listened so far!
They have bolded the index and slightly increased the font size, but I bought Shares for the CONTENT, ie small caps, and resource stocks, and that has gone forever, and been replaced with comments on FTSE large caps, of which there is plenty elsewhere in the media already.
They are ignoring mining stocks, which is simply ridiculous.
Moneyweek is the closest now for small cap and mining investors IMO.
WOODIE - 24 Apr 2008 10:42 - 51 of 184
halifax i would be more then happy to have the choice of an online version,a lot of the time it does not arrive on thursday.of course if the choice was made available i would expect it to be a lot cheaper then it is now.
parkin i agree with evilratboy everyone that is not happy should let there feelings known otherwise they will only think it is a few people that are not happy the average weekly sales are around 15k if only 20-30 people say out in the open there are not happy will they be concerned
parkin i agree with evilratboy everyone that is not happy should let there feelings known otherwise they will only think it is a few people that are not happy the average weekly sales are around 15k if only 20-30 people say out in the open there are not happy will they be concerned
WOODIE - 24 Apr 2008 10:43 - 52 of 184
andy thanks for feedback
evilratboy - 24 Apr 2008 10:46 - 53 of 184
People who have posted here already:-
Use word of mouth, email, text message, anything, to contact anyone else you know (friends, colleagues, relatives etc ..) who reads or subscribes to the Shares magazine, to post their comments here and/or write to the editor.
Use word of mouth, email, text message, anything, to contact anyone else you know (friends, colleagues, relatives etc ..) who reads or subscribes to the Shares magazine, to post their comments here and/or write to the editor.
halifax - 24 Apr 2008 10:47 - 54 of 184
Woodie looks like the circulation doesn't justify a print run.
hangon - 24 Apr 2008 13:04 - 55 of 184
Leaving the readability issue aside ( although this is VERY important) - the comments above indicate that Shares has attempted to move Up-Market in their approach and with that a tendency to highlight Large-caps.
Presumably as the staff want to improve their career they tend to address "safer" shares, which tend to be large-caps ( but not Banks/Builders, just now!).
This is a dangerous move IMHO - there are already FT (daily) and IC(weekly) so just where should "Shares" sit in the Market-place?
Mentioned (here) was the suggestion that they will have done their Market Research - and I presume they have Reports telling them to do what they have done!
. . . . . . . . . .However, I suspect they did not ask the right people! . . . . . .
Not one of the above replies has said "... they asked me, and this is exactly what I asked for"
I suspect their "research" addressed focus-groups who don't buy magazines OR stocks and have little Cash-involvement in winners and losers. . . . it is relativly easy to get a response from folk who have nothing to say except 'positive views' . . . . a trap that Market Research almost NEVER avoids . . . .
It is possible that this is a ploy to push their on-line version . . . . but I prefer a printed mag - you can mark-up the printed page and I'm not about to print-out at home!
- My earlier comments re "readability" still apply . . . . . . it is much worse than before IMHO.
- "Artyness" and/or Pictures do not make an investment choice - Just hard facts, mutter and clarity (by way of graphs), is what we need, IMHO.
However, I bought another issue on the NewsStand because I have got into the habit. Perhaps the money would be better invested in Lottery-tickets? At least that supports good causes.
Presumably as the staff want to improve their career they tend to address "safer" shares, which tend to be large-caps ( but not Banks/Builders, just now!).
This is a dangerous move IMHO - there are already FT (daily) and IC(weekly) so just where should "Shares" sit in the Market-place?
Mentioned (here) was the suggestion that they will have done their Market Research - and I presume they have Reports telling them to do what they have done!
. . . . . . . . . .However, I suspect they did not ask the right people! . . . . . .
Not one of the above replies has said "... they asked me, and this is exactly what I asked for"
I suspect their "research" addressed focus-groups who don't buy magazines OR stocks and have little Cash-involvement in winners and losers. . . . it is relativly easy to get a response from folk who have nothing to say except 'positive views' . . . . a trap that Market Research almost NEVER avoids . . . .
It is possible that this is a ploy to push their on-line version . . . . but I prefer a printed mag - you can mark-up the printed page and I'm not about to print-out at home!
- My earlier comments re "readability" still apply . . . . . . it is much worse than before IMHO.
- "Artyness" and/or Pictures do not make an investment choice - Just hard facts, mutter and clarity (by way of graphs), is what we need, IMHO.
However, I bought another issue on the NewsStand because I have got into the habit. Perhaps the money would be better invested in Lottery-tickets? At least that supports good causes.
Stegrego - 24 Apr 2008 13:06 - 56 of 184
Bullshare
Two words
SMALL CAPS!
People can talk stuff and nonsense all day in the papers about FTSE stocks, however small caps get very little coverage - even less so now if Shares keeps this format.
You had a campaign to 'stop Darling' re AIM shares, but now it appears you have done it the same disservice by virtually abandoning the lower end of the market.
I couldnt give a monkeys what analysts are saying - they are often wrong anyway.
Agree that it looks like you are taking the safer option, but basically appears you are leaving all the old readers in the lurch......It appears you are also in danger of disappearing up your own ar**s!
Two words
SMALL CAPS!
People can talk stuff and nonsense all day in the papers about FTSE stocks, however small caps get very little coverage - even less so now if Shares keeps this format.
You had a campaign to 'stop Darling' re AIM shares, but now it appears you have done it the same disservice by virtually abandoning the lower end of the market.
I couldnt give a monkeys what analysts are saying - they are often wrong anyway.
Agree that it looks like you are taking the safer option, but basically appears you are leaving all the old readers in the lurch......It appears you are also in danger of disappearing up your own ar**s!
Bullshare
- 24 Apr 2008 13:22
- 57 of 184
Stegrego. The new magazine is evolving and we do take onboard all comments both positive and negative. We have addressed some of the issues raised about last weeks edition in todays magazine; we will address some of the concerns about small caps shortly.
As publishers of Shares we have to make sure we keep up with the 'times' and adapt to market conditions as they change, sadly the stock market wont adapt to us. Our readership and circulation is increasing despite the tough markets, however our market research shows that investors want to have more in depth analysis before making an investment decision, something we are taking on board with the Shares revamp. Hopefully we will find the right balance between old and new.
As publishers of Shares we have to make sure we keep up with the 'times' and adapt to market conditions as they change, sadly the stock market wont adapt to us. Our readership and circulation is increasing despite the tough markets, however our market research shows that investors want to have more in depth analysis before making an investment decision, something we are taking on board with the Shares revamp. Hopefully we will find the right balance between old and new.
halifax - 24 Apr 2008 13:28 - 58 of 184
Bullshare if you don't then you must know where you are heading. If it ain't broke etc ...etc
WOODIE - 24 Apr 2008 13:44 - 59 of 184
bullshare where was this market research done?
spitfire43 - 24 Apr 2008 14:14 - 60 of 184
I used to read IC for many years, then three years ago I started reading Shares for a change, and to be fair I have made some very good investments through ideas put forward. Earlier this year I brought IC which compared favourably to shares, I have to admit that I had felt the shares magazine had been left behind and needed to improve.
However what was needed was continuance improvement, where the change is slowly implemented, what you have done is to have a wholesale change for the worse. The market you are now aiming at is already well catered for, and is doomed to fail.
I would urge you to carry out an independent review maybe via telephone, before you have the answer with reduced sales. I know you may say that people never like change anyway, but having read IC for 20 odd years, I can assure you that this new revamp contains nothing new, that can't already find on the internet.
However what was needed was continuance improvement, where the change is slowly implemented, what you have done is to have a wholesale change for the worse. The market you are now aiming at is already well catered for, and is doomed to fail.
I would urge you to carry out an independent review maybe via telephone, before you have the answer with reduced sales. I know you may say that people never like change anyway, but having read IC for 20 odd years, I can assure you that this new revamp contains nothing new, that can't already find on the internet.
Andy
- 24 Apr 2008 14:20
- 61 of 184
Bullshare,
Shares was a magazine that featured small cap stocks, and had a niche market there.
Now it's large caps and waffle about markets and the economy, the sort of thing thrown out daily by the mainstream media in large quantities, and for free.
I wonder who were the people you consulted for your research, and why you didn't ask your own readers and subscribers!, rather than in independent group!
I have cancelled, as the content change leaves me with virtually nothing to read, and I have received the mag for years, and enjoyed the content and editorial.
If you take out the FX middle section today, there is not much left, IMO.
You are putting Telegraph content in a magazine that was more the Sun, and you are at the very least risking losing your existing readership in an effort to gain the IC and Economist's readers, and I just wonder what the point is, you had the small cap market to yourselves!
Shares was a magazine that featured small cap stocks, and had a niche market there.
Now it's large caps and waffle about markets and the economy, the sort of thing thrown out daily by the mainstream media in large quantities, and for free.
I wonder who were the people you consulted for your research, and why you didn't ask your own readers and subscribers!, rather than in independent group!
I have cancelled, as the content change leaves me with virtually nothing to read, and I have received the mag for years, and enjoyed the content and editorial.
If you take out the FX middle section today, there is not much left, IMO.
You are putting Telegraph content in a magazine that was more the Sun, and you are at the very least risking losing your existing readership in an effort to gain the IC and Economist's readers, and I just wonder what the point is, you had the small cap market to yourselves!
evilratboy - 24 Apr 2008 14:53 - 62 of 184
Fair play Andy ..Well said.
I will second Andy`s question to Bullshare about why didnt you ask your existing subscribers about their views ???? You have many loyal readers but you prefer to ask a totally different group.
The Shares Magazine has 1 week to sort itself out in my book. If not, I pull my subscription and head over to the IC camp.
I will second Andy`s question to Bullshare about why didnt you ask your existing subscribers about their views ???? You have many loyal readers but you prefer to ask a totally different group.
The Shares Magazine has 1 week to sort itself out in my book. If not, I pull my subscription and head over to the IC camp.
halifax - 24 Apr 2008 15:27 - 63 of 184
WOODIE who are MSM magazines? Circulation of 15412 shown on contents page in this weeks edition is for year ended June 07, don't suppose the owners and advertisers are very impressed.
WOODIE - 24 Apr 2008 15:38 - 64 of 184
dont know who there are,the figs are the reason for the re-vamp imho, my guess is that mam is the bread winner of the 2.
halifax - 24 Apr 2008 15:42 - 65 of 184
Advertisement on page 62 suggests mam not doing so well either, advertising seems to be declining which does not bode well for the future.
kimoldfield
- 24 Apr 2008 15:45
- 66 of 184
OK, at the risk of sounding like a football pundit, to give credit where credit is due there has been an improvement this week!
For:- Company Index now easy to read.
Against:- Still too much grey background for my liking.
For:- More content.
Against:- I miss the old content!
For:- Am I in the minority? I like the new look!
Against:- No Results Focus, can't understand why such a useful 'look-up' tool has been binned. Please reconsider!
For:- Company Index now easy to read.
Against:- Still too much grey background for my liking.
For:- More content.
Against:- I miss the old content!
For:- Am I in the minority? I like the new look!
Against:- No Results Focus, can't understand why such a useful 'look-up' tool has been binned. Please reconsider!
WOODIE - 24 Apr 2008 15:56 - 67 of 184
trust someone to spoil the party lol, on a serious note i have had my post no mag so cant comment on this weeks issue.the index page last week was hard on my eyes any change must be an improvement.
Andy
- 24 Apr 2008 16:09
- 68 of 184
Woodie,
It is in bold type this week!
Kim,
Sadly no small caps and no prospector column!
Half a magazine of FX though!
It is in bold type this week!
Kim,
Sadly no small caps and no prospector column!
Half a magazine of FX though!
WOODIE - 24 Apr 2008 16:12 - 69 of 184
andy great was it easy to read for you?
PARKIN - 24 Apr 2008 16:17 - 70 of 184
Not much better the index needs moving to the front from inside back page liked as it was still a lot of rubbish inside this issue (thers no mining page lost thatone, but who want to know about Belusconni get enough on the News without getting more but having to pay for this one (No plays of the week or if there are nothing of the 10/20p or less) I could go on but no one seems to listen let someone else have a dig
kimoldfield
- 24 Apr 2008 16:24
- 71 of 184
Mmm, as I say, I do miss the old content and would like to see the new content as an addition to the old, not a replacement. That would double the price of the mag though I suppose!
Fred1new
- 24 Apr 2008 16:31
- 72 of 184
I agree with some of the above.
I think one of the problems is that the paper is a light grey rather than white. (Recycled paper?)
I find like other reading light and small founts against a coloured background slightly difficult and a little off puting.
Also it makes scanning in of the information and OCR a bit more difficult. I know and sometimes use the online facillity.
I would personally like a slightly larger fount and intense black. Due to age I find the present format a little more difficult with I would think many others.
I will watch with interest further editions.
Good Luck
I think one of the problems is that the paper is a light grey rather than white. (Recycled paper?)
I find like other reading light and small founts against a coloured background slightly difficult and a little off puting.
Also it makes scanning in of the information and OCR a bit more difficult. I know and sometimes use the online facillity.
I would personally like a slightly larger fount and intense black. Due to age I find the present format a little more difficult with I would think many others.
I will watch with interest further editions.
Good Luck
evilratboy - 24 Apr 2008 16:33 - 73 of 184
PARKIN
Someone ought to listen, 72 posts so far about how rubbish the new format is in just 3 days.
Someone ought to listen, 72 posts so far about how rubbish the new format is in just 3 days.
bhunt1910
- 24 Apr 2008 16:48
- 74 of 184
I normally enjoy a good read of Shares magazine - and to me - it filled a hole in the market and was an easy to read and informative mag for us small PI's.
I hate the new format. Ok I know change will always evoke a few cries from those that do not like change - but I have little interest in the new content and certainly do not like the style nor its new format.
I shall be cancelling my subscription
I hate the new format. Ok I know change will always evoke a few cries from those that do not like change - but I have little interest in the new content and certainly do not like the style nor its new format.
I shall be cancelling my subscription
drid123 - 24 Apr 2008 20:45 - 75 of 184
Just settled down to read this weeks mag, chucked it in the bin after 10 minutes.
Used to look forward to Foremost, Prospector, Winners and Losers, Results with their trading views and One Week Calender but now all gone. Small caps do not seem to have any coverage anymore. Alot of small oilers are doing well at the moment but not a mention of them in Shares mag. Please change back before you lose alot of your loyal readers.
Used to look forward to Foremost, Prospector, Winners and Losers, Results with their trading views and One Week Calender but now all gone. Small caps do not seem to have any coverage anymore. Alot of small oilers are doing well at the moment but not a mention of them in Shares mag. Please change back before you lose alot of your loyal readers.
Stegrego - 24 Apr 2008 21:01 - 76 of 184
Just read this weeks issue -
Sections
Opinion - ok
Agenda - Too much large cap talk and its really hard to read the font - feels like im reading War & Peace!
Paper Talk - pointless, if i want to read that i buy a paper
Plays - ok
Main article - ok i guess, but felt hard going.
In the city - Hmmmm an 'expert'
Inside spin - Intel - huge company and US.....
Feature - Ok
Griller - so-so
Green - ok, although i see that you never publish how far down overall the portfolio is...... i wonder why?
Directors - at least 1 page too much
Forex bit in middle is basically an advert
Sector report - worthwhile
Floats - ok
Analysts in action - 6 pages completely wasted with the 2 pages of brokers views particularly so.
Whats missing?
Results analysis - surely should be the basis of the mag and dedicated towards small caps.
Prospector
One week calendar.
Basically, seems to be a load of waffle and padding, with stuff pinched from papers and analysts.
Certainly not worth 3.75 and hardly justifies my subscription at this point.
You wont get a new audience because most people wont touch the stock market at the moment, certainly not new blood anyway.
Alienate old readers, no new readers coming in = shut down in 3-6 months......
Sections
Opinion - ok
Agenda - Too much large cap talk and its really hard to read the font - feels like im reading War & Peace!
Paper Talk - pointless, if i want to read that i buy a paper
Plays - ok
Main article - ok i guess, but felt hard going.
In the city - Hmmmm an 'expert'
Inside spin - Intel - huge company and US.....
Feature - Ok
Griller - so-so
Green - ok, although i see that you never publish how far down overall the portfolio is...... i wonder why?
Directors - at least 1 page too much
Forex bit in middle is basically an advert
Sector report - worthwhile
Floats - ok
Analysts in action - 6 pages completely wasted with the 2 pages of brokers views particularly so.
Whats missing?
Results analysis - surely should be the basis of the mag and dedicated towards small caps.
Prospector
One week calendar.
Basically, seems to be a load of waffle and padding, with stuff pinched from papers and analysts.
Certainly not worth 3.75 and hardly justifies my subscription at this point.
You wont get a new audience because most people wont touch the stock market at the moment, certainly not new blood anyway.
Alienate old readers, no new readers coming in = shut down in 3-6 months......
Shadowfang - 24 Apr 2008 21:10 - 77 of 184
Have been reading Shares mag since it started, hate the new look. Not a good place to put the index (took me ages to find it, was wondering how I kept missing it at the front of the mag...). I like IC's index this new index seems something they are embarrassed about and need to hide it away.
If Shares mag was a company...
SELL, under performing, no growth.
Have 90% of all the old Shares mags but won't be adding the revamped editions to them, have a more secure place for them - Biffa....
Suppose will have to look at Moneyweek.
Oh also very surprised there was no editiorial comment before the change and after the change saying what they were going to do and why..
If Shares mag was a company...
SELL, under performing, no growth.
Have 90% of all the old Shares mags but won't be adding the revamped editions to them, have a more secure place for them - Biffa....
Suppose will have to look at Moneyweek.
Oh also very surprised there was no editiorial comment before the change and after the change saying what they were going to do and why..
elbow - 24 Apr 2008 21:25 - 78 of 184
5 mins for me. Biffa is right could you ask them to take the sodden glassbottles away prior to 8pm at night and post 8am.
HARRYCAT
- 24 Apr 2008 23:09
- 79 of 184
That is one thing that always baffled me, as Stegrego says, with the Green Portfolio, even in the old style mag, that all that was ever shown was the ticker & the current sp. No %age loss or gain, or movement comparison over any period of time. A bit pointless imo.
Also, just as a matter of interest, why did some of you chose SHARES mag over MONEYWEEK? I've not seen the latter, so can't comment, but I presume it must be second best to the old style SHARES mag???
Also, just as a matter of interest, why did some of you chose SHARES mag over MONEYWEEK? I've not seen the latter, so can't comment, but I presume it must be second best to the old style SHARES mag???
Strawbs
- 25 Apr 2008 08:03
- 80 of 184
I bought a copy of MoneyWeek after it was mentioned further back in the thread. It's cheap, pretty easy to read and fairly informative, but I wouldn't say it was a direct replacement for the old style Shares magazine. Certainly worth thumbing through at the newsagents though. I might subscribe depending on the articles over the next month or so. For now I'll "browse and buy" MoneyWeek, IC, maybe Shares, or nothing at all depending on the content for that weeks publication.
Strawbs.
Strawbs.
Petal - 25 Apr 2008 08:43 - 81 of 184
Have just cancelled 2 years sub. Very sadly, it's hard getting advice in rural France. What can one say/think ? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Delusions of grandeur ? Need to be city slickers ? Deluded ? Over ruled by management ? Taken over by a multinational ? Hello Money Week, fingers crossed. Thanks for the tip.
Andy
- 25 Apr 2008 08:52
- 82 of 184
Strawbs,
I agree, Moneyweek is no replacement for Shares, as shares had it's own unique niche in the market, but it is the closest light read for the private investor now, IMO.
Shares no longer covers the companies that I want to read about, small caps newcomers, and mining and resource stocks, and Moneyweek at least covers these, albeit not in such volume as shares used to.
Moneyweek is a light read, is easy on the eyes, and is around half the price of the new Shares. I have taken their free 4 edition offer, and will continue afterwards, as Moneyweek is also online as well.
For anyone interested in (mainly) junior mining stocks, with a sprinkling of AIM small cap news, there is a 6 weekly (ish) FREE magazine published by proactiveinvestors.com, the link to register to receive it is HERE
As I understand it there is no plan to charge for the mag in the future, so it's not an introductory offer to my knowledge.
I agree, Moneyweek is no replacement for Shares, as shares had it's own unique niche in the market, but it is the closest light read for the private investor now, IMO.
Shares no longer covers the companies that I want to read about, small caps newcomers, and mining and resource stocks, and Moneyweek at least covers these, albeit not in such volume as shares used to.
Moneyweek is a light read, is easy on the eyes, and is around half the price of the new Shares. I have taken their free 4 edition offer, and will continue afterwards, as Moneyweek is also online as well.
For anyone interested in (mainly) junior mining stocks, with a sprinkling of AIM small cap news, there is a 6 weekly (ish) FREE magazine published by proactiveinvestors.com, the link to register to receive it is HERE
As I understand it there is no plan to charge for the mag in the future, so it's not an introductory offer to my knowledge.
cynic
- 25 Apr 2008 15:51
- 83 of 184
This week's SHARES MAG
Oil Services sector
I have yet to look in depth at the remainder of the mag, but I did find this article both useful and informative.
This could have been easily improved by highlighting the mentioned companies within the body of the article.
I certainly miss the notes etc on the small companies, trading suggestions, chart comment and similar from the old style mag.
While I often ignored the specific comments, it regularly prompted me to see what thread might be running on the companies in question, some of which attracted my money, even if only to say "Goodbye!"
This aspect needs to be revived, not least because small companies the focus of many of the subscribers here.
Oil Services sector
I have yet to look in depth at the remainder of the mag, but I did find this article both useful and informative.
This could have been easily improved by highlighting the mentioned companies within the body of the article.
I certainly miss the notes etc on the small companies, trading suggestions, chart comment and similar from the old style mag.
While I often ignored the specific comments, it regularly prompted me to see what thread might be running on the companies in question, some of which attracted my money, even if only to say "Goodbye!"
This aspect needs to be revived, not least because small companies the focus of many of the subscribers here.
cynic
- 25 Apr 2008 17:46
- 84 of 184
This week's SHARES MAG
Metals
in its way, this article was also very interesting.
however, by focussing on just RIO, BHP and Ferrexpo, it very much missed the target for most readers and subscribers.
while there is nothing wrong with highlighting these big players, there several others that could/should have been mentioned.
in addition, there are a number of good quality minor miners(sorry) who are genuine producers (ORE happens to be my fave) whose prospects could have been usefully pointed up.
Metals
in its way, this article was also very interesting.
however, by focussing on just RIO, BHP and Ferrexpo, it very much missed the target for most readers and subscribers.
while there is nothing wrong with highlighting these big players, there several others that could/should have been mentioned.
in addition, there are a number of good quality minor miners(sorry) who are genuine producers (ORE happens to be my fave) whose prospects could have been usefully pointed up.
cynic
- 25 Apr 2008 17:56
- 85 of 184
This week's SHARES MAG
Wetherspoon's
why would most subscribers be interested in a 2-page plug for this pub group?
it came across as a paid advertisement feature
perhaps it was!
Wetherspoon's
why would most subscribers be interested in a 2-page plug for this pub group?
it came across as a paid advertisement feature
perhaps it was!
spitfire43 - 25 Apr 2008 20:42 - 86 of 184
Message to Petal
Being nosy really, I noticed you said you lived in rural France, I wondered which part, because I live close to Perigueux. As you may have noticed I'm as displeased with shares as you. Unfortunately I cant cancel subsciption because I paid in advance and have 4 month's to run, it want stop me ringing them on Monday and asking for a rebate. I think I know the answer though.
Having said that I still have to read the whole mag this week, because I have been out all day playing Golf, but I did notice there is still no trading section. Amazing really when you consider the amazing growth of investors trading indices and companies with CFD & SB accounts. Would think an increase to 25% of mag would be justified with trading plays, never mind they know best!
Have just checked back issues for IC, and they do have a subscription serveces to Europe for 184 a year, about the same as Shares I think.
Being nosy really, I noticed you said you lived in rural France, I wondered which part, because I live close to Perigueux. As you may have noticed I'm as displeased with shares as you. Unfortunately I cant cancel subsciption because I paid in advance and have 4 month's to run, it want stop me ringing them on Monday and asking for a rebate. I think I know the answer though.
Having said that I still have to read the whole mag this week, because I have been out all day playing Golf, but I did notice there is still no trading section. Amazing really when you consider the amazing growth of investors trading indices and companies with CFD & SB accounts. Would think an increase to 25% of mag would be justified with trading plays, never mind they know best!
Have just checked back issues for IC, and they do have a subscription serveces to Europe for 184 a year, about the same as Shares I think.
Andy
- 25 Apr 2008 20:56
- 87 of 184
spifire43,
I rang and cancelled, and they offered me a rebate straight away, and were friendly about it.
In the highly unlikely event the mag returns to the format and content I bought it for, I would re-subscribe, ut it's a trader's mag now featuring large caps that people trade, rather than invest in, IMO.
I rang and cancelled, and they offered me a rebate straight away, and were friendly about it.
In the highly unlikely event the mag returns to the format and content I bought it for, I would re-subscribe, ut it's a trader's mag now featuring large caps that people trade, rather than invest in, IMO.
spitfire43 - 25 Apr 2008 21:05 - 88 of 184
Andy
Pleased to hear that, I will call them Monday and subsribe to IC instead. it's very sad really because I have made some very good investments using Shares in the past.
Pleased to hear that, I will call them Monday and subsribe to IC instead. it's very sad really because I have made some very good investments using Shares in the past.
ValueMax - 25 Apr 2008 23:23 - 89 of 184
Where has the charisma gone? Shares is now the literary equivalent of a cold, rainy Monday morning.
What is there to attract readers to this magazine? I liked to read the old editions for entertainment as well as ideas/introductions to companys which I'd research further and perhaps invest.
SHARES MAG DOES NOT NEED TO LOOK LIKE A DREARY BUSINESS DOCUMENT!
What is there to attract readers to this magazine? I liked to read the old editions for entertainment as well as ideas/introductions to companys which I'd research further and perhaps invest.
SHARES MAG DOES NOT NEED TO LOOK LIKE A DREARY BUSINESS DOCUMENT!
martynz - 27 Apr 2008 11:16 - 90 of 184
Ill like to beg to differ Im in favour of the new style which has a more serious appeal although agree ex div page is a miss at least there seems to be a lot less
of the endless twaddle on CFD Spread Betting etc type articles Im sure if people emailed the management with their ideas on the type of articles they wanted someone would take note ,they dont want their readers to leave in droves I like
the sector approaches also which take more detailed line .Also take out sub to
Moneyweek dont forget that 6/7 pages taken up with cars.boats,houses most people cant afford,but its a lighter read...
of the endless twaddle on CFD Spread Betting etc type articles Im sure if people emailed the management with their ideas on the type of articles they wanted someone would take note ,they dont want their readers to leave in droves I like
the sector approaches also which take more detailed line .Also take out sub to
Moneyweek dont forget that 6/7 pages taken up with cars.boats,houses most people cant afford,but its a lighter read...
Andy
- 27 Apr 2008 11:23
- 91 of 184
martynz,
we are communicating with the management via these threads.
If you like the mag now, presumably you didn't buy it before!
I say that because we have suffered an entire change in content, and I doubt people that bought for articles on new companies, small caps, and miners / gas & oilers etc. etc. are too enamoured with the new 'serious' and drab waffle about economics and markets, which is a weekly rehash of reports avilable daily in the current news media.
bought the IC this week, and it's better then this week's Sharesa IMO, becauase they feauture more company news, rather than economic.
Moneyweeek does include pages of advertisment features, as you rightly say, but at least it's a light read and features news on smaller companies, the sort most AIM investros want to read...
You can read about large caps everywhere.
Moneyweek is not a replacement for the old Shares, just it's nearest comparison, IMO.
we are communicating with the management via these threads.
If you like the mag now, presumably you didn't buy it before!
I say that because we have suffered an entire change in content, and I doubt people that bought for articles on new companies, small caps, and miners / gas & oilers etc. etc. are too enamoured with the new 'serious' and drab waffle about economics and markets, which is a weekly rehash of reports avilable daily in the current news media.
bought the IC this week, and it's better then this week's Sharesa IMO, becauase they feauture more company news, rather than economic.
Moneyweeek does include pages of advertisment features, as you rightly say, but at least it's a light read and features news on smaller companies, the sort most AIM investros want to read...
You can read about large caps everywhere.
Moneyweek is not a replacement for the old Shares, just it's nearest comparison, IMO.
Clubman3509
- 27 Apr 2008 11:26
- 92 of 184
Why fix something that was not broken. I hate the new look, just does not seem as eye catching as before, and many useful sections gone.
evilratboy - 28 Apr 2008 09:09 - 93 of 184
ValueMax summed up the recent Shares Mag changes in one sentence
"SHARES MAG DOES NOT NEED TO LOOK LIKE A DREARY BUSINESS DOCUMENT!"
Im afraid now it does look like a dreary business document. If major changes are not made this coming Thursday, Ill be joining the droves of readers and subscribers who have abandoned ship and canceled subscriptions.
I really don`t understand what they are trying to do. Driving away lots of existing subscribers and readers in favor of what !
Heres a suggestion for the Shares Team : Ask your readers and subscription holders what they would like to see in the mag and what should be changed. Take a survey. Do your own research instead of hiring a faceless marketing company who feed you a load of rubbish about what you should put in the mag.
"SHARES MAG DOES NOT NEED TO LOOK LIKE A DREARY BUSINESS DOCUMENT!"
Im afraid now it does look like a dreary business document. If major changes are not made this coming Thursday, Ill be joining the droves of readers and subscribers who have abandoned ship and canceled subscriptions.
I really don`t understand what they are trying to do. Driving away lots of existing subscribers and readers in favor of what !
Heres a suggestion for the Shares Team : Ask your readers and subscription holders what they would like to see in the mag and what should be changed. Take a survey. Do your own research instead of hiring a faceless marketing company who feed you a load of rubbish about what you should put in the mag.
queen1 - 28 Apr 2008 13:07 - 94 of 184
They're going to lose my custom as well if changes back are not aparent this week.
AIM Trader - 29 Apr 2008 14:08 - 95 of 184
Edited by MoneyAm
If you wish to advertise products in which you are personally involved please speak to our advertising dept.
If you wish to advertise products in which you are personally involved please speak to our advertising dept.
billco - 29 Apr 2008 22:02 - 96 of 184
Share above views. A disaster..... boring !!! Will take wise advice given above and ask for a refund.
billco - 29 Apr 2008 22:02 - 97 of 184
Share above views. A disaster..... boring !!! Will take wise advice given above and ask for a refund.
evilratboy - 30 Apr 2008 10:11 - 98 of 184
Big day tomorrow ... will there be a change in format ??
Yes : My subscription maintained
No: My subscription canceled
Yes : My subscription maintained
No: My subscription canceled
Andy
- 30 Apr 2008 11:44
- 99 of 184
evilratboy,
Although there may be a few cosmetic touches, it won' return to it's original format, that has gone forever, IMO.
Whoever made the decision would not want to lose face.
Although there may be a few cosmetic touches, it won' return to it's original format, that has gone forever, IMO.
Whoever made the decision would not want to lose face.
evilratboy - 30 Apr 2008 11:50 - 100 of 184
Andy, they have 2 options then
1. Lose face
2. Lose subscriptions and loyal readers
What a farce this is. I just dont understand why they didnt poll EXISTING readers and subscribers on how they wanted the magazine to look.
A week on and im still just as pis%%ed off about this.
1. Lose face
2. Lose subscriptions and loyal readers
What a farce this is. I just dont understand why they didnt poll EXISTING readers and subscribers on how they wanted the magazine to look.
A week on and im still just as pis%%ed off about this.
halifax - 30 Apr 2008 11:57 - 101 of 184
Maybe the few advertisers wanted a change?
Andy
- 30 Apr 2008 11:59
- 102 of 184
evilratbiy,
Me too!
I cannot believe they didn't consult their existing customers, and simply relied on "market research" from people that didn't buy the mag!
It just goes to illustrate the value of "market reserach", IMO.
Me too!
I cannot believe they didn't consult their existing customers, and simply relied on "market research" from people that didn't buy the mag!
It just goes to illustrate the value of "market reserach", IMO.
evilratboy - 01 May 2008 09:12 - 103 of 184
Just received todays issue. No mention about any changes and none evident. No comments from the editor in the magazine about it either.
Subscription cancelled.
Subscription cancelled.
Andy
- 01 May 2008 11:16
- 104 of 184
eviltatboy,
Unbelievable!
I did say they wouldn't revert back, but I expected some small changes.
Unbelievable!
I did say they wouldn't revert back, but I expected some small changes.
cynic
- 01 May 2008 16:44
- 105 of 184
is the management really so purblind and arrogant? .... very sadly it wouold seem so.
unfortunately, there is likely to be a knock-on effect here as many articles (used to) stimulate interest and further discussion.
unfortunately, there is likely to be a knock-on effect here as many articles (used to) stimulate interest and further discussion.
Guscavalier
- 01 May 2008 18:08
- 106 of 184
Just like to record my displeasure with the new format. Totally had the guts knocked out of it and the index in small print and at the back is useless. I wonder if the government had something to do with it, they just have to meddle even if the existing system works! I agree with others that it will lead to a loss in circulation.
cynic
- 01 May 2008 19:37
- 107 of 184
have not yet had a chance to look properly at the latest edition, but unless i am much mistaken there is at least a move in the right direction .... will comment further in due course .... i see notes/comments on a number of more modest companies - e.g. Petrofac and Rockhopper and several others - as well as articles on shorting and also Simon Griffiths returns on charts
Petal - 02 May 2008 09:42 - 108 of 184
come on then bullshare tell us where you did your research.it doesnt seemto be with any of the extremly pissed off people here.
Petal - 02 May 2008 09:45 - 109 of 184
have just noticed.top rh corner p1 the proffessional stock market weekly ,that excludes me !
evilratboy - 02 May 2008 09:56 - 110 of 184
Petal,
I noticed that too yesterday ..Looks like they are trying to target a higher section of the market...
Wake up Shares team !! Your magazine now contains nothing that cant be found on the internet
I noticed that too yesterday ..Looks like they are trying to target a higher section of the market...
Wake up Shares team !! Your magazine now contains nothing that cant be found on the internet
pumben - 02 May 2008 10:18 - 111 of 184
no difference between the Share and IC, these are horrible changes to the format it gets more like IC by the year.
I will only buy back if it ever changes back to the old format, the quality of the paper is appalling.
I will only buy back if it ever changes back to the old format, the quality of the paper is appalling.
notlob - 02 May 2008 15:33 - 112 of 184
I too have been very disappointed by the new format
Would have been sensible to make changes slowly and bring readers with you
I did like the section on the oil services sector the other day
But, it looks as boring as Investors Chronicle in its feel
I always thought Shares mag was a bit more lively than the IC
If i wanted the IC, would have bought that instead of shares mag
Unless it changes for the better soon, I will cancel my subscription and revert to buying the odd copy from Smiths.
Would have been sensible to make changes slowly and bring readers with you
I did like the section on the oil services sector the other day
But, it looks as boring as Investors Chronicle in its feel
I always thought Shares mag was a bit more lively than the IC
If i wanted the IC, would have bought that instead of shares mag
Unless it changes for the better soon, I will cancel my subscription and revert to buying the odd copy from Smiths.
Falcothou - 02 May 2008 19:54 - 113 of 184
I like the new format, less glitzy and sensationalist and more informative. e,g, forex feature.
Big Bad Al
- 04 May 2008 19:55
- 114 of 184
Whats with the funny colour backgrounds & light colour text.
ok for the young folk no good for us oldies 60+.
ok for the young folk no good for us oldies 60+.
trigger45 - 04 May 2008 20:46 - 115 of 184
I really hate the new format and doubt I will subscribe again when the time comes.
Andy
- 04 May 2008 23:07
- 116 of 184
I picked up a copy in Birmingham yesterday for the trip north to Carlisle, flicked through it, and placed it straight back on the shelf.
Shares are simply failing to cater for the retail investor interested in small cap stocks anymore, IMO.
A great shame.
Shares are simply failing to cater for the retail investor interested in small cap stocks anymore, IMO.
A great shame.
cynic
- 05 May 2008 09:17
- 117 of 184
there is a balance ...... "retail investors" do not or should not invest solely in small cap companies, and I for one, certainly perceive some improvement in the content of the latest edition .... still much to be done to restore a decent balance, but a move in the right direction at least.
Andy
- 05 May 2008 21:35
- 118 of 184
Cynic,
"retail investors" do not or should not invest solely in small cap companies"
-----
Why?
I have done reasonably well over the years investing in purely smallcaps, and have no desire to change, as it is my principal area of interest.
I believe it is an area where the retail investor can have a slight edge through research before a company grows and the general market catches on.
Shares Magazine was always a small cap magazine, it catered for a niche market not already provided for by the highbrow (IMO) Economist, and dry and largely mid and large cap commentator, the Investors Chronicle.
Shares has now moved up to a position in between the Economist and IC (IMO), and one wonders where their market will come from, given that these two already have loyal readerships.
The loss of the old Shares has left a gap in the market, it will be interesting to see if it's filled, and if so, by whom.
Moneyweek is the closest, but would need to report on more companies than it currently does, and, maybe, and more likely, Tom Winnifrith's t1ps may spot the opportunity?
"retail investors" do not or should not invest solely in small cap companies"
-----
Why?
I have done reasonably well over the years investing in purely smallcaps, and have no desire to change, as it is my principal area of interest.
I believe it is an area where the retail investor can have a slight edge through research before a company grows and the general market catches on.
Shares Magazine was always a small cap magazine, it catered for a niche market not already provided for by the highbrow (IMO) Economist, and dry and largely mid and large cap commentator, the Investors Chronicle.
Shares has now moved up to a position in between the Economist and IC (IMO), and one wonders where their market will come from, given that these two already have loyal readerships.
The loss of the old Shares has left a gap in the market, it will be interesting to see if it's filled, and if so, by whom.
Moneyweek is the closest, but would need to report on more companies than it currently does, and, maybe, and more likely, Tom Winnifrith's t1ps may spot the opportunity?
RoyMarklove
- 08 May 2008 19:30
- 119 of 184
I very rarely post on these boards but feel I must this time, I thought I would give the new version of the mag a few weeks to see if I got used to it, which I have not. The previous style was much better and I will have to seriously consider whether to renew my subscription which I will do if it does not improve.
queen1 - 08 May 2008 19:40 - 120 of 184
Can you believe in the letters page they've printed a congratulatory "letter" from a reader telling them how wonderful the new format is?! I guess that particular reader must get their copy in braile.
renegade - 09 May 2008 08:58 - 121 of 184
Noticed the self-congratulatory we beat the market on "Plays". However strangely, their "hot tips for 2008" have not been updated. Could this be because nearly all of them went down by 20% or more hitting the "stop loss". Some are down by over 50%.
Andy
- 09 May 2008 09:07
- 122 of 184
Queen1,
LOL!
Not surprised by such a letter, but, IF it's genuine, you have to wonder if the person bought the mag before, and if so, why?
The content has completely changed, so if you like it now, why did you buy it before?
My guess is they will not revert back and are trying to tough it out hoping readers will stay loyal.
I think their circulation will fall due to them not listening to their loyal customers, but instead relying on "market reserch"
LOL!
Not surprised by such a letter, but, IF it's genuine, you have to wonder if the person bought the mag before, and if so, why?
The content has completely changed, so if you like it now, why did you buy it before?
My guess is they will not revert back and are trying to tough it out hoping readers will stay loyal.
I think their circulation will fall due to them not listening to their loyal customers, but instead relying on "market reserch"
Harlosh
- 09 May 2008 11:15
- 123 of 184
Yes, I noticed that too queen. Very selective of the many emails they must have received.
A terrible, if not cynical attempt at manipulation.
A terrible, if not cynical attempt at manipulation.
renegade - 09 May 2008 11:48 - 124 of 184
ok, found a copy of the year beginning tips. Here's a table (rough and ready back of fag pack calculations) They had stops of 20% so I've put if they would have been stopped out at any point. Out of 20 tips 4 fell by more than half and 18 fell below the stops. Pretty poor especially given how much the market has come back. Not clever enough to work out the total % loss. Two shares had some kind of consolidation so wrote con for those. Couldn't be bothered to trace them!
company tipped at Price now +/- stopped?
Barclays 523 449 -15% -20%
Cattles 293.5 244.5 -17% -20%
ITE 159.5 148 -7% --
Lloyds 471.75 429 -9% -20%
Morgan S 1121 1044 -6% -20%
Nat Grid 820.5 700 -13% --
Next 16.74 1298 -22% -20%
S Cross 537.5 367 -32% -20%
Unilever 1746 1768 +1%
Xtrata 3604 4204 +17%
2 ergo 177 205 +15%
Ashley H 129.5 157 +20%
CVS 241.5 258.5 +7%
Deb free 202 97 97 -52% -20%
FDM 125 98.5 -21% -20%
Fundel 596.5 285 -52% -20%
Haike 117.5 97 -18% -20%
Machtech 396.5 292 -26% -20%
Plant Impact 52 50.5 -3%
Protherics 53.5 47 -11%
Begbies 102.25 117 +15%
Bluwater 13 5 -60% -20%
Coolabi 34.5 19.5 -42% -20%
Egdon 223 16 ? ? (con)
Lidco 8.5 11.75 +35% -20%
Payzone 70.25 47.75 -32% -20%
Petrolina 12.25 ? (con) -20%
Petroneft 29 32 +10%
Scisys 37 41 +11% -20%
Wagon 32 16 -50% -20%
company tipped at Price now +/- stopped?
Barclays 523 449 -15% -20%
Cattles 293.5 244.5 -17% -20%
ITE 159.5 148 -7% --
Lloyds 471.75 429 -9% -20%
Morgan S 1121 1044 -6% -20%
Nat Grid 820.5 700 -13% --
Next 16.74 1298 -22% -20%
S Cross 537.5 367 -32% -20%
Unilever 1746 1768 +1%
Xtrata 3604 4204 +17%
2 ergo 177 205 +15%
Ashley H 129.5 157 +20%
CVS 241.5 258.5 +7%
Deb free 202 97 97 -52% -20%
FDM 125 98.5 -21% -20%
Fundel 596.5 285 -52% -20%
Haike 117.5 97 -18% -20%
Machtech 396.5 292 -26% -20%
Plant Impact 52 50.5 -3%
Protherics 53.5 47 -11%
Begbies 102.25 117 +15%
Bluwater 13 5 -60% -20%
Coolabi 34.5 19.5 -42% -20%
Egdon 223 16 ? ? (con)
Lidco 8.5 11.75 +35% -20%
Payzone 70.25 47.75 -32% -20%
Petrolina 12.25 ? (con) -20%
Petroneft 29 32 +10%
Scisys 37 41 +11% -20%
Wagon 32 16 -50% -20%
Petal - 12 May 2008 09:05 - 125 of 184
have just noticed free demo is a cherished old format from nov 07 !ive got my refund and the first moneyweek has arrived ,think it may be ok .
Fred1new
- 12 May 2008 09:12
- 126 of 184
I think this weeks edition was better than the few previous. I think the content has slightly more depth to it than the previous magazines. The layout is improving and the contrast between the founts and paper slightly better.
I will wait and see for a few more weeks.
I will wait and see for a few more weeks.
spitfire43 - 12 May 2008 09:57 - 127 of 184
To be fair this weeks edition was a slight improvement. The sector report on house builders was very good, and feature on pharmaceutical was interesting, as was some article in Directors deals for a change. I also like the table of Broker views, but not the analysts in action.
The problem is overall the magazine has a dull feel to it, which seems intended to appeal to a different section.
What they need to do is give more space to the chartest, at least back to two pages, and re-introduce the Trading plays section, I feel this has been a big loss, and should have been expanded along with the chartest.
As for the letter of praise "what a joke" they must have searched for that one.
I'm still subscibing until the end of my contract in August, but wouldn't renew because the way they have gone about this change tells me how much they think of the current readers "not alot" I will subscribe to IC........
ps..... has anyone noticed how the brokers updates on the trading thread have been stopped, I wonder if this has something to do with the analysts recommendations they are so keen to use in the mag now.
never mind I will look elsewhere on the internet.
The problem is overall the magazine has a dull feel to it, which seems intended to appeal to a different section.
What they need to do is give more space to the chartest, at least back to two pages, and re-introduce the Trading plays section, I feel this has been a big loss, and should have been expanded along with the chartest.
As for the letter of praise "what a joke" they must have searched for that one.
I'm still subscibing until the end of my contract in August, but wouldn't renew because the way they have gone about this change tells me how much they think of the current readers "not alot" I will subscribe to IC........
ps..... has anyone noticed how the brokers updates on the trading thread have been stopped, I wonder if this has something to do with the analysts recommendations they are so keen to use in the mag now.
never mind I will look elsewhere on the internet.
Stegrego - 15 May 2008 07:52 - 128 of 184
OK -I do see some improvements, or rather returns of sections in this weeks mag...
Back in is a section called Explorer thats details O&G and Mineral plays...
Back is Calender...
Seems slightly more on smaller caps (4 pages of news) and this weeks feature is Mobile Comms so nearly all firms (WIN, 2ERGO etc) are small caps.
Still has the stupid Analyst section taking about 8 pages though...
Will hang on for now..
Back in is a section called Explorer thats details O&G and Mineral plays...
Back is Calender...
Seems slightly more on smaller caps (4 pages of news) and this weeks feature is Mobile Comms so nearly all firms (WIN, 2ERGO etc) are small caps.
Still has the stupid Analyst section taking about 8 pages though...
Will hang on for now..
chessplayer - 15 May 2008 16:27 - 129 of 184
I must say that i am far from being impressed,
If somebody can point out the improvements I'd like to hear about them.
Out of a possible 10,I would give it a 3
If somebody can point out the improvements I'd like to hear about them.
Out of a possible 10,I would give it a 3
Andy
- 15 May 2008 23:17
- 130 of 184
Stegegro,
I haven't seen this week's edition, but judging by what you say, they are gradually putting back some of the old popular features, and now the Prospector page seems to have returned, albeit under a new name, to save face no doubt!
This has now become shambolic (IMO), It's become Shares mag's equivalent of the 10p tax rate fiasco, IMO.
What a shame that they lost subscribers such as myself by taking out the mining / oil and smallcap features, and now they seem to be slowly putting them back in after weeks of protest!
I wonder how much they paid the "market researchers"?
I haven't seen this week's edition, but judging by what you say, they are gradually putting back some of the old popular features, and now the Prospector page seems to have returned, albeit under a new name, to save face no doubt!
This has now become shambolic (IMO), It's become Shares mag's equivalent of the 10p tax rate fiasco, IMO.
What a shame that they lost subscribers such as myself by taking out the mining / oil and smallcap features, and now they seem to be slowly putting them back in after weeks of protest!
I wonder how much they paid the "market researchers"?
Andy
- 31 May 2008 17:22
- 131 of 184
I have now received an email inviting me to review the next four editions of the magazine free online!
Hmmm.
If you want to win back long term subscribers that cancelled when you stripped out all the small cap and mining / resource content they originally bought the magazine for!, maybe a good idea is to mail one out and let's see if it has improved since the initial revamp?
I would suggest paying subscribers,and ex subscribers, are the best market research you will ever get!
Hmmm.
If you want to win back long term subscribers that cancelled when you stripped out all the small cap and mining / resource content they originally bought the magazine for!, maybe a good idea is to mail one out and let's see if it has improved since the initial revamp?
I would suggest paying subscribers,and ex subscribers, are the best market research you will ever get!
evilratboy - 01 Jun 2008 19:44 - 132 of 184
Andy,
I agree, but having flicked through this weeks edition in the newsagent , its still rubbish. They are still not listening. They will soon enough though because as we all know, money talks and when the sales figures dwindle away, maybe theyll realise but itll be way too late then.
My opinion, I rate Shares Magazine a SELL :)
I agree, but having flicked through this weeks edition in the newsagent , its still rubbish. They are still not listening. They will soon enough though because as we all know, money talks and when the sales figures dwindle away, maybe theyll realise but itll be way too late then.
My opinion, I rate Shares Magazine a SELL :)
Andy
- 02 Jun 2008 09:10
- 133 of 184
evilratboy,
Pity, but I'm not surprised, as we are not good at admitting mistakes in the UK.
I bet circulation has fallen, and it's hard to see where they will gain any as their new target market is already well served.
Pity, but I'm not surprised, as we are not good at admitting mistakes in the UK.
I bet circulation has fallen, and it's hard to see where they will gain any as their new target market is already well served.
chessplayer - 02 Jun 2008 10:48 - 134 of 184
I cannot understand why they made all the changes.,in more ways than one I,ll give it 2 more weeks,then cancel my D.D.
Andy
- 02 Jun 2008 16:43
- 135 of 184
chessplayer,
My guess is circulation was falling, and as their niche was the AIM small cap market, they decided to make a quantum leap into the market served by the Economist and the Investors Chronicle, and the magazine now resembles a cross between the two IMO.
The problem is that the AIM smallcap investor finds those magazines dry (IMO) and therefore, don't buy them.
That leavses the market without a magazine that caters for the AIM smallcap sector, and an opportnity for someone.
I now receive moneyweek, and whilst it's no replacement for the original Shares, it is a good light read IMO, and only costs around half the price.
In addition there is the free proactiveinvestors magagine, which focuses soley on the small cap sector, mostly mining and oil, but does cover others too, but is only published every 4 - 6 weeks.
My guess is circulation was falling, and as their niche was the AIM small cap market, they decided to make a quantum leap into the market served by the Economist and the Investors Chronicle, and the magazine now resembles a cross between the two IMO.
The problem is that the AIM smallcap investor finds those magazines dry (IMO) and therefore, don't buy them.
That leavses the market without a magazine that caters for the AIM smallcap sector, and an opportnity for someone.
I now receive moneyweek, and whilst it's no replacement for the original Shares, it is a good light read IMO, and only costs around half the price.
In addition there is the free proactiveinvestors magagine, which focuses soley on the small cap sector, mostly mining and oil, but does cover others too, but is only published every 4 - 6 weeks.
2517GEORGE
- 03 Jun 2008 07:40
- 136 of 184
I now subscribe to moneyweek and have already prospered through SRB & SUN, my shares subscription runs out in september and I'll wait until then before I decide. I feel there has been a slight improvement in certain areas, but they do themselves no favours, the 2 most recent editions carried the same dates for ex-dividend stocks (28th may) and for dividend payment stocks (23rd may). So, was it a duplication of the stocks or, as in this case the dates were incorrect, but I had to check both editions to find out.
2517
2517
Andy
- 04 Jun 2008 00:09
- 137 of 184
2517,
I am going to check out this week's edition for the improvements you mention.
I am going to check out this week's edition for the improvements you mention.
queen1 - 04 Jun 2008 12:43 - 138 of 184
There have been some cosmetic improvements but my biggest issue with the magazine is this:
I wouldn't trust an analyst's recommendation as far as I could throw it. Every single one has some level of ulterior motive, however small. But the recommendations from Shares used to, I feel, be made in an unbiased way. But now, apart from the Plays of the Week, all of the articles are based on the views of analysts. Not just in the analysts section but in all areas of the magazine. The shares team no longer feel able or willing to provide a point of view, instead they dish up an amalgamation of analysts comments. There are no buy, hold or sell recommendations and the magazine is all the poorer for it.
I wouldn't trust an analyst's recommendation as far as I could throw it. Every single one has some level of ulterior motive, however small. But the recommendations from Shares used to, I feel, be made in an unbiased way. But now, apart from the Plays of the Week, all of the articles are based on the views of analysts. Not just in the analysts section but in all areas of the magazine. The shares team no longer feel able or willing to provide a point of view, instead they dish up an amalgamation of analysts comments. There are no buy, hold or sell recommendations and the magazine is all the poorer for it.
spitfire43 - 27 Aug 2008 21:13 - 139 of 184
Share magazine used to be something that I read cover to cover, now it just sits on the side unread. I have cancelled my subscription but I still receive a copy each week until next month. Having had last Thursday copy sitting unread by the computer I thought I would take look today to see if there was anything interesting in this issue.
Unfortunately the front page wasn't to encouraging, with a cover story on Analyst tips, and who had the best tips, very dull indeed and I flicked past with indecent haste. Maybe the analyst like to read about themselves, I can't imagine normal investors being that interested.
Then I noticed yet again shares giving themselves another pat on the back with there buy rating of HBOS last month, yes I think we have got the message now.
All in all a very dull read indeed, and I skipped through the issue in 30 minutes. I only managed to find one company worth looking into, Accsys Technologies AXS. It's a real shame because I really looked forward to the mag before the changes, I really can't imagine there are enough analyst buying this magazine to read article on themselves, and to see there faces in print to improve circulation figures. A small target readership indeed.
As I have cancelled subscription, this will be my last post on this blog, but good luck to others if this type of format floats your boat.
Unfortunately the front page wasn't to encouraging, with a cover story on Analyst tips, and who had the best tips, very dull indeed and I flicked past with indecent haste. Maybe the analyst like to read about themselves, I can't imagine normal investors being that interested.
Then I noticed yet again shares giving themselves another pat on the back with there buy rating of HBOS last month, yes I think we have got the message now.
All in all a very dull read indeed, and I skipped through the issue in 30 minutes. I only managed to find one company worth looking into, Accsys Technologies AXS. It's a real shame because I really looked forward to the mag before the changes, I really can't imagine there are enough analyst buying this magazine to read article on themselves, and to see there faces in print to improve circulation figures. A small target readership indeed.
As I have cancelled subscription, this will be my last post on this blog, but good luck to others if this type of format floats your boat.
hangon - 27 Aug 2008 23:49 - 140 of 184
Maybe Queen1 set them thinking - we'll show you how OUR analysts are getting it right.
However, I note that when there is a BUY in any mag, you cannot buy at that price, for that was at least three days ago and if I take a subscription I have to wait until 12:30 - so i buy from the shop.
On the new format:
I guess it's marginally better now they've got rid of the grey text and reversed sections. What is wrong with plain black on white?, or a tint of no more than 5%.
I'm not keen on pretty photos I'd rather see a minimum of 5-years sp as it's very easy to forget what went on before.....and with so many co's it's not good.
What would I like? Something about the Execs - but not pages, please, the Good and Bad, perhaps? Then the Products - far too often news is all positive, with little regard to the inevitable disapointments. e.g. competitors, outstanding debts, etc.
It doesn't help that the Analysists managed to find a profit in Tanfield - yet this stock was a long-term "winner" for readers - so how come the Analysists failed to find the snags in this business? That the Boss (Stanley?) was involved in starting a competing business should have alerted them.....and even now the focus is on the "electric vehicles" yet this only represented 20% of the turnover....oh dear.
But what's undeniably daft is the Issue Number/Date in tiny reversed print on the cover - does no-one want to read this - so why not leave it OFF! If they think the Mag is attractive (by writing Shares in large letters), I think the date/issue is important enough to be maybe 10% of the size......or larger!
However, I note that when there is a BUY in any mag, you cannot buy at that price, for that was at least three days ago and if I take a subscription I have to wait until 12:30 - so i buy from the shop.
On the new format:
I guess it's marginally better now they've got rid of the grey text and reversed sections. What is wrong with plain black on white?, or a tint of no more than 5%.
I'm not keen on pretty photos I'd rather see a minimum of 5-years sp as it's very easy to forget what went on before.....and with so many co's it's not good.
What would I like? Something about the Execs - but not pages, please, the Good and Bad, perhaps? Then the Products - far too often news is all positive, with little regard to the inevitable disapointments. e.g. competitors, outstanding debts, etc.
It doesn't help that the Analysists managed to find a profit in Tanfield - yet this stock was a long-term "winner" for readers - so how come the Analysists failed to find the snags in this business? That the Boss (Stanley?) was involved in starting a competing business should have alerted them.....and even now the focus is on the "electric vehicles" yet this only represented 20% of the turnover....oh dear.
But what's undeniably daft is the Issue Number/Date in tiny reversed print on the cover - does no-one want to read this - so why not leave it OFF! If they think the Mag is attractive (by writing Shares in large letters), I think the date/issue is important enough to be maybe 10% of the size......or larger!
Snip
- 28 Aug 2008 07:38
- 141 of 184
I cancelled during may and am STILL waiting for a refund
IanT(MoneyAM)
- 28 Aug 2008 07:46
- 142 of 184
Snip,
Looks like your account was cancelled 1 year after your annual subscription was taken, therefore no refund would be due. I will e mail you with details.
Ian
Looks like your account was cancelled 1 year after your annual subscription was taken, therefore no refund would be due. I will e mail you with details.
Ian
Snip
- 28 Aug 2008 15:07
- 143 of 184
I have returned a copy of an e mail from shares confirming cancellation in may. My 12 month sub was taken out in august
IanT(MoneyAM)
- 28 Aug 2008 15:16
- 144 of 184
Snip,
I have replied to it earlier today.
Ian
I have replied to it earlier today.
Ian
Snip
- 29 Aug 2008 06:09
- 145 of 184
thank you
queen1 - 29 Aug 2008 13:15 - 146 of 184
What are Shares doing now? Having re-instated the very useful Diary page I see that this week's issue has once more failed to include it. This is really amateurish and extremely frustrating for subscribers. Every week it seems that parts of the magazine are chopped and changed and this, in my opinion, is a huge step backwards. Utter rubbish.
required field - 29 Aug 2008 14:28 - 147 of 184
Well....I cannot even say anything...I have not received a copy of Shares magazine for 3 weeks now and I'm assured that there is nothing wrong with my subscription....possibly somebody nicking my copy ? :(
bjt1964
- 29 Aug 2008 22:15
- 148 of 184
I am a new subscriber to Shares also and have just read all the above comments.
I must admit I found it a hard read at first but have now got used to it which is why I subscribed.
I have not received a copy from the distributors for 3 weeks either now, I received all the trial issues on time and since my subscription kicked in they have not been arriving
I must admit I found it a hard read at first but have now got used to it which is why I subscribed.
I have not received a copy from the distributors for 3 weeks either now, I received all the trial issues on time and since my subscription kicked in they have not been arriving
Stan
- 30 Aug 2008 10:24
- 149 of 184
As an aside bjt, I notice that you reside In Birmingham.
If you are interested we meet quite regularly In the centre roughly once a month (see the "Birmingham Pie & Pint" thread) for all details.
If you are interested we meet quite regularly In the centre roughly once a month (see the "Birmingham Pie & Pint" thread) for all details.
Andy
- 30 Aug 2008 10:53
- 150 of 184
Required field,
"possibly somebody nicking my copy ? :( "
-----
Judging by the last edition I flicked through in Borders, if they had, they would have returned it PDQ!
"possibly somebody nicking my copy ? :( "
-----
Judging by the last edition I flicked through in Borders, if they had, they would have returned it PDQ!
Andy
- 04 Sep 2008 23:24
- 151 of 184
I was in Smiths on Waterloo Tuesday evening, and thought I would buy a copy to see if there had been any improvements.
First thing that struck me was how thin the magazine is now, and, after a brief flick through, I couldn't bring myself to part with 3.75 for a mag that would have been read before Woking.
I guess there is a downturn in advertising, and then the mag has to lose pages to compensate, but it seems half the mag it was a year ago, literally.
edit
To be fair, I picked up the IC, and after a brief flick through that, didn't buy it either, for the same reason.
For the small cap investor there is nothing to read now it seems.
First thing that struck me was how thin the magazine is now, and, after a brief flick through, I couldn't bring myself to part with 3.75 for a mag that would have been read before Woking.
I guess there is a downturn in advertising, and then the mag has to lose pages to compensate, but it seems half the mag it was a year ago, literally.
edit
To be fair, I picked up the IC, and after a brief flick through that, didn't buy it either, for the same reason.
For the small cap investor there is nothing to read now it seems.
Guscavalier
- 05 Sep 2008 09:44
- 152 of 184
Must agree with you Andy, it is not the read that it was and like you spent little time on the latest issue. I have a subscription with the FT for my core reading and cut out articles for future reference. For me the FT is a must and helps the mind reflect.
Fred1new
- 05 Sep 2008 09:51
- 153 of 184
I didn't receive the mag for 3 weeks but now have received 2 by post in 2days.
My major grumble of is the quality of print, choice of founts and background page colour.
Before anybody says anything, I know I am old!
My major grumble of is the quality of print, choice of founts and background page colour.
Before anybody says anything, I know I am old!
maddoctor - 05 Sep 2008 10:56 - 154 of 184
I,ve been taking the mag. for years and used to read every word , now a quick flick through and in the bin , can,t put my finger on exactly what has gone wrong but for one thing it is now borrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrring
Stegrego - 05 Sep 2008 12:49 - 155 of 184
Ive found it a bit improved over recent weeks, with some readable bits and stuff coming back.
However, the last 2 weeks seem to be going the other way again.
Sub is hanging by a thread now.
However, the last 2 weeks seem to be going the other way again.
Sub is hanging by a thread now.
queen1 - 05 Sep 2008 13:49 - 156 of 184
No Diary section again this week.
Andy
- 06 Sep 2008 10:22
- 157 of 184
queen1,
I wonder how the "new" and "old" circulation figures compare?
I cannot understand why they did this, the format is soooo boring now, IMO.
I much preferred the tabloidy feel of the old mag, and enjoyed reading it too, the small articles were simply an introduction to a stock, a starter for more research, whereas now there are limited articles, hence less introductions to new stocks.
I wonder how the "new" and "old" circulation figures compare?
I cannot understand why they did this, the format is soooo boring now, IMO.
I much preferred the tabloidy feel of the old mag, and enjoyed reading it too, the small articles were simply an introduction to a stock, a starter for more research, whereas now there are limited articles, hence less introductions to new stocks.
someuwin
- 06 Sep 2008 11:38
- 158 of 184
Unreadable mag now - complete waste of money.
Juzzle
- 07 Sep 2008 09:55
- 159 of 184
Cheaper (and far more useful) to buy the FT twice a week (or just the Saturday weekend edition).
Shmag is surely doomed. So much of its content adds nothing to what is available elsewhere online free of charge.
Shmag is surely doomed. So much of its content adds nothing to what is available elsewhere online free of charge.
queen1 - 07 Sep 2008 18:14 - 160 of 184
Agreed Andy and I'm sure the new figures compare poorly with the old.
Clubman3509
- 07 Sep 2008 19:26
- 161 of 184
Don't bother reading it any more just flick through the pages. Before revamp I read every word.
chessplayer - 08 Sep 2008 08:06 - 162 of 184
I cannot see one constructive comment on the mag.The question needs to be asked,"Did the editor feel that the changes made were for the better?"And if so,in what way?
Andy
- 08 Sep 2008 15:35
- 163 of 184
chessplayer,
And for whom were the chnages made?
They effectively changed the content of the mag, so anyone already buying was clearly buying for the old content, and was unlikely to be happy with the new, as there are few company reviews now.
In particular, the number of small AIM listed companies being covered is much lower now.
And for whom were the chnages made?
They effectively changed the content of the mag, so anyone already buying was clearly buying for the old content, and was unlikely to be happy with the new, as there are few company reviews now.
In particular, the number of small AIM listed companies being covered is much lower now.
Big Bad Al
- 08 Sep 2008 15:54
- 164 of 184
forward diary has now departed,,WHY !!
halifax - 08 Sep 2008 16:38 - 165 of 184
Perhaps they are trying to find an excuse to close down without refunding our subscriptions?
hangon - 09 Sep 2008 11:29 - 166 of 184
I suspect they are seeing falling sales - nothing surprining in that - times are harder now, Volumes down - so opportunistic buyers maybe don't buy from the news-stand.
I fail to understand why they have used grey ink,
why the Issue date is twisted 80 degrees and reversed and very difficult to read . . . it's quite important, esp when sorting through back-issues.
Some omissions (like the EPIC) are now fixed
And it would be nice to have the "Buy at" price, because MM's move prices up as soon as a share is mentioned in Shares! ( SO, I'd prefer to wait.)
Nevertheless I buy it each week.
Sadly the post is late here (S>London), so I need to go to the shops to read it before lunch!
I fail to understand why they have used grey ink,
why the Issue date is twisted 80 degrees and reversed and very difficult to read . . . it's quite important, esp when sorting through back-issues.
Some omissions (like the EPIC) are now fixed
And it would be nice to have the "Buy at" price, because MM's move prices up as soon as a share is mentioned in Shares! ( SO, I'd prefer to wait.)
Nevertheless I buy it each week.
Sadly the post is late here (S>London), so I need to go to the shops to read it before lunch!
chessplayer - 09 Sep 2008 23:08 - 167 of 184
hangon--you sound like a bit of a masochist to me.Still,I expect you have your limits as well!
Kayak
- 10 Sep 2008 00:30
- 168 of 184
I would make that 90 degrees unless your house is on a hill of course :-)
Stegrego - 18 Sep 2008 13:05 - 169 of 184
Just rang up and cancelled my subscription after about 3 years of subbing.
Mag is getting worse not better, gave it plenty of chances.
Printing it on thicker paper this week doesnt make up for lack of content either!
Mag is getting worse not better, gave it plenty of chances.
Printing it on thicker paper this week doesnt make up for lack of content either!
hodgins
- 24 Jan 2009 01:11
- 170 of 184
No magazine received this week, anyone else?
Has improved lately, especially welcome pages on currency and other commodities
Has improved lately, especially welcome pages on currency and other commodities
Andy
- 24 Jan 2009 09:59
- 171 of 184
Stegrego,
I bought a copy osf Shares just before Christmas for a train jaunt up north, and was suprised at how painfully thin the mag had become!
Clearly the adverts dropping has lead to a corresponding reduction in share reporting.
I hit lucky in that the mag i bought had some articles on companies and the sector i concentrate on, but I found there were few shares mentioned, and the old 'feel' has gone.
To be fair, they HAVE addressed some of the issues raised here at the time of the revamp, but you have to ask why they changed it in the first place, and why it took so long to rectify when they must have lost subscribers in the meantime!
The index is STILL at the back, which is ridiculous. IMO, and probably only satifies their Chinese customers.....
What I do notice is the mag is not sold in so many locations as before, and I would like to see their recent circulation figures, in comparison with the pre revamp ones.
I certainy wouldn't subscribe again, but MAY buy on spec agsin IF I flicked through and found some content of interest first.
Overall, this is surely an abject lesson in taking a popular brand, making uneccesary changes without doing market research and referring to your customers, then ignoring those same customers' comments when things were clearly wrong, and then losing market share!
I bought a recent copy of the Investors Chronicle, and was pleased to note how much that had improved, visually at least, with a better layout and more colour, and felt it represented better value.
I bought a copy osf Shares just before Christmas for a train jaunt up north, and was suprised at how painfully thin the mag had become!
Clearly the adverts dropping has lead to a corresponding reduction in share reporting.
I hit lucky in that the mag i bought had some articles on companies and the sector i concentrate on, but I found there were few shares mentioned, and the old 'feel' has gone.
To be fair, they HAVE addressed some of the issues raised here at the time of the revamp, but you have to ask why they changed it in the first place, and why it took so long to rectify when they must have lost subscribers in the meantime!
The index is STILL at the back, which is ridiculous. IMO, and probably only satifies their Chinese customers.....
What I do notice is the mag is not sold in so many locations as before, and I would like to see their recent circulation figures, in comparison with the pre revamp ones.
I certainy wouldn't subscribe again, but MAY buy on spec agsin IF I flicked through and found some content of interest first.
Overall, this is surely an abject lesson in taking a popular brand, making uneccesary changes without doing market research and referring to your customers, then ignoring those same customers' comments when things were clearly wrong, and then losing market share!
I bought a recent copy of the Investors Chronicle, and was pleased to note how much that had improved, visually at least, with a better layout and more colour, and felt it represented better value.
Bullshare
- 24 Jan 2009 10:17
- 172 of 184
Andy: In answer to your abject lesson/losing market share comment above, our circulation (ABC Audited) since relaunch is up 34.5%. Previously it stood at 13,561 a week now the audited number stands at 18,236 a week.
Our audience before the relaunch was 90% private investor, the revamp and marketing focus since has been successfully targeting analysts, brokers and the company directors of the quoted companies themselves, whilst trying to cater for the private investors at the same time.
Mike
Our audience before the relaunch was 90% private investor, the revamp and marketing focus since has been successfully targeting analysts, brokers and the company directors of the quoted companies themselves, whilst trying to cater for the private investors at the same time.
Mike
goldfinger
- 25 Jan 2009 02:55
- 173 of 184
Pretty impressive figures then Mike.
If we get the charts up working properly and the stockwatch portfolios sorted out we should be ready to go forward when the next bull market comes along and dump advfn on its sorry ass.
Now that would be really nice.
If we get the charts up working properly and the stockwatch portfolios sorted out we should be ready to go forward when the next bull market comes along and dump advfn on its sorry ass.
Now that would be really nice.
Andy
- 29 Jan 2009 10:39
- 174 of 184
Mike,
Well I have to confess to being absolutely staggered!
Clearly the changeover from the PI to the professional world has been a huge success.
I will buy this week's copy to read on the run up north on Saturday to see the latest edition.
Well I have to confess to being absolutely staggered!
Clearly the changeover from the PI to the professional world has been a huge success.
I will buy this week's copy to read on the run up north on Saturday to see the latest edition.
jeffmack
- 29 Jan 2009 16:47
- 175 of 184
I wouldnt buy it but get it for free on my weekly Eurostar trips. Doesnt take long to read it
Andy
- 06 Jul 2011 23:34
- 176 of 184
Whenever I go on a trip abroad I normally buy Shares and the IC to read along the way.
I have to say that I have bought a couple of the recent Shares editions, and the magazine has virtually returned to what it once was, a focus on AIM listed stocks.
I still have some of the old editions at home, and the only real difference now is the number of pages, but a lot were adverts, so not too much difference in the content, IMO.
It is good to see the magazine concentrating on the junior market, and I enjoy the read once again.
The ONLY gripe (apart from the index STILL at the back!) is the non reappearance of The Prospector page, which is a great shame, and I think there should be two pages, one for oil and gas, the other for resources. THere is massive interest in the resource sector right now, it seems a shame to miss it.
Well done for restoring the magazine to what it was formerley, I am a regular buyer again now.
I have to say that I have bought a couple of the recent Shares editions, and the magazine has virtually returned to what it once was, a focus on AIM listed stocks.
I still have some of the old editions at home, and the only real difference now is the number of pages, but a lot were adverts, so not too much difference in the content, IMO.
It is good to see the magazine concentrating on the junior market, and I enjoy the read once again.
The ONLY gripe (apart from the index STILL at the back!) is the non reappearance of The Prospector page, which is a great shame, and I think there should be two pages, one for oil and gas, the other for resources. THere is massive interest in the resource sector right now, it seems a shame to miss it.
Well done for restoring the magazine to what it was formerley, I am a regular buyer again now.
kimoldfield
- 07 Jul 2011 00:44
- 177 of 184
I like the new Mining Resources Quarterly supplement.
chessplayer - 07 Jul 2011 08:26 - 178 of 184
There seem to be plenty of detractors of the mag on this site, but if they help you to pick a winner, then I can't see any cause for complaint !
One thing that I do find aggravating , however, is the index. It is not uncommon to have a company page reference to be wrong or not even there !
I would not have thought it too difficult to get this one right. Still, it is possible that someone on the staff is out to annoy the punters !!
One thing that I do find aggravating , however, is the index. It is not uncommon to have a company page reference to be wrong or not even there !
I would not have thought it too difficult to get this one right. Still, it is possible that someone on the staff is out to annoy the punters !!
Andy
- 07 Jul 2011 16:48
- 179 of 184
Kim,
I haven't seen one of those yet, but they should be reporting the sector every week IMO, it is so vibrant.
I haven't seen one of those yet, but they should be reporting the sector every week IMO, it is so vibrant.
kimoldfield
- 07 Jul 2011 18:23
- 180 of 184
Andy, it is a booklet with a bold MRQ on the front. Issue 1 dated June 2011, 27 pages. I must confess I nearly binned mine thinking that it was an advertising leaflet!!
A weekly precise, if nothing else, would be nice I suppose.
A weekly precise, if nothing else, would be nice I suppose.
ExecLine
- 07 Jul 2011 18:25
- 181 of 184
Perhaps renaming it: News (about Shares) of the World might fill a gap and also do wonders for circulation?
Stan
- 07 Jul 2011 18:42
- 182 of 184
.. That will depend who the proprietor is.
kimoldfield
- 07 Jul 2011 18:46
- 183 of 184
Proprietor or perpetrator?!
kimoldfield
- 07 Jul 2011 18:47
- 184 of 184
Personally I never did like the News of the World, so I am not upset to see it's demise!
| About MoneyAM | Ts and Cs | Privacy Policy | Investment Warning | Content Standards | Corporate Solutions | Advertise With Us | Site Map | © 2025 MoneyAM |
Register now for FREE
Share Prices,
Stock Quotes,
Charts, Bulletin Boards, Indices, Watchlists, Portfolio, Market News, Research
or see our Premium Services including Level 2, Terminal and much more.
Follow us on Twitter