Has anyone seen the revamped Shares magazine? Ross Greenwood, the original editor, had the energy to build the magazine up and knock it into a workable format, and Rodney Hobson, the recent editor had the sense to progress through evolution, not revolution. Now we have a new editor, Jeremy Lacey, who impressed no-one last week in his first editorial by describing how inept he'd been in his share-buying, surviving largely through luck. He's now (assuming he's had something to do with the changes) redesigned everything seemingly by throwing everything up in the air and picking the parts up in the random order in which they fell. It now looks drab and lacklustre - the component parts are still there but in an order which makes no sense at all and which becomes a difficult read. Share tables and stats, which naturally, in my view, should fall at the end of the magazine, for ready access, are now scattered throughout. The natural progression, from headline short-pieces (news and tips) at the start of the magazine, through longer features, advertorial, and finally company reports and stats, has been lost.

I buy Investors' Chronicle for its sober emphasis on fundamentals, and Shares Magazine for its tabloidy freshness and emphasis on TA, with plenty of graphs and graphics. There may be some merits in extending the small-cap coverage, with the longer textual reports (although I preferred it as it was) but the loss of graphs make them look like a poor version of IC. It's the visual look and quick-read qualities that have suffered. It now looks dull and disorganised.

I'd recently been thinking of cancelling Investor's Chronicle in favour of Shares, but now I'm beginning to think I had it the wrong way around.

Thoughts anyone?

Last year Shares magazine picked Albert Fisher and Energis as two of its stocks of the year.

Find Shares too glossy and with no substance so have to agree all in all

If the new Shares mag continues like this, I will not be renewing my subscription and will go for Investors Chronicle.
I think a blind monkey could have probably done a better job with this weeks edition!

Javid

dickdasterdly10000 - have to disagree with you on the 'too glossy and of no substance' point - in fact I think the glossy accessible image is one of its selling points. People seem to dismiss the magazine as trivial on account of its image, but the journalism, in my view, is pretty good, with interesting features and articles by messrs Freeborn, Quinn, et al. ie: I don't think people give it the credit it deserves.

My complaint is purely about the hopeless redesign, or re-ordering, of the magazine. I have a horrible feeling that it's the old story of change for changes sake when sales and subscriptions are falling, instead of accepting that such falls are a function of market conditions in general. The last editor, Rodney Hobson, sensibly built on the good foundations that were already in place, and ideas that were well thought through. The current changes amount to digging up the foundations and rearranging them a la Salvador Dali.

It was crap when I used to read it, and it sounds like it's got worse - which is a progression of sorts.

Must agree with above comments. Todays read was a real dogs breakfast of jumble. Don't like new results format and the editors launch editorial last week was the most inane piece of journalism for a financial publication I've ever read. Saying that I notice the IC's editorials are now more simple reader friendly, some of the old ones were still not intelligible after a rescan.

zzaxx99

I agree entirely with you, it was full of mistakes and awfl colours. I stopped my subscription but have recently subscribed again as I was enjoying moneyam, up to the minute news about small and tiny shares I haven't found elsewhere. I regret it now, it's thinner, much less interesting content and inevitably out of date.

Some of the mistakes that I noticed were embarrassingly awful - can't remember the exact details now - but there was 1 where they confused CFDs and CREST stocks, and another one where they confused Viagra with a completely unrelated drug.

Most of it was pitifully poorly researched and superficial by people who obviously had no idea what they were talking about - though there were exceptions.

I've browsed it in shops a few times - it looked as though it had improved after a previous redesign, but not enough to be worth buying.

To be honest, I'm not sure that MAM didn't make a tactical mistake being associated with Shares - the editorial provided on the home page was very poor initially (at which point I stopped reading it - may have improved since), and while the connection might bring users, the dreadful reputation of Shares might deter others from using the site - certainly had entirely negative connotations for me.

I got irritated by the mistakes in the mag, and recently cancelled my subscription.

lol zz, you could call it a tactical mistake but I believe that MoneyAM was actually set up and funded by Shares :-)

http://www.moneyam.com/sharesmag/edition38/?page=playsoftheweek

Shares magazine con to make their tips look better!
http://www.an ADVFN competitor.com/sharesmag/edition38/?page=playsoftheweek

Our tips take off
There is no stopping them! Timon Day’s and Tim Freeborn’s Plays over the past six months have rocketed 28%

Our Plays of the Week have rocketed 28% over the past six months. This outstanding performance means Shares is one of the best tipsters in Britain, beating most magazines and newspapers.

In comparison, the FTSE 100 index rose just 1.5% in the past quarter. Admittedly, the Small Cap index rose 12% and AIM jumped 17.5%, but we still comfortably outperformed all the indices.

So they compare their results for the last six months(i.e the rally) with the Indices last 3 months(the consolidation).

LOL!

Rgds
dell

All IMHO

lol what did they give Hobson the boot for ?

Silentpoint AVOID lol

Full of mistakes is the worse thing about this magazine.

Decimal point errors and the wrong chart in the wrong description i.e. Image Scan Holdings muddled up with Express Dairies in the feature about 52 week highs and lows.

Plus many more.

Doesn't give you a lot of confidence when looking for tips to spend your hard earned on. What if they muddle up a buy with a sell!!!

Someone also pointed out on the RTD BB that Shares magazine had tipped it as a Buy one week and a Hold the next (not because it had gone up too high and required a reassesment - it had actually dropped 30% so some tip that turned out to be!). Nothing had changed in the fundamentals of the company (RTD) so the reader argued why should the tip change.

Apparently the answer was they'd look into it......

Yeah, I agree Guysands

Also, they did the same with GXN (went from buy to hold) as it said it went up enough from 5.25 to 6.75p from 21 aug to end of sep. But it then went up 1.5p again from 1st week in Oct!!!!

Its also made huge errors in tips in recent weeks, with some losing by up to 50%. I do not know who there tipsters are but some of them are awful.
And thats being kind!

I just wish I could get paid money for writing a few lines about a company and get it totally wrong.

-- Kayak,

I realise the tightness of the relationship, just not convinced the relationship was a good idea!

They have yet again tipped Forbidden Technology, I made a nice tidy profit before. This tip maybe one worth watching

"Forbidden only needs a modest niche to be interesting. Imagine if the BBC decided to drop Real Networks in favour of Forbidden for its website. The quality gap has closed so the issue becomes one of money".

The thing is that the BBC are not going to do that as the closest thing to a world standard in streaming media is Mpeg-4. FBT does not work to a streaming media standard. The BBC uses Mpeg-4, Real, Windows Media, Quicktime as they need interoperability which FBT does not have. With FBT you cannot even resize the viewing area. The quality is also appaling with FBT even on broadband. In fact FBT does not seem to improve its quality at all when it is used over the fastest networks. This is just a niche player. Just look at the complete lack of revenue and the continued losses. It is a hobby company. The cash will last seven years, but they won't make any money. It's market cap is around 20 times its net asset value.

So you agree the tips aint up too much then Haystack ?

so overall doesnt look very promising does it? LOL!

HAd a browse through Shares comic in Tesco at the weekend. Oh dear. The people complaining about the redesign do have a point, don't they. I can honestly say, I have not seen a more amateurish-looking professional magazine in the last 20 years (since the early days of the specialist computer magazines in the early-mid 80s)

Hard to know where to start, but very ugly design, swathes of colour for no apparent purpose, radically different designs from one page to the next, stories that you can't tell where they begin and end, the "chart paper" background to the chartist page - where lines run through text looking like separators and make the text hard to read. Yuk!

Short of laying out the pages on the floor and throwing cans of paint at the pages, it's hard to see how they could have made a worse hash of it. Truly, truly dreadful - if I were putting out a free supplement to a local newspaper, I would be embarrassed if it looked like that.

(I make no comment on the actual quality of the content - I was not tempted to buy it)

zzaxx99,

After having read last weeks' edition with the new format, I have to agree with you! They really have spoilt it, and should restore the old format ASAP, before they lose all their readers.

I particularly enjoy the charts section, which I would like to see enlarged, and I would think that section has a huge following, with many amateur budding chartists around. With access to David Linton, and David jones, that shouldn't be a problem.

Hope they read this before it's too late!

ZZAXX99,

Actually this week i have yet to see an edition, and even WH Smith don't have any copies, and neither do either of my local shops that normally stock it.

Either they've sold out, or reduced their order, or don't stock it anymore!

What happened to the ozzy he was brilliant.We also have David Jones instead of David Linton on charts.I also thought i was going to get a good read this week when i felt the thickness,no just an extra 12 pages of the shares awards zzzzzz.

-- Andy,

I've noticed that the number of places stocking Shares dried up a year or so ago - surprised to see it in Tesco at the weekend - hasn't been in there for ages - they may have "sold" it to the shops on the basis of a relaunch?

I hope Lmpy didn't say sell Nord Anglia.

:-)

Where is he these days , could do with his support here.

zzaxx99,

Yes I noticed that most of the old stockists no longer sell it, but I have yet to see a copy in any of thr three shops I would normally buy it in.

I'm just going down to the shop near my office, they normally stock it.

Cheers,

Andy.

They have it for wrapping fish & chips here!

Exo,

LOL!

The newsagent on our business park had a copy, so will check if it's improved tonight!

I agree that the new format is crap, and that more care should be taken over the presentation of data. However, Shares magazine is the only investment magazine that I have found which can keep me awake.

Not being a fan of "funnymentals", I find the IC as dull as dishwater.

With the recent interest in spread betting and on-line trading attracting more and more small punters to the market, I'm surprised that other magazines (e.g. the IC) haven't made themselves more attractive and readable in format.

their big tip last week was ZOO clearly enought said didnt see it tipped anywhere else good record on their tips much better than IC IMHO

IC are justly infamous for the diabolical performance of their tips. As is Dr Death (Watson-Mitchell) - is he still tipping for Shares?

If shares mag owns this site I'd suggest their journos start contributing to the BB and covering the stocks that most private investors own. On todays BB hardly any stock talked about appeared in the FTSE350.

This BB's great for penny share speculators though, lots of ideas and none of the usual ramp and deramp merchants.

Fortune Oil tipped today any views ? up 10% so far a big volume so
they have following

Looked at their 'tips' this week and it seems they specialise in penny shares whereas their rival, The IC, usually covers 'proper' shares. I think that if they are going down the "become a millionaire by investing 30 in a penny share" route they have a duty to inform potential punters that historically penny shares have been a terrible investment for private investors. Nor do I trust journo's who tip such shares. Not that Shares mags journos are corrupt I'm sure(ish) but the opportunity for devious dealing is certainly there.

brianboru - Shares doesn't fall into the penny share tipsheet category that you're alluding to, by any stretch of the imagination. True, it has good regular coverage of small companies but, like IC, covers the whole gamut of companies, from large to small.

My only gripe, which is why I started this thread, was about the dreadful reorganisation of the magazine from something which made sense to one which does not. The more they try to emulate IC, the more they'll lose the individuality that makes the magazine worth buying, in my view. And can anyone tell me what the new page heading 'Mogul' is supposed to mean?

(No, nothing to do with the Sixties TV series starring Ray Barrett, later renamed 'The Troubleshooters', which was based in an oil company called Mogul. Mind you, a troubleshooter is perhaps what Shares needs.)

Still waiting for this week's issue, which I guess must be languishing in a sorting office somewhere, assuming Shares hasn't folded.

Apologies to Shares journos, by the way, who I know must struggle to get anything out at all. A thankless task.

Recently made my worst ever Investment. Soon after joining MoneyAm, I took up the "Shares Magazine" offer(1 Years subscription @99 + Premier level free on MoneyAm). I think, having seen the "RUBBISH" of content,layout etc., of recent "Shares" output, that I would have been wiser to opt for a higher level on MA. Don,t know why the magazine has strayed from the previous format but I hope that my copy for this and future weeks is "RESTING IN A SEALED-UP MAIL BOX" Whilst they persist with the"new look", this is one ex-reader who has been "conned". Are they trying to cover-up a problem????

Stonyb/jnknill,

I have to agree they've ruined the format.

I strongly suggest they change it back ASAP!

I hope someone relays our opinions to the powers that be before readership drops to a new low, it's hard to buy in my area now, outside the WH Smith type town centre shops.

I agree the journo's do well, and I also agree that they should keep their own style, and not copy IC, which I personally find a bit dry.

I wonder if anyone who works for MoneyAM/Shares Mag has been told about or has noticed this thread.

Will they just ignore it anyway?

Probably and continue to plague us with popups, despite it being so well known as a turn off for visitors.

get popup stopper from http://www.panicware.com

Just want to say that I have always liked Shares Mag more than the IC, I for one find it more user freindly, but I have to say the new format is putting me right of the magazine. Ok I can understand the contributors wanting more space on the companys they cover in the Buy Sell and Add section, but I for one only look at the Buys in that section and Im sure theres a lot more like me, so on that basis theres a load of space wasted. I also miss the forward profits item, as this gone or is it me that as missed it????.

Can we please go back to the old format??

cheers GF.

so why dont someone from this thread cut a cut and paste this thread and send to shares mag editor

HT.

Hightone, yes your right and as you have mentioned it get stuck in mate and do it. I for one will back you up I feel others will do aswell. Well done for taking the responsibility on, its much appreciated.

regards GF

The aim of Shares is to provide an informative, entertaining and useful package for readers and we are continually looking for ways to improve the magazine. It is an ongoing process we have made some changes to the magazine and more will no doubt be made in the future as we come up with new ideas. We are always responsive to suggestions or criticisms and readers are encouraged to air their views via a letter to the editor: these can also be emailed to editorial@shares.msm.co.uk

Jeremy Lacey, Editor, Shares

Jeremy,

Very nice of you to post here and acknowledge the thread!

I feel that a lot of us are Shares Mag fans, and want to see the magazine prosper, and therefore our criticism is meant to be constructive.

I prefer Shares to IC because it's a lighter read, I personally find the IC a bit dry to be honest.

The new format of Shares certainly doesn't seem to have gone down that well with the readers, and maybe you could take a look at the previous format, and compare the two, maybe with a view to a compromise?

I like the charting sections, and in particular the chart breakout section is a personal favourite, which I hope is retained!

I hope you will peruse this thread from time to time, some people may prefer to post here rather than email directly, which is slightly more formal.

Best regards,

Andy Keen.

I will have to agree,That this weeks issue was not up two the normal quality

Hmmmmm....Rather strange that Bullshare or Shares Mag have
posted Eh!!!!

Jeff

you see a bit of direct action and the boss man post on this thread (-:

HT.

PS simple was it not.

I for one go along with Andy. I went into my local W H Smith yesterday to find that not was there only a pile of last weeks mags left on show, but also the weeks before. Even in the Bear Market I have not seen that.

Its fantastic to see Jeremy down here and getting stuck in and replying, well done sir. The fact is and you say you will listen, well then can I just please repeat that I think the old version was far superior to the new version.

Theres just too much space taken up with company results and lets face it we can all get that info on RNS. Can we please be more aggresive in going for company tips. Please remember investors love the next 'big thing' historical talk tends to be boring but does have a place.

Come on Jeremy give its some pasty as we say in Yorkshire.

regards Roger aka GF.

Goldfinger,

Agreed, results section is dry and boring, and available elsewhere.

The tips section should be agressive, and limited to one or two "hot" tips maybe, with a decent write up to justify the selection of that stock.

Andy

Interesting debate this. About a year ago I bought Shares mag in WHSmiths and returned it, so appalled I was by it's lack of substance. However, I have been buying a few copies recently and been much more impressed. Last week I bought IC & Shares, and I have to say, despite a few errors in the FTSE 350 tables, Shares was a much better proposition. IC is just rubbish, same old polemic baloney week in, week out. At least Shares takes a view and sticks with it, in IC you never get an opinion just: It could rise, then again, it could fall, or it could stay the same price! anyone can write polemically, it's a journo's trick to stay on the fence.

Hmmmmmm,

Did you notice that the email address given

"editorial@shares.msm.co.uk"

Was not related to the MoneyAm domain name.

msm.co.uk website does not mention MoneyAM

According to Nominet WhoIs
msm.co.uk

Is owned by MSM Ltd.

Search for them & you find

MSM Ltd
Business Consultants
Tel: 01858 432054 Address: Po Box 13, Market Harborough, Leicestershire. LE16 9ZN

Perhaps these Business Consultants are just gathering info for the launch of a rival mag.

Was this really the editor?

Despite trying to adjust I'm still struggling with the revamped layout of Shares. I can see how they've tried to separate the Large & Mid-Cap section from the Small Shares part (trying to copy IC?) but having the Share Tables section driven like a meat cleaver through the centre of the magazine has resulted in a loss of cohesion, in my view. Carving the editorial content into two seems to diminish it in some way, making it a more difficult read.

I've just looked back on some pre-revamp issues. Hard to believe that a relatively small reordering of content could have such a big impact, but the pre-change issues still look far fresher to me. The TA and chart content is a big plus for Shares, compared with IC, but there's now a concentration of graphs into the expanded Chartist section at the expense of the inclusion of graphs elsewhere. Probably easier in terms of production, but less easy on the eye for readers. Makes the small share report pages look less lively, for example.

As I said originally, the content is all there (although missing the sometimes useful/interesting Forward Profits section (following the loss of Michelle Balthazar?)) but the reordering and redesign of he magazine just doesn't work - for me at least. Why change what was working already, a design which had been arrived at through steady evolution?

-----

PS: Hadn't checked this thread for a while, so thanks to Jeremy Lacey for his contribution/comments.

Sorry folks
I think all of us barking at the wrong trees.
At the end of the day, it's hit or miss. wether it's Share or IC.
Since playing the market for the last 28 years, I taught myself to use my own instincts.
Happy to tell you all, I am still in money.
Use certain journilist in Share. And please don't be too greedy.
Happy investing.

Best wishes

Jaggie ( Newcomer)