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?

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