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?

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.

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!

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.

Bullshare if you don't then you must know where you are heading. If it ain't broke etc ...etc

bullshare where was this market research done?

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

Advertisement on page 62 suggests mam not doing so well either, advertising seems to be declining which does not bode well for the future.

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!

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.

Woodie,

It is in bold type this week!


Kim,

Sadly no small caps and no prospector column!

Half a magazine of FX though!

andy great was it easy to read for you?

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

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!

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

PARKIN

Someone ought to listen, 72 posts so far about how rubbish the new format is in just 3 days.

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