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?

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.

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.

Why waste time just return to the old format and improve the journaists research.

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.

Woodie you can see them online. Perhaps they are moving to not printing the mag?

I dont think there's any need to say anything its all been said already
it great shame its been changed

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

andy thanks for feedback

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.

Woodie looks like the circulation doesn't justify a print run.

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.