A bias?!...

i could be wrong but i will have to chk my stash of fsm buy i think there was a flying saucer from ufo or somthing as well maybe 1983-84

OK, I went through the back issues section (it goes back to '86) and found this:

January, 2000: Defiant from Star Trek
September 1997: Voyager from Star Trek
May 1996: Narcissus from Alien
February 1995: Survey-class vessel from Star Trek
March 1989: Klingon Bird of Prey from Star Trek
August 1988: Whispership Interceptor (original scratchbuild)
January 1986: Speeder Bike from Star Wars

So there you go! Over 20 years of FSM covers, SF gets seven of 'em, with Star Trek getting the lion's share at five.
I find it very interesting that a completely original scratchbuilt SF subject got a cover, in August of '88! Equally surprising is that Star Wars only got one!

So, were there any other Star Wars covers prior to this? Or any other SF covers?


It was good to see that the Space Shuttle got two covers over the last 20 years!

Thanks for bringing up this subject, Boyd.
It is something that I have wondered about over the years but, never thought about asking.
Matt, Dave? Thanks for the reply's. I've learned a lot.

QUOTE: Originally posted by DURR there were a couple of starwars and startrek covers about 20 yrs ago i have them

Oh yeah, I do remember the Defiant on a cover not too long ago. Well, several years ago, anyway.

I can't recall anything from Star Wars, though. What from Star Wars was on a cover, DURR?
I guess I could check the "back issues" section here at the FSM website...

there were a couple of starwars and startrek covers about 20 yrs ago i have them

QUOTE: Originally posted by Matthew Usher QUOTE: Originally posted by bbrowniii The cover's a tricky piece of real estate -- the photo has to be effective in a vertical format, surrounded by "blurbs" (the text on the cover. For example, it's very difficult to put a ship on the cover, because ships are invariably long horizontal subjects, and they don't fit into the vertical rectangle of a cover. (But we HAVE put ships on the cover, even though it takes quite a bit of work on our end to pull it off). Also, the photos used on the cover have to be very high quality -- there's a technical aspect, too. A lot of the photos we get are good enough to lead an article but aren't quite good enough to hold up on a full-page cover. Again, there are lots of factors, but these are some of the bigger issues. Does this make things make a little more sense? Matt @ FSM

Matt,

That all makes sense (as well as the earlier comment that your cover really has to be targeted towards the peripheral buyer rather than the hard core, die hard subscribers. LIke I said, I do think you guys do a great job, and I appreciate you taking the time to chime in on this discussion.

QUOTE: Originally posted by Bollod2 And I think the reason why the Sci-fi forum turnout is so low is because we have a 3000+ member forum all to ourselves over at Starshipmodeler.com. When's the last time you've seen anything Sci-fi on the cover?

Must have been the Narcissus, about ten years ago!
Correct me if I'm wrong...

And I think the reason why the Sci-fi forum turnout is so low is because we have a 3000+ member forum all to ourselves over at Starshipmodeler.com. When's the last time you've seen anything Sci-fi on the cover?

QUOTE: Originally posted by Matthew Usher QUOTE: Originally posted by bbrowniii Matt, But as far as the cover goes, there are lots of factors beyond popularity of subject/subject matter. Again, there are lots of factors, but these are some of the bigger issues. Does this make things make a little more sense?

Like one of the factors is the season! Maybe that's why December's issue was red and green!

IMHO i think aircraft kind of represents a more 'romantic' aspect of what is mostly war vessels or vehicles. (potentially an ugly aspect of life)--- the aircraft is wooshing through the atmosphere while blood is being spilled in the mud--- if you were a first time buyer what would u pick-- thanks --- treadwell

And speaking of ships, remember Steve Dunn's USS Missouri, which was on the September 2005 issue's cover?



Steve was nice enough to drive the nine-foot-long scratchbuilt model to FSM HQ so we could photograph it in our studio. It barely fit in Steve's stripped-out van. The bow tucked under the passenger side of the dashboard, and the stern was just inside the rear door.



It took four of us to carry it in and up a flight of stairs to our photo studio. (That's Lawrence Hansen on the left and Paul Boyer on the right). A lot of the model is brass, and it is heavy, heavy, heavy. (PLUS there's the constant fear of dropping someone's exquisite one-of-a-kind scratchbuilt model!)

A lot of work, certainly, but just a sample of the kind of effort that sometimes goes into making a really good cover.

Matt @ FSM

QUOTE: Originally posted by bbrowniii Matt, I agree that you do a GREAT job of responding to your readers and giving us what we want. I have been a loyal subscriber for several years and used to buy off the newsstand prior to that. But I do have to ask about the 'marginally' part of your comment. At least in terms of covers, there are SIGNIFICANTLY more aircraft, at least for the past 5 years (70% of covers were aircraft; in 2003, 9 out of 10 were aircraft). Now it has been pretty much established that aircraft modellers make up the majority of the hobby, but is this proportionality really representative of your readers, I mean are 90% of your readers aircraft modelers? (Please understand I am asking this out of honest curiousity, not to be a big pain in your butt...)

Glad to help!

Ninety precent of our readers may build aircraft. I'm not basing this on any hard data (I'm writing this from home) but I DO know that most of our readers build more than one subject, and at least one of them is usually aircraft.

But as far as the cover goes, there are lots of factors beyond popularity of subject/subject matter.

The cover's a tricky piece of real estate -- the photo has to be effective in a vertical format, surrounded by "blurbs" (the text on the cover. For example, it's very difficult to put a ship on the cover, because ships are invariably long horizontal subjects, and they don't fit into the vertical rectangle of a cover. (But we HAVE put ships on the cover, even though it takes quite a bit of work on our end to pull it off).

Also, the photos used on the cover have to be very high quality -- there's a technical aspect, too. A lot of the photos we get are good enough to lead an article but aren't quite good enough to hold up on a full-page cover.

Again, there are lots of factors, but these are some of the bigger issues. Does this make things make a little more sense?

Matt @ FSM

Matt,

I agree that you do a GREAT job of responding to your readers and giving us what we want. I have been a loyal subscriber for several years and used to buy off the newsstand prior to that. But I do have to ask about the 'marginally' part of your comment. At least in terms of covers, there are SIGNIFICANTLY more aircraft, at least for the past 5 years (70% of covers were aircraft; in 2003, 9 out of 10 were aircraft). Now it has been pretty much established that aircraft modellers make up the majority of the hobby, but is this proportionality really representative of your readers, I mean are 90% of your readers aircraft modelers? (Please understand I am asking this out of honest curiousity, not to be a big pain in your butt...)

QUOTE: Originally posted by bbrowniii That surprises me, to be honest. Do they sell significantly better? Thanks for responding to my curiousity.

Perhaps more accurately, the most popular genre among our readers is aircraft, followed by armor, etc. That's why there are (marginally) more aircraft stories/covers in FSM during the course of the year.

And we do A LOT of surveying to make sure we're giving our readers what they want.

Matt Usher @ FSM

QUOTE: Originally posted by David Voss One person's view on covers I heard recently surprised me in that I had never thought of it this way. The person's comment was this: "The cover isn't there to appeal to your core readers -- they already know they're interested in the magazine and are likely to buy it anyways (subscribers already bought it). It's to appeal to the person who doesn't know about your magazine, to draw their attention and get them to pick it up."

Actually David, that makes perfect sense to me. I mean, I know that I am going to read FSM each month regardless of what is on the cover, so as one of those core people, I guess they don't need to appeal to me. It is kinda like a Presidential election - it isn't really the 90 percent of core voters the candidates are after, it is the 10% of fence sitters.

What goes into the thought process and the decision for choosing covers for magazine issues is quite interesting. There are even consultants whose area of expertise deals with magazine covers in relation to the newsstand. So to be fair, there's a lot more that goes into it than what could be summed up in a single post.

One person's view on covers I heard recently surprised me in that I had never thought of it this way. The person's comment was this: "The cover isn't there to appeal to your core readers -- they already know they're interested in the magazine and are likely to buy it anyways. It's to appeal to the person who doesn't know about your magazine, to draw their attention and get them to pick it up." You think about, subscribers have already paid for a year's worth of magazines before the covers have even been created. Regular newsstand readers are generally making a point of it to look for the magazine -- I mean it's not uncommon to hear of people who make it part of the regular trip to the hobby store or book store to look for the magazine.

Of course, that's one person's opinion. I'm sure there are people who disagree or have different perspectives. Nonetheless, it's a pretty involved process that's much more picking a "pretty" picture.

That surprises me, to be honest. Do they sell significantly better? Thanks for responding to my curiousity.

QUOTE: Originally posted by David Voss I might be wrong, but I believe the covers with airplanes have traditionally sold better than covers with tanks and ships.

There are a lot of factors, but that pretty much sums it up in a nutshell.

Matt Usher @ FSM

And please do not let it be said I did not do my research. I just took a look through the back issues for the past 10 years. Only in 1997 were there fewer than 5 aircraft covers (in '97 there were only 3). In every other year, there have been at least 5, and as many as 9. This is aircraft versus EVERYTHING else. So, what is the deal?

QUOTE: Originally posted by David Voss Someone from editorial or circulation is better qualified to answer this question. I know they track how well each issue sells on the newsstand and much of it has to do with the cover. I might be wrong, but I believe the covers with airplanes have traditionally sold better than covers with tanks and ships. My preference being armor, I don't get it either.

Dave,

You make a good point. So how about it, anyone from editorial or circulation want to weigh in and shed some light on the seeming disparity between aircraft covers and all other types of covers?

QUOTE: Originally posted by Fish-Head Aric But then again, a big ol' WWII gunship-bomber-ka-bobby flying fortress-a-ma-jigger all bristling with turrets and such is pretty cool looking, too.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Yah, Armor is definitely the funky stuff for me, too! Them heavy-duty ground units are just awesome to view.

But then again, a big ol' WWII gunship-bomber-ka-bobby flying fortress-a-ma-jigger all bristling with turrets and such is pretty cool looking, too.

Someone from editorial or circulation is better qualified to answer this question. I know they track how well each issue sells on the newsstand and much of it has to do with the cover. I might be wrong, but I believe the covers with airplanes have traditionally sold better than covers with tanks and ships.

My preference being armor, I don't get it either.

Good point. So I took your advice and I checked out the number of posts in both forums. Aircraft, about 147,000 and armor about 131,000, so there are about 11% more posts in the aircraft forum. I also agree that there tend to be more aircraft at shows, but again, I would guess the ratio is similar (maybe 10 - 20% more aircraft models). So according to your arguement, if the publishers are trying to be representative of the demographics of the hobby, there should be a similar percentage more covers featuring aircraft as there are armor. But aircraft covers accounted for about 75% of covers in the past two years. By any acount, I can't see that as being representative.

I think they feature whatever has more people building it, just check out the # of posts in each of the FSM category. Or look at the entries at a model context, the Aircraft side usually is the largest, follwed by armor, ships, cars, and sci-fi.