Introducing the new-look Which? Magazine

I agree with 7oaks on the sense of padding to make the magazine look much better than it is. This does worry me looking ahead.

The reduction in the number of pages could just be the consequence of staff absence during the summer; we shall see. The impossible return date for the Crossword could be because the trial version was prepared for a September launch but not corrected if the project’s progress slid to the right; again, we shall see.

As the number of subscribers continues to fall, but the number of campaigns and the work involved in them increases, it would not be surprising if the resources devoted to the main monthly magazine were reduced. It is noticeable that Which? has been cutting services in other areas so there is probably an intense book-balancing exercise in place under the new Chief Executive. There could have been a reduction in staff numbers attached to the magazine and even perhaps a change in the capability level leading to more of the filler material and less expert reporting. It would not surprise me either if lab testing had become much more expensive limiting the range and depth of the product testing. Overcoating this kind of predicament [if I am right] in a redesign development is a well-worn trick to make less look like more. We shall see. I am not expecting any official comment on my apprehensions.

John,

I fear that at the heart of this is the failure to set out to the members the scale of the issues that face the organisation. That has then been compounded by a failure to canvass opinion on a wide scale, electronically perhaps the most effective way, on solutions that would be acceptable to the members including perhaps a scaling back of ambition or an increase in subscriptions. Maybe a print edition has had its day. It is of course “our” Which? so we should have our say.

This comment was removed at the request of the user

I don’t think Which? understand why people subscribed in the first place and underestimate the value they place on product testing.

Is the balance of what we signed up to and where Which? is going being tipped in the wrong direction? Maybe it is the influence of younger generations and their throwaway culture who place less value on quality products, but In recent years, Which? has played to the compensation culture where only a few gain and but many pay. Covering some social issues is not a problem, but they should not take priority over what subscribers want for their money.

Decades ago, when I first subscribed, product tests were the main reason for that.

But now that most members can access those data online, perhaps the printed magazine should be offering complementary content.

I agree with you, Alfa.

Everything needs a refresh from time to time so I have no particular objection to stylistic changes so long as they don’t impair functionality – like losing the edition date from a prominent position, or reducing the contents list to a useless blurb.

What especially worries me is the diminishing quality of the content. I had not realised how widely this opinion was held. There is no doubt that there has been creeping superficiality for some time that the new look has somehow made more obvious. This was highlighted for me by the grossly excessive amount of space given to an average-quality article on Action Fraud in the October magazine. Perhaps we just have to accept that the subscribers to Which? are drawn from a certain demographic that deserves, expects, and pays handsomely for, a very high standard of research, reporting and expertise that is no longer available from an organisation whose aims and ambitions face in a different direction, and so they will never be satisfied.

I’m not sure where we go from here.

Interesting. This seems rather different to how the topic started.

1. Why did people subscribe in days of yore?

I agree with Derek: it was primarily for product testing. But I also feel that the online offering ought to be complementary, expanding on the Mag version of tests and filling out the detail – a lot of detail for those of us who want to know the rationale, criteria and approach in general.

2. Has quality declined?

I feel it has, but it’s not a new phenomenon. Twenty years ago I observed that the ratio of image space to text space had markedly changed and that pretty as images were they were far, far less germane to Which?’s overall raison d’etre. I noticed, around seven years later, that reports were becoming too concerned with prose style at the expense of consistency and hence accuracy. The car reports still are.

3. The golden demographic

Which?’s membership is ageing; I don’t know the stats (a closely guarded secret, one suspects) but I’d like to bet it’s age heavy. The golden demographic is the 18 – 35 year old generation, those who – according to the perceived wisdom of advertisers – lack experience, have spare cash, like to buy new things and generally lack discernment. These are not insults, BTW; the advertising agencies’ entire purpose is to separate people from their cash in as pleasant a way as possible, and that’s hard to do when the demographic in question is a) wary, b) wealthy enough to have bought what they want and c) discerning – characteristics we acquire with age and experience.

This is the sought after age group in advertising terms, but whether it ought to be for Which? is open to question.

4. A successful response

I’ve been very impressed with the way Which? has responded to the Thomas Cook collapse. A lot of people have asked questions who might never had visited otherwise, and probably ten to twenty times as many have been reading the answers. It was a great example of a targeted response.

Perhaps, then, Which? needs to produce more of this type of report. Highly focussed, but aimed at a specific issue or group.

5, Which?’s demons

Many years ago I compiled a detailed history of Which? using information from numerous sources and interviews with ex-employees and directors. It’s no secret that Which? has made some colossal missteps. Millions lost in India, millions lost on the W? Mortgage scheme, hundreds of thousands lost when the test labs were given away, allowing the obscene salary paid to the previous CEO – many of these tended to reveal a stark lack of management competence.

As a consequence, the new CEO has been making some very tough decisions; valued staff have been, in Malcolm’s parlance ‘let go’ and yet Which? continues to refuse to accept volunteer help which I and some others have been offering for more than twenty years.

Now I get it; I really do. There are many in the W? hierarchy who regard the regulars in here as an irritant at best, not helped by the previous CEO’s hostility toward the internet, and there are also many in the W? staff who fear for their own jobs if we started to help out in a serious manner.

But in that regard W? is not only unique among charities, it’s also loading the firearms and shooting its own feet on a daily basis. My immeasurably better half and I are National Trust members; a huge organisation that couldn’t possibly even function without volunteers. I also work with national charities, most of which are almost entirely dependent on volunteers.

W? has, for the past twenty years, spurned every offer of help from the groups of enthusiastic and highly motivated volunteers it attracts. But what it’s doing is squandering a valuable resource. That resource is both funded by us – the members and is us. So while a topic like this is asking for feedback about some largely cosmetic changes to the magazine, the really important questions aren’t even being given air time.

Which? has to re-evaluate its approach – to the members, the public and its own staff. It really has to shed the institutional inertia that characterises its own bureaucracy and look to the members as a real resource and not simply a minor irritant.

Because if it doesn’t, it won’t last for much longer.

I agree with most if that Ian. The question is, how do we make it happen?

I agree with the suggestion, which I am oversimplifying perhaps, that there is a conflict between the expectations of the actual membership demographic and the aspirational demographic with whom the body itself is more closely aligned. I have hinted before that there is an intellectual challenge that also gets in the way of perfect harmony.

I suspect there’s some truth in that, John, but I also wonder if anyone really knows what the expectations of the general membership actually are.

Hi Duncan,
I would be very unhappy if the print edition were to disappear, particularly if the website was not radically overhauled, an expensive proposition no doubt. I believe that change in the world is accelerating and we all need to take account of that.
I think that Which? should stop and consider this: a person (who has vaguely heard of Which?) is waiting for the Clapham Omnibus and pops into a newsagent for a browse, the October issue of Which? is on the shelf with a cover price of, say, £5. Two questions, would that person find the cover interesting, attractive and enticing and would that person pay the £5? Perhaps if they were looking for a 4k TV or a new boiler.

Hi Alfa,
As you can imagine, I agree with your comment. Product testing and reporting is Which?’s USP. I joined because I wanted a magazine that I could trust to deliver objective reports. I do not object to campaigning as a secondary objective, but today there are many sources of campaigns. I am not looking for a comfortable, relaxing read, just information.

Hi 7oaks,
I agree with your comments.

With all the fake products on the market and influx of cheap products from China, we really need a product tester we can trust.

I envisage there could be a prominent role for Which? to lead the way in product testing, product safety and product sustainability working with Trading Standards, but I don’t see any motivation to take them in this direction and reinstate themselves as the consumer champion of product knowledge.

George, thanks for your responses. I did not actually say print has had its day, did I? I merely posed the question.
As for differentiation between the magazine and what is available online, I would suggest that online should be seen as the repository for all tests and reviews and be kept up to date at all times. The magazine perhaps should focus on the latest product testing in a “news” sense and should include the URL links for the series of pages with the full data comparator. The magazine could also include articles on consumer protection issues which may be less appropriate online. Somewhere there needs to be a comprehensive index and links to a buyer’s guide as many members will miss that at a glance comparator of products they are contemplating buying, whether that returns to the magazine or is online may not matter too much.
My opinions are no substitute for a wide survey of members, some of whom may not make great use of the website (or even have access!).

Useful, informative and thorough, Malcolm. Let’s hope that some of your comments are noted for future editions. I think, if I sum up correctly, there are issues with content which is unsatisfying in its detail and approach and, because we subscribe and don’t buy from the news stand, we don’t have the choice of putting it back if it doesn’t do what it is supposed to do: report in depth on consumer issues and thoroughly test products in width as well as depth.
It is easy to knock the efforts of the Which team and to carp, because we can. It is also tempting to take a negative view because we have been invited to be critical of the new product. However, I hope that the Which management will see the constructive side of the many thoughtful contributions on these pages and take heed of the kindly advice that is offered. In the end, we all want the same thing: a well informed magazine as part of a dynamic organisation that makes itself known and valued everywhere it touches down. Many here are prepared to be part of that dynamism and wait hopefully for the call.

Why does the on-line Which? magazine appear so early? Surely it means it is always two weeks out with the latest news and since the posted version is identical that is even more out of date by the time it arrives. Some of the paper copy subscribers have only just received their October magazines.

I remember when computer magazines seemed to be issued a month earlier than the cover date. I’d like Which? magazines to all be despatched to reach us at the beginning of the month, at the same time as the online version.

The response from Which? to comments made on the new version seems to have died down. Will there be another flurry of comments and, hopefully, responses when we see the next paper version?

A number of home and lifestyle magazines , and others probably, are often published weeks ahead of the month shown on the cover. The [old colonial] argument used to be “to allow time for them to reach Australia and New Zealand”. Those days are over and the internet can achieve simultaneous delivery worldwide on the 1st of the month. The posted copy should arrive no later.

Thank you for your review, Vynor. I haven’t yet had time to read the latest Which? magazine so this is helpful. Are you going to do this every month from now on? I hope so as it will save me from having to tear open the packet. Mind you, we don’t want any more people cancelling their subscriptions because they can read all the good bits here.

No promises John, only if the spirit moves. Besides, my scamper through the text is not really for our reading. This, and others, is supposed to be noted, though it is usually not something we get much feedback about from those who moderate our language.

Thanks for the feedback, Vynor. I’m a bit miffed that you found the crossword easy. I’ve long since given up on cryptic crosswords and was annoyed that my father found them so easy. I agree that the article ‘Made in China’ was interesting. I hope I have not contributed much to the success of their industry.

I must try and improve my typing skills. I’m not pleased with the typos that slipped past my read through. Too late this time!

This comment was removed at the request of the user

My only two caveats to OLED are “stick” and brightness per unit area.

If you regularly for extended periods look at a fixed image (eg, security camera or montage thereof), or the same TV channel day in day out that insists on their logo in the same corner all the time, you may be better off with a QLED the bright LEDs in that fixed image will “wear” faster (and hence be dimmer) in a uniform colour screen. They are getting better by doing subtle dithers on edges, and you won’t notice it except in the extreme scenarios identified above or similar.

OLED absolute brightness is a couple of stops dimmer than the absolute top whack from a QLED. This is only relevant if you watch TV in extremely bright rooms and/or your TV is placed where you get bad reflections.

To answer Carol’s question, OLED stands for Organic Light-Emitting Diode and is a technology used by a number of manufacturers. QLED is Quantum Dot Light-Emitting Diode and is said to give enhanced picture quality over OLED. QLED is exclusive to Samsung.

The technical details and comparative assessments of the different technologies are available on line, but for the ordinary consumer it is best to try to watch side-by-side demonstrations in a store [bone up on the tech first though to avoid bamboozlement by the salesperson].

It was here, John: https://conversation.which.co.uk/technology/the-lobby-2/#comment-1588528 The centre page was torn away from one rather than both staples this month. What concerns me more is that once again there seems to be no reference to Which? Conversation. 🙁