[Andy Y]

The problem stems from Bachmann feeling very touchy about any criticisms levelled by their customers. To be fair to Dennis Lovett, Public Relations Manager, he went to great lengths to address an issue that had been discussed publicly rather than the customer taking the product back to the retailer or communicating directly with Bachmann. However the responses given by Dennis were contested by others.

After that event there was problem with the logos on their most recent 57 issue, 57011, publicly stating that Bachmann were correct despite photographic evidence to the contrary followed by a delayed retraction unfortunately implicating indirectly an innocent 3rd party. This was debated at length recently on Pat Hammond's MREmag rather than rmweb initially.

Some comments made were unnecessarily vitriolic and this was dealt with accordingly. Basically it comes down to Bachmann not liking a medium that permits criticism which they do not have a degree of control or influence over. As forum users we may only be a small minority of buyers overall but membership of all forums is steadily increasing, such an approach is not conducive to a balanced relationship. In recent discussions with Dennis Lovett I have continually shown an open hand; however I am not going to shoot the messenger as the stance comes from elsewhere in the organisation.

I agree with Doug's sentiments but feel that it is unnecessary to make rmweb the villain of the piece; it is an issue that could have affected any website which allows the public to comment about manufacturers. I am sure that this forum would also afford freedom of expression to its members. Bachmann by choosing to only communicate directly with the printed media only reinforces the comments above. I feel it a great shame when there is a lot of forward looking talent within Bachmann to see such regressive policies.

The nature of our medium means that any important information will still come to light and opinions will still be expressed. Similarly to Doug, I am not inclined to search for information they have chosen not to provide.

QUOTE Hornby's Simon Kohler ….. won't communicate with that site. Unfortunately Gary, an incorrect statement, I've had a number of communications. Obviously you are entitled to an opinion but serves little in the 'mud slinging' context referred to above. There are many positive attributes to rmweb.co.uk and it is a shame you concentrate on a personal perception of negative elements.

QUOTE I feel very angry about the whole situation as my efforts to build bridges to date may have been in vain all becuase of the ill considered remarks of others on a site where the moderators seem to have lost control Gary, I have faced similar frustrations that Bachmann do not view any internet forums more postively, can I remind you that QUOTE Bachmann Europe Plc will no longer provide facilities to website based publications and not just offender(s).

Should anyone wish to I would like to extend a right to reply directly on our site.

 

[Andy Y]

QUOTE I and Pat Hammond will be talking to Bachmann next week after the long week-end. Perhaps Andy York can join us. Hopefully we'll be able to make them understand that they have everything to gain by embracing the web and working with online sites like our own.

I agree with the sentiments Doug and I am happy to discuss such matters openly between us for the good of the hobby. This issue is not about point scoring between ourselves but about the future of communication within the hobby. I've discussed at length with Dennis about the benefits of being inclusive and then a decision to exclude has been taken.

 

[Andy Y]

I would like to take the opportunity to expand on a couple of points made above:

I was incorrect in stating that the issue of 57011's livery discrepancies was first discussed on MRE, the issue was first noted on rmweb on 05 August. The problem was first identified on 16 August on MRE but a response from Bachmann on MRE triggered an upsurge in discussions on rmweb and elsewhere. The issue was ultimately resolved when Denis Lovett apologised on MRE for Bachmann having been incorrect on the 23 August. The silly thing is it was such a trivial error but some contributors felt compelled to rebutt the statements made on the 16 August on MRE that Bachmann were right and that the original questioner was wrong.

Comments made by two contributors were unecessarily inflammatory, both were removed as soon as they were observed. One of those contributors has apologised directly to me and publicly. The other contributor is believed to be a staff writer for a printed publication, I have sought to protect anonymity for a number of contributors who are known names within the hobby who have made measured and valuable contributions - it is undoubtedly a shame when this is abused by one person. I have acted appropriately to isolate this problem.

No accusation of libel has been made by any manufacturer to us, it was a matter of self-policing before anything escalated beyond the two statements. I addressed 'libellous statements' head on and publicly on the forum so that our standpoint is clear.

The vast majority of members of all forums behave responsibly and purely wish to benefit from forums, long may the development of respective forums continue. As in all walks of life a minority sometimes overstep the mark.

I respect Bachmann's right to act in a manner they see as protecting their business interests but would ask them to properly consider their relationship with the online community.

I'm purely trying to put a degree of perspective into the issue so that readers may have a more informed opinion of matters. I care little whether press releases are sent directly or not, manufacturers could benefit to a much greater degree with more extensive involvement with forums than just that. It is entirely up to the manufacturer whether they work with a resource that has been happy to work with them.