Well a new mag showed up today.... I had hoped it was a "free sample" of a new mag... Not what I got.

This is not what I subscribed to and I will likely not renew after more years than I can remember.

James  

James, sorry you are not happy with the merger, but it was announced and discussed several times on our site here. I guess you just now registered only to post your distaste for the new look/content.

I'm assuming you are a "classic or nothing" kind of person and my editorial on enjoying and appreciating anything Ford has produced fell on deaf ears.

That's a shame, because there's some great stuff ahead including a rare SCCA Group II '67 Shelby coupe in our next issue (and on the cover)...

I hope you'll stick around and give the next few issues a look. If not, well, all I can say is I wish you the best...

Mark  

I think that maybe Mr. Houlahan is "assuming" wrong. The shame of the matter is this new magazine is not what we ordered. The old magazine was a clean, car magazine. This one clearly does not intend to be. Our family friendly magazine is gone and so is my subscription. The lady in leather and high heels with cleavage on the front cover tells the whole story. There are guys out there that ordered for the cars if we wanted women we'd get Playboy.  Some of us have kids also, great precurser to porn use later on.  No they don't get this on tv, (we have sky angel)and I certainly don't need it in the mail along with their favorite cars. I've talked to my 4 boys about it and we've decided to trash it.  

I agree, this is DEFINATELY not what I subscribed to.  I appreciate late-model Mustangs, mod-motors and turbo chargers for what they are, but if I wanted to read about them, I would have bought "Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords" or "Modified Mustangs".  
    Mr. Mark Houlahan summed it all up in the first sentence of the second paragraph of "Oval Office".  He stated,
"...I've seen countless classic Mustangs and Ford performance cars running late-model drivetrains and other late-model parts, yet we couldn't convince many of these same late-model advertisers to test the water...".
    It is a shame that the almighty advertising dollar has perversed such a fine magazine into what this has become. They have us where they want us, with no other source to look at, and then cram this down our throats.  I like steak, and I like hamburgers but that doesn't mean I want a ground-beef stuffed T-bone! Please learn from your mistake and put it back the way it was.

Eddie  

If not, well, all I can say is I wish you the best...
Mark Houlahan

I hope your not this arrogant when explaining why your readership drops to all your stakeholders. Sad to see M&F go down this slippery slope of soft porn,
"Maxim type", anti-family value rags. And yes, I'm sure you've noticed that I joined to post this comment and I'm equally sure you don't care that my old M&F magazines stack nearly as high as my ceiling.
Feel free to pound your chest now, Jim  

I meant that last line in all courtesy/seriousness and was NOT being arrogant. Sometimes it comes off the wrong way in email/forum posts, you don't get the inflections of voice tone.

And I do mean it too when I say I'm sorry you don't like the merger. There's only so much I will post in a public forum, but I DO hope that you realize this came from far up above and I had no say in the situation.

Frankly it was stick with the merger or leave. In these trying economic times (mine, not the company) I felt it best to try to make the best of it, which is what I am trying to do. So, I understand your anger and dissatisfaction, but I can tell you the company will not be changing it.

As for "all mighty advertising dollars" we are a publicly traded company, and if any of you have had that experience working for one you know where I am coming from. Again, I don't wish to discuss further publicly, but please realize I'm actually on your side (but with tied hands)...

Couple of EDITS:

The quote from my column was probably not my best wording at what I was trying to say. In a nutshell, I've been trying to get late-model advertisers to "look" at us since we do so much EFI/late-model conversion stuff. Mod motors, five-speeds, etc.

Seconndly, if any of you (or anyone reading) will be at Carlisle All-Ford this weekend I'd be glad to talk face-to-face versus on a company owned message board.

Thanks for listening...
Mark  

Wow. I guess I must not have gotten the new issue yet.

I will peruse it with an open mind, although I know if it is full of newer vehicles & 22 inch wheels then I will be disappointed as well.

The girls, well they are girls. Eye candy. Just a ploy to get teenage boys to buy the magazine off of the shelf and to compete with the ghetto car magazines that are out there (aka DUB).

Owning a Cougar, I am used to not getting the coverage of the things that are important to me, but at least the coverage of vintage Mustangs and other Ford products of the same era offer tech tips that are of some value to me. I hope the new magazine can do the same, but judging from these comments I may be disappointed.

Looking forward to my controversial issue!

Steve  

Y'all don't be landing on Mark.  I don't know the man personally, but I've been reading his magazine for a long time and I'm sure I have an idea where his heart lies.  If he wants to keep his job, he'll bust butt to make the new mag the best he can.  And I'm quite sure this whole merger deal was someone else's idea.  Find that marketing droid (that likely drives some furrin' exotic) and poke that person in the eye.  If they have to shove both ends of the hobby into one magazine, at least us folks that prefer the older vehicles have an advocate on the masthead.  

So - you don't like the new format, that's fine.  Where ya gonna go?  Car Craft?  Don't look at the "off the rack" section.  CC is more Ford-centric than it used to be, but its more general tech and drag stuff than M&F.   Hot Rod is a whole 'nuther deal.  Hemmings Muscle is a great read but it's not even Ford focused (har har).  MM & FF?  The original "Mustang Ricer" magazine - I say that with a sneer but they have run some really good tech over the years.  Once in a while they run some old school stuff.  Mustang Monthly - that's another Source Link magazine, no telling what they are cooking up for that.  It's a good mag, lots of paint dob/restoration tech that may not appeal to a more resto-mod type group.  

To quote Richard Greer in An Officer and a Gentleman:
Foley: You can forget it! You're out!
Mayo: Don't you do it! Don't! You... I got nowhere else to go! I got nowhere else to g... I got nothin' else.

I subscribe to a bunch of mags - CC, HR, PHR, Drag News, Drag Racer, Hemmings MM, and usually get Street Rodder, Custom Rodder and a few others I probably forgot.  I should be getting Mustang Monthly but I think my wife lost the re-up.  Note there is no MM&FF in there or any other 5.0 rags.  If I wanted late model stuff, they'd be on the list.  Legendary Ford doesn't show up on the local shelves, so I can't comment on that one.  It's pretty high buck at nearly $30/yr.

Mark and Co. have put out an enjoyable magazine for many years.  I see nothing else on the shelf that covers Fords and includes a significant quantity of older equipment and resto-mod type tech and cars.  I think these guys are trying under some obtuse circumstances that have been dropped in their laps.

So I'll continue to support their efforts.  I don't like all of it, but it's new and I'll give it a chance.  I just sent in a 3 year re-up and it'll stick.  My other choice would be to quit my job, grab my laptop and Canon digital SLR and start a new magazine.  Too lazy and broke for all that.

I do agree on one thing - Mz. Perez is very sweet and must be petite because she makes those wheels look bigger than 18".  But there are a lot of classic and late models owned, tweaked and raced by the ladies and they might could do without the cheese cake.  If the marketing people insist on girls in the magazine, go find some female classic and late model Ford owners.  Of course, my idea of "eye candy" would be a lady that straps into a 300 MPH Mustang for a job.  Or dang near wins Indy on the first try.  Or drove a pink dragster to a few Top Fuel championships and wanted to punch out anyone that said things like "cha cha".  

I say we try and make the best of it.  Give them a chance to get it worked out and get used to working together.  Could turn out to be a good thing.  

Hey all,

Being the Web Producer for this site, as well as four other Source Interlink Media sites, I want to add that Mark is the most passioned and concerned editor in this office. He bleeds for this magazine. He is definitely on your side!

I can testify that Mark is committed to making the best magazine he can. Believe that his comments are sincere, honest, and impassioned! He does care what you think.

If you are in Carlisle, take him up on his offfer to talk with him. You won't find a better Ford guy around!

Greg
Modified Mustangs & Fords web jockey  

I can look past the girls, but I cant stand fishing through the 100 "bling bling" ads to find the few useful classic ones. I also can see where this is going, even in the "merging" issues there was less than 50% classic. I would be shocked if there is more than 10% true classic this time next year.

I am not a purest. I can appreciate the 4.6 in a 66. but that is not what I subscribed to. I spent a lot of time at the newstand searching for a mag that was mostly "average guy" classic mustangs.

I have been into mustangs for 20 years and I can count the number of "wild engines" seen on one hand. Maybe its a midwest thing, but I just don't see the average reader ever doing a 4.6 conversion. So why would we want a mag full of them?? IF someone was into modern mustangs as well as classic, they can choose from half a dozen mags that cover them and still have a classic mag too.

Yaaa! you sold more ads, but how many ads are you going to sell when the subscriptions drop in half?

In short, you need to pass the message back up the line. WE DON'T WANT THE MERGER!  

Let me give you a real life story for your managers. Here in KC we had a hit radio station for decades. One day the company was bought by a easy coast corp. They had all kinds of demographics and forecast. They had "plans" for the station.

They fired all the DJ's and "updated" the playlist. The outrage was SO huge that people literally yanked their radios out and LEFT them at the stations door!

Fastforward to now. Its 10 years later, that station has changed playlist 6 times I know of. It is now back to playing the exact music they changed. But no one will listen to them! We remember what they thought of us and we do not forget.  

I'm done if I wanted to read ads I'd buy a newspaper. The new format stinks, I want my money back! I will not renew. I'm real happy the editor feels the same way, that helps. You guys suck!  

I, for one, am happy for this merger. I used to read a magazine called SuperFord and this new magazine is a return to that type of magazine. It used to have both late-model and classic Fords and not just Mustangs. Then the power-that-be merged it with 5.0 and Superford was lost. They claimed that the same type of cars would be covered but to this day I can count all the non-stangs that have shown up in that magazine in one hand. I'm loyal to the Fox-body cars but love most Fords. Honestly I knew there was no room for 2 classic Ford magazines so this merger does not surprise me. I think 5.0 Mustangs & Super Fords will merge with Muscle Mustangs & Fast Fords. I'm sure it will have more ads that the big daddy of ads Truckin'. BTW Mark...how about a late model IRS swap in the Factory Five Roadster project?  

This tells it all! I cannot believe you think you can get a way with this crap. I am in the process of having subscription fee removed from my credit card. Shame on you Mark for defending this crap.

ClassicStangfan

I think that maybe Mr. Houlahan is "assuming" wrong. The shame of the matter is this new magazine is not what we ordered. The old magazine was a clean, car magazine. This one clearly does not intend to be. Our family friendly magazine is gone and so is my subscription. The lady in leather and high heels with cleavage on the front cover tells the whole story.  

KC66, how can you say the magazine was less than 50% classic? We had THREE classic car features and THREE late-model features. That's 50% in my math-hindered mind is it not?

And for tech articles we had the same, two classic and two late-model, again 50%

Adding up the pages we had 27 pages of classic content and 26 pages of late-model content (this is not including departments, After Hours, and In The Spotlight pages).

Even something like Readers' Roundup was split classic and late-model owner photos...

Yes, late-model content has been added via the merger, but I don't see how people are saying the classic stuff is "gone"...

Mark