What's it worth to you?

[Kevin Perkins]

Two pieces of information have caught my eye in the past couple of days, both from highly respected members of angling journalism:

?The way forward is for those who yearn for the past to create their own on-line periodical. A monthly internet magazine full of informative, inspirational writings, illustrated with great photographs, technical diagrams and fabulous, enthralling, superbly well written stories. Don't try charging for it though or you'll come unstuck...?

?Internet publishing is the future; trouble is, at present, nobody gets paid sod-all in this medium. But bide your time and who knows what may come along? In the next decade I expect to see a well supported/financed subscription-based internet angling weekly, with god knows how many pages of entertaining, from-the-heart copy - plus much less need to play to the corporate trade's 'ads-4-editorial' tune??

So, is this the future? According to these two luminaries, it appears so. The burning question is how much would you be prepared to pay for this subscription? The monthly magazines will set you back around ?40 a year each, one of the weeklies ?70 a year. Given that an internet based periodical wont consist of 75% advertorial content, how about ?20 a year. Anyone on here willing to pay that???

 

[Steve Spiller]

Nope, not as long as FM stays free.

FM has everything I need and if it doesn't I can ask a question, which I know will usually be answered by the vast array of members that are willing to share their knowledge.

 

[Kevin Perkins]

Sorry!
Should have posted this in 'General', perhaps someone can shove it over there......?

 

[Beecy]

supposing you had to start paying for FM Steve,would you be willing to pay and what would you consider a reasonable fee ?

 

[Steve Spiller]

I wouldn't pay for it Beecy, I'd find another free site.

 

[Beecy]

thats what I like to see, good old fashioned loyalty !!

 

[ED (The ORIGINAL and REAL one)]

Not loyalty --- more like prudence

 

[captain carrott]

he's so tight you couldn't hammer a peanut between the cheeks of his arse!

 

[Kevin Perkins]

Steve

Do I take it that you are perfectly willing to pay for tackle, bait, tickets, rod licence, transport costs, etc etc for your fishing, but expect to have free access to whatever information you want via the internet? I presume you pay a monthly subscription to enable you to sign up, do you object/refuse to paying that charge too.....?

 

[Graham Marsden (ACA)]

There's another route too, that one fishing site has already taken. The site remains free but certain content is subscription only (accessed via a password). So, for instance, if FM had to pay for article contributions then obviously the readers would have to pay to read the articles.

The reader could then decide if if was worth him paying to read the restricted content, bearing in mind that with print media you don't get that choice as you pay the cover price and if half the content is of no interest to you, then hard luck.

Although FM values its contributors and, in my view at least, you often get a better read than you would from a so-called big name, we could, if we became a fee paying site, attract the big names to write for us, to satisfy those who prefer to read such contributions.

My comments above should in no way be interpreted to mean that this is the route that FM is planning to take. Nor should they be interpreted to mean we never will.

 

[Graham Marsden (ACA)]

Whichever "highly respected angling journalist" wrote, ?Internet publishing is the future; trouble is, at present, nobody gets paid sod-all in this medium," doesn't have a very good command of the English language.

If nobody gets paid sod-all then everybody must get paid something.

Unless, of course, that is exactly what they mean, which in that case they've got it wrong.

 

[Steve Spiller]

Kevin,

Do you mean for my Broadband connection?
If so, no, I don't object to that at all. It's a bit steep, but I don't mind too much. I thought the whole point of the internet was its free limitless access to whatever you want from it?

I can see what you're getting at with regard to articles and I agree, good articles should be well rewarded financially. But what do I class as good? My personal intersts in angling are different to other peoples, so one article might not interest me but will interest another. So how much value is put on that article?

With regards to loyalty to FM I am 100% loyal, this is the only fishing site I use. For me the beauty of FM is the willingness of the fantastic anglers on here to share their experiences and knowledge, for free. How many of these anglers would feel the same if they had to pay to join FM and then share their knowledge for free?

Anyway, for a site that has a large advertising backing it could easily afford to pay more for good articles, ?100 would be a good start. And I do know roughly how much is paid per aticle, the time that goes into producing a good article isn't reflected with its current reward.

 

[Lord Paul]

What Ho

For FM I would gladly sell my wife...........................................................................













But then again for a can of vimto I'd sell my wife, or a box of 6 eggs , or a rasher or two of bacon...............look I'm open to offers on her

Do i hear 2 stck of chewing gum at the back?

Tally Ho


ps buyer must collect

 

[Kevin Perkins]

Steve

Sorry, I'm not prying into your fiscal arrangements, just trying to point out that even the 'free' internet is no such thing as access to it will cost you upwards of ?120 a year. 'You don't get owt for nowt' as our Yorkshire friends will tell you.....

FM is, and will cotinue to be, just about all things to all people, fishing wise. But given that we already have 15 different forum headings, and the trend is for ever more specialisation, where will that end - 20, 30, 40 different factions all going on at the same time, on the same site, but never 'talking' to each other?

Wil there be a clamour for 'River' fishing forum, followed by a 'Trotting' subdivision, narrowed down to 'Centrepin' only, or are anglers not that blinkered in their outlook, I wonder........

How many of us log to FM, go to the forums and only look at the one(s) that are of interest you? Will the current articles of general interest have to categorised into the correct pigeonhole on the site to get anyone to read them?

If we go down the road of that much diversity, the 'family' aspect of the site will be lost, I suspect.

 

[Kevin Perkins]

Sorry

Lord Paul, stick her on eBay with no reserve, you'll soon shift her that way

 

[Phil Hackett The common Boastful Expert :-)]

Kevin you?re probably not going to like what I write, but, isn?t this all about you being peeved because no publishing house (print media) will publish and pay you for your articles?

The concept of the Internet since it creation (after its military use) was an Egalitarian one, where information could and would be shared freely with the masses and them a voice on reading it, a right to express their views to it.
Something in history the masses have always been denied by owners, editors, etc.

Through the Internet, the little man now has a voice and in general terms it comes free at the point of access, through the egalitarianism of it

A tradition this site has upheld admirably and long may it be that way.

If it?s payment you want for your articles, may I suggest you give the print media what they want. Something you said you would not do on another thread. But Kevin there?s more that one way to skin a cat mate!
Get yourself established as writer of quality and talent, which you clearly are, then move on to what you really want to write about. Your establishment and credentials will allow you to do this.

Alternatively you can keep banging away for free, until such time the advertising industry invests heavily in adding on the Net and the sites have the money to pay for articles offered them.

Myself I?m firmly in the egalitarian camp of the net when it comes to offering articles I?ve written.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Phil,

I didn't read Kevin's original comment in the same way as you, but thought he was simply questioning the principles offered by others.

However, I'd be interested in knowing how you think that the Internet is 'egalitarian' inasmuch as the philospohy is defined as one that: advocates the removal of inequalities among people.

Unless everyone on the planet has free access to the internet then it surely cannot be egalitarian, can it?

Indeed the internet has given the 'little man' a voice, (of sorts) but with that voice goes a certain degree of responsibility, unless of course one believes in the total anarchy of the internet, which I do not.

Otherwise I agree with you that sites like FM should be kept 'free'

 

[Kevin Perkins]

Phil

You are right and wrong. Peeved isn't the correct term for way I feel, frustrated certainly is. The bald facts seem to be that if an 'outsider' doesn't present his/her articles in the 'house' style then they are not acceptable.

Get yourself established as writer of quality and talent, which you clearly are, then move on to what you really want to write about. Your establishment and credentials will allow you to do this.
it is a chicken and eggg situation, bcause unless you are prepared to write in an acceptable format, you aren't going to become established. Do you then 'waste' your time churning out articles which are not acceptable for the print media, but are perfectly ok for the internet? What does that say about the readers who comment favourably on the articles on FM, are they not as discerning, cultured, whatever, as the ones who buy the angling papers and magazines....?

As I have said before, just because it's dfferent, doesn't make it wrong

 

[Wolfman Woody]

Well said Kevin. For me, I don't want paying if I have to turn out the dross that some magazines would want to publish.

I want to write about what I want to write about. If someone, anyone, wants to read and gets some enjoyment from it then great. If no-one reads it then tough, no-one has lost out on it! If I also write something that (unintentionally of course) offends someone, but is not offensive per se then I refer to the 'Graham Marsden Code of Practice' in dealing with it and that contains just two words - the second of which is "'em"

However, free Internet? No way!

There's still around 60% of sites that will demand a subscription from visitors and I'm not just speaking about porn sites (reminds me, subscription's due again!) Many educational sites charge for sharing information, the quality stuff at least. Also those sites that belong to closed groups where you not only have to pay, but need qualifications or job status to enter as well.

The Internet was never meant to be free. Back in the early 90s there wasn't much that you could access without paying in to something or other. Then big servers and RAM became cheap and disk drives even cheaper and bigger and that allowed everyone and his dog to set up sites. Just be grateful you have so much that is now "free"!

 

[Graham Marsden (ACA)]

Steve: "Anyway, for a site that has a large advertising backing it could easily afford to pay more for good articles, ?100 would be a good start."

Quite frankly Steve, that's rubbish. FM has as good an advertising backing, probably better, than most UK fishing sites, but there is no way we can afford to pay contributors without charging a subscription fee.

Most of the magazines struggle to pay contributors and they have an easier job attracting advertising than a web site, AND they also charge you a cover price and without that they couldn't pay contributors either. There just isn't that kind of money in fishing.

How many of the articles you see on FM do you think started out like you see them? Not many, believe me, so the site has to pay someone like me to make them readable and to provide photographic illustration when none is supplied. How many people do you think are in the Magicalia tech department, all wanting a monthly salary? How many in the sales department struggling to sell ad space, particularly on fishing, all wanting a monthly salary?

Yes, Magicalia has quite a number of web sites, and now also a fair stable of magazines (none of them fishing mags by the way). It is the ads that stretch across most of the sites (like the Kia one below) where most of the income comes from, and which allows us to stay free.

And yet there are still those who whinge about the ads. How can we have a free site, and pay editorial people, sales people and tech people without the ads? And contributors? You're 'avin a laugh.