The Alternative Angler ? Where Next?

Kevin makes some good points and much of his speculative vision for the future of FM and other current angling websites, and the route that angling print media may take, could be close to the truth. Angling Times have already tried the online route but the plug was pulled and jobs were lost. But that was some time ago and next time they could get it right.

You have to remember that digital publishing involves considerable investment. FM?s parent company, Magicalia, is the biggest digital publisher in the UK and although FM is the biggest and most popular fishing website in the UK we?re still learning. Digital publishing is a different game altogether than print publishing and success in one doesn?t necessarily guarantee success in the other. Which is probably why one of the UK?s biggest newspaper and magazine publishers has just failed in a bid to buy Magicalia?.

Kevin writes, ?Whilst the current situation is that internet sites and the angling press are possibly complementary and offer different things to different people, what happens if they are suddenly all competing for the same audience?

What happens is that you, the site visitor, has to pay. The print media are not going to let you visit their site to read the ?big names? for nothing, and certainly not when they?re still printing the same stuff and charging a cover price. If we then found that they were taking our visitors then we too would have to shell out for ?big names? and charge you for reading them.

One way or the other, once the time arrives when websites have to pay for contributions those costs are going to have to be passed on. Of course, that doesn?t mean that there has to be a fee to read all the site; it could be that there is a charge for accessing encrypted areas of the site where you need a separate user name and password.

If the angling print media decide to go the online route then don?t believe that they would have all their own way. Magicalia have been digital publishers for about 8 years, which is a long time in this game, and we?ve learnt a hell of a lot.

One thing that money can?t buy is community spirit, and I believe that is FM?s greatest strength. Regular contributors like Kevin, Mark Wintle, Jeff Woodhouse, Mark Hodson, Barrie Rickards, and all you occasional contributors too numerous to mention (including forum contributors) are what makes FM what it is. We?re totally interactive and we listen to what you have to say, no matter if it?s about content or when we change the look of the site. We?ve always aimed for you to feel that the site belongs to you as much as it does to us. All the ?big names? in the world are not going to make that happen; in fact, it?s the views of everyday anglers that obviously mean a lot more to you than those of a famous but faceless contributor who you can?t get to communicate with on the forum.

What we try to be as much as anything is ?open?, hence you reading Kevin?s article and this reply, which I don?t think you would see anything similar anywhere else. And please reply to the points raised in Kevin?s article and this reply. What would you like to see more of on FM? What would you like to see less of? Would you like an area of the site to be encrypted and accessible for a fee, but gives you special offers and other content?

Tell us how you see things and what you would like to see. We?re listening as usual.
<hr>
What a pity Kevin says this is going to be his last comment piece when he can raise interesting and very debateable issues like this. Can someone twist his arm?

The one thing that this site has that a site such as AM or AT might not have is the interactive element, you post a question you get answers, if you want to converse by email with a member then you can, its a bit like a big family really. Most things on here are conducted on a personal basis and that is what makes it different and also what makes it attractive to the ordinary angler as well as the specialist.

Okay so we don't get articles written by the big names but so what, if we want to read them we buy a periodical but what we do get is a variety of informative, interesting and, in Kevins case, humourous articles the like of which you wouldnt read in any paper or magazine. They are the poorer for that and Fishing Magic is the richer and I for one would always prefer this to a computerised magazine.

I for one Graham M don't want to see a members only section. This , in my opinion,would create a situation where the casual/ first time visiter could be put of from becoming a regular to the site and that is not what you would want.

Keep things as they are and as Graham W says if people want to read the big names let them buy the papers.

By have non big name anglers write it encourages the average angler( such as me) to contribute even if it is only to the odd forum posting, without fear.

th one area where you could really kill the printed mags is in the ability to put a short snippet of video into an article.

such as part 2 of my perching on the thames which would have had a short 30 fps video clip showing the swim boiling and a very large perch rolling in the middle of it while the tiny fry jumped out of the water. now things like that really would kill the opposition if they could be done.
i wish i'd gotten round to writing that article. anybody fancy giving me a lift to oxfordshire so i can get the piccies. don't even know where the video is now but wouldn't have any trouble getting another one.

the other side of bignames on the net is that big names don't like the net, look at mick brown, got totally fed up of the sniping backstabbing bitching and whining coming from contributors on other sites and gave up the net under his own name at least for good.

i can't see any of the other big names fairing anybetter.

then again there's a few small names on here who don't do so bad.

some bloke callled marsden keep hanging around.

and a strange bloke called james gibbinson, now what was it he did for fishing, can't quite remember now
think i'll stick with the not so well known ones on here who invented some rather revolutionary things thankyou very much.

Paul is right in what he says.
Too many big name writers I think would frighten people off from having a go themselves. What Graham and the team do for a would be article writer is unmatchable by any other site. And this is one area where we should show loyalty. I certainly would.
I think too many big names would also encourage bad breath from too much ar$e licking. Nothing puts me off quicker than to read of a grown man grovelling.

Here on F.M. we are all allowed our own views. And nobody gets belittled.

I learn a lot from the likes of Kevin Perkins in my style of writing. Not so much what he writes about, but how he writes about it. It is becoming a very interesting subject for me. So if the likes of Kev stopped or cut down on his writing, which is so different to any big name angler I can think of, then that would be my loss.

The angling press just couldn't match what we have in F.M. Our subjects cover everything. Which does break the monotony of which rod should I be useing? We on F.M.seem to go to greater depths than anybody on the subject of fishing. And there is still more for us to glean from each other. An online paper just wouldn't have the time to do that.


And what I can't tell you about card snatching isn't worth knowing

Another thing that big names would bring is sponors product " I caught this fish on a XXX rod from company YYY on a AAA bait made by BBB.

Here if some one recomends a product it's because they use it and catch with it not because someone pays them to!!

"Here on F.M. we are all allowed our own views. And nobody gets belittled"

LoL LoL!!

Just from a personal viewpoint perspective, I think many companies have failed to utilise the internet effectively for their business because they could not differentiate between it as a channel or as a part of their product/service. This is probably the key differentiator between mags and FM.

For mags the internet is another channel. Essentially same content. Therefore if they invest in the considerable sums required to set up this channel, they must demonstrate increased revenue as a result. Otherwise it is the same revenue/customer numbers, but more cost. Where is the sense in that?

Banks are the prime examples. You can buy the same product at the same price down each and every channel (branch, phone, internet etc) yet very few showed an increase in product sales. And what happens if you buy an internet bank product and are unhappy.......you go to your branch!! No channel incentives. The way they have recently overcome this is by re-branding their internet channel so they can get new business without hacking off existing customers.

As for FM - they have it right, but it was easier as they had (I assume) no existing base. The internet is not necessarily a channel to FM, it is inherently part of the overall product and as such you could not reverse engineer FM into a magazine.

One huge edge that web-sites have over printed journals is the facility to search the archive of articles and forum posts - with a magazine, you just KNOW that the only worthwhile article of the year will appear in the one issue you miss.

The search facility obviates the need for repetitious articles on tackling species x in the month of Y, recycling the same old advice. It also means there's no point in anybody writing an article unless they've actually got something new to say, so what does get written tends to be of a higher average quality.

I've just about abandoned the printed media in angling, bored sick with reading recyled "stuffing"; if I need to know about almost anything piscatorial, I search for it here; if it has'nt been written up, I can ask on the forum and be sure of up-to-date opinions and information.

Much more betterer!

Way I see this going in a few years is a bit like the Country Channel - an internet tv channel that's just launched.

The basic site is free but if you subscribe you get almost a choice of TV channels with streaming so you can watch programmes on different subjects.

The technology's there to do all this now, most people are on broadband or cable so they can receive it.

There'll always be the written word, your Perkys and Mark Hodsons.

The printed fishing media will probably be around longer than - say - local evening newspapers, but they're not at the races yet.

They've shied away from the web rather than establishing themselves as the authorative news sources.

I guess the view was probably if we give all our stories away online, no-one's going to buy the paper.

Newspapers used to think that. Last week, the Press Gazette led on a story that the Gurdian was now prioritising the web, meaning stories would go online as soon as they're written, not wait to appear in the following day's paper before they go online.

That's a major development. It's an acknowledgement that the web is now as important as the printed product.

Chris touched on one of FM's strongest points there, the fact that once it goes on FM, IT STAYS ON FM . You can't get rid of it unless the server suffered some mammoth crash and the back-ups were destroyed.

This is a point I mention to any manufacturer that rings me or I ring them. If FM produces a review of their products those reviews can be reference months and year later. With the printed media, they chip papers!

If AT or AM were to be thinking of starting on-line I would just remind them of a saying by James Goldsmith - "If you see a bandwagon, it's too late!"

What would I like to see more of on Fishing Magic you ask Graham?

The only thing I can think of is more tackle reviews/comparisons, this is the one area where we don't get many of them. Whether this is because the manufacturers don't allow the opportunity to test their gear I don't know but comparing the pro's and cons between say ten like products is far more enlightening than a single product review.

Its better that this isn't retricted to rods and reels though, items such as bedchairs/chairs, bivvies, rod rests, pastes etc., all the paraphernalia we anglers use in fact would be of interest to most of us I would think.

Its difficult keeping up with modern changes to sundry tackle because there are so many of them so how about a monthly "This is the latest product to hit the market" article with just a brief description and photo, where it can be bought and price.

First of all why aren't you all out on the rivers today? I am saving myself until tomorrow on the Dee but I have already been told its fairly low so the portents are not good -as usual!
With regard to the thread, in a previous life I was editor of a glossy Football League club match magazine (they used to be programmes when I was lad).For many years we had a clear run with the football supporting public but then groups of fans formed Fanzine magazines and sold them in competition to the Official publication. They fulfilled a need to allow free expresion amongst fans who felt they had no voice in an industry where information from clubs is often sanitised by officials. See the similarity with web sites like FM? Essentially, they are fishing fanzines, not influenced by editorial interference and commercial pressures. And that is why they should remain in their present format. If you want the 'official version' of the world of angling you'll buy one of the weeklies or a monthly publication and read often ghost written articles supposedly by famous names (I used to do it myself for players and managers who were given their own articles and were often paid a hell of a lot more than I was). On the other hand most of that is written on this site is penned honestly and humorously by individuals drawing on a life times experince in angling, people who were all prepared to share that knowledge or opinion without asking for a publishing fee, or promoting some commercially developed product carrying their, or their sponsors, name.
I feel FM therefore has an opportunity to develop somthing the magazines cannot do at present, and that is promote the use of members video phone clips, diagrams and photos to support replies to queries from inexperienced anglers, catch reports or features, maybe using a downloadable format page. But in trying to broaden our appeal and counter any threats FM must never lose sight of what it was created for. A forum for ordinary anglers to keep in contact and learn from each other whilst making friends in the process.

Kevin said: Which way would FM go then, and what price loyalty? We like to somewhat grandly call ourselves 'members' but in truth, we have shown no more commitment to this site other than to log on and supply a few basic details, no real attachment there, then.

Not sure I agree, though you've really made me think about it.

You only have to read some of the threads to see people feel real ownership and affinity with the site.

You never have this with the printed media, it's always them and you. As a journalist I know it's very hard to break that barrier down.

With FM you have interactivity with the people who run it, the guys who write stuff and everyone else who uses it.

"But in trying to broaden our appeal and counter any threats FM must never lose sight of what it was created for. A forum for ordinary anglers to keep in contact and learn from each other whilst making friends in the process."

Well said Peter!

Evening all, just popped on for a quick shufty. I haven't gone fishing today because it's my grandson's birthday. It's the worst thing his mother got wrong, giving birth to him on the 16th June and so far I've cursed her for 11 years.

Thanks a bunch for all the replies so far (keep 'em coming) but it looks like most of you have missed the main point - the question is not what we can do differently than the printed media, but what happens when the printed media make a serious move onto the net and bring the big names along with them.

I won't go into any more detail than that because it's already there in my first post to this thread and in Kevin's article.

I can't see any threat Eddie/Peter.

Chris, that is probably true at present. Graham is posing a hypothetical question regarding the direction he anticipates the written media will eventually follow. My point is, I would contend, still relevent. AT are controlled by EMAP, a huge media organisation that even owns radio stations, and they have to follow the company ethos and house editorial style. On this site the participants control the content and the style. Even if the angling weeklies tried to move away from their traditional format they would still be governed by EMAP editorial policy and commercial interests. They have professional journalists to enforce the house style by sub-editing copy to suit the publication's needs. They might have a go at trying to replicate a site such as ours but the question is why would they bother? In the end all they would produce is an exact online replica of what they do now, and would have to persuade people to sign up to it in advance in order to make it financially viable. EMAP are not a charitable organisation. If it doesn't make money they'd bin very quickly. The media and information market is extremely congested these days, with dozens of outlets vying for the same customer base.
To survive you have to be original and serve your customer's needs and FM does exactly that without costing a penny.

The answer is the two will go side by side and they will stay that way until the time comes when we all receive our reading material downloaded to our pocket-sized Multi Educational Neutron Unit. (MENU)
The advantage the angling print media has is that it can channel every one of its thousands of readers each week, towards a complimentary website, which would give it a huge multi media showcase, for it's popular, professional and advertising revenue, generating, contributors.
UK Angling, needs more promotion, competition in all business should be welcomed and spur a desire to meet the challenge, which can only benefit us the consumer, in the long run.

"No one would have believed in the last days of the close season that this website was being watched keenly and closely by intelligences greater than our's. As members busied themselves about their various concerns they were being studied, as if with a microscope, being scrutinised like creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water. Yet across the gulf of cyber-space, minds regarded this forum with envious eyes, and slowly and surely drew their plans against us."

From a new book - "The War Of The Websites"