G
Graham Marsden (ACA)
Guest
I understand where Kevin is coming from and there are aspects of his article that I totally agree with. But I also understand the situation from the editor?s viewpoint.
None of the magazine editors are stupid, let?s make that clear from the off. Their main aim in life is to sell as many copies of their publications as possible. Circulation figures are how their performance is measured and none of them want to lose their jobs. To help them make decisions about content they instigate surveys, talk to readers at shows and other events, and read their letters. Getting the content right, and ensuring the content is the best possible quality, is what it?s all about.
So a reasonable question that could be asked is: why do I use Kevin?s articles when, according to Kevin, no print media will?
And the answer is simple: a website can be all encompassing. FishingMagic in particular, although slanted heavily towards pleasure and specialist coarse fishing, will publish any well written, well illustrated article about any kind of fishing across the world. We?re not a carp, barbel or predator fishing website, we?re a fishing website. We don?t have to drop an article about carp fishing on a commercial to publish an article about Field Marshall Ron Clay on the Trent. We just publish both. We have negligible page costs (compared to print media) and can afford to do that.
Regardless of that, if I thought Kevin?s articles held no interest for any of our readers then I wouldn?t use them. Like all writers who write regularly, there will be some weeks when the article appeals to the majority and other weeks when perhaps only a handful of readers will be interested. On a website it matters much less than in the print media, for nothing will have been dropped to make room for an article that may have minority interest.
In a magazine it?s all about page costs and the maximum readership you can get from every page. Today, more than any time in the past, fishing journals are in a cut throat business, with too many magazines feeding from an ever diminishing readership. Magazines are now very specialised; it?s many years since we had one that covered sea, game and coarse fishing. Now, each of those three disciplines is split into many other disciplines and none are willing to publish ?out of the box?.
One thing is for sure though, if anyone submits an article, or a proposal for a series that the editor is convinced will increase his circulation figures, he?ll bite your hand off for it.
Don?t blame the editor, blame the majority of readers who want to read ?in the main, articles that have some direct tactical/technical content?.
Waterlog is the only fishing magazine that strays from ?what the majority want?. It is published quarterly and sells a mere fraction of the copies sold by the poorest selling monthly.
Read these two interviews with two magazine editors for a greater insight into what makes them tick:
tcf
IYCF
None of the magazine editors are stupid, let?s make that clear from the off. Their main aim in life is to sell as many copies of their publications as possible. Circulation figures are how their performance is measured and none of them want to lose their jobs. To help them make decisions about content they instigate surveys, talk to readers at shows and other events, and read their letters. Getting the content right, and ensuring the content is the best possible quality, is what it?s all about.
So a reasonable question that could be asked is: why do I use Kevin?s articles when, according to Kevin, no print media will?
And the answer is simple: a website can be all encompassing. FishingMagic in particular, although slanted heavily towards pleasure and specialist coarse fishing, will publish any well written, well illustrated article about any kind of fishing across the world. We?re not a carp, barbel or predator fishing website, we?re a fishing website. We don?t have to drop an article about carp fishing on a commercial to publish an article about Field Marshall Ron Clay on the Trent. We just publish both. We have negligible page costs (compared to print media) and can afford to do that.
Regardless of that, if I thought Kevin?s articles held no interest for any of our readers then I wouldn?t use them. Like all writers who write regularly, there will be some weeks when the article appeals to the majority and other weeks when perhaps only a handful of readers will be interested. On a website it matters much less than in the print media, for nothing will have been dropped to make room for an article that may have minority interest.
In a magazine it?s all about page costs and the maximum readership you can get from every page. Today, more than any time in the past, fishing journals are in a cut throat business, with too many magazines feeding from an ever diminishing readership. Magazines are now very specialised; it?s many years since we had one that covered sea, game and coarse fishing. Now, each of those three disciplines is split into many other disciplines and none are willing to publish ?out of the box?.
One thing is for sure though, if anyone submits an article, or a proposal for a series that the editor is convinced will increase his circulation figures, he?ll bite your hand off for it.
Don?t blame the editor, blame the majority of readers who want to read ?in the main, articles that have some direct tactical/technical content?.
Waterlog is the only fishing magazine that strays from ?what the majority want?. It is published quarterly and sells a mere fraction of the copies sold by the poorest selling monthly.
Read these two interviews with two magazine editors for a greater insight into what makes them tick:
tcf
IYCF