The only magazines to survive intact was the complete collection of CAT, I'm not sure what that says about Kev Clifford
Err, did you expect the mice to eat the CAT?
Surely not.
Definitely a better educated strain of rodent in Durham if they can read...
---------- Post added at 02:54 ---------- Previous post was at 02:31 ----------
And I must confess I did a double take on reading...
"We've discussed this before but perhaps the recession has had an impact as well as a maturation of the web based format?"
Took a while to register that you'd actually written maturation. Still not sure it wasn't a spelling mistake.
Perhaps discussing this topic on a web forum is a bit like asking a Labour Party meeting who they'd like to win the election.
If you posed the original question to regular magazine readers you'd probably get the opposite response.
Much depends on what attracts you to the media in the first place. On-screen digital images can no way compare with the same picture on glossy paper. Text is just text, but even so, when you're out (maybe carp) fishing on a bright sunny day a magazine or book is easier on the eye than a screen.
Screen images can be made to move and can also include video but for layout and impact I still think print has an edge.
For instant communication the web wins, but all too often it's dragged down to the level of the lowest common denominator and destructive influences, as we've seen all too often.
In my view there's room for both and will be for quite some time to come. However, it's not the Internet that will finish off the mags, it's town planners who for some reason want to keep cars as far away from shops as is humanly possible.
Yes, you can buy in supermarkets, but only mainstream/ flagship titles. Minority interests don't stand a chance which means the chances of new or innovative titles breaking into the market is almost impossible.