Improve your coarse fishing

[ColinW]

It all has a lot to do with the way kids are these days. My ten year old has been nagging me for weeks about getting her "genuine" Ugg boots. When I ask why she says "Because they are designer". An Ugg boot, by the way is three scraps of sheepskin sewn together, just like my old granny used to wear, anything less "designer" is hard to imagine.

I asked her what is the difference (apart from the obvious £40 left in my wallet) between genuine and fake Ugg boots. She then pointed to an Ebay page telling how to spot the fakes. You would need a magnifying glass!

Ironically, the genuine ones are made in China, an indication of quality if ever there was one

I am afraid she won't be getting them, but summer will be here soon and they will be forgotten as some new "must have" comes along.

Fishing has gone the same way. I won't buy anything where the only thing that differentiates the product from similar lower cost stuff is the name. This particularly applies to stuff Basil Brush seems to sell! I'll go further, if I can make it myself or buy it at a hardware shop then so much the better, because almost all fishing tackle (like any other leisure product) is well overpriced compared to identical stuff made for general use. For example, my local Chinese takeaway gives a free baitbox, worth over a pound at any tackle shop, with every meal!

Edited April 3, 2009 by ColinW

[Worms]

I understand why contributors here moan about product placement.

 

Nonetheless, perhaps the greatest fishing writer of all, certainly the greatest living one, isn't immune to it himself.

 

Yup – that's right – the wonderful Chris Yates.

 

No article is complete without a reference to Aerial Allcocks reels, Avocet barbel rods or an Avon Mk 1V carp rod.

 

Of course, this is all done to celebrate the traditional approach to angling rather than plug a contemporary product for financial gain. Very admirable.

 

But for those that can't afford classic tackle and rods, (and I'd love to own a rod by the great Dick Walker) it's no bad thing to get an insight from the angling mags about the contemporary gear that works best in different situations.

As long as you know roughly what you are looking for and try and avoid the obviously expensive retro tackle shops and pick very carefully on Ebay you might be very pleasantly surprised at what you can find in junk shops and antique shops.

 

I admit to having spent £80 on one very fashionable (because they really are good) named rod but most have cost me less than £40 and some as little as £5 with the cheapest (a very rare and highly saleable rod for a mere £2). Don't forget to check out charity shops and, of course the ubiquitous car boot sale!

 

As a bonus, with some of these cheap rods they sometimes get used a bit harder than you might with a more valuable one. That's when you realise just how tough they are!

[Arf]

As long as you know roughly what you are looking for and try and avoid the obviously expensive retro tackle shops and pick very carefully on Ebay you might be very pleasantly surprised at what you can find in junk shops and antique shops.

 

I admit to having spent £80 on one very fashionable (because they really are good) named rod but most have cost me less than £40 and some as little as £5 with the cheapest (a very rare and highly saleable rod for a mere £2). Don't forget to check out charity shops and, of course the ubiquitous car boot sale!

 

As a bonus, with some of these cheap rods they sometimes get used a bit harder than you might with a more valuable one. That's when you realise just how tough they are!

 

I concur...

 

I've got some real classic tackle that is worth a far more than I would ever have dreamt I would ever be able to afford, mostly acquired through inheritance.

 

I can't bring myself to fish with a lot of it though, and use my cheap old tackle instead, which has served me well for the better part of two decades.

 

Its all a bit silly really.

[Wordbender]

Hello there, chaps.

 

I thought it was worth a chuck to give you an editor's take on what makes a magazine successful. In crudely commercial terms, it's all down to a combination of readership numbers and the response the advertisers get from spending their money. There are certain niche titles that exist in a more rarified, even refined, atmosphere, but sales and ad' response rule the commercial kingdom, and there's no sign of that changing any time soon.

 

The dirty facts of magazine life dictate that no mainstream mag' exists for long without advertising support, and it won't get that support without a worthwhile return for its ad-spend (dreadful term, but one must be down with the publishing kids, innit). That return is generated by the popularity and 'direction' of the magazine...and so it rolls inexorably, commercially on. Or not, if the sacred successful formula is badly mixed.

 

So, picture the scene: a stalwart, even purist, type of editor with an unshakable faith in his belief that this world needs a magazine filled with worthy retrospectives, unsullied with sponsorship, product placement, step-by-step articles and 'PVA Pointers For Pointless Piscators Part Zillion!', appears before a panel of potential backers for his new magazine.

 

'So, this magazine you've come up with, then. 'Alcocks & Cane Monthly'. We're liking the title, but my guys are just a teensy bit concerned about the direction you got going on, here. Minimal carp content, you say? No sponsored writers? No advertorials? And you've deliberately pitched it away from mass appeal and toward an undefined readership of experienced, discerning anglers who probably already have all the gear they need, so offer no return to our advertisers, should we ever manage to get any? Erm, are you sure you've thought this through?'

 

Forgive the levity but that's the basic script I assure you. The real trick is, to retain that magical formula and recognise it for the life-blood it undoubtedly is, but to inject enough diversity to appeal to the experienced angler. Remember, angling magazines are a business and it's a business in the middle of possibly the worst recession of modern times. The elements of modern mags that so many of you find distasteful are often the very same features that keep those mags alive.

 

Who'd be an editor, eh?

[Alan Stubbs]

Hello there, chaps.

 

I thought it was worth a chuck to give you an editor's take on what makes a magazine successful. In crudely commercial terms, it's all down to a combination of readership numbers and the response the advertisers get from spending their money. There are certain niche titles that exist in a more rarified, even refined, atmosphere, but sales and ad' response rule the commercial kingdom, and there's no sign of that changing any time soon.

 

The dirty facts of magazine life dictate that no mainstream mag' exists for long without advertising support, and it won't get that support without a worthwhile return for its ad-spend (dreadful term, but one must be down with the publishing kids, innit). That return is generated by the popularity and 'direction' of the magazine...and so it rolls inexorably, commercially on. Or not, if the sacred successful formula is badly mixed.

 

So, picture the scene: a stalwart, even purist, type of editor with an unshakable faith in his belief that this world needs a magazine filled with worthy retrospectives, unsullied with sponsorship, product placement, step-by-step articles and 'PVA Pointers For Pointless Piscators Part Zillion!', appears before a panel of potential backers for his new magazine.

 

'So, this magazine you've come up with, then. 'Alcocks & Cane Monthly'. We're liking the title, but my guys are just a teensy bit concerned about the direction you got going on, here. Minimal carp content, you say? No sponsored writers? No advertorials? And you've deliberately pitched it away from mass appeal and toward an undefined readership of experienced, discerning anglers who probably already have all the gear they need, so offer no return to our advertisers, should we ever manage to get any? Erm, are you sure you've thought this through?'

 

Forgive the levity but that's the basic script I assure you. The real trick is, to retain that magical formula and recognise it for the life-blood it undoubtedly is, but to inject enough diversity to appeal to the experienced angler. Remember, angling magazines are a business and it's a business in the middle of possibly the worst recession of modern times. The elements of modern mags that so many of you find distasteful are often the very same features that keep those mags alive.

 

Who'd be an editor, eh?

 

 

Put ME in my place, why don't you?

 

Terry, my principle gripe is the lack of delineation between editorial and advertising in the mainstream mags.

 

Your own splendid magazine isn't anywhere like a serious culprit, but just because the author of an article is sponsored by a manufacturer, and that is signposted usually at the beginning of the article why the need to mention the brand of an item in the piece at all - especially as photographs accompanying the piece usually have the sponsors logo hidden quite unsuccessfully from view?

[mjbarnes12]

I think this topic has gone a little wayward with what i intended by the statement. I do not mind reading that drennans new cage feeder has a new swivel that will wipe your arse for you as long as the method/approach they have to fishing it is innovative. Once every blue moon something comes in there that I think wow that is a very innovative approach, however a lot of the articles are regurgitated. I do sympathise though that it is a challenge to get interesting and especially new approached to angling every month so fair play to these magazine groups for getting a piece every now and then that shows me how to change my approach to feeding worm that is actually new and not slightly different!!

[Wordbender]

Once every blue moon something comes in there that I think wow that is a very innovative approach, however a lot of the articles are regurgitated.

 

Again, to put the editor's view, there is a responsibility to what is known as the 'rotation' of the readership. This refers to the proportion of the readership that renews itself over the course of a year, and is typically between 40 and 70%. This means that what is a hackneyed regurgitation to the experienced reader, is often a key instructional piece to the newer one. In short, one angler's tired revisit is another angler's groundbreaking feature. With such a disparity of experience and expertise to cater for, the editor is in an impossible position as far as coming up with new material is concerned.

[Wordbender]

Put ME in my place, why don't you?

 

Terry, my principle gripe is the lack of delineation between editorial and advertising in the mainstream mags.

 

Your own splendid magazine isn't anywhere like a serious culprit, but just because the author of an article is sponsored by a manufacturer, and that is signposted usually at the beginning of the article why the need to mention the brand of an item in the piece at all - especially as photographs accompanying the piece usually have the sponsors logo hidden quite unsuccessfully from view?

 

I wouldn't dream of putting you in your place, Stubbs minor! Now see me in my study and you'd better be wearing your best caning trousers, m'lad!

 

As for your points about product promotion, I suppose that's down to the editor/managing editor/publisher or similar deity in charge of policy. A clever angler like your fine self will see through any obvious promotion, though, I'm sure.

[chavender]

with all this talk of promotion ,hows this for promoting a mag

 

 

 

 

 

Youtube Video ->Original Video

 

some editers have too much time on their hands

[Peter Waller]

A clever angler like your fine self will see through any obvious promotion, though, I'm sure.

 

And there lies the problem, we do see through it, and it devalues that magazine. A certain unmentionable, goofy toothed contributor in the Mail predictably plugs Fox ad infinitum, its boring, tedious and long past being funny!