How Much!?!?!?

[Peter Waller]

Both AT & AM are now £1.70!! Am I alone in thinking that that is appallingly bad value? Personally I think that both publications are taking the pee. It's not that I can't afford it, I can, but £1.70 for what is probably less than half an hours reading is not for me. Sorry, gents, but this is one price hike to many!

[BoldBear]

I havent bought the AT or AM for years now (since I stopped fishing matches) except when the very rare 'useful' freebie was on the cover. If there is an interesting article I will just borrow my mates copy.

 

I got fed up of wading through the adverts, and catch pictures (mainly Carp or fish from Commercials) in search for the odd interesting column.

Even the catch reports are usually at least a week or more out of date, or have been sourced from fishery owners/bailifs trying to get anglers onto their fishery.

 

If I was a matchman fishing commercials or a young carp angler wanting to know what others have caught I might think totally differently.

Edited May 6, 2009 by BoldBear

[Steve Walker]

I bought an AT last week, for the first time in many, many years. Free spool of line on the cover, see, worth more than the cost of the paper.

[tiddlertamer]

I havent bought the AT or AM for years now (since I stopped fishing matches) except when the very rare 'useful' freebie was on the cover. If there is an interesting article I will just borrow my mates copy.

 

I got fed up of wading through the adverts, and catch pictures (mainly Carp or fish from Commercials) for the odd interesting column.

Even the catch reports are usually at least a week or more out of date, or have been sourced from fishery owners/bailifs trying to get anglers onto their fishery.

 

If I was a matchman fishing commercials or a young carp angler wanting to know what others have caught I might think totally differently.

 

 

I agree with the comments concerning both magazines' rather boorish emphasis on carp and commercial pools...

Set against this, it means I can get out to glorious stretches of rivers during the season and barely meet another soul!

 

I think it worth offering some constructive advice too, though I'm not sure it'd be acted upon.

I'd like see both magazines tip their hat to some of angling's fine traditions. It's writers such as Chris Yates who for me unveil some of fishing’s magic. I'm sure he is busy writing books now but there must be other writers out there who could offer their own creative writing skills. Tips on new techniques have their place but I really can only read so many articles on hair rigged boilies and sixteen metre poles...

Both magazines should look to find people whose strength is their writing. It sounds obvious but many contributors are clearly very good anglers but sadly their copy rarely brings to life the charms of angling.

 

This week's Angler's Mail was dominated by a 72 page add for Dragon Carp products including a plug for Indian take away boilies... there simply aren't the words.

 

Angling Times has four pages devoted to reader's catches. Pretty dull fare though it can be funny, when someone subverts this particular genre of article , and stands there, four ounce roach in hand, cigarette on the go... at least I think the reader is being ironic, though maybe, just maybe, they really are stupid enough to take themselves seriously.

 

Keith Arthur, Anglings 'most opinionated columnist' often offends me but I like someone with opinions. He also wrote a cracking April fools joke piece this year, at the expense of anglers like me who just use one rod and natural baits. About a magical lake full of record breaking fish whose owner would only let 'traditional' anglers fish but where the fish of our dreams swam around. Less dream, more Keith's imagination...

I'm afraid Des Taylor is the exception who proves the rule when it comes to my admiration for people with opinions. Opinionated but dull. He used his column recently to let his friends know he'd lost his mobile and all his numbers. Cheers Des!

 

Back in the Mail, 'True Life Stories' can be fun or dull and this week was fun with William Wyatt recounting tales from his angling youth in inner city London.

Finally, it’s good to see the Angling Times cover sea fishing again after an absence of many years. I’ve never tried sea fishing but I think I will now.

Edited May 7, 2009 by tiddlertamer

[sluk]

I buy angler's mail, and Ok, its not the best value at £1.70, yes it gets hammered by Dragon Carp Direct ads but for what it is, essentially 20-25 pages of fishing, plus some ads (get them in every newspaper/mag) and a where to fish section its not that bad.

 

I dont profess that ill gain a staggering amount of knowledge, in fact I gain more tips from the internet and forums such as this to help me on my quest. What it does do though is to afford me some guaranteed quiet time each week to leaf through a publication about my favourite pastime. Unfortunately the internet just doesn't cut it the same as a book or magazine for me. I must be a bit old school in that respect.

[tiddlertamer]

I buy Anglers mail, and Ok, its not the best value at £1.70, yes it gets hammered by Dragon Carp Direct ads but for what it is, essentially 20-25 pages of fishing, plus some ads (get them in every newspaper/mag) and a where to fish section its not that bad.

 

I don't profess that ill gain a staggering amount of knowledge, in fact I gain more tips from the internet and forums such as this to help me on my quest. What it does do though is to afford me some guaranteed quiet time each week to leaf through a publication about my favourite pastime. Unfortunately the internet just doesn't cut it the same as a book or magazine for me. I must be a bit old school in that respect.

 

 

Not old school at all! There is still a huge market for printed magazines and newpapers. Internet sites are of course fabulous and coolio (cheers /elton!)

 

But there is something about the printed word which aids the digestion of readers. If only the angling press could tie into fishing's magic rather than page 3 spreads of bloated 40lb+ carp...

[Anderoo]

Not old school at all! There is still a huge market for printed magazines and newpapers. Internet sites are of course fabulous and coolio (cheers /elton!)

 

But there is something about the printed word which aids the digestion of readers. If only the angling press could tie into fishing's magic rather than page 3 spreads of bloated 40lb+ carp...

 

The common rebuttal to that is that these are businesses and need to make a profit, and so aim for the biggest market. I'm sure though that each weekly could spare a page or two (or more?) to some quality writing.

 

I love magazines but I've had to accept that I'm not their key demographic and so am out of the loop.

[terry t shirt]

What is there demographic now?? I use to buy one or the other years ago as did virtually every angler i knew it was even sold in tackle shops. The adverts i can tolerate as i know thats where they really finance the business. But if theres nothing of interest to the everyday angler its not suprising that there sales are dropping like the proverbial rock. The price has little impact its the content which matters. Seeing fat bloated carp or the same barbel photographed hundreds of times has no interest for me. They rarely do features on the everyday waters most of us fish like canals naturally stocked lakes or rivers with the exception if a big barbel happens to live there. Half of the big carp have been imported anyway.

[tiddlertamer]

The common rebuttal to that is that these are businesses and need to make a profit, and so aim for the biggest market. I'm sure though that each weekly could spare a page or two (or more?) to some quality writing.

 

I love magazines but I've had to accept that I'm not their key demographic and so am out of the loop.

 

 

I’m not convinced that the drive to make profit necessarily rules out publications from including quality writing.

 

The world of publishing is predominantly profit driven and yet has throughout its history provided us with a bounty of thought provoking works.

 

Modern magazine publishing is about selling copies as well as advertising but need it abandon quality writing?

 

Do magazine publishers hold focus groups in which they are told by punters to dumb it down? Probably not.

 

But like TV executives do the chattering middle classes that run publishing decide that dumbing down will bring in the readers.

 

I’m a great fan of keeping writing simple but enjoy wit and the ability to escape from cliché.

 

Where websites score so highly over magazines is the ability for users to really engage with the whole experience and (apart from you lurkers!) contribute to a debate that evolves rather than the somewhat lame letters page of a magazine.

 

Though websites are not immune to the drive for profits and I can spy an ad for a well known insurance company as I type… not that I think his should be viewed pejoratively. Websites need to generate income and without that, all you users here wouldn’t have your place to come and play!

 

But back to the magazine sector. I enjoy handling a physical product. In the same way I like handling a CD and its packaging rather than the download.

And with writing, the printed word on the page is just so much easier to read than that presented on a computer screen.

 

But it's very much dumbed down. Perhaps there is a market for a quality weekly magazine though.

 

John Aston in a Dream of Jewelled Fishes (Apologies for occasionally obsessing about this book on this site but it really is very good) blames it on the desk top revolution, digital photography and the ease of running huge swathes of colour photography rather than focusing on text.

Perhaps he’s right. I only took up angling recently. Did the Angling Mail and Times offer better writing back in the sixties and seventies?

 

And back to dumbing down and TV Executives. Was it only 1992 that the BBC brought us a Passion for Angling bringing together both a traditional and modern angler looking for the essence of the magic of angling.

2009 gives us Robson Green – need I say more.

 

My own view is that angling magazines employ people who really can fish but can’t actually capture its magic in words.

 

I’ve used the term magic quite a bit in this article and that feels strange for me, a die hard materialist devoted to science, but there is something soulless about the ‘how to’ articles when perhaps the writers might just want to focus on why we fish.

Edited May 7, 2009 by tiddlertamer

[Vagabond]

Both magazines should look to find people whose strength is their writing.

 

Just out of curiosity TT - have you ever bought Waterlog ?