Fish 'n' Tips

[Dales]

Oh well I never found a copy and so will never know how good or bad it was. Is it just me that thinks it's a shame that when some one did try to do something different it failed. It might not have been to every ones liking, but at least they tried to offer an alternative.

[gozzer]

Makes no odds now, Anderoo. I've been told that that was the first, and last, issue. Seems a shame as, like it or loathe it, it was the first 'different' fishing mag for ages. Anyone else considering launching a fishing magazine now is likely to stick to the same format as every other one out there, I'd have thought.

 

I'm not too surprised, only in the speed in which it happened. I thought it might have run 2 or 3 issues.

Every angling forum I've looked in slagged it off, so maybe a bit more research was needed. The articles seemed (from a quick scan) to be decent, but the rest put me off.

That could be the problem. Those who want serious, decent articles don't want the 'laddish' stuff, and those that want the 'laddish' stuff, only want the usual commercial carpy stuff.

 

It would seem that my thoughts on the big divide in modern, versus more traditional angling, has something to it after all.

 

John.

[Elton]

There's a bit about it on their Facebook page:

 

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Fish-n-Tips-...147397695320615

 

I don't think sales of the magazine itself were the problem, more the advertising sales.

 

Like it or not, I still maintain that it's a shame. I can't see another fishing magazine being launched for some time now, not in the current climate.

[dean in devon]

shame i think it could of gone well, i see there some some people slagging it off.. but why i ask my self, is it because these people made a mag about fishing and those that are crying about it can't? i dunno... just a shame.. just why has everyone got to be so negitive all the time, this no matter what anyone says was a fishing mag... that has had to shut shop... this is not good... and people are cheering.... very sad

i hope they can try again soon, i'm with elton

Like it or not, I still maintain that it's a shame. I can't see another fishing magazine being launched for some time now, not in the current climate.

 

this is not a good sign for things to come.

[Mat Hillman]

There's a bit about it on their Facebook page:

 

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Fish-n-Tips-...147397695320615

 

I don't think sales of the magazine itself were the problem, more the advertising sales.

 

Like it or not, I still maintain that it's a shame. I can't see another fishing magazine being launched for some time now, not in the current climate.

 

 

Well I thought the fishing side of it was quite good, but the smut/schoolboy humour was just too amateurish and poorly done. (I don't object to a good bit of smut or toilet humour, I'm cetainly not a "puritan" type, but that just wasn't very smutty or funny enough!!)

 

Mat

[gozzer]

I don't think sales of the magazine itself were the problem, more the advertising sales.

 

Where do you go for advertising in a mag' like this?

 

The tackle manufacturers are covered by the adverts/articles they seem to prefer, (and that we all moan about), and Mark said they weren't going to do that anyway.

 

Maybe the 'chat line' or sex orientated clothing or toys, would be more interested in it's target customers.

 

Although it seemed to me, to be a hybrid, and wasn't entirely sure where it's target audience would be.

 

John.

[mark barrett]

Where do you go for advertising in a mag' like this?

 

The tackle manufacturers are covered by the adverts/articles they seem to prefer, (and that we all moan about), and Mark said they weren't going to do that anyway.

 

Maybe the 'chat line' or sex orientated clothing or toys, would be more interested in it's target customers.

 

Although it seemed to me, to be a hybrid, and wasn't entirely sure where it's target audience would be.

 

John.

 

 

Just to correct a few inaccuracies peddled by the same tired, boring old faces.

 

The sales were not a problem, in so much as they were projected to outdo or match what we had set as a realistic target and bearing in mind that we gave away 1400 copies at the big one, that was pretty pleasing.

 

The problem was and is, advertising at the moment. One of my friends with an angling related business yesterday was offered a whole page in one of the weekly magazines for £250. To put that in context, 12-18 months ago I was quoted over £800 for the same thing.

We worked on the basis of an 80/50 split on editorial to advertising. If you look at the actual split on the first issue it was more like 110/20 and some of those were in house adverts. Issue two was doing about the same, possibly worse despite the hard work of the girls selling it.

For a small publishing house that was unsustainable, other publishing houses can and do subsidise titles, in fact some of the titles tyhat you will be reading we actually would have doubled or matched in circulation, but the advertising killed it.

 

Saying that no one was more surprised than me when i found out issue two wasnt happening, shame because i thought it was much better than one, but its not to be and there you go.

 

Thank you to all those that messaged us over the lasst few weeks saying how much they enjoyed it, and for those of you that knocked it from the start well up yours and see you again soon!

[DavyR]

I'm not sure why we needed another fishing magazine anyway, or why any such magazine should be regarded as a self-evidently Good Thing?

 

I used to be an avid reader, at various periods, of Angling Times, Anglers Mail, Fishing (that one ceased publication in 1969!) and Coarse Fisherman. And when I came back to fishing after a long layoff about 6 years ago, I bought IYCF for a year or so to help get back up to speed (until the same stuff started to come round for the 2nd or 3rd time).

 

I now only bother with a few online forums, plus the increasing number of generally good books being published by (amongst others) Medlar Press.

 

Magazines seem largely pointless to me now and I only ever look at them (on any subject) in the dentist's waiting room because it beats watching the (inaudible) telly up on the wall.

[gozzer]

Just to correct a few inaccuracies peddled by the same tired, boring old faces.

 

The sales were not a problem, in so much as they were projected to outdo or match what we had set as a realistic target and bearing in mind that we gave away 1400 copies at the big one, that was pretty pleasing.

 

The problem was and is, advertising at the moment. One of my friends with an angling related business yesterday was offered a whole page in one of the weekly magazines for £250. To put that in context, 12-18 months ago I was quoted over £800 for the same thing.

We worked on the basis of an 80/50 split on editorial to advertising. If you look at the actual split on the first issue it was more like 110/20 and some of those were in house adverts. Issue two was doing about the same, possibly worse despite the hard work of the girls selling it.

For a small publishing house that was unsustainable, other publishing houses can and do subsidise titles, in fact some of the titles tyhat you will be reading we actually would have doubled or matched in circulation, but the advertising killed it.

 

Saying that no one was more surprised than me when i found out issue two wasnt happening, shame because i thought it was much better than one, but its not to be and there you go.

 

Thank you to all those that messaged us over the lasst few weeks saying how much they enjoyed it, and for those of you that knocked it from the start well up yours and see you again soon!

 

Thanks for the explanation Mark, but the start and finish of your post seemed a bit churlish. I assume you posted about the mag to get a few opinions, the fact you got some negative opinions would seem par for the course I would have thought.

 

Anyway, as regards my face, it's not tired, it's knackered.

As for the " up yours and see you again", well, I hope for your sake, it's with something a bit better next time.

Take Care.

 

John.

[mark barrett]

Thanks for the explanation Mark, but the start and finish of your post seemed a bit churlish. I assume you posted about the mag to get a few opinions, the fact you got some negative opinions would seem par for the course I would have thought.

 

Anyway, as regards my face, it's not tired, it's knackered.

As for the " up yours and see you again", well, I hope for your sake, it's with something a bit better next time.

Take Care.

 

John.

 

 

I didnt initially post about the mag Elton did. ?But you were quick to jump in and put the boot in, long before you had actually seen the content and little was contstructive, that I accept fully as it helps to formulate a magazine or similar.

 

At the end of the day those that read it enjoyed the fact that as Davy r pointed out it wasnt the same old tired subjects, nor was it full of product placement. Ultimately we lived and died on that stand and that undoubtedly cost us advertisers as some quite clearly stated that they would not advertise without having editorial space too. Do you really want to read magazines where the tail wags the dog like the DHP stable?

 

Thanks for the explanation Mark, but the start and finish of your post seemed a bit churlish. I assume you posted about the mag to get a few opinions, the fact you got some negative opinions would seem par for the course I would have thought.

 

Anyway, as regards my face, it's not tired, it's knackered.

As for the " up yours and see you again", well, I hope for your sake, it's with something a bit better next time.

Take Care.

 

John.

 

 

I didnt initially post about the mag Elton did. ?But you were quick to jump in and put the boot in, long before you had actually seen the content and little was contstructive, that I accept fully as it helps to formulate a magazine or similar.

 

At the end of the day those that read it enjoyed the fact that as Davy r pointed out it wasnt the same old tired subjects, nor was it full of product placement. Ultimately we lived and died on that stand and that undoubtedly cost us advertisers as some quite clearly stated that they would not advertise without having editorial space too. Do you really want to read magazines where the tail wags the dog like the DHP stable?