i got a wieght issue...

[PatrickALeigh]

Hi Patrick

 

I hope you don't mind but I googled you to see who you are. This was one result that was quite interesting: http://www.fishingmagic.com/forums/coarse-...html#post755112

 

So I'm glad it's not just me

 

Believe it or not I'm a very relaxed kind of chap, but a few things do irritate me (yes, more than most I imagine). The advertising on here or other fishing forums doesn't bother me at all, neither do adverts in fishing magazines (I quite like browsing through them in fact). As you no doubt know it's adverts disguised as copy that I find a bit sad. I'm sorry that annoys you, but there we are.

 

I think my previous post was pretty clear, there's no contradiction if you read it carefully, and of course I'm not suggesting it's a good idea to dump loads of leads!

 

What Tony Miles does is his own concern, I'm not trying to speak for anyone else. My respect for him is due to his pioneering all-rounder specimen hunting.

 

The point is a simple one and I know I'm not alone in holding it - if everyone writing in magazines is employed by a tackle or bait manufacturer, new anglers are missing out on genuine, independent advice from top anglers. They are being sold things they don't need. To be honest I think the blame lies with editors rather than tackle/bait companies. I just often think, 'if I was a new angler now reading this, I would assume this specific weight, or bait, or rig is the key to it all' and it never is. All the consistently good anglers you mention work for different companies, and were good anglers before they were sponsered, so it's pretty clear that they're successful despite what stuff they use, not because of it! Or they'd all work for the same company and the rest would go under.

 

I'm sorry I upset you so much! You do seem to know quite a lot about me though, I wonder how frightened I should be?

 

Andrew

 

Andrew,

I don't doubt there are others who feel the same as has been shown by your google find (or was it pointed out to you in a PM by another 'fan'?.. don't bother answering, I care not)... but they are small in number and you'll note that there are as many who know the score and not let it bother them. Likewise, there are many more who realise the commercial need and see it as a given. Is there an answer to the 'issue' ... nope, capital culture and commercial interests rule.

 

As for your assumption that you've annoyed me .... can't quite see where you get that from... mine is a right to reply.. your attitude does not annoy me .. the constant bemoaning of a business I am very heavily associated with does, to some degree, but I do type all this with a broad grin on my face

 

I won't respond to your belief that there was no contradiction in your post.. your opinion, your choice.

 

Again, you have not upset me "so much"! As for knowing so much about you, nope, sorry, know feck all about you other than what you have written on here. For your information, this only came to light due to some software we use for checking adwords, rankings and web presence and as such it highlighted all of your posts on here so I came for a look see and used a right to reply.

 

Frightened? Now, you're just being plain daft!

 

Good night Andrew.

[PatrickALeigh]

EDIT: this is probably a better page to start on the topic I linked to above: http://www.fishingmagic.com/forums/coarse-...isherman-3.html ... all very interesting. Reading more and more of that topic, it's a belter

 

It was a belter, from all sides.. probably the best reply was Graham Marsdens, I've copied it below...his finishing line is very apt!

 

Tight Lines

 

So the ideal fishing magazine is one that:

 

 

has few if any adverts

no products mentioned by name in the articles

reviews that tell you in no uncertain terms that a product is (if it is) total cr*p (even if it was made by a manufacturer that advertises heavily in your mag)

never publishes articles with topics that have been published previously

and has an enormous cover price to cover the lack of advertising revenue

 

Sounds easy enough. Anyone willing to make an investment?

 

Meanwhile, back in the real world........

[Mark Wintle]

The point is a simple one and I know I'm not alone in holding it - if everyone writing in magazines is employed by a tackle or bait manufacturer, new anglers are missing out on genuine, independent advice from top anglers. They are being sold things they don't need. To be honest I think the blame lies with editors rather than tackle/bait companies. I just often think, 'if I was a new angler now reading this, I would assume this specific weight, or bait, or rig is the key to it all' and it never is. All the consistently good anglers you mention work for different companies, and were good anglers before they were sponsored, so it's pretty clear that they're successful despite what stuff they use, not because of it! Or they'd all work for the same company and the rest would go under.

 

I write a bit in the magazines. I'm not sponsored by anyone (have been in match fishing days) and buy what I use and, if it's important, would recommend that product if I think it's suitable for the technique described, hoping that it would help the readers. Of course, I haven't tested every product on the market in making every tackle/bait choice that I ever employ, partly because it's not hard to find what you want (based on experience) from a selection of companies, generally, and partly because I doubt it's possible to source/check every product - the tackle shops don't stock everything. I'm sure that a significant proportion of other writers are in the same boat (not sure about the 'top angler' bit ). Not a fan of 'advertorials' either and saddened by shameless 'plugging'.

[Anderoo]

I write a bit in the magazines. I'm not sponsored by anyone (have been in match fishing days) and buy what I use and, if it's important, would recommend that product if I think it's suitable for the technique described, hoping that it would help the readers. Of course, I haven't tested every product on the market in making every tackle/bait choice that I ever employ, partly because it's not hard to find what you want (based on experience) from a selection of companies, generally, and partly because I doubt it's possible to source/check every product - the tackle shops don't stock everything. I'm sure that a significant proportion of other writers are in the same boat (not sure about the 'top angler' bit ). Not a fan of 'advertorials' either and saddened by shameless 'plugging'.

 

I've always enjoyed your writing, Mark. Recommending certains bits of tackle and bait is fine and helpful, if it's a personal opinion and you can explain why you're recommending it. It's the plugging I can't bear, and some companies are worse than others. Using tackle or bait that's totally unsuitable for what they're doing, just so it can get a mention. I also make no apologies for saying that stonze are pointless. Normal leads don't scare fish, they are a consistent size and density and cast better, and are cheaper.

 

People are always recommending tackle and bait on forums, and I find that really helpful, as they have weighed up the options, chosen the best one for them, and bought it with their own money. Magazine writers doing the same thing are also being helpful. I think writers should aim to engage, entertain and advise, not to sell.

 

'Top angler'...fair point

[arbocop]

I write a bit in the magazines. I'm not sponsored by anyone (have been in match fishing days) and buy what I use and, if it's important, would recommend that product if I think it's suitable for the technique described, hoping that it would help the readers. Of course, I haven't tested every product on the market in making every tackle/bait choice that I ever employ, partly because it's not hard to find what you want (based on experience) from a selection of companies, generally, and partly because I doubt it's possible to source/check every product - the tackle shops don't stock everything. I'm sure that a significant proportion of other writers are in the same boat (not sure about the 'top angler' bit ). Not a fan of 'advertorials' either and saddened by shameless 'plugging'.

 

I like quite a few - not all - of your articles in Coarse Angling Today - the only coarse angling magazine I read. There's no 'plugging' in CAT though. Very little anyway. Recent one on roach was good, and a few issues back the tidal fishing.

[Dick Dastardly]

Pat your reply makes it look like you've missed Anderoos point and I'm sure you haven't!

 

Nothing to do with a dislike of any set company,nothing to do with the products being good or bad ,helping to catch fish or not. Simply a dislike of being taken for a mug (ie paying to read an advert for one!) in several ways!

 

Also despite this being a fairly common grievance among many anglers he has expressed his views with a slight tongue in cheek/degree of humour and no personal attacks.

 

Several "off duty" writers agree with him and even though "guilty as charged" admit its simply the economics of being a modern day "professional"/"full time" angling journo.

 

So instead of trying to just force feed us more of the hype (which is what many are objecting to in the first place) cant you give a better reply? or are you going to just use the "this is the first and last time I will discuss/reply to a thread concerning Pallatrax with you on this forum" clause.Other than Ive seen you've posted on the new FM I don't know who you are but judging by your defence presume you've some involvement with Pallatrax?

[Anderoo]

It was a belter, from all sides.. probably the best reply was Graham Marsdens, I've copied it below...his finishing line is very apt!

 

Tight Lines

 

So the ideal fishing magazine is one that:

 

 

has few if any adverts

no products mentioned by name in the articles

reviews that tell you in no uncertain terms that a product is (if it is) total cr*p (even if it was made by a manufacturer that advertises heavily in your mag)

never publishes articles with topics that have been published previously

and has an enormous cover price to cover the lack of advertising revenue

 

Sounds easy enough. Anyone willing to make an investment?

 

Meanwhile, back in the real world........

 

It wasn't my favourite Patrick!

 

My PM inbox is constantly inundated with fan mail, I can barely manage it No, I just googled your name.

 

It's an interesting thing this advertising revenue. Am I to take it that companies pay magazines for their sponsered writers to submit articles? In the same way the company would buy advertising space? Genuine question.

 

EDIT: I forgot to say, it seems that the people who tolerate the product placement and constant plugging do literally 'tolerate' it. So if people like me stop buing the mags and people like them just skim over the obvious plugging, who benefits?

 

Now, if a writer who WASN'T sponsered by Pallatrax (or whoever) sung the praises of some of your gear in an article, I'd be interested! Wouldn't that be better all round?

Edited February 9, 2011 by Anderoo

[PatrickALeigh]

.....I also make no apologies for saying that stonze are pointless. Normal leads don't scare fish, they are a consistent size and density and cast better, and are cheaper......

 

 

 

Let's work through that shall we.

 

No need to apologise, your opinion... all be it a wrong one

 

Normal leads don't scare fish? .... are you sure, totally back that up... what about the spooky carp you referred to earlier... why the need for subtle colours (leads, rigs, tubing etc.. I assume that was what you were referring to that needed to be subtle?) in clear water.... Ever fished for heavilly pressured barbel, low density stocked sections of river and watched them approach a rig and lead?

 

Consistent size? what the chuff has that got to do with it?.. are you telling me the gravel, stones and bottom of the lakes and rivers you fish are all perfectly formed and identical in make up? surely not? therefore, as I am sure they are not, then using something natural and not perfectly formed and un-natural to their environment COULD help get a bite from a spooky carp or barbel... one thing is for certain, they won't catch you any less!

 

Density.. yep, lead is quite dense... and? ... adpat other components and explore rig dynamics and the density matters not a jot in most situations..

 

Cast better? really? I would hazard a guess that most on here cast anywhere between 1 yard and 70 yards most of the time they fish with a lead... pretty sure that I or other anglers could drop a stone anywhere you asked in that area without issue....

 

Cheaper? .... not if you make your own , nobody is forcing you to buy them.

 

Environmentally friendly? ... You missed that bit... in these days when it seems the fashion to drop your weight when carp fishing as written by all and sundry in the carp mags and by their associated anglers, would it not be better to drop a stone rather than a lump of lead?

 

Absorbant? yep, can take on flavours as an added attractant to your baited rig area.

 

Oh, Hi Mark.... nice roach article the other week

[PatrickALeigh]

Pat your reply makes it look like you've missed Anderoos point and I'm sure you haven't!

 

Nothing to do with a dislike of any set company,nothing to do with the products being good or bad ,helping to catch fish or not. Simply a dislike of being taken for a mug (ie paying to read an advert for one!) in several ways!

 

Also despite this being a fairly common grievance among many anglers he has expressed his views with a slight tongue in cheek/degree of humour and no personal attacks.

 

Several "off duty" writers agree with him and even though "guilty as charged" admit its simply the economics of being a modern day "professional"/"full time" angling journo.

 

So instead of trying to just force feed us more of the hype (which is what many are objecting to in the first place) cant you give a better reply? or are you going to just use the "this is the first and last time I will discuss/reply to a thread concerning Pallatrax with you on this forum" clause.Other than Ive seen you've posted on the new FM I don't know who you are but judging by your defence presume you've some involvement with Pallatrax?

 

Budgie,

It's Patrick or Paddy please... Pats come from cows backsides and my mother is not a cow

 

Nope, I think even Andrew will admit that his previous postings smack more of a hatred towards Pallatrax in general, and this and the previous posts is what I was referring too. I have not missed his point about 'being taken for a mug' as you put it by what he dislikes in the mags.. however, as I've explained, it is the nature of the beast these days.. read Graham Marsdens post.. sums it up in 5 or 6 lines.

 

I've made no personal attacks, I've responded as a right to reply as he mentions a company I am now involved with. I can tell you, and this is straight up, you may see it as all hype, however, my involvement is only recent but my belief in the product is not. Long before any close tie in with the business I began using Stonze for very heavily fished Barbel, 3, 4 or 5 fish a season was a result on this particular section..... a switch to the Pallatrax gear - Not given but paid for - saw me land every fish in the section more than once in the space of 3 months - I was, as they say, hooked! ... not hype, not plugging, Fact!

 

I think you'll find that due to the delay in my postings being submitted by a moderator you may have missed some points I've made...

 

I'm not upset, un-happy.... just answering as I have the right to do so.... unlike many magazines

[PatrickALeigh]

It wasn't my favourite Patrick!

 

My PM inbox is constantly inundated with fan mail, I can barely manage it No, I just googled your name.

 

It's an interesting thing this advertising revenue. Am I to take it that companies pay magazines for their sponsered writers to submit articles? In the same way the company would buy advertising space? Genuine question.

 

EDIT: I forgot to say, it seems that the people who tolerate the product placement and constant plugging do literally 'tolerate' it. So if people like me stop buing the mags and people like them just skim over the obvious plugging, who benefits?

 

Now, if a writer who WASN'T sponsered by Pallatrax (or whoever) sung the praises of some of your gear in an article, I'd be interested! Wouldn't that be better all round?

 

I'm sure it was'nt your favourite

 

Of course publishers will give more column inches to those companies who pay for adverts than those that don't.... it's the way of this capitalist and commercial world we live in... you spend £1500 or an advert and you'll get space... magazine publishers are not charities

 

Who benefits? 5% stop buying the mags, 15% tolerate the plugging and 80% read it front to back, adverts, plugs and product placement included and then buy product.... It's called marketing.... who benefits.... the adveritser, people buy his product.... the publisher - people still buy the mag and the advertiser continues to place add spend... who loses.... nobody really, personal choice and all that come into play at that point.

 

Non Pallatrax sponsered articles mentioning the product... blimey, we've got so many that might take a while ... seriously though, I'll dig some out for you... there are lots too

 

Tight Lines