So, what do you want of an angling weekly then?

[Bill Eborn]

No David Brent got made redudant

[phonebush]

I would like two choices. One, like most sporting mags in the US with short articles and lots of pics suited to be read in the crapper while concentrating on more important matters. Another, more technical in depth issue, perhaps quarterly. The problem I see with the more technical issue is that there is just so much you can say about angling's technical information. I mean, a fish is a fish is a fish and they live in water. (Well maybe not?)

Phone

[Peter Waller]

Bill, re market research, you have hit the nail fairly and squarly on the head!

 

I wonder, back in the heyday of Angling Times, 1960 and thereabouts, what proportion of the angling population read it then in comparison to today? In other words pre and post market research! Or, to put it another way, in the days of Dick Walker versus the days of Des Taylor

 

If todays Angling Times is the result of market reseach then who on earth did the research team ask, and what did they ask for heavens sakes?

[matthew]

Not sure whether this is an example of the 'rose tinted syndrome' but the modern day 'Times' and 'Mail' bear little resemblance to their former selves. Is it the contributors? Who can forget such writers as Bill Keal, Tom Williams, Dick Walker, DCF, FJ etc. Now it seems we are stuck with that pseudo countryman Des Taylor. As for their use of alliteration....enough said!

 

Come to think of it the monthlies are not much better. Same old thing churned out.....Julian Cundiff rearranging the same article.....Tony Miles has churned out the same stuff for years. I could go on! Grrr!

[davidP]

The problem for magazines these days is that the majority of anglers in the UK aren't interested in wordy in-depth articles - they want pictures, reviews, rigs & gossip. This is what AT & AM cater for - tabloid journalism for a tabloid generation. It's what they've always catered for but the market has changed and they've had to change with it. It also explains why Improve Your Coarse Fishing is successfull as it's an expanded version of the same thing. Even the specialist magazines have moved away from writing to become more like instruction manuals and have become so tightly targetted that if you aren't into exactly their speciality there's nothing to read.

 

'Quality' writing doesn't pay these days unless you charge a lot for it - it just doesn't sell the volume required to make money. One of the things that attracted me to AnglersNet in the early days was the quality and depth of the writing and the thinking behind it because it simply wasn't available anywhere else. Sadly these days we're in a minority, and I can't honestly see it changing.

[Spiderfan]

Hi Peter,

 

Could you qualify what you mean by a ‘leading angler’ or a ‘worthwhile’ one?

 

‘Tis a rare breed, someone who knows their onions on the bank and who can write in an interesting and entertaining manner.

 

All too often nowadays, its people with privileged access and a politically controversial topic line that get their ‘work’ published. That, and last year’s rigs . . .

[Peter Waller]

Spiderfan:

Hi Peter,

 

Could you qualify what you mean by a ‘leading angler’ or a ‘worthwhile’ one?

 

‘Tis a rare breed, someone who knows their onions on the bank and who can write in an interesting and entertaining manner.

 

All too often nowadays, its people with privileged access and a politically controversial topic line that get their ‘work’ published. That, and last year’s rigs . . .

There are many 'leading' anglers out there, and quite a few are 'wortwhile' subjects for an indepth article. As you rightly say few of these worthwhile, leading lights have the ability to write adequately, but all have the ability to be interviewed by a capable journalist.

[Spiderfan]

Peter Waller:

. . . . interviewed by a capable journalist.

Ah, I see . . . the Rita Skeeter's of the world!

[phil dean]

I have some old anglers mail annuals, are these still produced as I still enjoy reading them.

[Spindle]

I'm confused by the opinion that Angler's have a limited attention span, and that the younger generation aren't interested in angling press as it used to be in the "good old days".

 

First, why is Waterlog so popular? In order to read this fine magazine, it's not an attention span you need, more a monster IQ. I assume it is popular? I wonder what it's actual readership numbers are.

 

And if "younger readers" are the target audience of AT and AM, why is it that there seems to be so few young anglers (apparently)? I would have thought that the biggest number of anglers fall in the 25-60 bracket. Which means that most of them are intelligent enough to want something they can really get their brain into, such as Big Fish magazine, which I too enjoyed very much.

 

Personally, I think the magazines are simply working within an industry that is vastly different to yesteryear. Before the "instant fishing, sponsored by..." world of today, fishing was more about "being there". Today it's all about "being seen using brand name X", and "catch this many fish in a made-to-measure fish puddle".

 

It's not just magazines, it's fishing literature as a whole. Personally, I think it's a sad situation, and doubt it will every get any better.

 

I blame Chesters. And he'll probably blame the government...