Well Known Angling Weekly

[Tony U]

My mate at work fed up of the febrile content in the one of the angling weeklys emailed them with the following:

 

T**,

 

As a leading fishing publication in 2005, don't you reckon it's about time to get rid of the carp girls and the ****-poor assortment of barely dressed teenagers to model the new gear? And what about the smut on page 34 of the November 15th issue? It's just so unnecessary. I'm a 24 year old father and liberal minded fishing addict but I'm dissatisfied with (some of) the tat that you churn out. When my son is old enough to come fishing with me and read my old copies of AM on the bank, how am I to explain that girls aren't just there to hold your landing net and that all immigrants aren't stealing and eating fish from The Lea every day etc, etc. A fresh and modern look to your mag should extend further than glossy pages and a web site.

 

When sitting on the tube next to a woman (one of many fishing-minority groups often offended by **) I have to either flick to a more appropriate page or put my ** away and read something else. Really, it's degrading and embarrassing for all concerned. How is fishing to progress when it's stuck in some narrow-minded time-warp? Equality and Inclusion isn't just about ensuring you give ethnic minorities a chance at a job interview.

 

And what about the fabulous *******' boys and Angling species? They're either sexist, xenophobic and/or down right insulting (but rarely funny. In fact, very, very rarely). You're reworking tired clichés and continuing to give the impression that course fishing is the preserve of the white working-class male. OK, the majority of carp anglers do appear to be 30 year old mockney plumbers but it doesn't have to be that way. There is an enormous wider community out there but you're just not giving any incentive for them to part with their £1.30... You claim to be the friendliest team in fishing and yet to many ** is unapproachable, intimidating and behind-the-times.

 

** seems so... archaic, insular and old. What does Becky Randall have to say about the teenage girls bending over a rod pod and pouting all over your glossy weekly? Is every face on your team white because you extole the virtues of equal opportunity to all. Invisible barriers can be just as hard to climb as physical ones.

 

Gimme a job (just kidding, please look into bringing ** into 2006, not 1976)

 

Kind regards,

************

 

He received the following response:

 

Dear ********,

 

thank you for taking the time to express your views about **... most interesting.

 

As an editorial team who all fish regularly, in all kinds of situations, we have a broad experience of the many kinds of people who are interested in the sport. And we do not feel what we are producing is alienating them... sales trends in recent months suggest ** is outperforming other titles in this market. Ask yourself why?

 

We have made certain changes this summer (far more than than a website, which already existed, and glossy pages, which are the same paper stock as before). Since the refresh we have only had hardly any complaints (which is unusual when a magazine changes)... and many, many congratulations for making our pages more lively, slicker and interesting. The design is very modern... 1976 it certainly is not.

 

The use of good looking models is hardly offensive... if so have you written letters of objection to the editors of most daily newspapers and half of the consumer titles you'll find in your average Smiths?

 

Angling Species has been one of our most popular new additions. And if you think that is has churned out a few tired stereotypes, why is it the series is currently at No.23? There are indeed MANY colourful characters within our sport... and we strive to highlight them in any ways we can.

 

** publishes more pictures of lady anglers with fish than any other title published in the UK. You don't appear to have noticed this. Maybe we should reject far more pictures by white working class males of a certain age in order to satisfy the demands of the wider public? I don't think so.

 

We would love angling to inspire more varied ethnic groups, and have reported on a few moves (by the EA) to make this happen. If you know of any such schemes, or are actively involved in encouraging 'minority groups' into angling then we would like to know about it.

 

I do not feel ** has moved back to 1976, but would - as ever - welcome any editorial bright ideas you may have to draw more people into our progessive title.

 

Regards,

 

***

 

So what do we think???

Edited November 23, 2005 by Tony U

[Elton]

I think they did bloody well to reply so comprehensively.

 

I've had a few emails over the years telling me how to run my site. I used to reply like that - now I delete them. They could easily have done the same.

 

I have a feeling it may not be the reply your friend was after, but any magazine has to take an editorial stance based on the market they're in, which is what they appear to be doing here.

 

PS - the initials left in kind of tell me what mag it was

[Tony U]

I have got to admit I was impressed that a reply was forthcoming so quickly my colleague said it was overnight and this shows a good level of customer care and response.

I also get the impression he genuinely wants to be more inclusive in his paper.

[ayjay]

I like this bit in the response.

 

Since the refresh we have only had hardly any complaints

 

New proof reader required, gissajob.

 

[DavyR]

Hmm - AM (can I say that? Oh yes, *you* did) have conveniently forgotten that they were featuring the scantily-clad "Angela the Anglers MailMaid" in the 60s when AT was still a sober and respectable organ (oo-er missus).

[Tony U]

I still find it hard to see how he justifies that awful cartoon strip, does anyone really find it amusing?

[Alan Stubbs]

I've been scathing about the angling weeklies consistently over the last few years.

 

Some of their stances have been purely irresponsible - tacitly encouraging breaking the law on occasion.

 

My reading of them is second-hand - in return for giving friends a lift to and from work.

 

Overall I find the quality of writing poor, more like the sort of stuff found in school magazines, full of typo's - including the adverts (but that's the fault of the advertiser), and most of the articles written by 'names' are little more than a plug for their sponsors.

 

Since Kevin Green took the reins at IYCF, that has followed the same route and I've now cancelled my subscription to it. Being a monthly, it has even less excuse for poor sub-editting. But it is still poor.

[Severn Wolf]

I was there all the way until....................

 

Is every face on your team white because you extole the virtues of equal opportunity to all. Invisible barriers can be just as hard to climb as physical ones.

 

Mmmmm, l

[peter mccue]

I'm with the mag myself, they are in an awkward situation regarding modern readership demands. On a personal level I would much prefer in depth articles about events affecting angling....but then I don't have to make enough money to keep everyone in a job do I.

 

Whilst theres no doubts a few readers of the angling mags will be around my age (50's), the stark reality for the editors is the bulk of their readers will be a damn sight younger, & will have been weaned on soft porn newspapers & glossy mags, if some of these glossys were on sale years ago, they would have been out the road of kids on a top self somewhere, now you see them in dentists & doctors surgeries! Also attention spans are so much shorter now as well, you need to grab your readers attention & hit him with tasty little titbits before he loses interest. This is a newspapers reality.

 

Now if you're going to survive in the marketplace, then you either sell your wares or go under. Unfortunately the British media has this increasing tendency to market themselves to the lowest common denominator & this fuels a further drop in standards in a sad downward spiral.

 

In the light of other media efforts, the angling mags have a fair way to go yet. Thats not to say they shouldn't make the effort to raise the standards of their readership...they should!! but always bear in mind the nuts & bolts of their situation.

 

To be honest the original letter was a touch too PC & a little sanctimonious for me.

[DavyR]

Being a monthly, it has even less excuse for poor sub-editting.

 

Shot yourself in the foot there, Alan!