Target Shooter December Uploaded

[Laurie]

Hi guys,

 

Just to let you know, the December issue of the free Targetshooter online magazine has been uploaded. Foxing2Nite gets a mention for his amazing Factory Sporter group in the Diggle 600yd BR competition a couple of weeks ago.

 

Target Shooter online mag

 

Laurie

[legion]

Great mag, the paper publications could do well to try to match it- then they would be money well spent.

[baldie]

Its a great e-zine. My computer is shagged however, so its extremely hard work to view, and i know i miss bits. not the same as the old paper target sports though. You could keep that, and read, and read it....even in the crapper.

The market is still obviously there for a magazine....you only have to look at the viewing figures for the e-zine. The tiny slot in the snuff mag "sporting shooter" just hasn,t worked. We had our advertising subscription switched from target sports to it [not by choice either ] and its just run out .We wont be renewing it. The advertising on the e-zine is great. The mag has interesting articles from good writers, and its perfectly believable....unlike the current paper mags.

[eldon]

I don't get the "I better not slag it so we don't lose advertising" syndrome with the e-zine article writers.

 

As you say baldie the articles are believable which is more than can be said for some articles. Lets hope it continues because the articles are not only good but well informed.

[AndyD]

Hya Guys,

 

i would like to introduce myself as i am one of the three guys that started the magazine and Laurie know me even though we have not had the pleasure to meet as he is one our great writers, i would just like to say thank you for the very kind words. It is guys like you and the letters we get that make it all worthwhile doing this.

 

We really started out with nothing but the contacts we had and up to this date now we have had well over 110,000 readers in 9 month since we started, we hope to continue in the New Year to make it one if not the best magazine out there and of course it will be free!!

 

Baldie,

I did send you a private message but not sure if you got it but you can email me at customer.services@targetshooter.co.uk and maybe we maybe able to do something for you in the New Year if your interested.

 

Once again guys on behalf of the team, many thanks.

 

AndyD

[baldie]

Got your message Andy.

 

I hope the mag goes from strength to strength. At least three of your writers are personal friends of mine, and men of great character, which shines through in their honest, no nonsense articles, without fear, or favour...i will add.

The honesty in the articles is what has ensured your success. This is where the current magazines, on the news stands have failed. There is just too much bullshit printed in them.

 

Welcome to a friendly forum.

[MJR]

Great Mag!

Laurie,

can I just thankyou for your recent article on reloading the .308. I am just in the process of adding one to my fac with the intention of using it for long (well longer than my usual) shooting and looking to eventually become consistent out to 1000yds on targets. I look forward to your next part on brass prep.

Mike.

[Laurie]

Great Mag!

Laurie,

can I just thankyou for your recent article on reloading the .308. I am just in the process of adding one to my fac with the intention of using it for long (well longer than my usual) shooting and looking to eventually become consistent out to 1000yds on targets. I look forward to your next part on brass prep.

Mike.

 

 

 

Mike,

 

thanks - glad to help. I'm writing part 3 now!

 

Laurie

[TonyH]

...The market is still obviously there for a magazine....you only have to look at the viewing figures for the e-zine.

It's vastly easier & cheaper to look at an "e-zine" than to walk down the newsagent and pay a few quid for a proper print publication. It's not possible to infer a potential buyer/readership for a print publication, from web visitor stats. Even though start-ups for new print publications have become easier & cheaper than ever in recent years, thanks to computer based input, page makeup & print developments, thereby facilitating (potentially) magazines aimed at ever smaller niche markets, shooting & fishing in this country are not well served by magazines. Go to France or Germany and there's a bigger variety of fieldsports titles on sale, more upmarket, distinctly better than the often tawdry things in UK printed on bog paper… It's all about advertising revenue - and the only fieldsports title I can think of that commands respectable revenue is The Field. I used to write a column for it in a modest way, plus the occasional feature; I used to write for other fishing & shooting titles too. Most of the latter are, if one does this for a living, not worthwhile: such titles have always had a solid amount of contributions from people who are semi-pro at best, or more accurately keen amateurs who can write or shoot pictures. They tend to do it for fun, or in some cases I recall very well, to feed their egos; and they don't need or demand pro fees.

This is not knocking Laurie or others mentioned here who apparently write for the TS e-zine, but it reinforces what I've already implied about the (un)sustainability of enough decent shooting mags: without a pool of professional freelance contributors - as opposed to keen amateurs - there is a limit to how far a specialist magazine can go, a limit to the advertising revenue it can command, and hence severe limits to its viability in the harsh commercial world.

I would be very interested to learn something of the economics behind this and other e-zines: I have come across others, in different fields, and I know for a fact that even lower rates for contributors were on offer than is often the case with print magazines… Publishers have been ardently trying to drive down rates for both writers and photographers, pleading "the recession" etc; I don't say they are lying through their teeth and are merely crude exploiters, but…

So anyway, I don't read Target Shooter since I'm not interested in target shooting; but the e-zine phenomenon interests me. Just don't imagine that its current seeming popularity necessarily could carry over into print. Me, I prefer US shooting publications, far more geared to my interests (varmint hunting) and if you subscribe, very much cheaper too!

 

The tiny slot in the snuff mag "sporting shooter" ...

"Snuff mag" - ?? Explain?

TonyH

[MJR]

Laurie, I look forward to reading it.

 

TonyH, I'm sure all the points you make are valid. However from my point of view, that being one of an experienced shooter but novice in regard to extended range shooting and by that I mean 300yd plus I find the Target shooter Emag brilliant. The contributors may or may not be 'professional' as in making a living from journalism but from a readers perspective (well mine at least) they all come over as honest, true speaking and professional. The results that some contributors have achieved in their chosen shooting disciplines surely qualifies them to at least offer their opinion. They also seem to be indifferent to the branded names and give an open and honest appraisal of what ever it is they are reviewing or offering an opinion on. Maybe this is a result of reduced commercial pressure, I don't know. All I would say is I hope it goes from strenght to strenght and long may it continue and I would hope to meet some of the contributors one day in person.

[TonyH]

...The contributors may or may not be 'professional' as in making a living from journalism but from a readers perspective (well mine at least) they all come over as honest, true speaking and professional. The results that some contributors have achieved in their chosen shooting disciplines surely qualifies them to at least offer their opinion....

Maybe I didn't express myself clearly. I wasn't knocking the expertise of contributors or their qualifications to write about their chosen subject. I was discussing the economics of periodical publishing with specific regard to shooting & fishing mags, the long-term significance of "keen amateur" contributors within this niche, the downward pressure on fees of this body of non-pro contributors, the consequent shortage of professional journalists willing to contribute to such titles, and the knock-on effect upon market presence & advertising revenues… Plus of course the profound difference - particularly in economic terms - between e-zines and print. My first illustrated feature article was published in 1980, I did a lot with UK (and sometimes foreign) shooting & fishing titles in the '80s & '90s, and I continue as a professional in editorial photography & journalism, albeit in a very different field. So I know a little about the business.

Regards, TonyH

[Laurie]

It's vastly easier & cheaper to look at an "e-zine" than to walk down the newsagent and pay a few quid for a proper print publication. It's not possible to infer a potential buyer/readership for a print publication, from web visitor stats. Even though start-ups for new print publications have become easier & cheaper than ever in recent years, thanks to computer based input, page makeup & print developments, thereby facilitating (potentially) magazines aimed at ever smaller niche markets, shooting & fishing in this country are not well served by magazines. Go to France or Germany and there's a bigger variety of fieldsports titles on sale, more upmarket, distinctly better than the often tawdry things in UK printed on bog paper… It's all about advertising revenue - and the only fieldsports title I can think of that commands respectable revenue is The Field. I used to write a column for it in a modest way, plus the occasional feature; I used to write for other fishing & shooting titles too. Most of the latter are, if one does this for a living, not worthwhile: such titles have always had a solid amount of contributions from people who are semi-pro at best, or more accurately keen amateurs who can write or shoot pictures. They tend to do it for fun, or in some cases I recall very well, to feed their egos; and they don't need or demand pro fees.

This is not knocking Laurie or others mentioned here who apparently write for the TS e-zine, but it reinforces what I've already implied about the (un)sustainability of enough decent shooting mags: without a pool of professional freelance contributors - as opposed to keen amateurs - there is a limit to how far a specialist magazine can go, a limit to the advertising revenue it can command, and hence severe limits to its viability in the harsh commercial world.

I would be very interested to learn something of the economics behind this and other e-zines: I have come across others, in different fields, and I know for a fact that even lower rates for contributors were on offer than is often the case with print magazines… Publishers have been ardently trying to drive down rates for both writers and photographers, pleading "the recession" etc; I don't say they are lying through their teeth and are merely crude exploiters, but…

So anyway, I don't read Target Shooter since I'm not interested in target shooting; but the e-zine phenomenon interests me. Just don't imagine that its current seeming popularity necessarily could carry over into print. Me, I prefer US shooting publications, far more geared to my interests (varmint hunting) and if you subscribe, very much cheaper too!

 

 

"Snuff mag" - ?? Explain?

TonyH

 

 

Tony,

 

shooting magazine full-time editors aside, I've only met one British gun writer (on shotguns) who could be described as a 'professional journalist', and he admits this is only feasible because he is also a motoring correspondent doing features for regional weeklies. (To a certain extent there is synergy here even, as 4X4s and pick-ups are of interest to both sets of readers.) As you'll know, many regular contributors are in the gun trade, full or part-time. So, writing fees may be an add-on to their income, but even if there are no (financial) costs involved in their research, the rates paid by most magazines will give a very poor hourly return for their time spent in both research and the writing itself.

 

The distinction between 'professional' and 'keen amateur' is a red herring in my view, and the latter may often do a better job than the former - not because 'amateurs' are in any way intrinsically better (or for that matter, worse) than professionals - but because they will often spend time and money on gathering the material for their features and preparing it that would be completely uneconomic for the professional. Let's take a couple of examples. 'Precision Shooting' magazine, long regarded as the foremost technical publication for accuracy orientated rifleshooters, used to have lots of 'professional' contributors - Dr Geoff Kolbe (Border Barrels), 'Boots' Obermeyer (top barrel maker); Derrick Martin (Accuracy Speaks, top US rifle builder), and many more from precision gunsmithing outfits and manufacturers like Sierra Bullets and the powder companies. You'll rarely find such people now in the publication other than in the letters section. Why? Because, surviving in today's business world is so tough that they give 110% to making rifles, barrels or whatever. Speak to our top guys in the specialist gun trade - Norman Clark, for instance - and they'll tell you that having a day out shooting for pleasure has become a rare treat, never mind doing it on a regular basis for others to read about. I write a lot on handloading - covering a single cartridge usually involves 500 + rounds loaded and test-fired, and multiple range visits at 120 miles per round trip. When there, I can't demand priority over anybody else on busy days and will take my turn acting as RCO, so a visit may see 100 rounds fired, or sometimes only 25. In terms of 'the bottom line', this activity is highly loss-making as my accountant tells me every year! One of the few 'professionals' left in the technical writing field is Bryan Litz, a former US Airforce rocket scientist, and now Berger Bullets ballistician - and you'll find articles by him in TargetShooter.co.uk too.

 

On the other hand, I know of some so-called British professionals, no name - no pack drill, who review shotguns and rifles on the basis of a single short range test of a few minutes, and pocket the unused cartridges they persuaded the product's distributor to supply free. An editor I've worked for tells that a rival magazine once produced a review complete with group sizes for a firearm that neither he nor any other tester could get to work, and which the supplier subsequently agreed had an inherent design flaw!!

 

You say you read American publications - so do I, and have largely stopped my subscriptions now. I see the same material endlessly recycled and too many findings published based on what is openly admitted to have been one day testing and a small number of 3-round groups using factory ammunition. I'm not criticising the writers who know their stuff, but even at the much higher page rates that American magazines can afford for their regular writers, have to match the inputs to the returns. Note too how many American features are based on weekend prairie dog shooting trips or elk hunts jointly organised by a gun manufacturer, riflescope maker/importer, and ammunition supplier. It's very difficult to be objective about people's products when they've paid for your (and the missus's) flights across the USA, provided 5 star accomodation, and paid for an exclusive guided expedition on a 'hunting ranch' that would cost Joe Public hundreds,maybe thousands of dollars. A regular criticism of many American professional gun writers is that they would have lauded the (notorious failure) Ford Edsel to the skies in print if they'd been given an all-expenses paid weekend in Florida to do it! This isn't my view, but that of many American shooters, and those in the business - read "Mermelstein's Guide to Metallic Cartridge Evolution" published by Sinclair International 2004, written by Robert Mermelstein, a keen US sporting shooter and former top marketing executive.

 

Amongst the gun writers who have most influenced me over the years have been Ken Waters who produced many scores of 'Pet Loads' of detailed handloading development while a full-time police officer, latterly head of a police department; Frank de Haas on rifle actions as a part-time add-on to being a gunsmith; Brig General Julian Hatcher, and many other such US military figures including Townsend Whelen who were part-time writers on top of being full-time soldiers; more recently Nancy Tomkins, David Tubb, Mike Ratigan and Bryan Litz, top American competition shooters who have taken the trouble to pass their expertise on to other shooters. They may or may not make money out of their writing, but do it primarily to help the sport. If you ask my fellow TargetShooter e-zine writers such as Carl Boswell, Vince Bottomley, Tim Finley, that's the reason you'll get for them doing it!

 

As far as the economics of E-Zines v printed magazines are concerned, I cannot comment on that as I have no stake in either type of the two publications I write for. The former obviously has no printing costs, but then no newsagent sales revenue either relying on advertising revenue alone. I suspect the advertisers expect lower rates from an e-zine than an established printed publication, but that's pure specualation on my part. I can say that rates to the writers are no worse, and likely marginally better from the former than the latter. In the latter case having written for the same publication for 11 years, I actually receive less today than when I started! The original publisher went bust and the individual who bought the wreckage decided unilaterally to introduce a sliding rate scale that pays less per page for a long detailed article than a single-page 'quickie', whereas it had always been a flat rate previously. Moreover, the top rate is the same as it was 11 years ago, and think whta inflation has been over that period! The long and short of it is that the UK target shooting market is too small to support any sort of specialist shooting magazine that is conventionally published. A lower cost Internet version not only suits this market better, but remember the Internet is worldwide. You laud specialist American varmint publications - and I've no beef with that at all - but bear in mind that TargetShooters is getting thousands of 'hits' from around the world each month raising the profile of shooting here, and perhaps even ultimately able to attact as many advertisers from outside of the UK as from home retailers and distributors. As an example of how the publication is regarded in one of the top American shooting 'blogs' (read by vast numbers of keen varmint shooters too in the home of that activity!) have a look at:

 

 

AccurateShooter Daily Bulletin

 

and click on 'Previous Posts' to go back to 1st December

 

 

Laurie

[TonyH]

I've only met one British gun writer (on shotguns) who could be described as a 'professional journalist'…..many regular contributors are in the gun trade, full or part-time. So, writing fees may be an add-on to their income……….. the rates paid by most magazines will give a very poor hourly return for their time spent in both research and the writing itself.

Yes. This is exactly the phenomenon I describe. It's a longstanding, permanent feature of angling & shooting journalism in this country. Those low rates are a consequence of the readiness of such amateur contributors to accept them, since they write for reasons other than earning a living: innate interest, publicity for one's business, status, ego, any of these singly or in combination. The low rates deter the professional journalists, and while what you say about

the latter may often do a better job than the former..

is perfectly true, neverthless it is the case in journalism as in any other field - plumbing, aviation, ditch-digging, you name it - that pros do things better. This is a limiting factor with fieldsports titles, one that does not pertain in most magazine publishing sectors; in the areas in which I operate most, there is a substantial body of professional journos who do very high quality work, and amateurs rarely get a look-in. These titles in consequence are of a consistently, predictably high standard, production values are the best, advertising rates can be set at high enough levels to sustain these, and so on.

So I do dispute your claim about the distinction between amateurs & pros being a "red herring"! I think you've misunderstood me, or gone off on a sidetrack to some extent, since the "professionals" to whom I refer are journos - not shooting professionals such as gunsmiths…

You say you read American publications…

Certainly, ever since I used to read a friend's copies of Field & Stream at school - he was sent them by an uncle in the States. I prefer them principally for the content - my kind of shooting, my kind of fishing - though I think also that they have higher production values than too many Brit titles. Our domestic stuff has far too much about shotguns and airguns, anyway. I agree with what you say about the recycling of material, and the sponsored-shooting stuff by "gunwriters" who've been given some cool shooting kit to play with on a freeby trip to some ranch - even a couple of such in the latest Varmint Hunter, sadly… But this phenomenon is not limited to American publications, and I have personal knowledge of how exactly the same system operates in the UK - with those "amateur" writers…

Amongst the gun writers who have most influenced me over the years …… They may or may not make money out of their writing, but do it primarily to help the sport. If you ask my fellow TargetShooter e-zine writers such as Carl Boswell, Vince Bottomley, Tim Finley, that's the reason you'll get for them doing it!

This is very laudable, but it has inevitable consequences for the economics of magazine publishing - see above.

E-Zines …obviously has no printing costs, but then no newsagent sales revenue either relying on advertising revenue alone. I suspect the advertisers expect lower rates from an e-zine than an established printed publication, but that's pure specualation on my part.

All that I've learned suggests you are correct.

I can say that rates to the writers are no worse, and likely marginally better from the former than the latter.

I would be extremely surprised. I know for a fact that journos everywhere, in all sorts of fields, are being offered pitifully low fees to write for web-based publications. This might be a reflection of the already low fees generally on offer from print-based shooting magazines.

The long and short of it is that the UK target shooting market is too small to support any sort of specialist shooting magazine that is conventionally published.

This is a factor that has been exacerbated by progressively greater restrictions on shooting. The best example I know is Handgunner magazine, which I read for many years and regarded as the most literate shooting title ever published, as well as the most interesting UK mag by far. Inevitably it could not survive the 1997 Act.

A lower cost Internet version not only suits this market better..

Yes, certainly - for as long as it remains sustainable. My first post was in part a response to Legion's comment:

Great mag, the paper publications could do well to try to match it- then they would be money well spent.

- and in effect I said that this was unlikely, for reasons I then outlined. I wish Target Shooter and its contributors well: if it can survive it's a great service for target shooters, and with the beneficial side effects you mention. But if it survives, that will be on the back of dedicated amateur contributors; I write and take photographs for a living, and while I'd love to work again for fieldsports titles, there isn't enough money on offer to make it worth my while….

Regards, TonyH

[Laurie]

Tony,

 

I think we're in agreement on most things. Although I've never been a professional 'journo', I worked for years in marketing, then press & public relations in a high-profile public service industry (passenger railways) where I commissioned professional writers to produce features, wrote them myself on many occasions, and dealt with enquiries from regional and national newspapers, as well as trade publications.

 

The 'trade press' for this industry comprises the many railway magazines written partly for the half million or so professionals in the industry, but also the vast numbers of railway enthusiasts, so has quite a lot in common with shooting publications, except I'd say there is far more money in it for the more successful publishers, at least in over the counter magazine sales as you can see by the number of titles in High Street newsagents etc., as well as healthy subscription sales incomes. Even there, there is only a minority of professional writers supplemented by large numbers of amateur or part-time contributors. Many of these are (or were in my day - it may have changed) retired professional PR people like myself who adpated their skills to a subject they were interested in, such as a fellow I knew well who wrote on the apparently unrelated subjects of new timetable structures, and (his real love) on-train catering services and developments! Some of the most successful of the former graduated from the ranks of the latter, a good example being Roger Ford, long-time technical writer then technical editor for 'Modern Railways', a one-time English Electric diesel locomotive engineer who started by writing the odd enthusiast feature on rolling stock and ended up becoming an expert on railway industry finances and being a regular 'expert industry witness' on current affairs programmes such as Radio 4's 'Today'. If there was tension between the 'amateurs' and 'professionals' in railway journalism, I never heard Roger say so on the many occasions I was able to talk to him. I can well understand however that if you're a professional technical journalist, it must be galling to have part-timers apparently driving rates down, and one would wish to be in the same position as your example of time-served tradesmen whose work is protected by increasingly rigorous training and skills standards. The other side of that coin is called 'protectionism' of course and has always seen conflict since medieval times between those inside the 'guilds' and those outside.

 

 

However, we come back to the basic point that the business and revenues obtainable from paying subscribers / publication buyers and retail/trade advertisers are simply not big enough to support more than one or two mainstream publications and probably no specialist / niche market ones - and that applies to any 'technical hobby' subject whether railways, buses, aviation, oragami, or shooting. Looking at the US mags I used to read, there are a few full-time writers whose career has been such from a relatively early age, fine journalists such as Mike Venturino, but these are the exception not the rule even with the huge US shooting industry and number of participants behind them. Many of the finest writers are on a second or even third career and have the backing of a pension or 'day job' behind them, as well as a lifetime of experience of their subject as people who paid for their sport for decades before they could consider earning from it. I think particularly of Craig Boddington, a retired US Marine Corps colonel, now a superb book author, shooting feature writer and magazine editor - now full-time yes, paid a full-rate salary for his work - I presume and hope so - but could, or perhaps the appropriate word is 'would', he have done it straight from school or college without the 30 years plus of trekking around the world at his own expense and building up a vast amount of sporting shooting knowledge? I doubt it.

 

Where I think we'll have to agree to differ is that you see the output and efforts of writers such as Townsend Whelen, Ken Waters etc as being:

 

laudable, but it has inevitable consequences for the economics of magazine publishing

 

while I would argue that not only have they added enormously to the shooting sports (and I hope that I and my fellow 'amateurs' can do at least partly the same), but many of today's successful and respected shooting publications simply wouldn't exist today if they hadn't had - and still have - such contributors. Remember, even the late great Elmer Keith was a part-timer for most of his gun writing career, alongside being a cowpuncher, rancher, then professional 'hunting guide'. His arch rival Jack O' Connor latterly editor / chief writer of one of the great US sporting shooting publications was a professional academic, a financially comfortably off university English professor, before he was in a position to indulge his literary leanings. Take part-timers out of the equation and I'd argue you lose far more than you gain!

 

 

Laurie

[baldie]

I dont pretend to understand, or know anything about the journalism trade Tony...it isn,t my field at all.

I do know that work done on rifles for nothing, or goods sent for review, and left for the reviewer will only ever get a good review, truthfull or not. I,ve seen it happen too many times with the published papers that are still there. I also know that group sizes bragged about without photographic evidence mean jack s**t....another trait in the mags these days.

We no longer supply guns or gear to the mainstream publications for just these reasons. Instead, our stuff goes to the guys at target shooter, and it comes back....there are no, and never will be any freebies. Its the only way to guarantee an honest review generally. Not needed with the men already mentioned however, as they are honest.

 

I used to take the field myself, and it was a lovely, quality publication. I would say however, it was so, because of the clientele it serviced, and the huge adverising fees it no doubt levied.

 

People who get paid to do a job, be it advertising, or writing have to jump when the paymaster says so. If you piss the advertiser off....he goes elsewhere....not conducive to truth in print is it ? Give me an amateur writer anyday, who gets paid very little.They do it for the love of it, and can tell the truth.

 

My "snuff mag " comment was just that really. Everytime i open that magazine, i find it chock full of dead animals. Its not needed, and i seriously doubt the integrity of some of the "so called " hunters within its pages. The one that did it for was a roebuck severed head, propped up on a spade handle, on a vehicle bonnet. A far more interesting, and pleasant read could have been had, in a publication, such as you mention, "the field" and would not have relied on such a picture to make the article interesting.

 

I,m glad our advertising has expired with the mag.

 

Out of interest, what mags do you still write for Tony ?

[TonyH]

I think we're in agreement on most things.

Certainly Laurie, differences of interpretation in some cases.

Your references to the railway trade & hobbyist press are interesting:

..a fellow I knew well who wrote on the apparently unrelated subjects of new timetable structures, and (his real love) on-train catering services and developments!

for example! I have a certain peripheral knowledge of this world, gained via my (late) brother who was a lifelong railway buff. I'm sure you're right about this area of publishing being more solidly entrenched than shooting - it's a curious but hugely significant hobbyist subculture, here and abroad, it seems.

.. it must be galling to have part-timers apparently driving rates down, and one would wish to be in the same position as your example of time-served tradesmen whose work is protected by increasingly rigorous training and skills standards. The other side of that coin is called 'protectionism' of course and has always seen conflict since medieval times between those inside the 'guilds' and those outside.

I must point out that I'm not seeking any kind of protectionism, just commenting on different aspects of periodical publishing which have different controlling factors; fieldsports journalism has always been profoundly conditioned by the factors I've mentioned, whereas the mainstay of my work isn't: it's a matter of popular recreations necessarily breeding a significant number of enthusiasts who can also write about their hobby. At the same time it's not a matter of "competition" and reluctance by pros like me to accept such from amateurs: the latter are not "competing", they have a regular income so they don't have overheads, and can afford to linger over a feature as a labour of love because they are not dependent on it for a living. So they're not "competing" with a pro on anything like a level playing field.

.. we come back to the basic point that the business and revenues obtainable from paying subscribers / publication buyers and retail/trade advertisers are simply not big enough to support more than one or two mainstream publications and probably no specialist / niche market ones - and that applies to any 'technical hobby' subject whether railways, buses, aviation, oragami, or shooting.

I think your list throws up some interesting contrasts; aviation, for example, has a core market/readership of people with significantly greater discretionary expenditure than the average, so aviation mags are pretty smart, and there's a goodly selection.

Looking at the US mags I used to read…Many of the finest writers are on a second or even third career and have the backing of a pension or 'day job' behind them, as well as a lifetime of experience of their subject as people who paid for their sport for decades before they could consider earning from it..

Sure, but lots of those regular columnists - people like Rick Jamieson and Layne Simpson on Shooting Times - do so well, I hear, that for practical purposes the writing is very much their principal job, even though it's built upon experience gained elsewhere. A similar process has guided some of us in the work we do currently.

.. writers such as Townsend Whelen, Ken Waters etc …have added enormously to the shooting sports (and I hope that I and my fellow 'amateurs' can do at least partly the same), but many of today's successful and respected shooting publications simply wouldn't exist today if they hadn't had - and still have - such contributors…

I'd be the last to deny it - but again, I'm not belittling such writers, just pointing out the effect on commercial publishing (it's a business, a profit making enterprise) and professional journalism of this substantial body of essentially amateur journos… However, it doesn't work quite the same way in the States since hunting & shooting are such enormous business compared with the UK.

Regards, TonyH

[TonyH]

..I do know that work done on rifles for nothing, or goods sent for review, and left for the reviewer will only ever get a good review, truthfull or not. I,ve seen it happen too many times with the published papers that are still there.

I agree, in general; I've always thought this about motoring journalism, since it's not likely any car writer will be brutally honest about a car's shortcomings if it means he won't get invited to the next freeby car test on the Riviera or wherever… But this applies whether a writer is an amateur or a pro. I've done a lot of product writing about shooting kit, but hardly any reviewing as such (only latter example I recall is a Blaser in .243 once) so I haven't had to make these hard choices!

…our stuff goes to the guys at target shooter, and it comes back....there are no, and never will be any freebies. Its the only way to guarantee an honest review generally. Not needed with the men already mentioned however, as they are honest.

I always tried to be - but that doesn't stop you from getting freebies even if you try! I used to dread writing about shotgun cartridges because although I'd ask for "just a few samples" to photograph, the makers/importers would send the damn things by the boxful or caseful, and they're too heavy to return cheaply - not that they ever wanted the things returning… It's years since I did this kind of stuff but I'm still running on free cartridges, despite giving away loads to friends, 'cos I hardly ever use my shottie. I never scrounged stuff either, when doing the product pages (for example) for The Field - but people would say, Oh, by the way keep it Tony, too much trouble taking it back and we can't flog it as new any more… I've given away some of this too - though I do have some rather expensive bits of outdoor clothing. Shows you what sort of profit margin there is on kit…

People who get paid to do a job, be it advertising, or writing have to jump when the paymaster says so. If you piss the advertiser off....he goes elsewhere....not conducive to truth in print is it ? Give me an amateur writer anyday, who gets paid very little.They do it for the love of it, and can tell the truth.

I suggest this is an oversimplification. I've known a number of "big name" contributors to fishing & shooting mags, amateurs or semi-pro, and they were far from being necessarily the most truthful of people! And it's not the writer who dictates the degree of truthfulness or straight-talking in a review or feature, it's the editor, driven by his publisher, who is in turn driven by the demands of the readers - and the advertisers.

My "snuff mag " comment was just that really. Everytime i open that magazine, i find it chock full of dead animals. Its not needed…

Have you ever seen Varmint Hunter then, Baldie? Not sure you'd like it! I'm not too keen on gory pics myself, though showing people with non-gory dead quarry is fine by me.

Out of interest, what mags do you still write for Tony ?

Loosely speaking, the home-interest glossies, plus the self-build press, and sometimes the nationals and/or colour supplements; I do features on private homes, always stylish and sometimes very upmarket, mostly in UK but occasionally (and all too rarely) abroad. And as a commercial photographer I shoot advertising & PR stuff for, mostly, clients associated with homes & construction.

Regards, TonyH

[Laurie]

I'd be the last to deny it - but again, I'm not belittling such writers, just pointing out the effect on commercial publishing (it's a business, a profit making enterprise) and professional journalism of this substantial body of essentially amateur journos… However, it doesn't work quite the same way in the States since hunting & shooting are such enormous business compared with the UK.

Regards, TonyH

 

Tony,

 

thanks for your considered and detailed reply - yes, I think we're pretty well in agreement on most things. I certainly couldn't afford to spend as much time as I do on my pieces if I had to write another 10,000 words the next day for some other publication, or another feature. In fact, a problem with the British paper mags these days is that the publishers (and a few but not all editors) want features on highly technical subjects condensed down to 1,500 words or less. A friend had a big falling out on this when he was told that a £1,500 Schmidt & Bender PMII riflescope had to be reviewed in one page including a full set of images, as that was all "any scope merited".

 

Where we are definitely in agreement is that we are the poor relations in this field compared to the Americans, or I would say even some other sports such as golf in this country. This is reflected too in the mainstream press coverage, value of prizes for major competitions and so on. It's a long time since some of our rifle competitions carried valuable prizes and were covered in the Daily Telegraph.

 

Like you I was a fan of Jan Stevenson and 'Handgunner' magazine - a wonderfully informed if often over the top publication. Although not a pistol shooter at the time, I read the detailed articles on the series about the German Federal Republic's convoluted police pistol trials and the resulting Glock, Walther, SIG-Sauer etc semi-autos again and again. The only problem was you never knew when, or even if, it was going to appear as Jan S spent so much time in dispute with the police and getting his FAC and property back from them in the courts!

 

Unfortunately, we're back to the across society negative view of shooting in any form, led by hostile governments and officials, and supported by a largely negative press at both local and national level. I used to do PR for a major northern gunshop / importer, and never once had a press release lead to a story in the business's local newspaper despite major investment and success stories - thanks to the attitude of the editor (female) that all guns are bad, no matter what they're used for. In fact, one of the paper's full-time journo's wrote a comment piece that compared a BASC clay-shooting day for youngsters at Castle Howard directly to the forced recruitment of child soldiers into African militias. At least, they did publish my complaint about the lack of perspective and professionalism in the next edition. Despite allegedly being the primary regional newspaper for North Yorkshire, one of the largest farming and fieldsports counties in the land, this same great work of the fifth estate regularly carries silly letters and features from townees who know nothing at all about the countryside or its fauna and flora, and apparently hate all farmers, 'animal murderers', and anybody else who 'spoils their enjoyment of the countryside', this apparently being the sole purpose of its existence. It's only a matter of time before we're accused of generating an excessive 'carbon footprint', as that seems to be a label increasingly applied to any activity that a certain kind of person opposes!

 

Regards,

 

Laurie

[baldie]

Thank you Tony and Laurie for taking the time to give us all such an in depth, and interesting view of journalism tody. I for one, thoroughly enjoyed that.

 

Tony,

I,ve only seen a couple of varmint hunter mags, and thought they were very good personally. They had the type of photography that didn,t offend, much the same as the better fieldsports magazines we have here, such as the Field, shooting times etc. They wouldn,t offend most people, most importantly, the casual shelf browser in w h smiths. Those are the people who will cause problems in the general press, when they see decapitated deer on car bonnets, if it offends a man who has hunted for almost 40 years, it will offend joe public without a doubt.

The editor of such magazines have a public duty to represent shooting in the correct light, as i,m sure you would agree ?

I totally agree too on your comment aboutedidors basically having the last say on copy, because of the advertisers etc. Some handle it well, some dont.

 

good stuff.