Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Things Must Be Tough in the Magazine Business

My wife just got an offer to subscribe to Field and Stream for a year for $8.00 "Senior Discount."

All print media is hurting since this internet came out.

Here in CT a cities newspaper building is for sale. There is no paperboy.

I used to subscribe to mag's like Rifle, Handloader and before that to Outdoor Life, Field and Stream etc. along with 'Sail' for boating and Road and Track etc for cars.

The Rifleman and Am. Hunter still come with the NRA memberships.

We can do a search on the net for what we are interested in.

Guns And Ammo, $6.00/year $.50/issue...

Shades of the mid '60's off the magazine rack at the "Tote Sum" quick stop.

Things are a little tougher in the magazine business these days, but the largest circulation magazines (such as F&S and G&A) have offered very cheap subscriptions for many years. They make a large part of their money on advertising, and ad rates increase with circulation.

Which is why smaller magazines normally charge a lot more for subscriptions: They don't make as much on advertising, so depend more on subscription income, plus selling individual copies in stores.

About 10 times what it's worth, to my notions. It hasn't been worth a dime since Cooper left the first time. Last time I read one, they did something called "shooter's impressions" and had four or five of their staff writers write glowing reports on what was clearly a hunkajunk.

That was the last time I even looked at one.

Three renewals back, I got brave and did it online. In a clever attempt to catch people who didn't read the whole form, the default choice for the magazine subscription was to get the bleeping, damned online version. If you wanted a for-real, honest-to-God magazine, you had to change the choice. This I did, but then messed up something on the form and had to begin again. Lacking in basic intelligence, I thought that previous information (the choice of a magazine) would stay the same. Of course, I was wrong. In the two renewals since, filled out on paper at gun shows, I have indicated my desire for a magazine to hold in my hands. I continue to receive the bleeping, damned online version.

The bargain of the year, though, has to be getting the .pdf version of Rifle, Successful Hunter and Handloader for $14.95 a year!

I keep my copies on my laptop's hard drive and never have to worry about the magazines stacking up in the corner. Plus, I can take a break from work any time I want and open up a copy from 3 years ago!

Get those bargain offers every week. Sometimes I bite, but I seldom renew.
Too little of the content is of interest to me anymore. JB is all over, and his stuff is always good, but even he can't carry an entire magazine. Unless I'm careful, I blow through a typical monthly in about 15 minutes. Rifle takes longer, because I stretch it out. Handloader seems to be the meatiest, and if forced to choose just one, it would be that one. I also look forward to the Hodgdon annual.

One good thing about the Hodgdon annual is that you can compare test results from real guns in the articles with the test barrel figures in the data section.

czech1022,

Yeah, the on-line subscriptions are a good deal for the smaller magazines that tend to charge more for subscriptions. They're a LOT cheaper because the company doesn't have to pay for printing or snail-mailing.

Another very good bargain is GUNS magazine, which doesn't charge anything for on-line copies. They just post them every month on their website.

It seems like any more there's about 3-4 articles and the rest is pure advertising. You shouldn't have to turn 20 pages to get to the first article. The field reports are interesting to read, but one has to wonder to what degree they are pandering to their advertisers.

I must be in the minority. I currently subscribe to FS, OL, Rifle, Hand Loader, Peterson's, Successful Hunter, and Sports Afield...plus the NRA rag. Honestly I enjoy all of them. I think Petzal in particular is a brilliant writer and thoroughly enjoyable to read...though I don't always agree with him. JB is fantastic of course. One writer i truly miss is Jim Carmicheal from OL. He was great...the new guy isn't bad either.

I also enjoyed reading Greg Rodriguez immensely and very sad to hear of his murder.

Articles like this may be why readers have left the magazines...

Not to mention credibility being in theshitter. Everything they test is better than everything they tested on the previous article, then it will change again.

I subscribe to a few outdoor/hunting mags.

The part I hate the most is that you can't get an honest review anymore. Because these writers are getting the equipment for free, and they don't want to get cutoff, they give glowing reviews.

While a few will still give an honest, or close to honest review, most are just doing it for the "freebies".

JMHO

I won't say that never happens, but I doubt it's widespread. Many times I've read reviews where the writer closes by saying they liked something enough to send a check instead or returning the gun, and since the guns are used, they may well get a deal on price, but that ain't free. If you're reading stuff that's obviously biased or misses obvious faults, you need to find some better magazines.

Shrapnel,

I remember that article! Circa 2001?

Owl,

In my experience, "freebies" in non-expendable stuff like firearms and optics were far more common before Barack Obama became the greatest-ever salesman for the shooting industry. Nowadays manufacturers don't have to be that generous, because shooters are still buying LOTS of stuff, and that will continue if a Democrat is elected president this fall.

Instead, some (but not all) magazines run very favorable reviews of equipment because it's harder to sell advertising these days, thanks to the impetus Obama has provided to the entire industry. So some magazines run favorable reviews to entice manufacturers to continue advertising.

As far as expendable items like ammo, bullets and powder, manufacturers will provide free samples IF they have any. For a while it's been a crapshoot whether even they will have any on hand, the reason some gun writers (especially those who do it for most or all of their living) have been buying ammo, powder, bullets, etc. over the past few years, "hoarding" it to be sure they can have some on hand when they need it for an assignment.

Now I know where all the TAC and Big Game is...............(grin).

This is the cover in October 1995, and Carmichael was a clown to have written it and the editors were worse for not catching the huge mistakes...

Soldier of Fortune is no longer in print either digital only.

Mike

That would NOT be my preferred placement.

Jerry

That aim has been the cause of many a "I know I hit him tight behind the shoulder but he ran. Can you help me track him? I knew a 243 wasn't enough gun!" scenario.

The cover isn't the problem, check that shot placement on the buck running over the horizon...

That's a very dangerous shot with the bullet going over the horizon!

Dang! I guess more time has passed by than I thought!!!

I can remember putting little "aim dots" on the page of that article with a ball point pen. Doesn't seem like 21 years ago though!!!

That may be your best 'fire post ever. No joke.

I would add 1 qualifier :

GIVEN that you hit the buck well, the bullet would lose most of its steam plus be deformed and would not travel far:::

The DANGER would be a MISSED shot, then......


Jerry

YEP......how do I know ?


Heard it moreN once!!


Jerry

And the prose rivals Hemingway, as you so often demonstrate.

One of my favorites was a article testing different camo patterns. The accompanying photos showed some guy sitting up against a tree in what was obviously in a big patch of poison ivy. When it was pointed out to them in the letters to the editor and the outdoor qualifications questioned of anybody that would knowingly do that, in the next months edition they had some lame response trying to justify the picture. Of course all of the camo in the article patterns were outstanding as they obviously pandered to their advertisers.

I've set up in poison ivy before as I'm not allergic to it. From what I've read about 1/3rd of people aren't.

I was looking at a 2011 copy of Handloader,124 pages.The last one I bought 64 pages.Hardly worth the time to open the cover.Sports Afield is about all I buy anymore.I used to subscribe to.Handloader,Rifle,Accurate Rifle,Precision Shooter,Varmint Hunter.Now I just read JBs books.

I don't get any of them anymore. I still get NRA magazines as they just come. I never have time to read them.

So, where would you guys aim on this particular instance? I'm thinking about 4 to 5 inches right and about 2 inches low.

I need to do some new bullet testing this summer and if I had a large stack of those old magazines I would aim pretty much dead center

It's hard to tell 'exactly' from just a pic. The distance from you to the deer - alters the measurement - on the deer.

That said, notice the distance between the front legs. That indicates the deer is standing at a pretty good angle. I would aim for the 'point' of the shoulder and destruction (explosion) of tissue + the bullet would get BOTH lungs and might transmit enuff shock to the shoulder/backbone to DRT.

It's hard to put to words but that's what I'd do.

Jerry

I get the NRA magazine as a member, but read it while standing over the trash can. Flip through from beginning to end and then drop it into the can. That's all it's good for most of the time. Occasionally, they'll have a good historical piece that is worth a few more minutes.

.....and Harris Publications is shutting down. That's a huge chunk of the gun magazine biz.

Maybe there was a full value wind from the port side

Naw,---the grass in the background was still.



Jerry

I don't get any of them anymore because they've all gone tactical. I just bought the new Shooting Times (first magazine I bought in two years) because it had an article in about Remingtons biggest successes. Most of that mag didn't interest me. Luckily the last page had an article about Karamojo.

The cover of the Magazine isn't the issue, it is what is inside that really stinks...

Books are the answer. For the price of a magazine subscription, you can get a good book you'll have all your life and then pass on to someone else when you go under.

Lots of free, classic hunting books online too.

>>>Yes, Shrap I responded to that on P 3.>>

To Add - From that pic, we can't tell 'how fast' the deer was moving. The lead 'might' have been right but...

"in the pic" it looks to me like the buck was ALSO turning to its right.
[/quote]

IF the buck was turning R, then it's a complete MISS and the bullet goes into the UNKNOWN.


We are now discussing 'where' we would aim for the pic in the Cover Shot.

Not to plagiarize- The Cover Shot was O P by Shrapnel.

Jerry

They've always been that way....what do you expect them to do....chit mouth their sponsors?
I'm just surprised at how long it took people to figure that out....

The JUNE Handloader is 144 pages, it has a double issue, The new issue along with a reprint of Issue #1 inside.


Mike

Things are tough in the mag biz these days:

Harris Publications Closing

Thank you John, I shall pass that around to my friends and family for some light reading.

TexasPhotog,

I wasn't all that surprised at Harris Publications closing. They were among the first magazines companies (and perhaps the first) that started tying article content strongly to advertisers' products. As I recall, this was in the 1980's. Before then, many if not most magazines operated on the idea that attracting readers with good articles would increase subscribers and newstand sales. Since advertising rates are tied to numbers of readers, the magazine would make more money by running by attracting readers.

Harris reversed this. Instead of primarily running articles to attract readers, they primarily ran articles to attract advertisers. This works in the short run, but eventually readers catch on that they're not being informed and entertained as much as they used to be--one reason so many readers quit reading hunting/shooting magazines. At some point circulation drops so much that ad rates drop, and eventually the same magazine isn't making enough money to remain profitable.

This reversal of the reader/advertising strategy is far more common than when I started publishing magazine articles 40 years ago. It's been common for a generation now, and many younger people in the business can't even remember when the primary strategy of most magazines was to attract readers.

Agreed that better articles will sell more issues however the NEW world is this internet.

With an easy search we can find interesting talk, pictures, video and references to what's interesting.

People produce 'tablets' or whatever they are and read them in public. Newspapers are history.

Use the search site: www.boardreader.com to find forum talk on your topic.

"Jan 26, 2016 ... Fast-forward to 2016, and the newspaper business is a shell of its former self. ... ( Another 30,000 or so print newspapers were sold via single-copy sales.) ... If advertising is falling off the cliff and print circulation is plummeting, then surely ... with the way we now consume news—skipping around the Internet, ..."

I found the last magazine that came. It's the May 2016 American Hunter that comes with the NRA membership.

I had not opened it yet.

One article mentions the NRA annual meeting to be held in KY.

We went to the one years ago because Rush Limbaugh was the keynote speaker.

1993 Annual members banquet.

Yep, the Internet is particularly great for people with short attention spans, who apparently can only read and write a few sentences at a time, without any depth or focus.

I've written for a bunch of magazines AND websites, and one interesting aspect of the net/print question is that even though the Internet can publish much longer, in-depth articles at far less expense than printing them on paper, Internet articles are usually shorter and provide less actual information. The exception is when they're "reprints" of paper-published articles, but many of those are edited to much shorter length for the short attention span of Internet (and "smart" phone) users.

It isn't as much fun to sit on the krapper with a laptop or a tablet as it is with a magazine.

I still prefer reading with a book or magazine in my hands. If it's an online article about something technical which demands concentration, mathematics at an advanced level for example, I'll print it rather than scrolling around on a screen.

We only get the Rifleman and Am. Hunter mag. with the memberships.

My wife and I get no other publications.

We used to get the local paper, a news magazine like the National Review occasional book clubs and even the Shotgun News.

National Review Magazine

I grew up living for every new issue of Outdoor Life. That was the days of Carmichel, Zumbo, and McManus. OL now just doesn't impress me all that much.

And just think of us poor guys who still use desktops.....

THAT is the real reason Porta-Potties were invented.

We know we're old when we prefer to read real books and magazines, and we write in cursive.

I just read an article written by Craig Boddington. He has forgotten more than I will ever know about hunting but his article on custom guns was rambling and thin. I have tossed the mag but expected more detail. The main point was that custom guns can be chambered in wildcat cartridges and you can select your length of pull. Other point was that factory rifles are more accurate than they used to be. Where's the beef? Who didn't know this prior to reading the article? I much prefer John's articles.

Can't CBodd mail one in from time to time? He's been informational and intuitive in the past. Times have changed.

I was a magazine guy when I was younger but now I'm more about books. In the last two days I've bought books by Karamojo, Corbett, and O'Connor.

I grew up living for the REALLY old articles in OL, namely those by Jack O'Connor. the newer ones, by such as Petal, just don't seem to have much content. You shake them and nothing falls out.

Maybe Boddington was writing for relative newbies. There is only so much you can say without repeating, and those of us who have been around for awhile have already heard it. I remember O'Connor writing about how to be a gun writer, and mentioning that he kept recycling many of the same topics. I like "Guns" magazine and most things Barsness writes because there is usually something new in them. I like "Sports Afield" for the same reason.

Many of us here are older than whatever metric you choose to define the bulk of the population. I find that I don't read nearly as many articles in the print media simply because a quick skim of the opening paragraphs (or sometimes even the title) convinces me that I am not going to learn anything that I don't already know.

I do know that my grandkids, all of whom are pretty smart, don't subscribe to any magazines or newspapers--they get their news and information on the net. They still read books, both hard copy and on the net, but print periodicals are not part of their lives.

I still find it hard to pass up a bookstore and I always peruse the magazine racks. I have noticed that older folks will usually pick up a magazine that they seem to have been looking for, while the younger folks will pick one up based on what they see highlighted on the cover.

As we age, we always find that we live in a very different world than the one in which we grew up. That's the world with which the publishers of print periodicals have to deal.

From the teaser on the cover, I was expecting a shooting comparison between custom and factory rifles. Really was expecting conclusion to be that some factory rifles outshoot some customs. This would not be new news either but the data would be interesting. I was sucked into buying the magazine by the title "Are Custom Rifles Worth the Bucks". Honestly did not expect to learn much but was curious where the article would go.

This internet is the new world.

I never wrote a "letter to the editor" and neither did most of us!

Now we write and read here daily and even see pictures of the deer we have around here.

Great article. Loved the prose and the photography. You're gonna put Gray's Sporting Journal out of business.

LOL.

Regardless of the criticism of the Internet, I've learned an awful lot from this website and a couple others.

I liked reading several of the magazines 20 years ago. Now I open an American Hunter and don't see much worth reading. Haven't had an F&S or OL subscription in years.

One thing that seems to be lacking today is a consistent group of writers. I liked to read specific authors. Now I don't recognize many names. I always turn to Bill Heavy's column when I see an F&S in the docs office though.

Some more comments on the sort of magazines we're talking about, since I've been writing for them (and others) for 40+ years now:

The larger the circulation of any magazine, the more it's written for newbies and average guys, because they make up the vast majority of shooters and hunters. This is exactly why the bigger magazines don't run the in-depth handloading or shooting articles of much smaller-circulation magazines.

Those articles run more in smaller-circulation magazines, for more experienced readers who have out-learned the articles in the larger magazines. When I worked for FIELD & STREAM as a staff writer from the late 1980's to the early 2000's, there was a HUGE turnover in readers, because as they learned more, they moved on to more specialized, "advanced" magazines. This was considered normal by the magazine, another reason they offered low-priced subscriptions.

However, before the 1990's there weren't as many specialized magazines. Up until about 1990, large-circulation "general interest" magazines made the most money, whether in the hunting/shooting/fishing genre or other subjects, whether vehicles or news or whatever.

Toward the end of the 1990's, the Internet started fragmenting the market further. This wasn't because the Internet is superior to print, but because the Internet was yet another way to present editorial material.

Since then "publishing" has varied from major magazines to small websites. In general, the larger the magazine/website the less hard-core information is presented, but the more entertaining the info. This is because larger-circulation magazines/websites can pay for more entertaining writers.

At the same time, the smaller the magazine/website, the more hardcore info, but sometimes the writing is about as entertaining as gnawing on a stump.

The other trend is that writers who have some ability to entertain as well as inform often use the Internet to go directly to their readers, rather than depend on magazines which may or may not be here in another five years. Forty years ago the only option for all but a very few writers was to sell articles and books to standard publishing companies. Today the options are far more varied.

The hunting/shooting info highway has fragmented considerably over the past century, but that doesn't mean that one part of highway is superior to another. What it does mean is that readers have lots of options, whether they're readers like Savage99 who obviously has a short attention span, thinks simply, and considers black and white photos "composed" by a trail-cam really cool. He would have been pretty happy back when there were very few magazines in the 1930's, and the most affordable ran simple "articles" with B&W photos, much like his posts.

Other readers are looking for more in-depth information, more entertainment, or far better photos. The wide variation of publishing these days provides options for everybody's tastes.

John, excellent post - informative and thought-provoking. I particularly liked the comment "...sometimes the writing is as entertaining as gnawing on a stump". Among my many other shortcomings, I liked to be entertained while learning. Back in the days when "In-Fisherman" was a real magazine, they had some writers who could make their point in a fashion that kept you reading while others fell into the "gnawing on a stump" category. Heading off in another direction, I think that the constant effort to come up with something "new" (or deathly fear of saying something that has perhaps been said before) is one of the factors in what is constantly decried as the decline of the Wolfe publications. I for one don't mind being reminded of things that I already knew (or was supposed to know). At this stage in the game, I forget enough stuff to keep a lot of things fresh when they come around again.

Fur-Fish-Game is one that I like right now. It has a hokeyness about it, but I like it.

Since I am looking to move up north in a year, I am getting more interested in the state magazines.

The same camera's daytime pictures are in color!

RAS,

FFG has always been a great magazine--and unlike many others doesn't seem to change. Which indicates it always has a basic readership.

This topic hits home hard.

My hobby, principal pastime, is reading about guns. Not shooting them, or reloading for them but reading about them. Yeah I have many dozens of guns of all descriptions, have hunted and shot in competition and I love those things, but my number one pastime by any measurement is reading about guns.

It's a changing world for me. Favorite periodical titles are no more, other favorites are diminished.

I like to read articles that teach me something. Although I am an incredibly competent generalist from all my reading, there is a lot that I could still learn about the metallurgy of firearms, the chemistry of powders and primers, manufacturing technology, marketing (Yes, even understanding the marketing of manufacturers large and small would be entertaining to me.), shooting at upward and downward angles, reading the wind, leading moving game, historical instances of firearms use. But introduction 101 does not garner my interest any longer.

I like to know my authors. It is not requisite, but I read an article by an unknown author differently than one by a familiar author. If Mule Deer writes something that does not seem to agree with my own impressions, I will immediately re-examine my prior conclusions. If an author is new to me I take every assertion with a grain of salt until either the assertion is later verified or I have come to accept the bona fides of that author.

I have pursued this hobby for decades and have reached the point that very little is very interesting, but still I wait on every issue of Muzzle Blasts, Rifle, Handloader and American Rifleman and read every article. It's what I do.

If I learn one new, solid, interesting fact in a magazine it is a successful issue. If I have read any particular author for a long time and have come to hold them in high regard I pay attention to family details because it gives me insight to aspects of the gun culture that I was not raised with..

I look at every ad and if I don't recognize it I read it. I note the location of the advertiser and the man behind the ad if at all possible. I read every obituary, every name and town of every contributor listed in the NRA magazines and who was honored by in memoriam contributions and who made them.

But the decline in print media is affecting me. My pastime is being Future Shocked. I'll cope, luckily there are also books to be read. I peruse e-bay looking for lots of old gun books and search Amazon and Abe Books for classics mentioned by my favorite magazine writers. (Keep the suggestions coming!) That will hold me for a long time. I've read more Elmer Keith than I have Jack O'Connor, and more Ackley than Kunhasen, so there are more books to be found. But I like the technical stuff more than the hunting stuff.

In hunting I like to read the likes of Landis and other old-time small-bore, small game hunters. Technically I'd rather wade through hundreds of pages of Phil Sharpe than one more DBI book. Crossman, Whelen, Hatcher can fill many an evening. I don't think I'm going to live long enough to read all the books I would like to. That will be my saving grace as print periodicals keep falling by the wayside.

I hope someone values my library when I'm gone. It's a good one. But will anyone want to read that stuff anymore?

As Big Stick would say:

Congratulations?!

Now be nice! It is very impressive that he is able to type on here and still remind himself to breathe while doing it!

Getting back on topic, I just bought two more clips for my HK P7 PSP. Hopefully this will help the struggling magazine industry.

What, no cries of anguish yet?

It's interesting to see the directions publishers are going these days.

Newspapers have been killing themselves with poor management for, well, decades now. Even when they made great money the were badly managed. The digital disruption has just made it more glaring.

Hang in there!

I don't disagree John, but the internet shines at always having scads of fresh content (even if much of it is suspect).

It takes me about an hour to read most magazines these days. With many of them, there's so little actual content relative to advertising that I feel taken advantage of. Sports Afield is particularly well done, and so is Rifle Shooter. The magazine that SCI puts out is exceptional, and it's FULL of legitimate content (though it's a little heavy on the "here's how my hunt went" articles).

The worst of the bunch to me are the NRA magazines; dear God those are horrible. Outdoor Life has gotten absurdly bad as well, as every other issue is a new-gear roundup, and they try to appeal to too wide an audience. I bought a copy of Petersen's Turkey Hunting the other day, and it was comical how little content was in there. It was like reading a pamphlet at the doctor's office.

The NRA magazines have changed for another reason.

When I started writing for them, starting with AMERICAN HUNTER in the late 1980's, they ran around 10 feature articles in each issue, along with several columns. But as gun rights issues became more critical during Bill Clinton's administration, political news started taking more of each issue's content. In recent years it even started "bumping" non-political articles from many issues of the magazines. This is because the anti-gun movement has grown over the past couple of decades, both in organization, numbers and the irrational arguments that anti-gunners call "common sense."

If the NRA magazines were commercial magazines this change wouldn't work, because too many readers would drop their subscriptions. But they're not. Instead they're part of the NRA membership package, and the political climate right now is so filled with new threats to legal gun ownership that it's imperative for the NRA to cover many issues.

As a reader, I'm not exactly thrilled with each issue of AMERICAN HUNTER and AMERICAN RIFLEMAN being dominated by political material, because like most of us I like to read about hunting and guns for entertainment, information and relaxation. (And on a more personal level, the change has cut into the market for my articles!) But I can appreciate why its happening, and as a long-time Life Member continue to make financial contributions to the NRA every year.

I picked up a copy of American Rifleman the other day dated gawd knows when, and bumped into an article by Finn Aaggard entitled "Kenya Days and Rifles" or something like that.

Geezus it was refreshing.....starting out with some baying dog that had cornered a cow buffalo on Mt Kenya or some such, Finn and companions struggling to keep up,close encounter with the cow, a misfire, 400 gr bullets smashed to confetti on the cows shoulder.

It was hair raising and had me on the edge of my seat...it was "hunting", interesting. I was entertained and momentarily riveted. But more importantly it was rooted in the author's personal experiences and was well written,and articulate, and written by someone who had BTDT.

I don't mind techno babble if I am trying to understand a new concept but have a hard time absorbing a lot of numbers and charts. Once understood I may never look again. Like Ben (Mudhen) I am into the first paragraph and if there isn't much there I am off and running..

To be honest I learn as much about technical stuff from the knowledgeable guys here as I need to know, and more. Between John B and others I learn a lot on here. I have some PM strings with some knowledgeable guys on here that have taught me a bunch and are entertaining as hell to boot!

So when it comes to publications I like SA, Handloader/Rifle, Rifle Shooter, and Sporting Classics because I love the old art work, the pictures, the classic old guns and sporting pursuits steeped in tradition.

Recently I bought fresh copies of "The Jungle Book" (Kipling) so I can relate to my grandkids, and "Man Eaters of Kumoan" (Corbett). Anything by Corbett is a cliff hanger .

'Maneaters of Kumaon' is outstanding. I have that and just bought 'The Leopard of Rudraprayag'. Corbett is the best.

I have been reading Carmichael's the book of the rifle. There is a ton of substance in it. It is dated but has given me a better technical understanding of rifles and rifle shooting.

I need to get that one.

A bit off topic...Any, and all magazines to which I subscribed that had an advert for PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE was summarily cancelled, regardless of content. PI is among the most anti-american, anti-hunter, anti-gun outfits in the country. I refuse to support any magazine that pretends to support shooters/hunters and accepts PI a advertiser.
Just saying.

Hi:This is my first post. I have worked in newspaper as a pressman for 37 years and have got to see a lot of the changes from the in side. And a lot of the same thing that are killing us are hitting magazines the same way.

The internet has become the new magazine /newspaper. As the core readers of print gets older and drop away the push is to get younger readers to subscribe. Right now there is a large percentage of people who have never known life with out internet and there even more coming that have never known life with out a smart phone. These people have grown up doing every thing on line and if "old media" wants to make it is going to have to offer content geared to the devices that thy are using and that content is going to be geared to that age group.

facetious,

Welcome to the Campfire!

There's a lot of truth in your post, but in the magazine and book business (where I've spent my writing career) the transition still isn't as abrupt as in newspapers. Most hunting/shooting magazines are finding what might be termed a synergistic mix of electronic and print media works well, in order to find both younger and older readers.

The traditional book-selling market--mass publishing and selling in bookstores--hasn't worked for most hunting/shooting books for years. It still works for big-market books, whether murder mysteries or books like GUN DIGEST, but selling hunting (and even fishing) books through bookstores is just about dead, though some publishing companies keep trying.

What is working is self-publishing specialty print books, which the Internet made possible. My wife and I have been doing exactly that for almost a decade now, because we were dissatisfied (or had been royally screwed) by half a dozen book publishers, some of whom apparently had no clue about marketing. We do sell a few books through stores, though probably 98% are sold on the Internet.

But I also write for a couple of Internet sites, including our own. This resulted in an interesting example of how the Internet and print publishing can work together. For around 7-8 years we've been publishing a quarterly Internet magazine for hunters and shooters, RIFLE LOONY NEWS. It's a mix of short and long articles, including game recipes, book and product reviews, technical gun stuff, and hunting stories--and doesn't have any advertising, being totally supported by subscriptions.

It's done pretty well, but after five years one subscriber asked if we'd consider printing a paper edition of all the issues of RLN published to that point. He said he'd sure buy one, because his deer camp didn't have Internet service.

We thought this really odd, but then asked other subscribers if they'd buy a copy. A bunch said YEAH, and the common reason was a book would work better in bathrooms than a computer on a lap, or a pile of print-outs. So we decided to try it.

Usually we print 500-1000 copies of any of our books for a first run, but in this instance only did 250 of RIFLE LOONY NEWS: THE FIRST FIVE YEARS. They sold out so quickly we had to order another printing within a couple months, and it's been selling steadily ever since. While not one of our best-selling books, like my wife's big game cookbook or THE BIG BOOK OF GUN GACK, my rifle handloading guide, but it keeps plugging along. And a bunch of new subscribers to the Internet RLN have signed on because a friend had a copy of the book.