Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Man, the new Shooting Times sucks big time

John, your point about there not being a lot of people willing to sell advertising is a very good one. It seems to me that rather than putting out a malnourished magazine and blaming it on a lack of advertising, it would be better business for whover is in charge of such things to spend more time and effort in selling advertising. Also your point about many freelancers not providing adequate photography is something that I have thought about often. It seems to me that there is probably a lot of good writing out there that never sees the light of day, either in that it doesn't get printed because of the lack of accompanying photography or because it doesn't get written because the person who doesn't write it gives up because he knows that without photography it won't get considered. The whole photography issue seems like the tail wagging the dog.

if you think the writers don't get paid much you should try selling stock photos!

I just must be too easy to please. Or less sophisticated. Or dumber. Or something. I still enjoy ST, especially with Greg Rodriguez and Alan Jones on staff. The Wolfe pubs are not quite up to the quality of JB and Ross Seyfried, but I still enjoy Phil, John H., Mike V., and the others. Successful Hunter has taken the biggest hit. A decent mag originally jumped to primo with JB's editorship, and dropped to fair when he left. Still waiting for Lee-the-hooter to wise up.

I know writers are at the bottom of the scale in mag production, maybe behind proof-readers! Nowadays, with digital cameras and the ability to send high-pixel photos easily and online, photos (I would assume) are done by the authors. For hunting/gun mags, stock photos generally won't do it, they have to be particular to the article published. Everybody is a photogtapher, maybe not a pro, but gun/hunting mags don't require a pro.

I edited a small magazine (Primitive Archer) and we had little ad money, as most of our readership was into building their own equipment. HOWEVER, there was some, and ad money was definitely something we went after as it's desirable and "quick" and pays for immediate production costs.

We depended heavily on subscribers as that's what sold ad space more than circulation. Second, the cost per mailing goes down pretty much with additional subscriptions. IIRC, mail costs are figured in units. Kinda like costs for publishing books; there's a cut-off when publishing say, 5000 units is cheaper per unit that say, 1000. Which is how vanity presses make their money.

Which ever magazine figures out how to use the internet rather than suffer from it is going to be very successful.

Several years ago, I was looking to expand my writing. So, I went looking for a good magazine to call home.

Wolfe Publishing's editor made it abundantly clear that he did not want my big game writing or anything but the very, very occasional varmint piece, so I declined that. Actually, I sent them a single varmint piece, for which they paid me highly ($1,000) but really wanted to get into my sphere of interest, not more rodent stuff.

Shooting Times was in its prime then and I really thought that they could use some of my elk hunting, deer hunting, precision rifles & precision handloading and African stuff. With this in mind, I approached their editor.

The ST editor told me that they primarily used their staff writers and that they had open slots for something like three or four freelance articles each year. And, of course, I was not well enough known for consideration as a Contributing Editorship or anything like that. The editor was a no bullshit kind of guy and I appreciated his candor (I guess )

In retrospect, the "staff writes only" kind of approach may be easier to edit and produce, but it leads to the reader's boredom. With the same old writers writing the same old stuff, the readers eventually walk away. Added to that is the personality thing; I have always highly disliked Dick Metcalf, PhD ... maybe he is a good guy, I dunno, but I see a great deal of arrogance and ego into every article.

In the end, I just kept writing for the rodent shooting magazine until they pissed me off and I walked away.

Too bad I couldn't have found a home for my big game stuff.

But then, there is the 24 Hour Campfire and I can share it here and am happy to share it for free, so everybody wins in the end.

Pax,

Steve

5sdad,

Oh, the magazines try very hard to sell advertising. My comment about not as many people wanting to sell advertising as want to write gun'n'hunting stories was correct, but there are a whole pile of advtertising people out there, and they are flogging the bushes HARD for ad dollars. It's just that the ad dollars aren't there, for two reasons: Most shooting companies haven't had to advertise since Obama got elected, and most other companies (trucks, for instance) can't afford to.

With very few exceptions, writers have been expected to take photos for their gun/hunting/fishing articles ever since I broke into the business 37 years ago. In fact because I had a mentor in the business I bought a professional 35mm SLR camera with two lenses even before I sold my first article.

The two exceptions I can think of to the "complete package" (words and photos) rule are some of the very largest magazines like Field & Stream, and some of the arty magazines like Gray's Sporting Journal.

In fact, I worked for Field & Stream for over 25 years, first as a freelancer and then as a staffer. At one point they told me they didn't want my photos, that they wanted to pay professional writers and professional photographers, not somebody who tried to do both.

This was really a lie, since what they often ran was half-assed hunting or fishing stories by staffers who were really good photographers, but never put the camera down to actually kill or catch anything, or good stories by people who actually hunted and fished, but who had their stories illustrated by perfectly composed, exposed and focused photos by professionals that were often kinda boring.

Other than that, gun'n'hunting writers have always had to take their own photos. If we take better than average photos, and can supply a package with good interior shots of guns plus good outside shots of hunting, and maybe even some competent wildlife photos, then we get paid more, because the magazine doesn't have to assign or buy other photos. My latest piece in Sports Afield is a good example: ALL the photos were taken by me, and of all three types. The fact is that most shooting magazines can't afford to pay both a writer and photographer to do an article, especially if both would have to go out in the field together on a hunt.

It used to be much tougher to take decent photos. When I started auto-focus was still a few years away. Today the camera does everything but compose the photo, and photography is far less expensive. My film and development bill used to run to several thousand dollars a year. Now it's gone.

Taking competent photos with today's digital cameras, even point and shoot models, is pretty easy with a little effort to learn the basics of both outdoor and studio photography. It's made even easier because we can look at the results right away, not when the film is developed, so correct our mistakes right away.

An awful lot of my published photos are taken with a little Canon point and shoot that cost $250 when I got it about 3 years ago. It's 8-megapixel and self-stabilizing and would cover 95% of the photos taken for most gun magazines. Anybody who wants to try to publish stories in gun'n'hunting magazines wouldn't have to spend much money or time to get started.

I find some of the most enjoyable reading in any magazine to be letters sent in by readers to the editor. These submissions are not sent by professional writers, but they often contain interesting information, and many times, a different point of view.

Many years ago, the American Rifleman had a section titled "In my Experience..." and was my favorte part of the magazine. Articles in this section were from non-professional writers who had something to share from their own experiences on stock making and finishing, reloading, bluing, odd ball rifles and pistols and many other subjects.

Many of these articles were more informative that those written by professional writers.

That is where I got my start in 'professional writing'. I sold the first one I submitted in the late 60s, and received $100.00 for it. A hundred dollars at that time was more than my weekly salery.

That is one section I wish the American Rifleman would bring back.

They bought a few more, but not as many as I submitted. I started off with a bang, and ended up with a snap. I have written a few articles on knife making that were published, but not very many, 4, I think.

Unfortunately, of the things I find to be interesting, many editors do not share that opinion.


I have read that there are two catagories of people who make the best writers--those who know nothing about their subject and those who know everything about it.

Those who know nothing about their subject, if they are ambitious, can do research and gather background information and know as much about their subject and the one who knows it all. The one who knows it all doesn't have to do research--he already has, and can write from what he has learned.

Unfortunately, there are many writers who know nothing about their subject, and don't go to the trouble to learn, but the magazines will publish their writing, a total waste of ink and paper.

Another old section that I very much looked forward to was the Q & A section. There is a Q & A section in the latest publications, but they are limited to one or two questions, where they used to answer anywhere from 10 to 20 questions.

I like any magazine that has a Q & A section. I don't have to ask the questions myself, but I can learn a lot from other peoples questions and answers.

John, very informative and interesting. I can certainly see where autofocus was a big plus when it came along and the digital format has been an even bigger advancement. Best, John

As usaul, you have a pretty good take on the matter. But now, I have to go out and buy Sports Afield.

It seems to me that those of us that are "sporting enthusiasts" want to read about hunting, reloading and firearms as they relate to our primary interest -- which is hunting. Sure, we are interested in what is going on with other shooting related stuff, but only as a general interest.

Our core interests, however, are a different story. We want the nitty gritty, down to what sort of barrel steel FN uses in their latest rifle. What the author thought of the particular wall tent they used during their elk hunt, and why. Details, man, details!

Somehow, though, we get general interest stories on both, and at this point, an article about the latest 1911 is NOT going to get me all worked up. A well written story about how the author got an elk after slogging through the snow for three days on the other hand, or an article about the different options you have for blueing a replacement barrel? You can't get good stories like that from generalists, you need specialists. JMO, Dutch.

I appreciate Dogzapper & Mule Deer sharing their experiences with magazines and magazine editors.

Great insight into how things work.

I've gotten enough "Funny story-made me laugh, not appropriate for magazine" letter's to wall paper a gymnasium

It is still fun and exciting to write and submit humorous hunting articles that have little to no market value. If I manage to get one published, I will have beat the odds.

That would be neat.

Good hunting articles, ones where the author actually gives us added insight, are always a good thing. Freelance or staff, it makes no difference to me.

The same goes about shooting, firearms and handloading articles. Original insight is so hard to find.

I just hate reading the same old crap over and over ... and spending time learning nothing. Teach us something, make us see a familiar thing in a new light, that is the secret of successful gunny writing.

Personally, I always approached each and every article as if it was a doctoral thesis. New, original and insightful and if it cannot be written that way, find another subject.

Steve

I don't like hunting articles, myself. "Me and Joe Went Hunting" isn't my cup of tea. You and Joe went hunting? What makes that worth reading? Been hunting myself. Not for me, thanks.

I do like technical articles a lot. And historical articles (not BP, just background on rifles and rounds.)

Which is exactly why there are hunting magazines and shooting magazines.

Both types of magazines get dozens of letter every months from people saying, "I don't care about hunting articles, because I already know everything I need to know about hunting," and other saying "I don't care about rifle articles because I already know everything I need to know about rifles."

Personally, I learn something new about rifles and hunting every month, whether practically, historically or emotionally.

JB, I recently subscribed to Guns magazine in order to get your articles. Just received the September issue. No Barseness article. What's the deal?

beefan

They tried to schedule me for every issue, but it wasn't possible for the entire year, due to previous commitments. That's the only one that won't have me in it. There'll be ahandling column and feature article by me in the rest of this year's issues. We're working on 2010 already.

Is the internet hurting print?

I believe a lot of people who stare at a computer screen all day
don't what to go home and read their subscription off a screen.

Main reason I dumped online magazines.

The Internet is definitely hurting print. You and I may prefer a paper magazine but a lot of younger people prefer their computer screen.

The internet is hurting magazines. I don't think anymore people read magazines online than they do the paper version. On line magazines offer no more than print. I think it's forums like this that are killing the magazines. I can direct myself to hundreds of sites to get information instantly, interact with these folks, read writing by non professionals and professional writers alike. Some of it incredibly amusing....an entertainment factor no magazine can provide....you just need a good BS filter

Acctually most magazines were holding their own until the recession hit. Some were having problems before that, but it wasn't due to the Campfire. In fact most magazines long ago started up a website that had different info than the print version, along with chat rooms of their own.

My experience is that magazines that are in trouble are in trouble due to various factors in their own management.