I have been enjoying a look to the past with Handloader's 50'th anniversary articles. The last one about the .44 magnum that Keith wrote was probably 2x the length of current articles? Anyway, it was quite informative AND entertaining.

Was that a standard size article back then? I did not start reading gun magazines until the early to mid 70's. He did some blasting in the article, birds included!

When I started writing for magazines in the mid-1970's, the normal length of feature articles was at least 2500 words, often 3000-3500, and occasionally even longer. I didn't start writing for gun magazines until the late 1980's, and length ranged about the same, depending on the magazine.

Around 2000 this started changing, because of the Internet and cable television. Contrary to what some people believe, magazine publishing is still quite viable, but the "communications market" has become more diversified. Most magazines also have some sort of Internet version, along with other Internet content, and many also use TV. Consequently the advertising revenue is split, and since ad revenue pays for printing, magazines that used to run 120-180 pages are often 100 or even less. This doesn't mean they're dying, but just one part of a bigger market, instead of THE market, as they pretty much were before 2000.

Of the half-dozen or so print magazines I write for, only two run 2500 word features anymore. The rest cap them at 2000-2200 words, though occasionally somebody asks for as little as 1500--which was standard "column" length when I started out. These days that's a long column; most run 800-1200 words.

One of the odd contradictions in all this is that Internet article lengths are often much shorter than in print magazines, when in theory they can be longer without adding the substantial extra cost of printing more paper pages. But apparently the Internet and cable have shortened the average American's attention span. We're used to getting information not just in shorter "articles" but in paragraphs or even sentences.

Thanks for the response and insight. Yep, I agree. Attention span while looking at a screen is way less. I much rather read something in print. It is not as fatiguing, at least for me.

Those 500+ yard shots at running game would get a person FLAMED on the internet!

What John said. As the allowable length of articles shrank, the writer was forced to leave out more and more background material and explanations. If you read some of Ken Waters work, you'll see what I mean. He sometimes spent 2,000 words describing his methodology for a given cartridge test. That's before he got into his results, which were just as extensively documented.

Today, what the reader gets is hardly more than an executive summary. Often, that doesn't do the subject justice at all.

I'm glad to be out of it, frankly.

Rocky, yep. Ken Waters is a great example. Maybe that's why his old articles in pet Loads are so much fun to read.

Rocky,

One way to cope with shrinking articles is to write books--and contrary to what some believe they're also doing quite well. (I just read a very interesting, but short, newspaper article with some interesting statistics on that very subject.) These days my books are mostly collections of previously magazine articles that I revise, add to, update and combine into chapters. Often I end up doing 2-3 magazine articles on different aspects of a subject, then combine them into one book chapter.

Interestingly, many book buyers ARE more interested in larger books, apparently because they tend to contain more detail, background info, etc. Internet users are the opposite, looking for one-sentence answers to everything, especially if they don't have to pay for the sentence.

I, for one would be willing to pay a bit more for more in-depth articles, but I'm a pretty small market. I enjoy the special editions Wolfe puts out very much; the only problem is finding them locally.

It seems like one could also read an article without skipping pages as much back in the day. That's really annoying. I don't read magazines much anymore. I don't mind buying a book if it has what I want and good value for the content.

True. Based on what I see they feel entitled to the info "right now".

"Tell me the best load....the best bullet....how fast am I going?.....someone do QL for me...Best scope? Why? Explain?.."

They feel entitled to answers. Half the dumb ass questions asked on here could be answered if people would either shoot or hunt and figure the stuff out for themselves.

Books are generally far more interesting since they tend to be written by people who actually know what they are talking about. OTOH you can dismiss 75% of what you read on the Internet and never miss a beat.

This is a good thread, with good explanations and good thoughts. Put me in the "more is better" camp.

Bob,

The other side-effect of the Internet is that when somebody mentions an interesting magazine article here, somebody else often responds with, "Got a link?"

I rarely read hunting magazines anymore as the format of the stories has changed. At one time the authors took us along on their adventures now their stories are basically advertising for the latest and newest clothing or whiz bang calibre.

They no longer entertain us.

There are still some decent technical articles that are worth reading. I do like Handloader and Rifle because of that.

Then there's the death of the freelancer. Fewer pages mean not just shorter articles but fewer of them. By the time an editor fits in articles from his staff writers, there's simply no room left for something by a non-staffer.

Back when, a freelancer could spend a lot of range time, effort, and research to do an in-depth piece on something interesting but out of the mainstream. Not now.

Although I used to be able to get immediate acceptance in annuals and many monthly magazines, in the end I was down to Varmint Hunter and Handloader. Then Handloader told me they had a three to five-year backlog of freelance pieces. I could continue to submit, but should not expect to see print. Finally, Varmint Hunter abruptly went extinct.

I still have pieces with both of them that will never run. And that's why I quit doing them.

Tuchodi,

I explained the reason for advertising thinly disguised as articles in another thread a year or so ago. The trend started in the 1980's, when a magazine company in New York decided they could sell a lot more advertising (and so make a lot more money) if they promised advertisers favorable mention in articles.

This hadn't really been done before, at least to such a blatant extent. Before then, most magazines were run to attract readers, because the more readers they had the more they could charge for advertising. But the company's new technique reversed the old method. Instead they ran the magazine to attract advertisers.

In the short run this does make more money, but in the long run drives away readers, exactly as it did you. But the unfortunate side-effect was that more publishing companies decided to use the same technique, especially after competition from the Internet and TV became stronger. This had the side-effect of advertisers EXPECTING editorial mentions of their products, and if one magazine wouldn't promise that, the advertiser would take their money to another magazine.

Some magazines still try to draw some sort of line against this trend, but so many advertisers expect some editorial "payoff" that it's impossible to buck totally. Which is why some magazines tend to split their content between "real" articles and "advertiser" articles.

Which is also why books are still selling pretty well to people who want to be entertained and informed, and why a few publications don't take advertising, depending instead on subscription money. But that's also a hard way to go these days, when due to the Internet so many readers expect everything to be free.

The irony in all this is the New York magazine publisher that started the trend recently went broke and closed its doors, because not enough people bought their magazines OR paid for advertising anymore.

Rocky,

Yep, the entire trend has made it difficult not just for freelancers but even those writers who simply want to break in. It's sort of a closed club anymore, one reason I'm really glad to have started in the 1970's, when an ambitious freelancer could get a foot in the door--and pay was better. I also feel lucky to be nearing what most people call "retirement," though I probably never will totally retire.

It's also why Eileen and I decided to go directly to our readers about 10-12 years ago and start publishing our own books and on-line magazine--which doesn't have any advertising.

Yeah, how many questions have you seen here that could be answered by a 15-second Google search?

The last couple of times I went to SHOT I was saddened by the affiliations on "journalist" name tags I saw in the Press Room. More than half of them were for "blogs" of one kind or other. Meaning those "journalists" were just guys running some sort of internet page themselves.

Some of them may have been more or less legitimate outlets for shooting and hunting news. But I'd bet that more of them were claiming to be reporters just to get in. (Guess who had the largest, fullest "gimme" bags. Yup.)

Yep, I quit taking a bag to SHOT many years ago. Otherwise people wanted to fill it with extraneous stuff.

Then I quit going to SHOT, because it had gotten so huge, thanks to bloggers and other extraneous humans, that neither I or the people I wanted to talk to (and who wanted to talk to me) had time after pushing through the crowds. I guess the high attendance is good PR for the NSSF, but it's lousy for gun writers getting stuff done. Unless, of course, they're blogging every day on what's "new and exciting."

Oh gosh, yes. I carried a small shoulder bag for my camera, notebook, and a couple PB&J sammiches (no $15 hamburgers for me) yet some booth folks still foisted full gimme bags on me as kind of reverse payment to get to talk to people. A lot of the time, I'd get out of sight and just set the thing down.

Aside from seeing a few old friends and editors there's nothing at all I miss about SHOT.

But that's getting way off topic.

Does missing the "good old days" mean you are getting older ?

If you're as old as I am, it means that at least you have some memory left!

LMAO! True.

Books are better. They still work if the batteries run low.


I think Phil Shoemaker is right.

I hate links. The worst aspect is opening a thread thinking it might be of interest and finding nothing there but a damned link.

What two magazines still run the 2500 word features? I hate the short cut up writings of today.

I still read your stuff from the 1990's and to compare it to what's being printed today is a shame. It seems today's stuff is pieced together in any order that fits. (Not just your writing but all outdoor articles)

Dink

The two magazines that still run 2500 words are SPORTS AFIELD and AMERICAN RIFLEMAN. SA will actually run them a little longer on occasion. In fact it's one of the few magazines that publishes actual hunting stories anymore.

You really have to love the magazines that are full of one page stories, with the hero photo, of "how I got my trophy". People write them for free just to brag, and to be "famous".

The thing that bugs me about the shorter articles is that you feel like you’re just getting into the meat of it and then they

That's very

WHAT, WHAT??

I tried to scroll down to see the

Continued on

I really liked reading the longer, more detailed articles of the past. But times are always changing and we can get lots of information on the internet that didn't used to be available so I'm not complaining.

I struggle to enjoy writing the shorter pieces as much.

One explanation I got was the shorter attention span of modern readers. But I am not entirely convinced that someone spends $9.00 for a magazine and then gets annoyed because the articles are too comprehensive.
The other was that modern education standards are lower and I have been encouraged to write down to readers, and again, making things shorter.
I don't agree with that - people that don't like reading don't spend money on magazines.

What I see are magazines laying out their five paragraph stories interspersed with ads and ending up with lots of attention-grabbing titles and cluttered pages, evidently trying to out internet the internet, essentially competing with the net to meet its greatest fault - lack of real subject matter and thin treatment.

What we really need here (BUY LEUPOLD!!!) on this particular Internet (BARNES TTSX GREATEST BULLET EVER@#%!) site is more ads mixed (WHAT'S IN YOUR WALLET?) in with the posts.

Wow, well into the second page and Savage 99 hasn't shown up to tell us print is dead and how much better the internet is?

There is little or no interest in magazine articles.

Nobody gets the 'paper' anymore. No paperboy. The local newspaper building is closed and for sale.

Almost everyone reads and even writes on electronic media like this internet or other personal electronics.

We can afford any books, magazines or paper we want and we get none. The only magazines that come are from the NRA life memberships.

Here on the net I can write about what I want and even ask questions. Never did that with the old 'paper'.

One thing about Dumb Don, he'll never let you down!

Classic.

youbettcha!!


Jerry

I don't know about you guys, but I'd really appreciate reading an in depth brief summary of handloading for the .30-30 with modern powders and find out the best place to buy Viagra online at the same time.






For my friend, that is. My much older friend. I mean, he's a LOT older than me. He's like eight or nine decades older than me. Yeah, that's it.

The Wolfe publications have been my favorites for years. This past Friday I was passing through Prescott, Arizona on a road trip. I had some time to spare. As a pilot I enjoy checking out airports and I swung into the Prescott airport and found a delightfully busy and beautiful airport.

As I enjoyed the sights, I remembered that Wolfe Publishing was located nearby on the other side of the airport. I decided to drop in and pay them a first-time visit.

I had a nice visit with the staff. They asked me several questions about what I liked to see or not see in their magazines. They also questioned me about my favorite writers and what I liked about them. (I gave JB an A+).

Their office facility is modest, but very nice and practical. The beautiful game heads in the lobby and other parts of the building set the right atmosphere.

They also have a good selection of their books, magazines and back issues on display for sale in the lobby. I picked up a couple of their previous Levergun specials that I had somehow missed out on.

The Wolfe Publishing office is worth a stop if you find yourself in Prescott.

I quit all the magazines I got when the ads in the back pages became x rated. My boy was young at the time and I didn't want him filling his head with that stuff.

Not many capable of that.


Jerry

That's why I just LOVE "Sports Afield." And they seem to have a lot of expensive advertisers.

As for "American Rifleman," I really dislike how they cut up the articles, continued on some other page, then another, and...

There is little or no interest in magazine articles.

Nobody gets the 'paper' anymore. No paperboy. The local newspaper building is closed and for sale.

Almost everyone reads and even writes on electronic media like this internet or other personal electronics.

We can afford any books, magazines or paper we want and we get none. The only magazines that come are from the NRA life memberships.

Here on the net I can write about what I want and even ask questions. Never did that with the old 'paper'.

Realy?

Savage 99,

You never ask questions here. Instead you post dumb-ass comments like that one.

A recent survey of the publishing industry indicates sales of electronic books have leveled off. Two-thirds of sales in the U.S. are still printed and bound books. The printed-magazine industry is also alive and well. Some have failed but others are growing.

John,

I do most of my reading about things on forums these days.

In the past all we could read in magazines, books and newspapers was what someone else wrote.

Here on the internet we can ask specific questions and get answers. I never wrote to J.O.C.

This internet is far more interesting and informative.

I used to subscribe to sailing magazines like Sail, Cruising World, and to classified ad papers like the Shotgun News.

Also to similar shooting magazines not needed anymore. It's all here on the internet.

The only magazines my wife and I get are the Rifleman and the American Hunter and that's only because they still come with the life memberships. We hardly read them.

When I was a little boy I had the great fortune of being given a whole collection of Outdoor Life books.

I believe they came from a garage sale. Such treasures as a book about hunting small game by Clyde Ormond, game bird hunting by Rice and Dahl and my prized possession, The Hunters Shooting Guide by Jack O'Connor.

I still read these books, along with Rifle and Handloader.

At 33, I guess I don't fit into anyone's demographic. I like long, printed articles.

I always thought magazine article length was tied to the average amount of time it takes to make doo doo.

Have I been wrong all these years?

I'm still buying books written by the gunwriters. Sometimes the magazines too but not often anymore.

Don,

"In the past all we could read in magazines, books and newspapers was what someone else wrote."

That's by far the most insightful post you've ever made on the Campfire. Mostly you post so you can read your own pronouncements.

For a moment, I thought you were going to slip up and pay the man a compliment.

I also appreciate having access to the expertise that's available here and the quick response I've gotten from you, Mr. Shoemaker and others that know their stuff. Can't beat the price either.

As a matter of fact I just ordered a book called OPTICS FOR THE HUNTER written by some fella named Barsness.

Your wrong Mule Deer.

It's that magazines are obsolete now, replaced by this internet and that your not the only voice of our outdoors now.

We are!

White line spacers are also obsolete, but I still like em!

I believe you're mistaken.

A person could say that certain posts in this thread are Exhibit A of Internet content not being the most reliable or logical and why people should still get the majority of their information from print. That said, I do feel much more stylish now that I refer to my pump shotgun as a drilling. Until I started getting my info from message boards I always thought it was a plain old mossberg 500

"You're" voice is more like passing "winds", outdoors, of course.

Actually, I'm grateful he pointed out the passing of my profession. The half-dozen checks that show up in my post-office box each month from various magazines must be forgeries, and there'd be big trouble if I deposited them at our bank. Thanks to Don I'll remain free, if impoverished....

Makes sense to me.

Just when you thought you were out, they will drag you back in!!!

The old Keith stuff, read it now and you hear that voice, a voice like no other that spoke of the world he saw and the world he knew, and he let you into it for a little while. And it wasn't a shopping trip.
Books and places like here are where those things are now, and thanks for that.