oliver90owner Posted April 15, 2015 Report Share Posted April 15, 2015 Says it all really: ''publishing online takes as much effort and man-power as printing (possibly more) but it brings in a fraction of the revenue'' Bias in reporting, such as reviews of items, shows through clearly to anybody that analyses what they read. Most writers clearly write for those that cannot read properly of they would soon be seen by all as the waste of space as an honest reviewer. While there are people out there that are persuaded by advertising hype (or over-zealous praise for something that does not deserve that accolade) they will continue to give glowing reports whenever it suits their pocket. These days one needs to 'read' what is not written. Note the gaps where the item under-performs; note the areas avoided. Etc, etc. In fact, recognise the honest, down to earth, feet on the ground, real world responses. Most don't have a clue, to be honest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GingerCat Posted April 15, 2015 Report Share Posted April 15, 2015 I've never read a bad review yet, not one. EVER. even when the triggers shocking and the build quality is worse than rubbish. The review we'll say it's the best thing ever. Then you have the super hunter who never fails to make a bag followed by a few lines of sorting out or converting an anti. Can't be bothered to read them anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudpatten Posted April 16, 2015 Report Share Posted April 16, 2015 The Shooting Times,of all the titles mentioned, has just had a new Editor appointed. It`ll be interesting to see whether he continues with the same hackneyed old writers or whether he has the ball s to employ some different ones. Many of the older Editors of the various shooting publications of years gone by had a lifetimes experience of the sport. Many of the modern ones don`t. It will be informative to see how this reflects on the contents of the ST over the next few months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatcatsplat Posted April 16, 2015 Report Share Posted April 16, 2015 Variation would be a very good thing. There is so much repetition, which is due to a severe lack of newsworthy news - When the 725 came out, it got reviewed everywhere for months (mainly by ***********) and everyone said it was lovely and wonderful. Whether it is or not, some unbiased reporting or reviewing might go down a treat, although they are presumably scared stiff of losing advertising revenue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodp Posted April 16, 2015 Report Share Posted April 16, 2015 Absolutely correct, but speaking as someone recently culled from the print media world I should point out that publishing online takes as much effort and man-power as printing (possibly more) but it brings in a fraction of the revenue. It is easy to say print media should embrace social media and innovate but the reality is there is no money, and in many cases no staff, to do it well. Even the best performing publications are loosing print sales year on year but the smart ones, and those that can afford it, are managing the decline whilst innovating online until some bright spark finds a palatable way to monitise online content - not an easy thing to do if everyone is used to getting it free. There will always be a niche market for printed material but my great fear is that, outside of the BBC, sky, ITV and a few other big players, small scale journalism will be allowed to fade into obscurity to be replaced with something much less informative, much more invasive and almost completely uncontrolled. If you think tabloids are bad now then the future looks rather uninviting. How can that be ? Admittedly I know nothing about publishing but both mags and online have to be written, then the magazines have to be printed, loaded, delivered, stacked on shelves, and finally sold. Online just needs a click and the computer does the rest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cueball Posted April 17, 2015 Report Share Posted April 17, 2015 Does anyone read the new ishoot online magazine. It is a good little mag. Free to download to. As has been said already a lot of the magazines review £3-4k guns and 1k days out. As Joe blogs and a father I can't justify that sort of cash outlay so it has become pointless to buy the mags when I can get more relevent info on pw and other forums. I think they need to get back in touch with a larger demographic of real world shooters or face the way of the dinosaur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FalconFN Posted April 17, 2015 Report Share Posted April 17, 2015 How can that be ? Admittedly I know nothing about publishing but both mags and online have to be written, then the magazines have to be printed, loaded, delivered, stacked on shelves, and finally sold. Online just needs a click and the computer does the rest.I'm really talking about existing publications as a monthly publication will not work online, interactivity is assumed and so is regular posting and updating of websites, all of which need to be pushed constantly on Facebook, twitter, instagram, Google+ and a host of other platforms. Blogs need to be written, apps, websites and forums have to be created, administered and developed. Added to that there is the constant need to have a competent it system that works across all platforms. A shooting mag that has an editorial staff of 3 or 4 will struggle to do a good job online and in print. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.