The Drake Magazine Turns Ten: The Underground Offers a Few Reasons Why You Should Care
By Tom Chandler on Mar 18, 2008 in Opinion
The Drake’s 10th anniversary issue just hit the stands, and while I’m normally pretty droll on the subject of anniversaries, I’d say this one matters. Why?
An editor of a mainstream fly fishing magazine - responding to online criticism that his magazine ran the same stories over and over - said a large pool of new fly fishing writers capable of stringing simple sentences together didn’t exist.
That’s a hard statement to swallow given the existence of The Drake, This is Fly, AEG and a laundry list of literate, relevant fly fishing blogs.
Clearly, there’s no shortage of new voices in fly fishing demanding to be heard.
Yes, they can write. And yes, many them have a lot to say about the sport and the environmental/access/lifestyle issues facing it — issues largely ignored by fly fishing’s print media.
Speaking to us via blogs, video, online magazines, podcasts and other digital publishing platforms, these voices continue to multiply and capture an audience — despite the inattention of a largely hidebound fly fishing industry.
The Drake’s importance in this fragmenting media landscape is clear; while a lot of us are succeeding via digital media channels, The Drake is currently kicking butt in the exact same sandbox as the industry’s traditional media players.
Ten years? Hot damn.
Time For a Change
For years — convinced their audience was interested only in fin & grins, teak-and-butler destination stories, and gear ads masquerading as editorial content — the leading magazines and weekend video producers fed readers & viewers a steady diet of the stuff, wholly overlooking the sport’s younger practitioners and and ignoring those who wanted more.
In fact, these younger readers were the subject of much hand wringing, and a common industry position was they didn’t exist at all.
In other words, if you didn’t buy into the existing program, you weren’t on the radar.
The problem wasn’t with the “market segment” in question; it was the radar that was broken.
Of course, new media’s audience isn’t limited to younger participants; plenty of “seasoned” fly fishers are on board with the Drake and what I’ll simply call “alternative fly fishing outlets” (hint: you’re reading one).
In fact, it’s likely the “new wave” is composed of as many geezers as youngsters, and the cumulative effect on the media side of fly fishing is one of rapid, wholesale evolution.
Meet the New Boss?
It’s fair to ask if we’re witnessing the democratization of fly fishing media, or simply the emergence of a new fly fishing elite happy to make the same mistakes as those they replaced.
And once the marketing dollars start flowing to new media, will the too-chummy relationship between industry and media be repeated?
Being largely trapped in the present, I have no answers.
For now, the Drake represents an alternative voice in a fly fishing industry that desperately needed one, and its long-term success benefits all of us interested in perspectives beyond the typical.
Happy 10th Anniversary to the Drake. It wouldn’t be the same without you.
Technorati Tags: fly fishing,fishing,the drake,fly fishing magazine,fly fishing media,fly fishing’s new media,AEG,fly fishing blogs,damned straight
Smellslikefish | Mar 18, 2008 | Reply
I’m feeling a bit sheepish, but have to admit to no knowledge of The Drake, This is Fly or AEG. Thanks for bringing them to my attention!
Taku | Mar 18, 2008 | Reply
I have to agree wholeheartedly on this one. Daytripper had a recent rant on why he doesn’t like to read the mainstream fly mags, and he and you nailed it. While there are still some excellent articles presented, you have to search for them. The Drake and This Is Fly seem to find the writers that see things differently and are making fly fishing what they want, not necessarily what the established mags/editors/industry wants. Even Gray’s Sporting Journal is getting stale. While some of the loud pounding music might not be to my liking (throw in some Who and I will be satisfied…) it is refreshing to see the culture evolve. Even the Trout Underground culture. Face it Tom, the groupies are out there and they are hanging on your every word.
(It’s snowin’ and blowin’ in the Bitterroot valley tonight, but the river will be beautiful tomorrow…..)
El Pescador | Mar 19, 2008 | Reply
The Drake is a publication filled with a very unique ingredient - Truthfulness. That’s a rare quality in the world of print media where the norm is something all too infomercial-like. The Drake’s honesty, warts and all, remains attractive in a “sandbox” full of sameness.
Here’s a kooky analogy to illustrate The Drake. Most of the rags out there resemble Nestle and all produce the same candy but in different wrappers. The Drake is Willie Wonka’s Chocolate Factory producing something special. The question is, Who is Tom Bie, Willie Wonka or Charlie Bucket?
Smithhammer | Mar 19, 2008 | Reply
“An editor of a mainstream fly fishing magazine - responding to online criticism that his magazine ran the same stories over and over - said a large pool of new fly fishing writers capable of stringing simple sentences together didn’t exist.”
I remember that exchange, and while I applauded that editor’s willingness to engage, I couldn’t believe he would make a statement like that. There are no more, or less, talented, capable writers today than there were 25 or 50 years ago. And frankly, I see writing published in the big mags all the time that is poorly written, of sadly limited vocabulary, downright boring, and sometimes all three at the same time. If said editor isn’t finding many talented writers submitting to his mag, maybe it’s because they aren’t interested in that mag, or the type of redundant writing it seems to cultivate? Or, is he applying that statement to the industry in general, and saying that the people writing for alternative venues like The Drake, TiF, etc. can’t write either?
Wook | Mar 19, 2008 | Reply
“If said editor isn’t finding many talented writers submitting to his mag, maybe it’s because they aren’t interested in that mag, or the type of redundant writing it seems to cultivate?”
I could be wrong, but I imagine that said editor has a directive to produce a certain kind of magazine with a certain kind of content that has been deemed most likely to sell said magazine to some nebulous demographic that has been judged to be most profitable. In short, I think he’s just doing his job. I don’t like the product and I don’t purchase it, which I guess is my job. But I don’t think said editor is ignorant about what’s going on here.
If my assumption is incorrect, maybe said editor, or someone who really knows this stuff can set me straight.
Smithhammer | Mar 19, 2008 | Reply
I think that’s a big part of it - but acknowledging that, rather than saying that most of the young breed of writers can’t write, would probably be a more honest assessment of the situation…
Tom Chandler | Mar 19, 2008 | Reply
Rather than re-live that entire exchange, I’ll say this: I’m not wholly without sympathy for the editor’s plight.
I think there is a shortage of good writers willing to write about their favorite water or another mind-numbing article about three-nymph rigs for a pittance (providing photos for free).
Still, that wasn’t the editor’s original statement, and equating an unwillingness to write “The Ten Best…” articles with an absence of talent is dead, dead wrong.
Before the Drake, and digital video, and blogs, and other technologies, there simply wasn’t an outlet for writers/videographers whose interests fell outside the narrow spectrum of subjects published in the mainstream media.
That’s changed.
What’s remarkable about the Drake is that it’s succeeding on a commercial basis, and while I have my issues with AEG’s emphasis on fish porn and posturing about things like “sleeping in the dirt,” I’m happy to see them making a living producing quality stuff — that falls well outside fly fishing’s somewhat tunnel-visioned expectations.
WT | Mar 19, 2008 | Reply
If the dang editor-in-chief of a magazine can’t change the flavor of said magazine, who can?
Change is slow, in a few years all the other rags will be desperately trying to look like The Drake.
Wook | Mar 19, 2008 | Reply
Looks to me like FR&R started in that direction a couple of years ago under Guernsey.
Amangler | Mar 20, 2008 | Reply
“Said editor” here. It seems my battle against the false dichotomy is never-ending. Let me be clear about something: I like The Drake. I have read every issue since the first one. It’s a lot of fun, and offers insights and voices not to be found elsewhere. I, too, am glad it exists.
That said, my magazine has a completely different raison d’etre (excuse my French). The folks who read The Drake are not necessarily my audience; that’s why I don’t publish the same things The Drake does. I would argue that our magazines are complementary. There is room in this world for both magazines.
So, it’s fine if you don’t like my magazine, but don’t then jump to all kinds of conclusions about why we do things the way we do them. And Bruce, I never said “most of the young breed of writers can’t write.” I said that most people can’t write. That’s the truth. That doesn’t deny that there are many people who can write, but who aren’t interested in doing what we do. But if you think Tom Bie isn’t editing the crap out of a lot of the copy he gets, you’d be sadly mistaken. Just because it ends up well written doesn’t mean it was submitted that way.
I will say that I am getting very tired of hearing how ff mags make decisions based on what advertisers want. I defy anyone to find a single example of that in my magazine. Then go look carefully at the ads and articles in certain “refreshing” and “ground-breaking” online publications.
The assumption you all seem to be working under is that everyone really wants the same things you want. I guarantee that that’s not true.
Smithhammer | Mar 20, 2008 | Reply
So far I’ve personally steered clear of commenting on implications about the cozy relationship between mainstream ff media and advertisers, but here’s what I would speculate - that of course there is no direct mandate going on between the two about what gets published. But, in much the same way that mainstream news media tends to only report perspectives that are favorable, or at least minimally controversial, to those that hold the purse strings (whether they be political or corporate) without being directly dictated to do so, so I fear that much the same sort of subtle undercurrent of unwritten understanding pervades most other forms of mainstream media as well. If you disagree, try running an op-ed critical of the outsourcing of manufacturing to Asian child labor sweatshops and see what kind of reaction you get from many of your advertisers. It’s not that there’s some overarching conspiracy going on here - it’s just that that’s the way business works, with all sorts of implicit understandings, and like it or not, it is what it is. You either choose to be a part of it, or you don’t.
So personally, in some cases I’ve chosen to contribute to certain mainstream venues anyway, and then on the other hand, in being involved with something like Buster, there’s been a very deliberate decision not to advertise commercially, so that we can truly post whatever we want and not care if someone gets offended. To me the lesson there is that if you don’t like something, rather than whine about it, create something else.
“The assumption you all seem to be working under is that everyone really wants the same things you want. I guarantee that that’s not true.”
Huh? Is this not a sweeping, and fairly baseless assumption as well? Who alluded to that?
Tom Chandler | Mar 20, 2008 | Reply
Dear Said Editor:
I appreciate your willingness to show up, but I’m less impressed with a somewhat selective defense of your statement about writers. In the online forum (the statement I referenced), you said:
In my original article, I felt that opinion was wildly inaccurate, and that the very existence (and success) of a literate “alternative” media largely put that statement to the sword.
I stand by that assertion.
While we’re on the subject of false dichotomies, I don’t recall suggesting there wasn’t room for both new and “traditional” FF mags.
My point (clearly) was that traditional print media weren’t speaking to a whole segment of fly fishers, and that newer publications — taking advantage of low-cost-of-entry media channels — were taking up that slack.
To whit:
I stand by that too.
Finally, you said:
Who, exactly, said that? In the absence of an answer, I’d suggest someone’s chumming with red herrings here, and I’m afraid it’s you.
No one has suggested its a simple “either/or” choice, and celebrating the very existence of alternatives for people (wait for the irony here) who don’t want the same things you do is — in my mind — a good thing.
Amangler | Mar 20, 2008 | Reply
“Is this not a sweeping, and fairly baseless assumption as well?”
Perhaps. But if it isn’t so, then why such indignation and contempt in the discussions of “dead-tree media”?
I don’t like lobster, but I don’t criticize it for not tasting the way I want it to. I just eat something else.
I don’t want to get in a pissing match with anyone. My only point is that just because you don’t like something doesn’t necessarily mean that the thing is inherently wrong and lacks value. That’s all I’m saying.
The only reason I get involved in these debates is to defend against incorrect or unfair characterizations. I’m not trying to convince anyone of the righteousness of our cause or the quality of our magazine; that’s up to the individual to decide.
As I wrote in that Buster thread: I do what I do; folks like it or don’t.
Smithhammer | Mar 20, 2008 | Reply
“I don’t like lobster, but I don’t criticize it for not tasting the way I want it to. I just eat something else.”
True, but the last time I checked, lobster tastes the way it does because it is a lobster, not because a team of people have ordained what they think the majority of people want a lobster to taste like.
Smithhammer | Mar 20, 2008 | Reply
My point being that the “flavor” of media is subject to the whims of the public as much as it is to any editorial/corporate decisions (unlike the taste of lobster). If enough people are bored with the current offering, said publication will wither by the wayside as the public begins to consume other offerings that it enjoys more. The bottom line for any corporate endeavor is profitability - when sales take a nose dive, things will change, otherwise, probably not. Again - if you don’t like it, create something else. That’s what Tom did, and frankly, that’s why The Drake has been successful - by tapping into a whole segment that isn’t interested in most of what gets published in the big mags. I don’t think it’s anything more complicated or obtuse than that.
Amangler | Mar 20, 2008 | Reply
“a team of people have ordained what they think the majority of people want a lobster to taste like”
WTF? Who is “ordaining what the majority of the people want”? That’s crazy.
We make a magazine that we believe will appeal to a segment of the fly-fishing community. If we’re correct, we stay in business. If we’re wrong, we go under. Where’s the “ordaining” part? It’s the audience that ultimately makes the call, not us. You’ve got the equation backward.
Many a brilliant magazine has folded, and many a crappy magazine survives. (Just look in the hunting section of any newsstand for proof of the latter.)
Amangler | Mar 20, 2008 | Reply
BTW, didn’t I say I like The Drake?
Smithhammer | Mar 20, 2008 | Reply
“BTW, didn’t I say I like The Drake?”
Who said you didn’t? I’m glad to hear you do. Btw, I hope I clarified my point above.
“Many a brilliant magazine has folded, and many a crappy magazine survives. (Just look in the hunting section of any newsstand for proof of the latter.)”
So I’m truly curious then - how do these “crappy” magazines survive? Purely because a majority of the public is satisfied with crap?
Amangler | Mar 20, 2008 | Reply
Crappy magazines survive because people buy them, for one reason or another. Perhaps the audience is not discerning, or maybe folks don’t mind if a magazine is poorly written and ugly, as long as the information is good. I don’t know. But seriously, pick up one of those “Whitetail Fever!” or “Huntin’ the Low Country” kinds of magazines. You’ll be amazed at the horrible writing, blurry photos, blatant advertiser payoffs, etc.
Look at some of the amazing magazines that have gone out of business: Life, Spy, No Depression, etc. Under Tina Brown, The New Yorker was losing millions a year and was kept afloat only as a trophy property by the publisher.
It’s a tough business, and there are no sure things.
kbarton10 | Mar 20, 2008 | Reply
I had the honor of receiving a call from “Karen” last night. She insisted that the savings on my 3 year subscription to “GripNGrinGlossyForeignVenue” was available should I choose to renew.
I had the pleasure of telling Karen, “no thanks.” She asked why, and I had to confess “Karen, the content is not relevant to my beloved sport, and is no longer useful.”
She didn’t even protest - she merely whispered, “I understand.”
Wook | Mar 20, 2008 | Reply
I like lobster.