This one’s been gathering dust in the Underground’s “Lost Article” catacombs for a while, but good industry snark is always better late than never.
And yes, with another “Fly Fishing Media” post teeing up on the Underground, I thought I’d prime the pump a little.
In response to an interesting Wicked Outdoorsy blog post about competition between print and PR people in the outdoor media world, someone sent Wicked a stunning missive about what’s gone wrong for much of the outdoor media:
Of course everyone in the outdoor/action sports industry is a competitor in some shape or form, and there is perhaps nothing stranger than the kind of sibling rivalry between pr and mags right now (especially how they work so well together to create editorial excitement for the same brands that they are both pushing for marketing dollars).
But I think the lack of transparency or in some cases even objectivity among some of the magazines in the market exacerbated the situation – I mean, seriously, when’s the last time you saw a bad review, or the kind of Consumer Reports copy that actually advises readers against buying certain products (Rolling Stone, Uncut and others that publish magazines focused solely on media are much more effective at this, while most of the magazines in our market mirror the everybody gets a medal mentality that is so dismaying in kids sports right now).
‘Gear Reviews,’ originally devised as a reader service, have expanded into the kind of multi-page catalog copy that you could easily find on any given brand’s website, and have done so at the cost of real journalism, and the tougher to get, harder to research, real features that were originally the staple of so many of our favorite magazines.
When Ski Magazine is writing extended ‘features’ on major advertisers like Deer Valley and Vail each and every year, outdoor pubs are celebrating Christmas with ‘Giant Holiday Gear Reviews’ and the best writers in our market are making most of their monthly check from swag stories, then it becomes pretty obvious how heavy a hand pr and marketers can have in creating a magazine’s editorial.
Like government, it’s possible we do get exactly the magazines we deserve, and while I find the idea of writing formulaic “Top 10″ list stories draining, it’s also clear that “Top 10″ articles and gear stories sells more magazines (and pull more readers) than ten thought-provoking pieces on backcountry fishing, the fly fishing life, or the environment.
Ditto the “hero” shots that adorn the covers of most mainstream fly fishing magazines.
We wouldn’t see them every month if they didn’t work.
The Undergrounders don’t need to weigh in with comments about the fly fishing rags and how they’re running the same stories over and over. Some are. Some aren’t.
And the commenter on Wicked Outdoorsy was clearly aiming himself at the larger outdoor media, which – if you’ve read the mags in question – might have more questions to answer than fly fishing’s top rags.
The bigger question is this: are we simply getting the publications we deserve?
After all, it’s hard to rage about the paid-for destination stories and “formulaic, enthusiastic gear reviews for major advertisers” stories evident in some of the top magazines – without noting that they’ve become the top magazines doing exactly that.
More to come. Until then, discuss amongst yourselves.
It’s unkely we’ll be privy to any metrics suggesting the “top magazines” are in decline – releasing that type of information denies advertising dollars. Rather, look at the foment and new online startups as a measure of discontent with their content.
Despite all of our silly rivalries (and they’re legion) it’s hard to find a proponent of the traditional press – other than the authors (who don’t want to alienate editors) and those with similar financial attachments.
Gear reviews are like television news – they’ve given up journalistic endeavor in favor of making non-news headline worthy. Every reviewer is starved for content on his magazine/blog/website and is so afeared of putting a crimp in his swag pipeline – that all the gear is revolutionary, awesome, and double extra good.
Those that dare mention anything as “cheap”, “ill-fitting” or whose superlatives aren’t tier one – get the cold shoulder. They learn quick enough – and “bad” becomes noncommital, “we slid around a bit, but the boots need additional testing.”
I’m not sure the online community doesn’t share in all this – as many attempt to monetize their work – which forces them to play the same game.
In our youth the reward for poring over books, learning to tie flies, and countless hours of practice – was seeing some big nose slurp a mayfly under bankside vegetation, and having the skill that put a reasonable facsimile into that same path.
… attempt to monetize that innocence and you’ve introduced the unclean thing.
The proper balance of innocence and swag has yet to be negotiated successfully (in any hobby) – as long as the quality of content overshadows the shallowness of gear reviews we’re willing to overlook the problem. It’s when the content is indistinguishable from the catalog copy that we gash ourselves and insist we’re deserved of something far better.
KBarton10(Quote)
I have to agree, for the most part, with Wicked on this one. It reminds me of a recent interview with a very well-known columnist for a major national paper, who, when asked his thoughts on the reasons why print news is dying, said essentially, “we’ve done it to ourselves.” This was not a very popular view with his colleagues, obviously, but there is much truth to it. Rather than blaming electronic media, which has been the standard scapegoat in this discussion, he attributed much of the demise to an abandonment of real journalism in favor of info-tainment, lazy reporting, and pure fluff. He’s right, imo.
If we look at most of the mainstream fly fishing print media out there (and outdoor print mags in general), I think there is a similar truth to be had.
Do we really know this? Which magazines have been willing to actually try it? Are there metrics that back up this assertion – that directly tie in cover “hero” shots to decisions by consumers? The only ff print magazine I know that has been willing to break out of that tired mold has been the Drake, and it seems to be working – the mag has grown and is more popular than ever. In fact, I’d say that at this point, it’s success has had a noticeable impact on what some of the major mags are now starting to offer. There is a large audience out there that wants to see something more creative than another “grip and grin” on the cover, followed by another formulaic “Top 10″ piece. But up until recently, that was pretty much the only option people had. The advent of, for lack of a better word, “alternative” ff magazines, both in print and online, has been a very healthy thing for the industry.
I’ve heard some folks behind the major mags say things to the effect of, “well, things like The Drake and Catch are all well and good for a small segment of the market, but the fact is that most people still prefer what we offer.” I truly wonder. The “most people” in that statement is, for the most part, an aging segment of the market, with different tastes. “Most people” of my generation and younger want something different – something more creative and exciting. Hem and haw all you want about it, but it’s the truth.
The most obvious proof of this happens regularly in the fly shop I work in – when the Drake comes out, we are often cleaned out of every issue withing a week. With the mainstream mags we carry, and that come out far more frequently, we often still have copies left on the rack when the next issue comes out. If that isn’t telling, I don’t know what is.
I don’t think that we truly get the magazines that most of us feel we deserve – I think we get the magazines that sell just enough to be viable and that serve the industry’s interests, and that’s not the same thing.
Smithhammer(Quote)
From KB…
There are plenty of gear manufacturers out there, so some folks with a decent “swag pipeline” do have the opportunity to pick and choose. KB’s own fly line analysis even showed you could probably hammer one segment of one manufacturers offerings, without completely offending – who would even know, with the product distinctions so blurred. Traditional media, with it’s high overhead and desire for broad reach, does not have that luxury. They either favor most all manufacturers and most all offerings, or cut themselves off immediately at the knees.
As for the success of the Drake…
We don’t necessarily need excitement, but we do need entertainment. That means an escape from the laptop, and from the commercial. Some people are happy getting the enjoyment in ten page bites. Gear reviews are not entertainment – at best they are dissemination of information, and at worst simply advertisements. Kudos to Bie & Co. for recognizing such a simple need.
Michael(Quote)
I think we are getting the publications we deserve. Since Drake, Catch and This Is Fly are part of the publication equation now, I believe we are seeing a wonderful change in how material is presented and delivered. While I do have to admit that some of the articles and styles they are presented in don’t really make my day, I find many of these efforts refreshing in their presentation and how they are describing the myriad places and ways that fly fishing is being done today.
Are the “old” mags still worth it? Sure, but as noted, they also are realizing that change is inevitable and trying to figure out how to survive – or not.
As for gear reviews, I pretty much gave those up years ago. I certainly still read them, but when none of the testers seem to be in my “category” of skill level, let alone wonder how much money they are making from the gear review, it certainly causes me to read with a cynical eye. And this includes fishing, hunting, skiing and camping gear. I do appreciate companies such as Patagonia that allow users to submit their own gear reviews, good or bad. Those I will read with more enthusiasm.
Speaking of new pubs, I still haven’t gone over to the new issue of This Is Fly, so see ya’ later, TC!
Taku(Quote)
Well, we get the mags that we buy… if the buyers go away, so will the mags. Print everything seems to be having a rather rough go of it these days… I doubt there is really much that can be done about the shift from print to digital… throwing pebbles at the waves… there is a multi-generational shift going on in how we consume information. Most people my age don’t subscribe to newspapers, where my father subscribes to three (and read them cover to cover each and every day). Folks younger than I am (and that is an ever increasing segment of the population) will likely never buy a newspaper and will likely not buy fishing magazines except when traveling. You can say print is having a hard time because they haven’t changed with the times, but it seems to me the changes they really could make are minor in the grand scheme of things.
I like the part about gear reviews being a bit crap. I love Patagonia as a company and Yvon as a person, but when their wading jacket came out at whatever insanely high price it came out at… well… who really wants to stand up and say “Man… that’s not value for money.” When Orvis comes out with their new Helios rods at $775 per, who wants to really ask if they are worth $600 more than an Echo? Maybe that’s just me though.
Bjorn(Quote)
Latest Drake has a large and colorful display ad, showing a lot of blonde skin. One fellow could not stop himself from gazing at the ad. He bought the mag and took it home.
Thought it was quite buyable myself. Nice midsection, very nice.
Flykuni(Quote)