catch magazine,    fly fishing media

Can Catch Magazine Make An Online Subscription Plan Pay?

By Tom Chandler 1/16/2012

The latest issue of Catch Magazine is out, and tucked away inside is news they're trotting out a subscription format; sometime in 2012, the formerly free online photography and video magazine is putting a $12 annual subscription rate in place (six issues a year).

Catch Magazine

In my recent California Fly Fisher interview I touched on the idea that print magazines will likely (perhaps inevitably) go digital, and while they still enjoy a chunk of competitive advantages, they'd better be prepared for the pro-quality ezines and blogs waiting for them.

For the moment, the paper vs digital divide renders comparisons irrelevant; the delivery channels are so different that we're not talking apples and oranges, we're talking apples and iPhones.

At some point, the (formerly) print and online publishers will find themselves playing in the same sandbox.

Which is why Catch's move to a pay-to-play model is so interesting.

Let's face it; the first wave of digital publishing is settling in.

Websites, blogs, message boards and (mostly) flip-book style ezines are fixtures in fly fishing's online landscape, and while it's astonishing how quickly some forms have taken shape, it's also clear a certain stasis is settling in.

Absent the "Information wants to be free" fools who think all this should be freely presented (and created) forever, the formats that will ultimately thrive on a lasting (ahem, commercial) basis are those that can be monetized.

Simply put, there's no commercial future in something you can't make pay.

Now Catch -- the six-times-a-year photo and video (no essays, few words) -- wants to make money.

Which raises a couple of interesting questions.

Is Catch -- which is gorgeous but lacks written narratives and can't find a place on your coffee table -- going to succeed in their move to a subscription format?

Or will Catch's subscription plan hammer readership numbers to the point their advertising rates will suffer (fewer readers = lower ad rates)?

Twelve dollars isn't a lot, but it's not much less than the Big Three print magazines, which print and deliver a physical product.

I'm sure the print magazines are watching with interest.

Should Catch's subscription plan fail, they'll feel little urgency to move to digital distribution.

Should Catch succeed, something larger looms on the horizon; print magazines will find themselves in direct competition with an online publication for subscriber dollars. (They've been competing for ad dollars for some time.)

And will Catch's move to a subscription format alter the support it receives form other sites, who might look differently at promoting a paid product versus a free one?

I could analyze this from a lot of angles, but it's late and there's plenty of time for this to play out, and besides, I've got a lot of work to finish tomorrow, because Wednesday is looking like -- for the first time this winter -- a real BWO day.

So what do the Undergrounders think? Will Catch earn your $12? Is that price too high given the lack of articles/permanence? Would you pay for any online magazine or blog?

And is the explosion in tablet-style computer sales going to make online magazines more tenable, or will it drive digital content distribution through apps instead of web browsers?

Plenty of questions. And not much data.

See you online, Tom Chandler.

AuthorPicture

Tom Chandler

As the author of the decade leading fly fishing blog Trout Underground, Tom believes that fishing is not about measuring the experience but instead of about having fun. As a staunch environmentalist, he brings to the Yobi Community thought leadership on environmental and access issues facing us today.

77 comments
My apologies to everyone who was subscribed to this largely dead post on the Underground. I use the Akismet service to protect the Underground from comment spam, and their service apparently went down for a bit, and the comment spam robots hit the Underground pretty hard. If you were subscribed to any thread that was hit, then you received a bunch of email notices pointing you towards spam comments. ... more I'm reluctant to close threads because some of the more interesting comments come later, but will try to do so on a few threads which seem to invite spam robot participation. Again, sorry.
0
0
I recommend decaf.
0
0
This may be a day or two late and only peripherally related, but the Orvis Fly Fishing Guide Podcast's latest episode is a discussion with Brian O'Keefe about fly fishing photography. Other than a slow stretch about how he got started taking pictures, it's got some good tips for non-professionals like me.
0
0
perhaps, but you are disquallified to say anything nice about them. however it was a good interview.
0
0
JACK COOK: Just finished reading the latest issue of California Fly Fisher, Feb 2012. This is by far the best flyfishing mag out there. Newspaper print, poor pictures. Who cares. It is the excellent content. They even interviewed Tom Wouldn't the fact they interviewed me disqualify them on the basis of sanity?
0
0
Just finished reading the latest issue of California Fly Fisher, Feb 2012. This is by far the best flyfishing mag out there. Newspaper print, poor pictures. Who cares. It is the excellent content. They even interviewed Tom
0
0
Will they have a forum? I hope so! That way all the Drakians can hate me somewhere else too! And I deserve it 100%. jnnythndr is kinda hot the way he misspells everything because he's inbred. I get into that big time
0
0
Quill Gordon: It wasn’t long ago that anglers were limited to a fairly narrow range of choices for information and entertainment. Now, thousands of us hit the “publish” button every day and it’s like drinking from a fire hose. I am grateful for those who take the time to find and share some of the better stuff out there, and I appreciate the occasional invite to contribute to some of the Journals, ... more Magazines, or whatever you want to call them. Right now, I don’t even mind contributing for free, in exchange for some exposure, but at some point I would like to be paid. I think the fire hose thing is real, but it's not hard to overcome. The freedom for people to publish whatever they want -- including perspectives wholly lacking a commercial appeal -- is astonishing (at least to me). As Ralph Cutter noted (and he's been around enough to know), the much-decried fossilization of some of fly fishing's media might simply be because the magazines pay so little, there's little incentive to write anything but the stuff you can generate without leaving your desk. As an ereader and Android tablet owner (we also own an iPad, but Little M's taken it over), I think you're right -- they're ideal for consuming this stuff, which should probably also play well on the new wave of wi-fi HD televisions.
0
0
Like every conversation, people are walking into this one with wildly varying perceptions. I tend to look at these things from a marketing/industry/trends perspective, but Jim at the Home Waters blog suggests he's simply uninterested in Catch because he's basically a homebody: Neither are the places we fish chosen for their status quotient. Most of us fish most of the time close to home. We search ... more out our home waters and we learn as much as we can about them and their fish. We immerse ourselves in that world. It becomes a constant in our lives, experienced on an intimate level, face to face and hands on, rather than through the intermediaries of travel agents, lodge owners, and guides. The last is interesting; on your own waters, you're largely responsible for your experience. On a trip, you're in the hands of a lot of other people. That's not a commentary on Catch so much as an interesting revelation about why some of us really would prefer to fly fish near home (a post about that coming soon, I think).
0
0
[...] you haven’t stumbled across the Underground’s Catch Magazine discussion — where one of the ezines announced a $12 annual subscription fee, and readers and content [...]
0
0
Theo: I think I must have missed your own point(s) about the flipbook, but as you can tell I agree Frankly, I can't believe you don't pore over every word of every post and comment on TU, but I suppose we should make some allowances for the two different languages...
0
0
Good luck. Fiction always seems to have a tough go of it in fly fishing.
0
0
Tom Chandler: It always seems as if the first generation of digital media mimic the “real” media they’re replacing, and on several occasions I’ve suggested flipbooks are a temporary thing, though I lack any proof of concept.They just seem like a step backwards; they’re “heavy” and slow and often make you wait an eternity while they load, and as you noted, they offer few benefits to the reader ... more aside from familiarity. Much of the attraction revolves around the accessibility; everyone who wants something more photographic than a blog can sign up for one of the services, and voila — you’ve got an ezine. I think the How to Spend It ezine you write for is a far more interesting format. More modern and demonstrably more interesting than a flipbook. With typography on the web finally evolving past the crayon stage and lightbox tools starting to look pretty compelling, I think flipbooks might fade before too many more years pass. Cheers Tom... I think I must have missed your own point(s) about the flipbook, but as you can tell I agree ;-) Agree, too, that the How To Spend It style ezine feels like a far more dynamic and intuitively-navigable concept. I'm not sure what the platform is (I'm just one of the grunt guest bloggers, presumably helping to pay off the dev bills...) but it's certainly got that sexy lightboxy thang going on. It also seems to be SEO friendly!
0
0
I have not cared for any of the online e-zines I've come across, partly because of the emphasis on "photos," which seem to be digital art, not photos. In addition, navigating e-zines is not intuitive (to me). Maybe, as they shift to tablets and downloads, things will get better. Whether or not Catch can make subscriptions work is a question for the Market and way beyond my pea brain to figure out. ... more It wasn't long ago that anglers were limited to a fairly narrow range of choices for information and entertainment. Now, thousands of us hit the "publish" button every day and it's like drinking from a fire hose. I am grateful for those who take the time to find and share some of the better stuff out there, and I appreciate the occasional invite to contribute to some of the Journals, Magazines, or whatever you want to call them. Right now, I don't even mind contributing for free, in exchange for some exposure, but at some point I would like to be paid. Every post to my blog is available, free, to anyone who stumbles across it but I worry (some say too much) about online attention spans. I think that's why we see so many jacked-up photos and "articles about places and fish most of us will never see. It's eye candy, like most of the internet, but it's short and sweet. People click, skim, and move on. Fine. A few hundred words, a couple of photos, hit "publish" and voila! But what about essays and longer pieces (2,000 words +)? Those, the good ones, anyway, take work -- real work -- and just throwing them out into the blogosphere for free ain't right. People read entire books on tablets and e-readers. They pay for them, too. As romantically attached as I am to paper and "real" books, I think those devices hold real promise, but anyone can put an ebook together. The quality of both the content and production have to be there if we are going to expect people to pay for them. I don't know why a magazine-type publication wouldn't work as a download for purchase, just like a book. It's going to be interesting to see how all of this shakes out.
0
0
Theo: In short, despite their glossiness, I think Catch-style magazines are heavy, slow, trying too hard to mirror the mechanics of older media, and are probably doomed to fail as a result, even though they may temporarily attract a late-adopter generation of readers on the way. It always seems as if the first generation of digital media mimic the "real" media they're replacing, and on several occasions ... more I've suggested flipbooks are a temporary thing, though I lack any proof of concept. They just seem like a step backwards; they're "heavy" and slow and often make you wait an eternity while they load, and as you noted, they offer few benefits to the reader aside from familiarity. Much of the attraction revolves around the accessibility; everyone who wants something more photographic than a blog can sign up for one of the services, and voila -- you've got an ezine. I think the How to Spend It ezine you write for is a far more interesting format. More modern and demonstrably more interesting than a flipbook. With typography on the web finally evolving past the crayon stage and lightbox tools starting to look pretty compelling, I think flipbooks might fade before too many more years pass.
0
0
JayMorr: I have been vocal about contributing images for “exposure” or very little pay. If I do not value my work, then know one will. Frequently I pass on writing and photo opportunities that come with the expectation that I give it to them for nothing. The last one from a rag that you can pick up in print. My whining about the effects on the copywriting industry notwithstanding, I think the Internet's ... more been hardest on photographers -- at least those trying to make a living. There is no argument that photographic standards at a lot of magazines have plummeted the last decade, and because digital photography is so "easy," writers are often expected to provide photos for their stories, often for pennies more than the words alone. As for working for exposure, when my copywriting blog was consistently winning "Top 10 Writer's Blog" designations, I was flooded with "opportunities" to write for exposure, including a couple dozen folks who wanted me to write ongoing blogs for the chance to winnow clients from the readership. It's astonishing stuff, made more so by the number of people who seemingly say "yes." As someone smart once pointed out, there are two economies at work here: the "Attention" economy (exposure) and the cash economy, and the folks making the cash are not above hyping the value of a link. And honestly -- given the number of "professional" fly fishing photographers cluttering the works -- it's hard to imagine the exposure in an ezine is going to make a lot of difference. It's also ard to imagine Catch could institute a subscription plan and still maintain any base of free contributors, but I'd guess they've considered that.
0
0
[...] Chandler over at The Trout Underground Blog about Catch Magazine’s plan to charge $12 for a subscription. An interesting discussion follows below in the comment forum. Right now at 60 [...]
0
0
What a fun thread this one has been ... TC, be sure to retain the movies rights. "When words become unclear, I shall focus with photographs. When images become inadequate I shall be content with silence." ~ Ansel Adams
0
0
It's possible I'm still swimming against the flow here, but I think this may be the time to confess I've never been particularly convinced by the Catch-style flip-book animated ezine format. Evolution is inevitable: for the past thousand years we've been reading multi-page bound books (and by extension magazines) because, on the whole, they made information more quickly accessible than winding and ... more unwinding a scroll. When the internet came along, it suddenly became possible to present lively information on a screen, complete with links that could instantly take you somewhere else entirely if you clicked them. Speed of access again... and that's exactly what the flip-book animation doesn't do... there may be a few links in there, but on the whole you're expected to page dutifully through the whole production from page 1 to 50something (ignoring completely the usual consumer tendency to read the inside back spread of a magazine *first* - it's no coincidence that this is Gierach's spot in FR&R, and why the ad on the inside back cover will probably be the most expensive in the whole production!) In short, despite their glossiness, I think Catch-style magazines are heavy, slow, trying too hard to mirror the mechanics of older media, and are probably doomed to fail as a result, even though they may temporarily attract a late-adopter generation of readers on the way. With web access that's fast and almost everywhere, there's really no good reason for high-quality blogs (maybe multi-authorial, as Tom points out above, to spread the load) to continue to function as the best digital platform great writing, great photography, and above all intuitive speed of access. Naturally, monetisation is still the problem that faces all of us who write for a living, but contemporary blogging software at least puts our destiny back in our own hands. For my money, we'll eventually look back and say "yes, Wordpress and Blogger were our generation's Gutenberg press."
0
0
The ebook thing might have some legs. I got a bunch of bloggers together and we all contributed a work of short fiction. The book is done, 11 authors and Kirk Deeter doing the Foreword. Should be coming out in a couple of weeks. We all have a platform to promote the book via our blogs and we all have our own readerships that might have a little loyalty toward our particular blogs and/or personalities. ... more The blog business generally isn't a real big money maker, at least not for most bloggers, but this might be a way forward. I expect to be able to buy at last 10 flies at Ted Fay's with all this ebook revenue.
0
0
JayMorr: I have been vocal about contributing images for “exposure” or very little pay.If I do not value my work, then know one will. The more time I spend related to internet reading, writing, and photography, the more I agree with this comment. BTW - Love your work, Jay. Great discussion. Some very good comments. I hope that Brian or Todd drops by chime in and maybe clear up any misconceptions. ... more I wish I knew what I would think about this topic 10 years from now, but I have no idea.
0
0
Interesting topic. As a previous contributor to CATCH I will just share my personal thought on the experience. I was asked to be a contributor on a "Brew & Flies" segment. I was generally excited and willing to contribute to the e-zine but had no idea that contributors would not be compensated for their work until after the request came in. I submitted a couple shots that were in the issue. The ... more response initially was that they didn't have a budget to pay photographers and that they would hopefully have other opportunities in the future to pay for work after the magazine took on more revenue. They promised the "link to your work" and a "featured contributor". My imagery dropped in the issue and I never heard from them again or even got a "thank you". I have been vocal about contributing images for "exposure" or very little pay. If I do not value my work, then know one will. Frequently I pass on writing and photo opportunities that come with the expectation that I give it to them for nothing. The last one from a rag that you can pick up in print. Quite honestly I think there are individuals shooting right now that measure their success by the amount of work they see in print. I am smiling right now because I see the editors/publishers using them to meet deadlines and "fillers" for content. It is easy to grab sub-par image from someone getting involved in photography and have them right a technical macro article, all while paying them zero. With the current business model that Catch has in place.....the quality will go down. You will typically see a few images here or there that are stellar. Guys getting involved early on to be a part of what they thought was an exciting project. Now that those "contributors" have been used.....move on to new blood. I guess we get what we pay for right? So with that said...I expect Catch to be putting out the same level of quality they had in their first few issues by changing and paying for top shelf work. If they are thinking of creating a subscription based plan so that can travel to more places on the dime of everyone else.....then the real joke is on the self proclaimed fish bums who will continue to "Pay for Exposure". It is pretty easy to be in print these days. Next time your out on the water, pull out your camera, turn the dial mode to AUTO, spray, apply photoshop action filter, submit, rinse and repeat. You may not make any money, but "brah you're killin it man! You are everywhere". ~enjoy
0
0
The "1984" quote was astonishing, yet I hear it all the time (even from magazine editors). Some people tie the decay of payment to writers to the Internet, but in this case, the decline began long ago.
0
0
We are still scratching at the nascent edges of the electronic media game. e-zines are still basically emulating the magazine format (right down to flipping the corner of the page) and have yet to explore the possibilities of touch screen. The release of iBook 2 might be the game changer that will kick electronic media to the next level. I'm not sure there is much of a future for paper magazines. ... more Some of the biggest names in outdoor sports are now mostly written in-house and the pay for freelancers is so dismal that there is little impetus for fresh thought. Without fresh and creative content, demand will only decrease when you can find deeper information at the touch of a mouse. I just wrote a piece for a national glossy and received less than I would have been paid for the same article in the same magazine in 1984.
0
0
Tom Chandler: Sometimes the only insight you gain from an article is that the writer is a posturing fool or an egomaniac or should have just studied grammar a bit harder in school, but it’s something. Double Ouch
0
0
I like Catch Magazine a lot and always give it a good look soon after a new one comes out, but if they are going to charge money then I think they will have to put in a bit more content. I don't mind paying for content online (I have and am currently paying for news and/or sports content), and would pay for Catch if there was, for example, more than one video as well as some kind of long-form article, ... more in addition to the shorter stuff they already do really well.
0
0
Mark Coleman: Reminds me of the greatest piece of graffiti I ever saw.Men’s room wall at a bar in Chapel Hill – “No matter how good she looks, some guy somewhere is sick and tired of putting up with her shit” This week's instant "Bumper Sticker You've Never Seen But Should Have" award winner.
0
0
CW Mark: That said, I found this to be the most interesting nugget from the conversation – not a person on the call thought that Catch was still the 800 lb gorilla of online FF ezines at this point in time. Several said they’d pay for another couple, but probably not Catch given what one pundit said reminded him of his girlfriend – “she’s damned pretty but pretty damned tired”.Ouch. Has the life ... more expectancy of anything on the Internet wound down this quickly?I won't judge on the quality issue, but I think -- if forced to subscribe to an ezine -- it would be something other than Catch.I'm a writer; I want insight and context. Sometimes the only insight you gain from an article is that the writer is a posturing fool or an egomaniac or should have just studied grammar a bit harder in school, but it's something.
0
0
CW Mark: “she’s damned pretty but pretty damned tired” Reminds me of the greatest piece of graffiti I ever saw. Men's room wall at a bar in Chapel Hill - "No matter how good she looks, some guy somewhere is sick and tired of putting up with her shit"
0
0
It was shot outdoors, but under strict "studio" guidance. That shot was from a series of production stills where I lurked around the fringe of a video shoot and grabbed still frames for their ad work.
0
0
Your nice portfolio shotgun photo with the grass in the foreground looks like a studio shot. Is it? I worked in ad agencies in LA and a visual effects company, so I've been around smoke & mirrors, too. In the Photoshop era, you can't believe everything you see....
0
0
No worries, Glen, but I assure you that there are plenty of smoke and mirrors in ad shots, as well!
0
0
Interesting lunch conference call with group of clients / potential clients, all of whom were either fly shop owners or guides/ outfitters. We were chatting about a here-to-fore predominantly untouched aspect of digital fly fishing media; the conversation eventually drifted around to the current chatter about Catch. To the person the group recognized clearly the skill, talent and devotion and Brian ... more and Todd have shown in producing Catch. To the person the group wasn't happy about the fact that content has been donated by outside contributors to Catch (see Brett's comment above) since it's inception and that policy isn't apparently about to change. That said, I found this to be the most interesting nugget from the conversation - not a person on the call thought that Catch was still the 800 lb gorilla of online FF ezines at this point in time. Several said they'd pay for another couple, but probably not Catch given what one pundit said reminded him of his girlfriend - "she's damned pretty but pretty damned tired".
0
0
Nice photos on your website, Tosh. I wasn't talking so much about advertising shots. I'm sure that there are lots of people who think that every photo they see accompanying articles in fly fishing magazines are candid action shots, not carefully posed, composed and exposed photos.
0
0
Dang. Cat's out of the bag, now... glenn: Conversely, I am often much happier seeing a nice river shot, sans fisherman. Shots with fishermen in the river often look too perfect…staged. In fact, I have been with two published fly fishing photographers, on our way to dinner, who stopped the car when they noticed that the evening light was perfect on the river. While one readied a camera, the other suited ... more up and waded to the “perfect” spot. They took the shot (no time to thread the line through the guides and the line wasn’t the right size for the rod anyway), then we got back into the car and headed to the restaurant.
0
0
Conversely, I am often much happier seeing a nice river shot, sans fisherman. Shots with fishermen in the river often look too perfect...staged. In fact, I have been with two published fly fishing photographers, on our way to dinner, who stopped the car when they noticed that the evening light was perfect on the river. While one readied a camera, the other suited up and waded to the "perfect" spot. ... more They took the shot (no time to thread the line through the guides and the line wasn't the right size for the rod anyway), then we got back into the car and headed to the restaurant.
0
0
Val Atkinson and I had a discussion about this, and the trend towards "extreme" wide angle shots with all the goodies (tilted horizons, lens flare, etc). It's a trend, and like any other it's cool for a while but deathly commonplace a short while after that.
0
0
Brett Colvin: I’ve maintained for a long time that a sustainable model in the world of e-zines does involve the ability to monitize — both for the magazine and the content providers. The key difference for me between print vs. e-zines isn’t the physical product, it’s the fact that print pays their writers and photographers. I think your statement reflects the Internet's 800lb Gorilla in terms ... more of content contributors vs publishers. Probably worth its own post. The profitable online business model usually involves making money off someone else's content (whether by publication or simple linking), and like you, I think it's time to put the boots to that particular reality. I wondered if Catch was paying contributors; my understanding is that the ad revenue pays for the travel and associated costs, with a little left over (consider it a minimal hourly wage). If I was a photographer, I'd ask myself some hard questions about contributing content to a magazine that is making money for somebody else, but doesn't pay contributors. Fresh out of school, I contributed to a new publication, and working for nothing was fine when the atmosphere reflected a gentle "we're all in this together" rebellion. Later, when the publisher started making money -- and spending it on computers and expense-account lunches and travel -- 90% of us walked away. Learning that we're "all in this together" is actually true only until we weren't was a hard lesson, but one experienced by anyone who writes or creates stuff for a living. And there's a more subtle question: Catch has always enjoyed the unquestioned support of the blogs and other online sites, who constantly referred their readerships to the magazine. In truth, it's difficult to imagine they'd have grown to their current size without constant referrals from blogs. Yet I largely stopped referring my readers to ezines after repeated promises the blogs would be paid back for their help (links, whatever) never materialized. Will online sites continue to refer their hard-won readership to clearly-now-commercial ezines (like Catch)? It's one thing to send someone to a free ezine; we're all in together after all. It's quite another to refer someone to something that costs money -- and doesn't return a cent of it to the referrer. These are questions the Internet is just now beginning to confront (note the reaction to the sale of the Huffington Post from the bazillions of people blogging there for free). It'll be interesting to see how Catch resolves them.
0
0
Not that's a magazine idea who's time has come: Fishing Small Streams
0
0
I think you are misunderstanding the word free when used with the context of the Internet. There is a distinct difference between Free and No-Cost. There is no such thing as free on the internet, you must buy a computer and pay for an internet connection. There is plenty of No-Cost content on the Internet and there always will be. Digital Publishers need to consider this before they say they are not ... more going to give away their content for Free. They also must realize what their product is. Most people are completely willing to accept non-intrusive ads on websites if the content is top notch. Notice how willing people are to use Google as a search engine even with the ads. Google wasn't always this way and they used their no ads environment to lure many searchers away from Lycos, Excite, Yahoo and many other search engines that were full of ads. Once they had the traffic and it was clear their searches were better they were safe to introduce ads and probably didn't loose a searcher. What is Google's product? They don't sell searches. Who is Google's customer? Not the people searching. Google is in the business of advertising. They auction off ad space to make their money and they have the tools to track the effectiveness of the ads. Facebook is using the same model. I don't remember where I heard this but it explains it all, "If you are not paying for it, you are the product." Digital Publishers need to decide if they want to be able to make money by producing content that people will enjoy they need to market the right product, and it isn't content. Digital Publishers need to distinguish themselves as the easiest and most effective channel for advertisers to market their goods and services. When you can demonstrate to advertisers that you are delivering the ads you sell to a receptive market then you will be able to charge more for ads on your site and make more money. It isn't the price of subscription that will keep you in business as a Print Publisher and it won't get it done online either.
0
0
I get what you're saying, but the "paid" thing is important in terms of somebody making money off someone else's paid content (with permission), and how that often turns into an unsustainable model. The content providers see their work generating dollars for someone else, and the free submissions dry up.
0
0
Turnip Truck Driver: Likewise, I would pay a similar or slightly higher rate for a TU subscription. As a consumer, I view TU as a team owner or general manager fielding a team for my enjoyment, plus TU also internally delivers meaning, art and humor. Thanks for the kind words. I try not to rely on external links for filler, instead trying to point people towards the interesting stuff (often ... more not related to fly fishing). I've given some thought to finding a way to generate some money from the TC-produced content here, but finally decided a single-author blog only makes sense if it's serving another master (book sales, etc). I've recently explored a multi-author blog concept as a way to lighten the load and giving everyone involved (good writers, natch) a chance to write some good stuff without the pressure of posting all the time...
0
0
"Other worldly" is a good phrase for it. And the emotional impact thing is interesting; one of my chief complaints about "traditional" fly fishing photography (river on diagonal, overhead view of person wearing red shirt looking in fly box) was that a lot of seemed emotionally distant and unreal. I mean, we're supposed to be having fun, but the person becomes a static element of the composition, not ... more someone doing what they love.
0
0
Tom Chandler: You’ve touched on something I’ve been trying to capture for a while; a lot of modern fly fishing photography seems hyper-processed. The result is a lot of high-key, hyper-saturated outdoor photography that not only doesn’t describe the outdoor world I know, but also seems strangely unemotional. In other words, it scores high on the vibrant color meter, but a little low in resonance. ... more I'm rather chuffed that some others are looking at this in a similar, highly saturated, light. Thank the high Heaven's Gierach is still around to write books.
0
0
As a contributor to both print and online magazines, my take might be a little different. I'd pay for a subscription to Catch, if they started paying for their content. Contributors to Catch are not paid, and donate the imagery that drives the advertising revenue. I've maintained for a long time that a sustainable model in the world of e-zines does involve the ability to monitize -- both for the magazine ... more and the content providers. The key difference for me between print vs. e-zines isn't the physical product, it's the fact that print pays their writers and photographers. If contributors are paid a reasonable rate beginning when the subscription fee starts, I'm in. Otherwise, I'll be subscribing to publications that compensate the guys doing the work.
0
0
I have to admit that I haven't gotten to your interview yet in California Fly Fisher. Today at lunch, for sure. I used to be an art director at a big visual effects company (now dead and gone). We often would get a call from a trade journal letting us know that they were doing an article about a movie, featuring our company...and that, coincidentally, ad space was available on the page directly facing ... more the article.
0
0
Fake HDR (high dynamic range) photo processing and over saturation are the current rage in photography. It's certainly very evident in fishing photography. HDR processing has it's place in photography, but it's way, way overused. It's definitely a crutch used to make a beautiful, natural scene into a garishly spectacular, other-worldly image. The end product can be spectacular, but you're right Tom, ... more the unnatural images often lack the emotional impact of a well composed black & white photo.
0
0
glenn: paid for by the resort, outfitters or manufacturer, whose ads seem to magically appear adjacent to the resulting articles. Welcome to the Conflict Of Interest World Tour. I spoke to this in my California Fly Fisher interview, where I pointed out articles about destinations written by lodge/travel agency/guides/employees fall into the realm of advertising (or at least heinous PR) instead of ... more editorial content. It's not a popular view, but...
0
0
I understand Fly Tyer is getting an iPad version (and screw all you Android owners), and I suspect we'll see more magazines appearing on tablets, which are making astonishing sales gains. On my recent flights, it seemed like 1/4 of the people on the plane had a tablet of some sort...
0
0
Sometimes it seems as if the writers from the different magazines all go on the same junket - paid for by the resort, outfitters or manufacturer, whose ads seem to magically appear adjacent to the resulting articles. It's no coincidence that articles about the same destinations appear in multiple magazines.
0
0
Steve Z: I thought I was the only one tired of seeing Golden Dorado articles. Bless you. Suddenly, I feel pretty inadequate waxing poetic about small stream brookies...
0
0
glenn: I really have grown tired of seeing Brian O’Keefe holding a huge fish, caught in some exotic locale that I have no desire to fish at, in an over-processed, HDR, over-saturated color, wide angle shot that makes an honestly huge fish look absolutely humongous. You've touched on something I've been trying to capture for a while; a lot of modern fly fishing photography seems hyper-processed. The ... more result is a lot of high-key, hyper-saturated outdoor photography that not only doesn't describe the outdoor world I know, but also seems strangely unemotional. In other words, it scores high on the vibrant color meter, but a little low in resonance.
0
0
There is a high-key glossiness that pervades a lot of modern outdoor photography that seems oddly divergent with what my experience of the outdoors actually is.
0
0
Ken G: Basically, I don’t enjoy reading or viewing anything on screen. I hear you and agree to a point, though tablet computers might change your mind. They're about the size of a book and make reading very easy. I haven't written the post yet, but last year I read 56 books, more than 2/3 of them on an ereader and tablet PC, and I liked it. A lot.
0
0
I thought I was the only one tired of seeing Golden Dorado articles. Bless you.
0
0
I breeze through the magazine as is, nice photography, but you can find nice photography all over the place - just type Brian O'keefe fly fishing in a search engine and make up your own Catch Magazine for free. Bad idea to charge me think$.
0
0
Personally, I don't like most of the fly fishing ezines. I really have grown tired of seeing Brian O'Keefe holding a huge fish, caught in some exotic locale that I have no desire to fish at, in an over-processed, HDR, over-saturated color, wide angle shot that makes an honestly huge fish look absolutely humongous. My favored reading is Fly Rod & Reel (mainly just for John Gierach) and California ... more Fly Fisher, which I usually read cover-to-cover. It's great to have a physical magazine that you can read in the dining room, backyard, sofa or bathroom! But even the print magazines are deliveriing weak product, too. I have grown tired of seeing, every year, the same steelhead and bonefish stories in the winter and the annual articles about Henry's Fork, Catskill dry flies, tailwater fishing tips, etc, in every magazine. Remember how every magazine in 2010 had a feature article about Golden Dorado fishing in South America? Now it's carp fishing.
0
0
Hmmm, paying for "art" without words - or at least few words. Two bucks a copy is a dollar more than I pay for my daily cup of coffee down at the cigar store - so it sounds cheap to me. Being that my wife is caught in part of the writing/online content payment wars, I may be a bit biased. But Catch is so well done that it seems cheap at 2 bucks a copy. Maybe been living in Jackson Hole too long and ... more anything under $50 seems cheap. Plus I would rather have the digital info online than the stacks of magazines I have and had, in addition to many file folders to hold all the articles and pics that I thought would come in useful someday. And some of them have. Now if Gray's would provide an all digital I would be in on that. Save my back lugging all those four color mags to the recycling center.....
0
0
The technology angle will be big, though I find myself hoping the technology remains accessible. And I think the ebook thing will play a larger role than most think. but more on that later.
0
0
JB: I disagree that someone else will come along and put out a product just as good for free – of course I could be wrong (and it’s all subjective anyway). I tend to agree, though the caveat that it's a photo & video only magazine still applies. So in the area you're talking about, I see two potential barriers: 1) Someone else will do something just as/notquiteas/closenough good for free 2) I want ... more words with my subscription You mention paying the contributors, and while this is heading a little far afield, that "attention economy" vs "cash economy" thing rears its head again. I don't know if Catch is paying their contributors -- and people might be willing to throw a few photos their way for the exposure -- but between the ads and the subscription fees, it's possible the founders will be making enough that those contributing for free will start thinking twice. I worked on a couple of arty/indie publications after college, and the same arc occurred; when the revenue stream got apparent, the number of people willing to work for free plummeted.
0
0
Tom Chandler: In other words, the Internet’s probably been better to content consumers than it has to those creating the stuff, though I think more changes — some potentially beneficial to writers and artists — are on the way. I can see why you would say that, though I'm not qualified to comment from your angle. I would say that, to those of us who know good shit when we read it (Achtung: does ... more not mean we can replicate it, nor should we attempt to), we now have to sift through 90% drivel in order to get to quality/original prose. Which is why we turn to good blogs and sites that sift through the drivel for us. So thanks for that. :-) Jonny
0
0
I don't care for it much. The photography is technically stunning, but I think it might also be the best example of how angling media - and particular photography - is increasingly formulaic in highlight the rather sensational, shiny "out there" experience. It isn't the kind of fishing I do (i.e. it doesn't have pics of someone fallen on his ass or trying to retrieve his tippet from a tree for the ... more eighth time in 30 minutes), so while it looks quite jolly in a sensational (not real) sort of way, it ain't all that relevant to me. I wish them all the best, obviously. Jonny
0
0
It's tough to start out giving away something for free, then turn around and want to start charging for it. The Chicago Sun Times and a couple of other small local papers are trying that right now. There are a couple of outdoor writers I enjoy reading on those papers. I've now quit reading them since I would have to subscribe. Basically, I don't enjoy reading or viewing anything on screen. I skim ... more a lot and I'm sure I miss a lot. The only magazines I get are Gray's and what comes with my DU and TU membership. They sit on the end of the kitchen table. Since my wife works second shift, I sit and eat dinner and thumb through the magazines. Can take a month to get around to reading and seeing all of the content. I'm in no hurry. Online, I feel the need to skim through the whole thing in one sitting. The chances of going back to look again are slim to none. That's just the way I treat online info. Look at it, leave, maybe I'll go back. But I doubt it.
0
0
Many thanks for the words, Tom -- and vote of confidence! It'll be interesting to see what the year brings on publishing fronts of many kinds...
0
0
I find it an interesting dilemma - the notion that "pay" means top notch contributers ... All of the fly fishing magazines that we ignore are for "pay" - yet most of us would claim they don't reflect our interests, why do we expect an alternative "free" site to get better when they get paid? I say this in good humor, not as some form of indictment. Paid contributors have given us dozens of great articles ... more on strike indicators and fishing the riffles of Kamchatka, adding money to Internet "art" content might have the reverse affect ... "Great article Bob, but I'm not feeling the Utah angle, you got anything about Southeast Asian Bonefishing - or something with more Sex?"
0
0
Tom Chandler....and I think the ebook and tablet PC revolutions will likely play a role. Kewpie Doll for you. IF, one's content works really well on a tablet -- forget all the others, just focus on iPad for now -- then I think this begins to get compelling. And by "work", I don't mean I can view it that but it really embraces all the possibilities and potential of good tablet apps then something ... more "artistic" could really be worth paying something for. This is definitely one to watch. My guess tells me the real leadership here won't simply be the content, but also the way it's delivered.
0
0
A lot of great stuff in this comment. Erin Block: In the end, I think the internet has cheapened the idea of “art,” reinforcing the idea that art is free. People's expectations now seem to be anything coming through a web browser should be free. It's one reason why so many publishers are embracing non-browser-based apps and tablet PCs, where that expectation doesn't yet exist. Certainly, the ease ... more of producing (and manipulating, sometimes to almost surreal levels) digital photography has led to an explosion in the number of "professional" photographers in the marketplace. The same thing has happened in the writing world (and many others), where anyone capable of fogging a mirror is a "professional" writer -- with the resulting implosion of the bottom 2/3 of the copywriting market. I've said there are ten times as many copywriters as their used to be, but probably half as many a decent living, and I'm now pretty sure that latter stat is high. In other words, the Internet's probably been better to content consumers than it has to those creating the stuff, though I think more changes -- some potentially beneficial to writers and artists -- are on the way. Still, there is a cream rising to the top, and in that sense, I wonder why nobody's thrown a book contract at you yet. Somebody's not paying attention.
0
0
When I came to fly fishing a few years back, my Google searches produced little in the ways of the "art of," but plenty of "how to.'" I say in a light hearted manner that I was starving to find a website to define the meaning of fly fishing - with pretty pictures, and a few laughs, too. Trout Underground came the closest. When not internally delivered, TU links me to fly fishing's best writers and ... more most talented artists and photographers, all for free. My memory like a rabbit's romance tells me that through TU I discovered Catch, a superior product as an eZine. Yes, I would pay Catch's annual subscription rate. Likewise, I would pay a similar or slightly higher rate for a TU subscription. As a consumer, I view TU as a team owner or general manager fielding a team for my enjoyment, plus TU also internally delivers meaning, art and humor. I would pay a slightly lower rate for Erin Block's Mysteries Internal because the delivery is more single purpose but well worth a subscription investment. I can hear Chandler now, sounding ever so much like a Republican's cry to Warren Buffett. "Well, what's stopping you? - write a check!" See you and Erin at the One Percenters annual meeting.
0
0
Mark Coleman: If you’re going to play in the e-zine arena, you’d better be able to make your model work without charging for subscriptions. I'm not so sure of that, at least in the larger online sense. The whole ad-supported model -- which was supposed to support content creation on the Internet -- isn't really working that well unless you're a high-traffic site (which are often aggregating content ... more from other sources instead of producing their own). It should be easier for the ezines -- which offer advertising formats similar to print magazines (which should increase the comfort level of advertisers) -- and that part has probably proven true. Still, a lot of online publishers are clearly itching to move to a "premium" model, but the silver bullet for that has yet to be found. I have some ideas, and I think the ebook and tablet PC revolutions will likely play a role.
0
0
I disagree that someone else will come along and put out a product just as good for free - of course I could be wrong (and it's all subjective anyway). There are at least a couple dozen flyfishing e-zines out there right now, and in my opinion, only a couple even come close to Catch (and those that come close, I still usually don't bother reading). It gets top-tier contributors (and once they start ... more paying contributors that will only improve, in theory) and is run by top-notch guys, and is not something anyone with a computer and a few flyfishing photos can come rip out in their evenings. And what it lacks in words, it more than makes up for in consumable, well-done videos that print magazines obviously cannot do. Being in the day in age we're in, I think that's a significant advantage. That said, Vimeo and other sites have a pretty decent selection of flyfishing videos for free. Time will tell if it'll work out for catch, but it's worth $2 an issue in my opinion.
0
0
Rory Seiter: Nah, I won’t pay for it. There are plenty of free online magazines with actual words that are a little better. The word thing does seem to keep popping up, though this is a "word" blog, so it's likely the commenters are self-selecting a little...
0
0
Very interesting. And as Steve Z. phrased it, "is there a market for an art." It's both the best and worst time to be an artist/writer/photographer. On one hand, we can create and market ourselves. Our resumes are out for all to see. But, anyone can do this. And so the lines of standards get blurred -- because everyone "can." Along the paid subscription lines though, a blogger I follow, Jenna Woginrich ... more (Cold Antler Farm) is writing a book, presently on her blog, http://coldantlerfarm.blogspot.com/2012/01/birchthorn-chapter-1.html getting contributions for the "book" bit by bit after each chapter. It's an interesting concept, and seems to be working for her thus far. In the end, I think the internet has cheapened the idea of "art," reinforcing the idea that art is free. How many people will go to the free art walks around the country but would balk at paying to get into an opening? Many newspapers have gone the route of providing some information free, but other stories can only been seen with a subscription. I wonder if Catch couldn't try that to ease people into the idea. Somehow, we have to raise art's worth again. So props to Catch for trying it out.
0
0
Steve Z: The larger question would be (and I think you’ve raised it), is there a market for an art (and more specifically, a video and photography) magazine in the fly fishing space? In the print world, that "luxury" space is being filled (and quite well) by the Flyfisher's Journal (to a lesser extent by Gray's), though nobody really seems to know how FFJ is faring on the dollar front. And while ... more I get cranky about the Intertube's rather painful effects on the copywriting market, if anything it's been harder on photography, where digital photography(and the helping hands of Photoshop) have made good photography commonplace -- and typically free. There is a lot going on here, which should prove interesting...
0
0
Interesting question and I think that Steve and Mark have both raised good points. I think that Catch is a first rate e-zine and I enjoy is greatly, but would I pay for it? Don't think so and for the very reason Steve brought up. Someone else will come along and bring out a product just as good-for free (at least for a time). Digital photography has enabled many casual photographers to turn out some ... more amazing stuff (even me on occasion). One only has to spend a short time on an internet site like Flickr to finds literally thousands of great pictures. Same is true for video. I guess only time will tell, but I would like to see Catch drop the subscription idea.
0
0
It's an interesting gamble on Catch's part, and unless they've polled a significant % of their viewers, it's definitely a gamble. There's a point at which a drop in readership and corresponding loss of ad revenue can be offset by subscriptions; below this point it proves a bad bet. If you're going to play in the e-zine arena, you'd better be able to make your model work without charging for subscriptions. ... more Either that or you'd better have stuff so good that no one will ever come out with something comparable. Given the low cost of digital technology, there are plenty of talented amateur photographers and videographers out there who can and will give you a run for your ad money. Maybe that's the second wave of digital publishing. One where online media has a defined life cycle beyond which it can't financially survive and is quickly replaced by another startup, initially free, with hopes of cashing in down the road. Or at which point it re-invents itself to stay viable (and free). Viewers pull up a chair to a revolving buffet table of offerings, gorge on the good stuff while it lasts and then wait for another tasty plate to come around.
0
0
Nah, I won't pay for it. There are plenty of free online magazines with actual words that are a little better.
0
0
The larger question would be (and I think you've raised it), is there a market for an art (and more specifically, a video and photography) magazine in the fly fishing space? I don't put books on my coffee table so I'm not going to miss the physical thing, but I do like a word or two now and then. The magazine is beautiful. Is that enough?
0
0

Discover Your Own Fishing and Hunting Adventures

With top destinations, guided trips, outfitters and guides, and river reports, you have everything you need.