Comments on: News & Notes – 12/29/2009

By: entropy

entropy — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 21:24:56 +0000

Yes, and a rather large one at that.

By: b3

b3 — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 01:01:05 +0000

did i detect a dab on the “first ascent” of Genetic?

By: Eggnog

Eggnog — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 23:36:17 +0000

I guess I would say that I don’t understand the current common thought that the climbing mags suck. I enjoy them, think the writing is entertaining, and the photos are great. I don’t know where that comes from. Sure, history repeats itself and reporting the current rad sends sounds repetitive but it’s news. Not sure any other sports mag is much different in that regard. I don’t doubt for a second that the mags are on thin financial ice. And I have noticed, as has probably everyone else, that the new Alpinist costs a little less and has quite a few more ads than the old Alpinist. So they’re swinging that way too. ce

By: peter b

peter b — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 23:30:50 +0000

I would say that the future of specialty outdoor publications is tenuous right now and that with the mindset of the public about “free” content, it is unlikely to get much better.

By: Mark E

Mark E — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 17:21:11 +0000

As a veteran of the climbing-reated publishing world, I can’t resist jumping in on this thread. Before ripping on current climbing publications too badly I hope readers will consider a few important things:

1) Print publishing is a savagely difficult enterprise. National Geographic Adventure folded this year, despite having substantial advertising revenue. Every publishing company, from the LA Times to teeny-weeny niche pubs in the climbing world is being forced to cut editorial staff to the bones just to stay in business.

2) Alpinist follows a revenue model based on low ad pages and high subscription rates. The other climbing pubs rely on ad dollars and settle for token subscription prices (that revenue does not even cover mailing costs). The Alpinist model is great for readers because the pages are uncluttered … but it’s also proven to be a difficult route to take.

3) Ain’t nobody getting rich from climbing pubs — especially not the editors, writers or photographers. It’s tough out there, but many people still are doing good work.

By: Eggnog

Eggnog — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 21:21:46 +0000

Hmm, yeah, the second post was interesting too, esp the comments under it. The price difference between Alpinist and Climbing ($35/4 issues or $10/20 issues with the me-too deal) is staggering, ~1:16 ratio. Or thereabouts. Interesting. I guess the truth is if all 3 cost ~$9/issue I would have to choose one, but as it is I get R&I, Climbing, and Alpinist. Kind of silly overlap but with those prices why not. ce

By: Narc

Narc — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 19:51:05 +0000

It’s a little scary how dated that FA video looks….

By: Tony

Tony — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 19:44:23 +0000

About time those problems got repeated.

By: Narc

Narc — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 19:33:10 +0000

Presumably so. I think part of his rant has to do with this concept of basically giving away (cheap) content so that a publisher can say to an advertiser, "look how many eyeballs are going to see your ad". Contrast this with a magazine like Alpinist that charges a lot more, but presumably can sell their advertisers on the quality of their readership (and theoretically pay their contributors more) I should have linked to it, but here is the followup to his original post that I think is also quite interesting.

By: Eggnog

Eggnog — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:59:48 +0000

Re: Kemple’s rant: What’s shocking to me is that I can get a year of Climbing for $10, with a gift subscription to a friend for free! I assume they make most of their money from advertisements? ce