There was also a time 18 mos or so ago when R&I, apparently under Jeff Jackson’s influence, seemed to be gaining momentum with some great articles and writing –at times. But it was sporadic and I’ve not found anything compelling to read there for a while.

So, I’ve let all my subscriptions lapse. If all the magazines do is rehash the same news highlights that are available in near realtime here on the web, there’s little reason to receive them. I don’t want to see climbing magazines go away, but they’re going to have to up their editorial content and the quality of their writing before I feel inclined to subscribe again.

Two other remarks from the comments above:

First, to the Narc: what you believe you are accomplishing with your site, you are. This is a great site, and is where I nearly always come first to begin my dive into the latest climbing news and reports.

Second, to Matt, Climbing’s editor. Nice to have you weigh in and let us know what it’s like on the inside. Your frustration speaks loudly. That aside, maybe you guys should start by looking at your own web site and get that thing revamped. For a brief while your pro blogs were worth checking out. But my god, they’re laughable now: Daniel Woods two lame entries, Dave MacLeod same. Lauren Lee, Josune Bereziartu, Dave Graham nothing since 2008. And Michael Reardon? Come on, you gotta let that guy rest in peace (he was never that interesting to begin with). The thing that you don’t seem to get is that there are a lot of us out here who DO pay attention. We check out your mags and your sites and we have a sense of aesthetics, style and quality. And our spending reflects what we find. Finally, if you want an example of a clean, well-designed, web-2.0-oriented, engaging site, one that reflects the 21st century we’re all living in, start right here with Brian Runnells’ excellent ClimbingNarc.com.

Cheers.

The entire point of this site is to try and draw positive attention to things that are going on in the climbing community and drive readers to those stories. I would think that the hard working athletes, companies and magazines would like the added attention. 99% of the posts I do try to portray climbing in a positive light so I’m not sure how after one mildly negative post you can declare that I “stand icily above the climbing industry, commenting on it negatively with seeming impunity”.

Brian Runnells AKA Narc

Narc, it’s disingenuous to stand icily above the climbing industry, commenting on it negatively with seeming impunity. The hard work of professional athletes, the companies that sponsor them, and the magazines that do their best to cover these climbers (and yes, happen to accept ads, too) makes it possible for you – Google-like paying nobody anything – to aggregate this content and offer it for free.

You can say whatever you want about Climbing or any of the other magazines, but here’s the real scoop: I’m the only full-time editor at Climbing. My wife was in 3 days a week but left to take another job. Can one person, of whatever talent level (and I’m not really of that old-school arrogant mindset that magazine editors know more than anyone else), somehow offer an all-pleasing, all-encompassing view of an international sport, while still hitting budgets, doing their best by contributors (five to 10 queries a day land in my inbox), readers, and advertisers? Would you like to try? It’s a daunting, thankless task, to be sure, and all I can really say is that I’ve tried my hardest for a long time (years) now. All of the endless, faceless (what’s your real name?) Internet criticism hurled our way does have a negative impact – on our psyches, on the industry, and on confidence in publishing in general.

Climbing Magazine isn’t some giant, soulless, corporate edifice against which to rail. Right now it’s one person, and guess what – I bleed just like the rest of you.

The one thing I’ve noticed about the ads on the new DPM site is that when google doesn’t have climbing ads to show they show random ads like the Fitness Singles that distract from the content on the site.

There’s some awesome discussion about the current state of industry mags here:

http://kemplemedia.com/blog/2009/12/13/how-creative-will-the-future-be/

and here:

http://kemplemedia.com/blog/2009/12/21/be-part-of-the-solution/

Both from Tim Kemple’s blog…

To address a couple things to you said: What does blacking out the ads prove? Nothing. It’s simply a visual way to measure the ad content in the mag.

In fact, you may have read my conclusion that I prefer the mags that have higher ad content. I don’t think I’m “shitting” on the rags, but some people are, I suppose.

Listen, here’s the rub as I see it. The rags are in a tough spot. I agree that not enough human stories are told, when mirrored with the ridonkulous mutant send stories. I agree that the training/injury articles are recycled year in and year out, a la Men’s Health. Each article tells 10% of the story 10 times a year, so one buying a year subscription might get a full article on what they want to read, for example about tendon injuries or campus board sessions. It’s an old trick, although maybe not construed as a trick by the powers that be. I also agree that some of the destination pieces are recycled or doubled up by competing rags in the same month (Mexico bouldering, Washington bouldering…both recently and by R&I and Climbing). Then again, Jesus, we can’t imagine new stellar destinations out of the miasma.

But to scribble out the ads in a mag shows what, exactly? That ads suck? Indeed, advertisements suck. We know this. Commercials during Seinfeld suck. Pop-ups suck on the internet. I get it. But let’s take a gander at the inverse situation, if you please. The rags lower their advertisements and what happens? Revenue diminishes. As most of you stated ahead of me, you don’t buy anyway. So, the mags go away, replaced by websites and blogs serving for news, but not paying for subscription and hence NOT PAYING TALENT TO WRITE. We get average articles and pontifications, perhaps from great climbers, but not great writers. We get status quo, and for nothing. Thanks, I’ll pay for one good article: to support my peers, to support the industry, to support the art. If we don’t, at least some of us, do that…well, I’m not an economist, but I’m pretty comfortable with my foresight.

I used to be a buyer for the oldest climbing shop in Denver (and now, if you couldn’t tell, a freelance writer). Personally owned for 30 damn years, serving the community with climbers, kayakers, and tele skiers that got out there and killed it, that knew snow conditions in the mountains, that knew what hole best served rodeo moves, that knew what route most needed re-bolting. And yeah, our prices were .25 cents higher than REI. You know what happened? Of course you do. After 30 years, the shop was history, and now Denver has only one core climbing shop…and REI (not that REI is bad, but you ain’t gonna get the bad-ass characters shilling the smarts that you’d get in a mom-and-pop shop).

In the same way, if we don’t support our mags and foster some sort of solution to the problem, we’ll be out a handful of killer rags that, by your own estimations, CAN ONLY GET BETTER. Instead of shitting on the rags, let’s holler, let’s scream, let’s get them on our train and tell them where we want to go! Let us not watch these guys launch from the edge, but rather talk them down. Let’s offer some solutions to the industry problem that seems to be cropping up. Let’s not lose these rags. Let’s make them better.

Cheers,
Dave

Whether or not to include reviews as ads is up for debate, but here was my logic:

When was the last time you read a negative, or not-glowing gear review in a mag. It doesn’t happen very often. And it’s no coincidence that the same brands that had products reviewed purchased ad space in the mag.

When you follow the money, it is clear the mags may not give unbiased reviews. I’m not saying the reviewers lie or anything, just that they aren’t totally neutral. Thus I consider them ads for this test.

Take any sport you develop an interest in — cycling, surfing, skating, running, hoops, triathlon, or whatever. Without meaning to, you wrap yourself up in it for a few years/decades/the duration of your present life form.

Of course, you subscribe to the magazines that cover said activity/passion/waste of useful time. All of them. You also check everything to do with your activity online (bonus — it’s free!).

For awhile you are stoked to read every issue (you even read the ads). Then you develop some serious skillz (modern spelling). You realize that half the content is for newcomers/newbs/the clueless people who are ruining the sport.

You find a more nuanced publication, written for insiders like you. It fails to attract enough readers and goes bankrupt.

You declare your disdain for the magazines you once loved. Still, they go on publishing (this part may be overly optimistic) and attracting new readers. They and you agree to go your separate ways.

So it goes. Bitter … what?

Nowadays, video is rightfully a major influence, and in answer to the conundrum about cragging/bouldering, look no further than the plethora of dramatic video content of these pursuits out there. It is much easier and generally more effective to convey athleticism, and even the art of movement via cinematic action than through prose and a few stills.

It WAS a different mystique back when I had no idea of even the existence of 5.13 until years after the FA of The Phoenix or Grand Illusion,, while today we are hanging virtually daily on Chris’ attempts on his latest cutting-edge “proj”.

Outdoors Select

Outdoors

As well as starred items

I’m working on making a page on my website that has a big list of all the individual blogs similar to these but updated.

http://dreaminvertical.wordpress.com/2008/05/14/climbing-and-outdoor-blog-links/

http://dreaminvertical.wordpress.com/2008/08/18/blog-links-update/

That is a good idea though and one I’ve actually been thinking about of late. I’ll see what I can come up with.

Kelly Cordes’ statement is in part what I am writing about in an article for the Alpinist. I utterly disagree with its premise but its spirit has certainly has had its effects on climbing writing

That said, with Climbing Magazine and Urban Climber available for a pittance in the US (I can see the incredible offers, even if I can’t make use of them), it would be a crime NOT to subscribe and support the industry! Over here in SA a year’s worth of Climbing costs me $69!

I don’t subscribe to any of the mags, but I still manage to “read” most of them. I say “read” because I typically just flip through ‘em and look at the pictures.

The December issue of Climbing was the first mag I’ve actually read in a while, it was good.