Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Mick Ryan
Trad climber
Kendal, English Lake District
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Oct 21, 2008 - 02:31am PT
|
Speaking of new media, many climbers ask: Why don't Christian and his fine crew just run Alpinist.com as a stand-alone entity without all the costs of printing and shipping a magazine?
Well, it's because producing material as fine as Alpinist's requires paying real journalists and editors decent salaries, and no one has figured out how to make a climbing website generate the kind of revenue to do this, let alone create a real return on investment for owners.
Full article: http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=1349
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2008 - 03:37am PT
|
ya, ya, ya... business and sh#t...
a circulation of 9,000, how many newstand copies? not nearly enough for advertisers to really be interested. Not enough income to support the staff alone...
Come to think of it, I left money with Mountain and got some Climb High! volumes after they folded... rather precipitously if I remember.
The last edition of Mountain was 145, May/June 1992, with the front cover picture of Ron Carson leading The Titanic by Rand Leavitt...
...nothing particularly noteworthy, just a good effort.
These sit next to the box with the Mountain editions that I own, oddly, about half of the run of each.
It's 2007, 15 years or so between closings... hopefully we'll be complaining 15 years from now about the latest magazine to pick up the torch and advance it a bit farther.
I still can't read Climbing it just doesn't get my imagination going like the old days. Glad it can turn a profit and stay in business...
Oh, and by the way, how will we complain if SuperTopo ever gets tired and goes off to do something else?
|
|
steelmnkey
climber
Vision man...ya gotta have vision...
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2008 - 10:23am PT
|
Interesting. Somewhat of a cynical flavor to it, I thought. I think we all know have a feeling for why Alpinist might not be able to sustain it's business model, but we all wish it were otherwise.
|
|
Bullwinkle
Boulder climber
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2008 - 10:41am PT
|
Hi Mick,
Alpinist was a great mag and working with CB always made the art better. But, money wise Alpinist was at the lower end of the US mags, upper end work but both climbing and r&i paid more. DF
|
|
klinefelter
Boulder climber
Bishop, CA
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2008 - 11:14am PT
|
Cynical indeed, and perhaps a bit stuck in the 90's in terms of the web. He mentions "subscribing to blogs" as if this were the latest craze, that "web 2.0" thing everybody is talking about. But I wonder if he really understands community-driven web sites and how they've become such successful models. Blogs are just a small part of that. Dougald might need to start looking outside the insular climbing media for examples of what can be done.
|
|
Mike Bolte
Trad climber
Planet Earth
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2008 - 11:25am PT
|
well, I'm sorry to see Alpinist go by the wayside. Also sorry that I just sent them $ for the next two years worth of magazines.
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2008 - 12:36pm PT
|
Dougald MacDonald asks:
"The cyber-space is full of grousing that the "other mags" are fit for little more than butt-wiping, but if the other mags, including the one I sometimes write for (Climbing), are really so bad, then why are they still in business after decades when Alpinist survived less than seven years? Is this because climbers are brain-dead automatons easily seduced by the "mass" media?"
Yes.
|
|
Dolomite
climber
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2008 - 12:47pm PT
|
One thing Dougald wrote struck me both as accurate and telling: "Climbing and Rock & Ice survive because they deliver, to a greater or lesser extent, what readers and advertisers want to see . . . ."
Where Alpinist was different, its seems to me, was in that they tried to deliver what they thought readers ought to see, they had an actual editorial vision that went beyond a business plan. Instead of trying to guess what readers wanted to see (a kind of pandering to the lowest common denominator) they aspired to an ideal. And with Ewing's considerable help, they were able to deliver it to us for 25 issues.
I'm not saying I don't clip bolts, and I'll probably never climb a Grade VI again, but I can still aspire to ideals. And Alpinist helped a lot.
I'm grateful for their efforts and will miss them dearly.
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2008 - 12:58pm PT
|
Nicely put, Dolomite.
Although I enjoy reading MacDonald's blog, I was surprised to see him use "business model" as if it were an intrinsically valid criterion for determining what should stay and what should go. The last month has pretty much ended that sort of rhetoric in other arenas. Remarkably few institutions are turning out to have successful business models, at least if we were to be really strict about laying off government subsidies.
Yes, readers and advertisers will give up their dollars for Climbing/R&I, enough at least to keep them in business, and kudos to the folks at those mags for making a go of it. But it is a shame that the North American climbing community can't keep a single prestige journal afloat.
|
|
looking sketchy there...
Social climber
Latitute 33
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2008 - 01:03pm PT
|
Dougald makes some good points, but misses the mark on some others:
" Like them or not, the successful climbing magazines perform a valuable service by sifting through all the twitter and latest-greatest and deciding what's worth publishing."
And in my view Alpinist did this far better than the other two American climbing mags. But, perhaps what Climbing and Rock & Ice do best is shifting through all the noise and deciding what will sell magazines. Both models are different interpretations of "deciding what's worth publishing."
Alpinist is like quality TV broadcasting (assuming that is not an oxymoron), it takes time to develop an audience and following. Unfortunately in the world of modern Media, perhaps the number of climbers who are willing to engage intellectually with a magazine is not enough to generate enough subscriptions -- and thus advertising dollars -- to make it a profitable venture.
|
|
klinefelter
Boulder climber
Bishop, CA
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2008 - 01:15pm PT
|
No one seems to mention the role advertising density plays in the success or failure of the mags. Alpinist had a different approach to this than others, with higher cover price and lower ad density. Climbing and Rock and Ice are basically gear catalogs with some content thrown in for good measure.
The book looks interesting, Mick. When can we expect downloadable, multi-media iPhone guides, complete with beta clips and filters (show me all four star stamina routes between 5.10b and 5.11a)?
|
|
Mick Ryan
Trad climber
Kendal, English Lake District
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 21, 2008 - 01:40pm PT
|
> Climbing and Rock and Ice are basically gear catalogs with some content thrown in for good measure.
That's self-deating. Companies are wising up that spending on print, especially with highly-competing high density print adverts - does anyone take notice of that barrage of ads? - isn't good value for money.
You can spilt a climbing media between web and print, indeed you have to. Ad delivery is far superior on the web especially to an enthusiast audience. Then low density adverts in the print mag, where the adverts really stand out and work - but of course at a premium price.
A local guide gets far better value for money if that advert is targeted to the local area.
> The book looks interesting, Mick. Whe can we expect downloadable, multi-media > iPhone guides, complete with beta clips and filters (show me all four star stamina > routes between 5.10b and 5.11a)?
It's virtually already there.
Yo
Sweet Chestnut risotto to cook!
Chow,
Tom
|
|
Oplopanax
Mountain climber
The Deep Woods
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2008 - 01:40pm PT
|
It's not enough to make a great product - you also have to know how to sell it. Alpinist failed not because of its quality but because it didn't sell enough copies. It was a niche market publication.
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Alpinist get started after the AAJ removed C. Beckwith as editor? Maybe they knew something. Under CB, the AAJ focussed on the climbs that inspired CB, had long editorials penned by CB, and decreased coverage of other climbs. Under the subsequent editorial team, the AAJ has apparently moved to be a more inclusive news source.
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2008 - 01:50pm PT
|
"Like them or not, the successful climbing magazines perform a valuable service by sifting through all the twitter and latest-greatest and deciding what's worth publishing."
Um, no. The 'successful' climbing rags are crap, aimed at the lowest common denominator, and almost totally not worth reading. Apparently what they decide is worth publishing is Ads ads ads, and then, more ads. And a few really stupid articles.
Once upon a time, this was not true, but that was a long time ago.
There just are not enough people to support a quality magazine like alpinist. UNfortunately there are more than enough to support crap like Climbing and Rock & Ice
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2008 - 01:54pm PT
|
Editors fit particular journals. Some fits are good, some aren't. I don't see Alpinist's run as an accident or sheer luck. Yes, some issues/articles were better than others, but it was the best of the English-language climbing journals, and since editors get blame when things go bad, I don't see how they can't also get credit when things go well.
AAJ has all the merits and limitations of a Club journal, with the special problems peculiar to US climbing organizations.
|
|
Anejo
Ice climber
Yukon
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2008 - 02:19pm PT
|
Good point dirtineye. That's exactly right.
|
|
Mick Ryan
Trad climber
Kendal, English Lake District
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 21, 2008 - 04:08pm PT
|
Reply to dirtineye:
> Um, no. The 'successful' climbing rags are crap, aimed at the lowest commondenominator, and almost totally not worth reading. Apparently what they decide is worth publishing is Ads ads ads, and then, more ads. And a few really stupid articles.
Ads are good and essential, just not at a high density, and not all in print where they compete. A good advertising person wants his clients to increase sales - he wants to know that his client's business is increasing sales. It's his bloody job to want that.
Also in the climbing industry a good advertising person wants the best content for the community - it's in his interest to attract readers.
> There just are not enough people to support a quality magazine like alpinist.
Wrong.
Yes there are enough people to support a publication like Alpinist. They just didn't reach them all and get them on board. It's a community thing. Alpinist were weak at community.
Mick
|
|
cintune
climber
the Moon and Antarctica
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2008 - 07:45pm PT
|
But still a rather small community, even after they opened up to not-strictly-alpinism. The production standards were a huge part of what made Alpinist such a beautiful thing, and such an expensive one as well. Brought back what Climbing was like originally, and it's better to see it end on a high note than degenerate into just another ad-rag.
Sold off my copies of 0-14 a few years ago but kept 15 for the cover, maybe the best photograph I have ever seen. To be in that moment, damn.
|
|
sandstone conglomerate
climber
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2008 - 07:49pm PT
|
Alpinist was without a doubt the most beautiful climbing magazine out there...it had the feel. The writing was way beyond the spray in what are now Climbing and Rock and Ice. I can't even bring myself to buy them anymore. But, sh#t, i'd gladly pay the price for Alpinist. Nothing quite like it. It will be missed.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!