Comments on: What’s Wrong with Online Fly Fishing Magazines

By: Aaron Whitaker

Aaron Whitaker — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 01:05:16 +0000

I usually read MidCurrent’s posts. I use a feed reader as I’m sure a lot of people do. If an online fishing magazine puts all of their content out at once, then there’s a good chance I won’t read it all once it falls off the front page of my reader. I think one good option for magazines online is to put out a newsletter with link backs to their web site to read more. I love the digital world for all the content that is out there to read on fishing. As far as figuring out how to make money to sustain an online magazine, that’s a problem some are figuring out faster than others. The great thing about online fishing sites is blogs like this one that allows anyone with a voice to write great stories and have people read them.

By: Robert

Robert — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 03:08:46 +0000

I am so excited about this article and conversation I can bearly contain myself. So many things have come together just right for me to be on this website. I work in the print media industry, specifically auditing printed circulation(ABC). Many magazines and newspapers are trying to convert their traditional print subscribers into digital subscribers. Zinio like flipper, is another method print versions are being sold in the digital format. This convertion of existing-traditional subscribers to digital subscribers seems to be the best method for gaining this online audience. I believe to attract “new subscribers” for the digital product, the industry needs a new idea of delivering it’s content/advertising. Essentially re-invent the idea of what a magazine is. Currently the idea of a magazine is something you can tangibly hold and flip through, and this is what subscribers will continue to expect with the word “magazine”. What if we change the name of the digital magazine to “XYZ” and offer it in a way that doesn’t resemble the traditional magazine in any away? Then your audience/advertisers will have different expectations and possibly be more eager to try and pay for this new “privilege” of receiving information.

By: Nathan Kennedy

Nathan Kennedy — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:11:59 +0000

*&%$!!! Wish you’d told me that sooner. I wasted a lot of time writing all that crap.

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:35:53 +0000

Nathan.. you got it all wrong, man. The only problem with these magazines is they don’t have ME in them!

By: shannon

shannon — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 04:44:12 +0000

Again very good observations! The interactivity aspect is something very few people even have on their radars right now, and with the kind of bandwidth we have and the speeds that are coming – it could be commonplace now if people just realized it. I mean, I have been using SKYPE going on two years, and still can’t find anyone else to SKYPE with very often. I even set up a site that is based on live communication called livephotolessons — again zero interest. Someday maybe … Shannon

By: Nathan Kennedy

Nathan Kennedy — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:22:46 +0000

Shannon,
From what I understand, none of the online mags are currently paying. I think the idea is to become successful, start pulling in revenue and then start paying. The problem is that no one spends enough time with the mags to warrant lots of ad money in the current format. Like you and I are both saying, if they’d move to something that provides content more regularly (and high quality content at that), then they’d stand a better shot with the ads. Also, I think as the field of print is culled down to only the best mags, more advertising dollars will be freed up for the web. But it’s going to take a really nice online magazine that gets tons of daily traffic to pull in good, consistent dollars from advertising. I don’t mind somewhat intrusive ads, similar to those in the online magazines now. But I absolutely hate pop ups, pop unders, animated flash ads and flashing animated gif ads. I will avoid a website just because of those. And I just can’t see myself paying for web access. Maybe if the site was completely, mind-bogglingly awesome, but for now I just don’t use websites that require me to pay. I think most people are like me. Too much good stuff out there for free. Eventually someone will succeed at this, but it’s going to have to be of a quality that places it firmly above all the fly fishing blogs, forums and news sites out there. I think the answer might be taking the really high quality stuff in the online mags and simply making it available more often. I may be wrong, but there’s just so much good stuff you could do with the interactivity of the web that’s not being taken advantage of with the current format. Also, if something successful and paying was out there, some of the good bloggers might submit material with the hopes of getting paid rather than publishing for free on a blog. There’s some really good content out there that required lots of work, and right now no one’s getting paid for it.

Mike,
You’ve stated the problem exactly. Most people flip through them very quickly and just read something if it catches their eye. And right now you’re only doing that once very couple months. If there was a good site updated often, you’d at the very least visit more often, and in the process you’d be seeing their ads and pretty pictures, even if you didn’t actually click on them. Advertisers would gladly pay just for the privilege of having you see their ads, but they’d want you seeing them a lot more often than once every two months. Plus a blog format opens up commenting as an option, which keeps people coming back more often.

Nathan

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:23:32 +0000

I’m even less convinced about the online magazines… I go through them as fast as I can click that next button in the corner… If I see something I want to read, I stop, but as for pretty pictures and ads…you won’t get any revenue from me!

By: shannon

shannon — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 04:00:10 +0000

I like your thinking. Here’s what I really think is happening at the flipper mags. – I don’t think they are paying anything for content. That applies most directly to http://www.thisisfly.com. I mean, they have some “totally rad” skater dude design, content and images that play a role in the entire package, but really, do they pay contributors? Somebody show me a check stub, please. Someone prove me wrong so I can regain some optimism about this segment of the industry.

Your description of what makes a good magazine for you can be eaten away at by reading the message boards – to some extent. But, a formal format of when to expect which category updates could generate anticipation for that writer’s content much like the old newspaper days! Some could be weekly, monthly, or whatever it takes to generate new valuable content.

Monetizing this monster is the real trick. Sidebar ads are ok. Intrusive ads in any style are not ok. However, a combination of free and paid content could also be something to consider for future magazines. Show an excerpt, sell the content. Living on sponsorships? The information I have gathered, tells me these site sponsorships are mostly “unreal”. Nobody is paying for those.

It’s a situation where people have become accustomed to free, and free is hard to beat. Whoever solves the ultimate mystery of monetizing the internet is the next Bill Gates of this unruly industry.

Shannon

By: Nathan

Nathan — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 02:16:31 +0000

BTW, when I said midcurrent was best positioned to do what I’m describing, I meant in addition to the existing online magazines. Really the ones in the best position to try a new format are the existing magazines. All they’d need to do is switch to a format that outputs content more regularly, by using blogging software for example.

Nathan