You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Neat post Mark.
Highlights some fundamental challenges you face.
Whatever you do, don’t turn the brightness down.
On a more serious note, I've subscribed a few times now, but I've let it lapse this last time. I used to read the magazines, but nowadays I just trawl the internet consuming the endless amounts of information floating around. I often buy magazines when shopping, but it's as much out of habit and they end up on the coffee table very quickly, barely read. I'm sure there will come a point where my brain realises and I stop buying magazines entirely.
I'm glad to see you do quite a bit of online and Youtube type content, but I often find it's a bit too clinical, talking about a component or bike while panning around it. I'd rather see someone having fun on a bike, even if the end opinion ends up a bit subjective. I could merrily sit watching GMBN rubbish for hours, I appreciate it's a completely different type of media. I'd love to see more videos of adventures you guys get out having (or I like to imagine you have).
I also like that you've started embracing ebikes and things online a bit more, even if just to see how angry it makes Americans.
Velcro is where it's at though.
Seems like a marathon task.
Not it anymore it isn’t.
Hi, OP again.
Can we all just leave this now. My original post was based on my misunderstanding of how the front page articles worked.
The thread wasn't meant as a magazine bashing thread, I was just wrong about what was going on. I apologised for this yesterday, and have also said a few times that I still enjoy the mag content.
Can we please now just let Mark get on with the job of keeping this place going.
Thanks.
Not it anymore it isn’t.
Have you tried Texan Mark?
I also like that you’ve started embracing ebikes and things online a bit more
+1
It's definitely the future....
Hi, OP again.
Can we all just leave this now. My original post was based on my misunderstanding of how the front page articles worked.
Don't feel guilty, you are not responsible for the direction the thread takes.
Mark, can you disclose the source/reference for your 'facts'? Without them it is very much reading as 'these are the facts because I'm telling you that they are'.
Why not do a poll to see what a greater slice of people want in the mag, if the views on this thread alone are not deemed relevant?
If the mag continues the direction it has taken regardless, I'm afraid it won't be long before I'm one of the guys that you won't miss when they cancel their subscription. If that is unavoidable, then so be it.
Mark, can you disclose the source/reference for your ‘facts’? Without them it is very much reading as ‘these are the facts because I’m telling you that they are’.
Why not do a poll to see what a greater slice of people want in the mag, if the views on this thread alone are not deemed relevant?
Well, I’m guessing we can take a lot of them at face value, because it’d make no sense for them to change the mag in a direction that loses readers, or the practicalities mean that there’s more pros than cons to cutting particular types of content. Plus it’s his job, so he’s kind of the expert in the room.
And they’ll have all sorts of analytics - it’s important to listen to what people say, but it’s more important to look at what they actually do (especially if the people that are vocal online only make up a small portion of the user base).
Without them it is very much reading as ‘these are the facts because I’m telling you that they are’.
Only on STW.
A site owner takes time to write an extensive post about where the site / magazine is going, something that wouldn't happen on any other publishing site I can think of, and your reaction is "prove it!" Do you think he's lying, or making it up or something? It's surely not a great leap to entertain the notion that Mark might just have slightly more experience of the publishing industry and knowledge of what has and hasn't worked historically in STW for the last decade than you or I might have?
Sheesh. Then some folk complain that STW doesn't communicate things more often / clearly. I can't possibly imagine why there might be a reluctance for them to bother.
Mark, can you disclose the source/reference for your ‘facts’? Without them it is very much reading as ‘these are the facts because I’m telling you that they are’.
Dude give it a rest.
In case it isn't clear, lots here enjoy the magazine and very much appreciate the time Mark spends on these posts. Thanks
I don’t care what goes in the mag. I’m getting it whether I like it or not.
s’alright I spose...
I have subscribed off and on since the beginning, first as a print subscriber and for the last few years as a digital only subscriber. Out of interest is it better for Singletrack profit wise I remain as a digital only subscriber or are your most profitable subscribers those who have digital & print?
Our most profitable option is the one you prefer because you'll stick with it. Honestly, that's not me being all polite and cuddly.. it's actual economics. I've priced things to be sustainable. Pick which ever subscription you like safe in the knowledge that unless I've got my sums wrong we both win 🙂
Is that a fact Mark? Asking for a friend.
I have evidence. But I'm awaiting publication in a peer reviewed journal before I dare present it.
Well, I’m guessing we can take a lot of them at face value, because it’d make no sense for them to change the mag in a direction that loses readers, or the practicalities mean that there’s more pros than cons to cutting particular types of content. Plus it’s his job, so he’s kind of the expert in the room.
Sure. Obviously they aren't going to make changes that will deliberately lose significant numbers of readers. Having said that If there is data out there that supports what he is saying (and is freely available), I'd like to see it. Not because I don't believe him, but because I'd like to interpret it myself. Let me explain. I'm a scientist, the way we are trained to think is no matter how much of an 'expert' you think you are, you don't get to lay down facts without backing them up without references or evidence. It isn't necessarily a negative thing - not only so people can pick holes in it (though this does happen), it is primarily to support your argument, and let them decide themselves. Is this a discussion, or are we getting dismissed for asking difficult questions?
When was the last time a poll was taken on what the readership want to see as content? Or is this unimportant in terms of sales?
But I’m awaiting publication in a peer reviewed journal before I dare present it.
What's the impact factor? Tells me a lot about the quality of the research 🙂
When was the last time a poll was taken on what the readership want to see as content? Or is this unimportant in terms of sales?
Actions speak louder than words
Mark makes a good point in his long post.
This magazine/site/form pays peoples wages. A fact reminded to me when my new print subscription failed to deliver a nice shiny mag, a quick email and a quick response from Zoe with an apology and promised to send a new one out. Job done.
What I am trying to say is yes, sometimes an issue of a magazine may not float your boat as much as the next, but that is what these guys are being paid to do, give us a magazine that the majority of readers want to read.
You can't please all of the people all of the time.
Cheers Guys
I’m a scientist, the way we are trained to think is no matter how much of an ‘expert’ you think you are, you don’t get to lay down facts without backing them up without references or evidence.
Aside from the fact that he can do anything he likes as it's his gaff and doesn't need to justify it to us proles,
You're right, of course. I'd like to see some more information too, I think it's really interesting. However, scientists peer-review papers within their areas of expertise. How many years have you worked in publishing? It's somewhat - I was going to say "arrogant" but maybe "presumptuous" is more appropriate - to suggest that the opinions and analysis of the userbase has equal import as someone who's been doing the job for years and has lengthy first-hand experience of the site and of the industry.
Ie, yes, it'd be nice if Mark shared more information. But we don't get to demand it.
When was the last time a poll was taken on what the readership want to see as content? Or is this unimportant in terms of sales?
From what I've taken from Mark's earlier post, I'd presume it's Not That Simple. "What people want" may simply not be viable for whatever reason, like the cited example of reviews.
A paper magazine is a finite resource, you've got a fixed number of pages before you have to start bumping up the asking price. The readers want a review, Mark's explained that to do a review justice it has to run to multiple pages. So what would you like to see removed in order to make space for that?
There's an obvious answer there if you just ask the readers - fewer adverts. Perfect, we'll have a magazine crammed page-to-page full of editorials, features, interesting content and reviews with no advertising, everyone's happy. That'll be £50 an issue please.
Taking an opinion poll to gauge what people want to see has its merits I'm sure, and it's surely sensible to solicit suggestions for improvements or new features. But we've all seen how well "we must obey the will of the people" works out in practice.
When was the last time a poll was taken on what the readership want to see as content? Or is this unimportant in terms of sales?
So you're a scientist that wants to rely on polls? hmmm. 😆
I also miss the 'through the grinder' reviews. I liked being able to dip into something short in between the longer articles when I didn't have much time, but wanted something to read on paper.
If the reviews are being produced anyway for online, can they (or some of them) not be inserted in the mag as well? Or isn't it quite that simple (I suspect not). Sounds like the decision isn't about to be reversed anyway.
On a positive note, I still love the writing from staff and regular contributors, and photography is still amazeballs.
that does not alter the fact that the few who do like reviews in print are in the minority. The amount of space they take up and the cost of their production is better spent on content that we know DOES work in print and does get a better response.
Can we have a poll? 😉
I’m hoping to bring back the Snickers ‘energy bar’ cover gift we ran a decade ago.
I showed Chipps the great beanie I got from another fine mountain biking magazine (rearrange these letters to reveal a well known mag; KBMU) ...He was totally impressed and promised me that he'd copy the idea...
Kumb magazine is a really a very different audience.
Quick industry insight for you on cover mount gifts.
They have to be crap and cheap.
Because print mags are zero rated for VAT (not the same as Exempt although it adds up to the same thing) the free gifts stuck to thr front are not allowed to be worth more than £1 to the publisher. Why? So you can't use a VAT free magazine as a vehicle to 'sell' expensive products and avoid VAT on those products.
Let me give you an example of what could happen without this rule.
I could 'covermount' a free watch worth £1200 (£1000 + VAT) to a magazine and set the cover price of the magazine to £1000.
You pay a VAT free £1000 for the magazine and get a free watch worth £1200.
So to prevent this VAT avoidance loophole with free gifts there's a limit of £1 set on the value of covermounts before you have to add VAT to the cover price of the magazine itself.
So, all cover mount freebies are shite!
So what would you like to see removed in order to make space for that?
Some of the uk travel bits could go. They all look a bit similar and have a definite padded out feel at times. Some of the images are a bit iffy too.
But to remove a travel feature of 10 pages with a single author we'd have to commission 10 reviews with up to (but probably not but lets consider it a worst case scenario) 10 authors. In that instance the cost to us would be around 3.5 times the cost of the travel feature. Even if one person wrote all 10 reviews it would cost us more than the cost of the feature it's replacing. ergo we have to either save the extra elsewhere or increase prices somewhere. The point being that content is expensive. dealing with multiple authors and multiple comissions as opposed to a single author and commission has it's admin and accounting costs too. And none of that takes into account that there was not a single drop in any sales metrics when we dropped reviews from the mag so in all likelihood we'd increase costs with no return and so it would be a labour intensive move that would increase costs and gain no more sales.
Reviews written and published online are earning assets, as the more they are read the more the cost of their production is recouped. I can track any story on the site (even forum posts) and total up the revenue it has earned to date. This allows us to commision stories and reviews based on what earns the most money and allows me to set a projected time on that article by which it will reach its break even point and move into profit. In the last 7 days for example the highest grossing story is this one..
https://singletrackmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/jessica-brousseau-bike-mechanic-pro-wheel-builder-and-free-spirit-living-the-vanlife/
And no I'm not telling you what it has earned but it's not yet broken even.
Quick industry insight for you on cover mount gifts.
That’s pretty interesting, never knew that!
I’m not sure many other magazines would be quite as upfront about it.
You’re right, of course. I’d like to see some more information too, I think it’s really interesting. However, scientists peer-review papers within their areas of expertise. How many years have you worked in publishing? It’s somewhat – I was going to say “arrogant” but maybe “presumptuous” is more appropriate – to suggest that the opinions and analysis of the userbase has equal import as someone who’s been doing the job for years and has lengthy first-hand experience of the site and of the industry.
I think you are steering the analogy a bit off course here. References and evidence are not only for the benefit of someone peer-reviewing an article pre-publication. They also are in in the published article, which may be being read by someone who is not an expert in the field. They still need to be there. You don't remove them once an expert (the peer reviewer) has decided they back up your argument. To clarify, I don't claim to have any expertise in publishing at all, I'd just like to know more.
Ie, yes, it’d be nice if Mark shared more information. But we don’t get to demand it.
Who's demanding anything? He can choose to reply, or not. The world isn't going to end either way.
Next time I pitch to mags on my ideas for articles I could write for them, it’ll be about a bloke (and his brother in law) trying to lease a car.
So you’re a scientist that wants to rely on polls? hmmm.
I think you will find that being a scientist, and acknowledging that polls have some use are not mutually exclusive. The two things don't have to reply on each other. The fact that more than one concept was in the same post may have confused you 🙂
Quick industry insight for you on cover mount gifts.
Going dangerously OT, but what happens with those "build a famous warship/star war cruiser etc type magazines" - you know - those collectible things? Any chance we could see a STW/On One collaboration that builds into a trail hardtail in 36 monthly installments?
You should see the gross figure for the Brexit thread.
You'd be amazed at how little it's earned. Angry people don't click ads as it turns out.
You’d be amazed at how little it’s earned. Angry people don’t click ads as it turns out.
Kinda pisses on a few people’s ‘I Create the content so shouldnt have to buy a sub’ chips, eh?
He can choose to reply, or not. The world isn’t going to end either way.
Or you could you know maybe accept that asking was just a bit pointless.
But to remove a travel feature of 10 pages with a single author we’d have to commission 10 reviews
Eh? You're already commissioning / writing the reviews, as they're on the website. Im confused. Why can't the reviews (or a proportion) sit within the paper mag as well? Like the good old days. (I remember when it was all fields around here, etc.)
In a magazine the reviews and news would be well out of date by publication date. I used to be creative director and a tester at Windsurf magazine and edited Kitesurf. That ended 14 years ago before the web stuff really started happening. It was really easy back then. People not connected to the industry got their news from mags. Those days are gone.
if it was me now I'd be putting more technique in the mags, more interviews and more technology. But reviews of three boards don't work for me.
Or you could you know maybe accept that asking was just a bit pointless.
Everything on this forum is a bit pointless. If we took that away what would be left? Nothing!
In the last 7 days for example the highest grossing story is this one..
You don't have to be as cynical as me to think why that might be the case
Quick industry insight for you on cover mount gifts.
They have to be crap and cheap.
HOW DARE YOU!
*lovingly caresses her collection of cheap socks*
I'd like to see a return of reviews if a poll requested it, as long as the section was renamed Reviewey McRevieweyface.
In a magazine the reviews and news would be well out of date by publication date.
Bobbins. The point of the 'through the grinder' feature was that a product had been tested thoroughly for some time. A hydration pack/ wheelset/ tyre/ dropper post is not suddenly going to be unavailable to buy 3 months after launch, or even be replaced by something newer and better.
In the last 7 days for example the highest grossing story is this one..
You don’t have to be as cynical as me to think why that might be the case
Quite.
But to remove a travel feature of 10 pages with a single author we’d have to commission 10 reviews with up to (but probably not but lets consider it a worst case scenario) 10 authors. In that instance the cost to us would be around 3.5 times the cost of the travel feature
This is interesting to find out how much various features cost. So basically travel features are cheap fillers - that certainly aligns with the value I put on them. Personally I'd like to see the majority of what was spent on travel features go into reviews (or other features), even if this meant a reduced page count. Quality over quantity. I can imagine the reduction in perceived value would be a major issue, but that's how you would keep this subscriber er, subscribing. Have you seen how thin MBR is these days?
Bobbins. The point of the ‘through the grinder’ feature was that a product had been tested thoroughly for some time. A hydration pack/ wheelset/ tyre/ dropper post is not suddenly going to be unavailable to buy 3 months after launch, or even be replaced by something newer and better.
Agreed.
Angel.. It’s replies like that make me put the phone down for the night. I’m trying to explain the actual real processes, decisions and economics that go on and it’s mistepresentations like that which make me give up. You win this round. I’m out.
I look forward immensely to roger and angeldusts rival publications release, that will shit all over singletrack, based on their in depth knowledge of what most mtbers want (based on a poll of a few hundred respondents)
There’s always one that goes too far...
Nah there’s loads on here that go to far
Tedious as can be
There’s always one that goes too far...
Yeah Mark! Just tell people how you WOULD do it! Don’t actually go and do it!!!
18 years in water sports mags elevating the group from bottom in the UK to a world distributed title. Earning well and living on beaches around the world for 5 months a year. A midlife crisis spent in a couple of years in the Caribbean and now 14 years in newspapers and magazines. So I know nothing.
OK angeldust, bring it on. BTW what science stuff do you do? I'm a metallurgist and mining engineer so I'm sure I'm entitled to diss your shit.
Angel.. It’s replies like that make me put the phone down for the night. I’m trying to explain the actual real processes, decisions and economics that go on and it’s mistepresentations like that which make me give up. You win this round. I’m out.
Nighty night then 🙂
Seriously, I'm not trying to misrepresent anyone, and when you delved a bit deeper into some of the economic details, it was genuinely interesting. My reply might have been rather inelegantly put, but basically I'm only repeating what you stated - that travel features, per page, are much cheaper than reviews. Please correct me if I've got that wrong. At the moment travel features take up quite a large proportion of the mag. I'd like to see (to be clear, if I must - this is just my opinion) some of the budget spent on these features go into product reviews instead, even if that meant a reduced page count.
Not sure what you are getting upset about. 'Cheap filler' I guess might have been a bit insensitive, but can you see it in the context of the point I'm trying to make?
I look forward immensely to roger and angeldusts rival publications release, that will shit all over singletrack, based on their in depth knowledge of what most mtbers want (based on a poll of a few hundred respondents)
Thanks for the introduction. Since you asked It's going to have closer links to the forum and be called sanctimonious middle aged rider weekly. Budget is tight so most of the mag will be travel features on rogers daily tarmac commute to work across Milton Keynes.
sanctimonious middle aged rider weekly
Will it include ebikes?
Will it include ebikes?
Depends on the responses we get back from the poll
You know what this thread has reached a conclusion before it gets nasty I'm closing it.
Depends on the responses we get back from the poll
😆