Boxing News

[the truth]

Anyone else think its went downhill since claude left? i personally dont like the way they praise fighters one fight then slag them the next. how many times have these writers stepped in the ring? i think they should get some respect for people doing a hard job.

[Bleak]

I stopped buying cause it went up in price, a couple of times1

dont have saved for me in the newsagents no more, maybe once a month i will get it

besides ringside being on every week keeps me going

[Insider]

I still love it! Essential reading every Thursday! However I do find the calzaghe and woodhall conversation pieces extremely hard reading!!!

[Final round]

there was none left in my local WHSmith which is a good sign.

[Dan Dares]

I've read a few - it's OK, but i think they are spinning their wheels with weekly publication. They should concentrate on putting a decent monthly out, for say, £5.99, and monetizing their website properly.

[saturday_kid]

Still a fan me, think they have done well, think its improved lately, i actually like the calzaghe/woodhall page, and think they've had some decent pieces in lately, think it should definitely stay weekly, with a review of every bill - thats the most important reason why I buy it

[Coco]

I think the BN is in good hands and doing well, you have to accept change, I was typically big fan of Abrams as I was of Harry Mullen before hand.
From a purist point of view Claude sometimes put the economic viability of the publication before the anoraks, which could be annoying but probably ultimately necessary.

[slapbangwhallop]

actually, I have been enjoying it more than ever over the past month - maybe because its arrived on time every week, which is a really big issue for me as it becomes stale very quickly, but also because there have been some really good articles.

[Tomasino]

I think the new mag is great! I stopped subscribing for a couple of years as it had wen stale, was ALWAYS late and seemed to use a lot of feature articles that had already been published online (on ESB etc). I think that the new format suits a weekly publication and it should stay that way. There are plenty of bland monthlies out there.

My main criticism is new guy Matt Christie. Although I often agree with his opinion I think his writing style is a bit OTT. He often uses far too many superlatives and often overplays an angle. I'd like to see a bit more editorial response to the letters.

Overall I feel that BN is going to be very sucessful under Tris Dixon, who I rated as a writer before he became staff at BN. I was a big fan of Mullen but not of Claude. They should try to get Thomas Hauser to do a monthly article.

Overall well done guys for bringing the mag up to date!!

[Deserter]

I've read a few - it's OK, but i think they are spinning their wheels with weekly publication. They should concentrate on putting a decent monthly out, for say, £5.99, and monetizing their website properly.

That would make far less money, trust me.

[Arnie]

Getting better all the time imo

[Tommy Gunn13]

Definitly better in my eyes whoever said change it to a monthly,u must be joking!!

[Neri]

The mag is going strong imo. Some of the changes made have been to its benefit I think. The post was a nightmare over xmas and it does arrive a day late now and again but I still get to read the fight previews in time so that is my only minor gripe really.

I would like to see the readers letters towards the back of the mag as it just looks odd in the place it currently is. The amateur section has been beefed out a bit making it much more personal so you can learn more about the fighters coming through.

I think they praise and criticise evenly on what is currently happening in boxing. They couldn't give Amir Khan praise for eternity for fighting Maidana if he went on to fight once a year against stiffs for the rest of his career! Also i don't think you need to have stepped in the ring to have an opinion on boxing. The writer's are educated (i'm not saying some boxers are'nt) and have both a way with words and a passion for boxing. They convey what is happening perfectly imo and the different writing styles such as Christie make the mag better to read.

[orbtastic]

I'm struggling to see the point of the Woodhall & Calzaghe piece. I like woodhall, he comes across well on TV and usually talks some sense but the piece is incredibly banal and could essentially be written by anyone. It reads like any regurgitated pub conversation about boxing, you get zero insight into either guy. It's also starting to feel like a bad comedy double act...and repeating itself. I may have dreamt this but didn't they already have the Froch/Taylor was/wasn't part of the S6 contest conversation?

[McCannW14]

I've read a few - it's OK, but i think they are spinning their wheels with weekly publication. They should concentrate on putting a decent monthly out, for say, £5.99, and monetizing their website properly.

We dont need another monthy, as Boxing Monthly does the job nicely indeed. This months is another excellent offering. Particularly good articles on Arum/HBO and Louis v Klitsckos.

Boxing news went down IMO when Claude left, lots of mistakes and errors, but last weeks showed marked improvement, so maybe they are getting there with it. The old timers and amatuer sections are the best part of the mag nowadays. Daniel Herbert does a very good job as does Simon Euan-Smith.

[Wrists]

For me its as good as ever.

Some of the changes are excellent, and they now have a young (Dennen looks about 15 ) team of writers like Flexen, Christie alongside a good editor alongside the excellent Dan Herbert who compliment each other very well.

I like it.

In fact with BM as well our publications blow the likes of the Ring and KO out of the water.

Keep up the good work.

PS. Flexen could do with a haircut

[whiskey]

The mag can only be as good as the fights that are on or forecast at that moment in time.

[15829]

i think the mags got better, the layouts more easy on the eye and am enjoying flexens and christies features especially christies 1 on shannon briggs anf flexens on donaire

i agree calzaghi and woodhall is a bit cringeworthy

[ed robinson]

I'm just having a massive clear out at home and I've got just about every edition of Boxing News since the mid 80's. Despite threats from the wife I can't bare to throw a single issue out. The team must work seriously hard to produce a magazine like that every week. I think we're all spoilt to have News and Monthly, both great reads, each with their own distinctive style.

[Dan Dares]

I've read a few - it's OK, but i think they are spinning their wheels with weekly publication. They should concentrate on putting a decent monthly out, for say, £5.99, and monetizing their website properly.

That would make far less money, trust me.

I doubt very much whether its making any money anyway. Without doing due diligence on it, working out average page yields, maximum subs revenue and all that old fanny, its impossible to tell. But if it is showing any independent profit, it'll bepeanuts.
Print publishing, particularly with regional press (which is what Newsquest specialises in) and special interest publications (such as Boxing News) are on their arse. Didn't they have a recent price increase? Why would they do this if their circulation wasn't shrinking/costs increasing/advertising revenue falling? Their last audit, done back in June 2006, stated 38,000 copies per month (based on 51 issues per year). If their circulation has increased since then, I would be flabbergasted.

As for monetizing their website properly, I'll give just one example (there are hundreds). Have a look at their online shop. It's got one book on it - Buncey's Fixer. I'm sure this is a cracking book, but there's loads of boxing books about. For a market leading, trusted brand such as Boxing News, this is a bit pathetic.

Larger publishers are mainly to blame for their shylock attitude towards the internet, believing that their 'content must be paid for'. They have been spending so much time trying to protect their print media, and force growth in a sector that is never going to grow, that many have completely missed the online boat.

I'm not knocking the magazine or any of its staff at all, I'm sure they all work their bollocks off, and have a wide knowledge of boxing. But the not too distant future, weekly publication will not be a viable business model for Boxing News. Trust me.

[ShadrachSimmo]

I still love it. Well look forward tae it every week. The changes have made a difference to the mag but it's still the best boxing mag oot.

[tonyevs]

Tris Dixon and the others are doing a fantastic job. It has much improved in the short time Tris Dixon has been over seeing things.
His `Opinion big issues & talking points` pages are always worth reading. And he seems to hit the nail on the head most times.
The `Guest column` is also good. Especially pieces by John Scully, Teddy Atlas and the ever reliable Bob Mee.

I lost many issues under Claude Abrams. I just got so pissed-off with his bias and lack of balls to actually mention certain big news stories if they involved a certain British promoter.

Tris Dixon has only been in charge a short time. But I think if he carries on in the same fashion. He may start to rival the fantastic Harry Mullans reign .. my fingers are crossed.

[tonyevs]

i agree calzaghi and woodhall is a bit cringeworthy

Oh .. yeh ..

That does stink a bit
What is the point exactly of that column? nothing insightful, nothing witty ..

[NazNaci1]

I like Tris and his style.

I do agree that Claude, although on occasion he used to stand his ground, in general, used to backdown when a certain promoter used to throw his toys out of his pram.

I get the impression Tris will not bow so easily.

The Woodhall and Calzaghe piece is a bit bland, but that's do with maybe the questions or possibly that both guys are a little introverted.

Teddy Atlas and his 'calls' are always amusing to read, as he makes claims then, when they are wrong, he tells us the following week how he 'knew' within 5 secs why things were going to go the way they did.

PS Danny Flexen, whilst a good reporter and writer, just what was he thinking when he picked Mayweather Jnr to beat Hearns??? His argument was not a particularly convincing one, to be honest.

[Deserter]

I've read a few - it's OK, but i think they are spinning their wheels with weekly publication. They should concentrate on putting a decent monthly out, for say, £5.99, and monetizing their website properly.

That would make far less money, trust me.

I doubt very much whether its making any money anyway. Without doing due diligence on it, working out average page yields, maximum subs revenue and all that old fanny, its impossible to tell. But if it is showing any independent profit, it'll bepeanuts.
Print publishing, particularly with regional press (which is what Newsquest specialises in) and special interest publications (such as Boxing News) are on their arse. Didn't they have a recent price increase? Why would they do this if their circulation wasn't shrinking/costs increasing/advertising revenue falling? Their last audit, done back in June 2006, stated 38,000 copies per month (based on 51 issues per year). If their circulation has increased since then, I would be flabbergasted.

As for monetizing their website properly, I'll give just one example (there are hundreds). Have a look at their online shop. It's got one book on it - Buncey's Fixer. I'm sure this is a cracking book, but there's loads of boxing books about. For a market leading, trusted brand such as Boxing News, this is a bit pathetic.

Larger publishers are mainly to blame for their shylock attitude towards the internet, believing that their 'content must be paid for'. They have been spending so much time trying to protect their print media, and force growth in a sector that is never going to grow, that many have completely missed the online boat.

I'm not knocking the magazine or any of its staff at all, I'm sure they all work their bollocks off, and have a wide knowledge of boxing. But the not too distant future, weekly publication will not be a viable business model for Boxing News. Trust me.

Last time I checked, BN was selling an estimated 10k an issue on the newsstand so their RSV a month is going to be around the 100k mark, so Newsquest will be taking around 66k once the retailers etc have taken their cut. You've then got subs, which are probably around the 2/3k mark and ad revenue, which will be 'pocket money' in relative terms. Add in the fact you've got a relatively small cost base - small team on relatively small salaries and the savings on print and production you'll make from the economies of scale that come from being part of a big publisher and I think BN still operates at a fairly healthy margin.
And while you're correct about regional newspapers, you're way off the mark with special interest mags, as many are thriving or at the least maintaining profit levels. It varies from sector to sector, but it's generally accepted that those that suffer most in a recessionary climate are the more general lifestyle publications - special interest mags are bought by those who are passionate about the subject and so view it as an essential purchase rather than a luxury. For example, I know that Fighters Only, the MMA mag, has been showing healthy increases in newsstand performance over the past year DESPITE increasing the cover price (again, contrary to your assumption, there are a lot of factors that go into determining whether to increase cover price, such as the perceived price 'elasticity' of the target audience).
There are definite threats to the long-term health of BN for sure - the internet is one that we've discussed many times, but many publishers are going to face tough times in the short-term due to the forecast increase in paper costs (estimated to be going up by as much as 20%), which will have a signficant impact on the bottom line.
In terms of monetizing the website, I know what you're saying in regards to the retail element and I personally subscribe to the 'do it well or don't do it at all' argument. However, if you honestly think the cut BN/Newsquest would get on a fully functioning niche interest bookstore would make a tangible diffference to operating performance then you're in fantasy land as the volume play just wouldn't be there.
In terms of the publishers and their approach to the internet, I think there's definitely truth in that - many have basically played defence rather than offence, but it's hard to blame them when there's stil no clear way for them to achieve the same levels of profitability online that they can in print. If you take BN as an example, they'll never be able to generate the volume of traffic needed to attract significant levels of banner advertising, which remains a core revenue stream. And we already know the subscription model won't work.
It needs far more fleshing out as a business model, but for me BN needs to build itself as a brand more effectively and look at areas like events as revenue streams to offset the decline in print profitability that remains an inevitability in the long term.