Boxing Monthly this month, the cover?

[J]

BIGGEST FIGHT THIS MONTH FOR ITS READERS AND AUDIENCE.

i dont have a problem with it.

money talks bullshit complains to the bb of c!

[Terminator666]

Did seem strange to have the same two fighters on the front cover two months running regardless of the controversy.

[WelshDevil]

Not seen the covers but will buy the latest edition.

2 months in a row seems wrong but its a huge fight and if it brings in additional sales then all good.

How much is a subscription?

[Dan Dares]

2 months in a row seems wrong but its a huge fight and if it brings in additional sales then all good.

I suppose it depends what else is happening. In this instance, it's a big story and not just because of the match, so i think its editorially justified.

[slapbangwhallop]

They ran with the biggest story of interest to their target market two months in a row. Not sure what the issue is here?

[Terminator666]

I would imagine they will be on the August front cover as well- considering that issue will be covering the result.

[milpool]

We've all discussed the rights and wrongs about this fight and how big it is/isn't and so I'm not going to go over old ground here.
But it was a major talking point within the sport when it was announced and it is a major talking point as fight night approaches so it is only natural that the sport's monthly magazine carries it on the cover for two months.
I don't see where the problem is...

[Stylist]

BIGGEST FIGHT THIS MONTH FOR ITS READERS AND AUDIENCE.

i dont have a problem with it.

money talks bullshit complains to the bb of c!

Well said!

[Stylist]

If you don't like it it's tough. BM is a business. Anyone put off buying it because of Haye/Chisora being on the cover two months in a row is no fan of the sport. It's only a cover. The content is what counts. Cover gets the casuals and content keeps us reading

Chisora to beat Haye.

[milpool]

If you don't like it it's tough. BM is a business. Anyone put off buying it because of Haye/Chisora being on the cover two months in a row is no fan of the sport. It's only a cover. The content is what counts. Cover gets the casuals and content keeps us reading

Chisora to beat Haye.

I agreed with you until the last bit...!

[Glyn Leach]

Was there a poll on the number of occasions we put Mayweather or Pacquiao on the cover two months running? I can't remember. But they were on there because the majority of interest was in them rather than fighters some might consider to be 'more worthy'. It surely doesn't need pointing out that there is massive interest in this fight, whether some individuals consider it to be right or wrong is immaterial. It is that rarity, a fight the entire country is interested in and various views on this controversial fight and its implications have appeared in both issues, the hope being that people will at least be able to make a reasoned choice between right and wrong, if they really feel the need for total polarity (the fight is way too issue-laden for black and white IMO).

As some posters have correctly assumed, commerciality drives cover choice every time - the idea being to sell as many issues as possible by featuring fights and fighters of most interest to the most people; that is why they sell more, because more people want to read about them, more people are interested in them. The aim in general is to please as many readers as possible by giving them what they want, and in return we get higher sales; that's the deal. Pleasing as many potential customers as you possibly can is hardly revolutionary business practice. I just wish we could please more - that's my job.

[Stylist]

Anyone who has the time to question the use of fighters on a magazine cover would surely be wound up in a year if they were running a magazine. It must be someone's idea of a jOke to question this. I have been buying this magazine from its inception and I could not care if they put Tyson furys dick on the cover. As long as it continues to be my must read boxing fix each month I am happy.

Cover gets the people buying it. We - the anoraks - buy it for the inside.

Chisora and Charles ( a poor mans Ali and Bundini) get the job done.

[Stylist]

Reading Big Marks other posts tell me he is a bit of a kiss ass who likes to pester the trade chaps. I thought you were 'done with boxing'? Close the door on your way out.

[Deserter]

Reading Big Marks other posts tell me he is a bit of a kiss ass who likes to pester the trade chaps. I thought you were 'done with boxing'? Close the door on your way out.

Love it when you get a 'newbie' acting like a complete dick. If anyone should be getting their coat...

[Khaosai-Galaxy]

Was there a poll on the number of occasions we put Mayweather or Pacquiao on the cover two months running? I can't remember. But they were on there because the majority of interest was in them rather than fighters some might consider to be 'more worthy'. It surely doesn't need pointing out that there is massive interest in this fight, whether some individuals consider it to be right or wrong is immaterial. It is that rarity, a fight the entire country is interested in and various views on this controversial fight and its implications have appeared in both issues, the hope being that people will at least be able to make a reasoned choice between right and wrong, if they really feel the need for total polarity (the fight is way too issue-laden for black and white IMO).

As some posters have correctly assumed, commerciality drives cover choice every time - the idea being to sell as many issues as possible by featuring fights and fighters of most interest to the most people; that is why they sell more, because more people want to read about them, more people are interested in them. The aim in general is to please as many readers as possible by giving them what they want, and in return we get higher sales; that's the deal. Pleasing as many potential customers as you possibly can is hardly revolutionary business practice. I just wish we could please more - that's my job.

Witchcraft!

Putting people on the cover to drive sales???..


They will be putting scantily clad women on the cover of Loaded soon!

[Glyn Leach]

Floyd is generally a rise of around 15 per cent Mark, Pacman was similar but his drop in form/status is reflected, big fights (Haye-Klitschko etc) around 15 again if we're lucky. And they are the only 'bankers' we have left these days. Froch, Khan etc have never got us big figures (big being relative, believe me). And without those bankers we'd be struggling.

Our two best sellers this year were Floyd covers, the first Haye- Chisora cover might be in the same region but I haven't got the final figures yet. Froch-Bute was very disappointing, despite the magnitude of the fight. The Ali cover was a poor seller, which pisses me off because I bowed to another opinion on that one - I wanted Vitali-Chisora, which turned into a major fight once Chisora started playing up. I was uncertain about the argument that Ali was the bigger name, therefore he should get it. On the surface that makes sense, but I was questioning whether Ali actually means much to today's boxing fans - he was 40 years ago. You have to adjust but it's hard to go against 'a banker' and Ali used to do good figures, although Tyson was the best, a guaranteed seller, so much so that one Tyson cover would allow us to take risks with two or three subsequent issues - I liked those times.

The best selling issue is the first one ever, with Tyson on the cover. This makes me feel great! It's rewarding to think we have become increasingly unpopular over the last 24 years! But it refects the popularity of the sport. Boxing just isn't getting across to the public anymore, since FW went to Sky with Naz, Bruno, Benn etc. Sky do a great job but in cold reality they are just a big minority channel, minnows compared to ITV and BBC, and sales have gradually dropped from the point when Sky became THE outlet and terrestrial disappeared. Boxing mag sales have dropped maybe 30/40 per cent in the UK since that point.

[Final round]

Even more so with the free, instant information available over the web.
I do buy BM just finishe reading July's cover to cover but I don't buy newspapers anymore. Don't need to. Boxing News is less useful these days I already know much of the content.

[Deserter]

Floyd is generally a rise of around 15 per cent Mark, Pacman was similar but his drop in form/status is reflected, big fights (Haye-Klitschko etc) around 15 again if we're lucky. And they are the only 'bankers' we have left these days. Froch, Khan etc have never got us big figures (big being relative, believe me). And without those bankers we'd be struggling.

Our two best sellers this year were Floyd covers, the first Haye- Chisora cover might be in the same region but I haven't got the final figures yet. Froch-Bute was very disappointing, despite the magnitude of the fight. The Ali cover was a poor seller, which pisses me off because I bowed to another opinion on that one - I wanted Vitali-Chisora, which turned into a major fight once Chisora started playing up. I was uncertain about the argument that Ali was the bigger name, therefore he should get it. On the surface that makes sense, but I was questioning whether Ali actually means much to today's boxing fans - he was 40 years ago. You have to adjust but it's hard to go against 'a banker' and Ali used to do good figures, although Tyson was the best, a guaranteed seller, so much so that one Tyson cover would allow us to take risks with two or three subsequent issues - I liked those times.

The best selling issue is the first one ever, with Tyson on the cover. This makes me feel great! It's rewarding to think we have become increasingly unpopular over the last 24 years! But it refects the popularity of the sport. Boxing just isn't getting across to the public anymore, since FW went to Sky with Naz, Bruno, Benn etc. Sky do a great job but in cold reality they are just a big minority channel, minnows compared to ITV and BBC, and sales have gradually dropped from the point when Sky became THE outlet and terrestrial disappeared. Boxing mag sales have dropped maybe 30/40 per cent in the UK since that point.

Glyn, realise it's no consolation, but I'm back in the UK this week and yesterday was very telling on two counts:
1) Met with a former colleague who's still in publishing and the circulation drops in the division he works in are staggering/scary. I suspect BM is holding up better than many other sectors.
2) My nephew has started MMA - I went down to the local club yesterday morning and it was packed with young kids who would normally have gravitated towards boxing. The instructor said he's gone from around 10 members to 100 in the last couple of years. I used to box for the amateur club in the same town and it's never come close to doing those sorts of numbers.
Given these two prevailing trends , you're doing a cracking job. I bought the latest issue literally as soon as I got off the plane and it's still giving me great content I can't get elsewhere (bar Buncey's column, which I found ridiculously simplistic if I'm honest).

[Khaosai-Galaxy]

Floyd is generally a rise of around 15 per cent Mark, Pacman was similar but his drop in form/status is reflected, big fights (Haye-Klitschko etc) around 15 again if we're lucky. And they are the only 'bankers' we have left these days. Froch, Khan etc have never got us big figures (big being relative, believe me). And without those bankers we'd be struggling.

Our two best sellers this year were Floyd covers, the first Haye- Chisora cover might be in the same region but I haven't got the final figures yet. Froch-Bute was very disappointing, despite the magnitude of the fight. The Ali cover was a poor seller, which pisses me off because I bowed to another opinion on that one - I wanted Vitali-Chisora, which turned into a major fight once Chisora started playing up. I was uncertain about the argument that Ali was the bigger name, therefore he should get it. On the surface that makes sense, but I was questioning whether Ali actually means much to today's boxing fans - he was 40 years ago. You have to adjust but it's hard to go against 'a banker' and Ali used to do good figures, although Tyson was the best, a guaranteed seller, so much so that one Tyson cover would allow us to take risks with two or three subsequent issues - I liked those times.

The best selling issue is the first one ever, with Tyson on the cover. This makes me feel great! It's rewarding to think we have become increasingly unpopular over the last 24 years! But it refects the popularity of the sport. Boxing just isn't getting across to the public anymore, since FW went to Sky with Naz, Bruno, Benn etc. Sky do a great job but in cold reality they are just a big minority channel, minnows compared to ITV and BBC, and sales have gradually dropped from the point when Sky became THE outlet and terrestrial disappeared. Boxing mag sales have dropped maybe 30/40 per cent in the UK since that point.

Glyn, realise it's no consolation, but I'm back in the UK this week and yesterday was very telling on two counts:
1) Met with a former colleague who's still in publishing and the circulation drops in the division he works in are staggering/scary. I suspect BM is holding up better than many other sectors.
.

In the late 90's Loaded's circulation was approximately 450,000. Today its 35,000 and its not as if men have become less interested in womens breasts over the last 10 years.

Peoples habits have changed, buying magazines is not part of peoples lives any more.


I have no idea why i have mentioned loaded twice, i have never even read a single issue of it.

[Glyn Leach]

Khaosai's comparison is very comforting Deserter!

[Deserter]

In the late 90's Loaded's circulation was approximately 450,000. Today its 35,000 and its not as if men have become less interested in womens breasts over the last 10 years.

Peoples habits have changed, buying magazines is not part of peoples lives any more.


I have no idea why i have mentioned loaded twice, i have never even read a single issue of it.

Loaded's perhaps not the best example though as in its heyday under James Brown it didn't actually have much in the way of a 'breast count' and had a number of male covers, which previously had been regarded as impossible to sell.
You've still got the likes of The Economist and Private Eye bucking the trend, which is why I'm loathe to proclaim outright that buying mags isn't part of people's lives. It's very much a sector-specific trend e.g. gaming mags are being brutalized, while cycling mags are generally doing well.
Fighters Only, the MMA mag, has been increasing circulation in recent years, reflecting the growth in popularity of that sport.

[Khaosai-Galaxy]

In the late 90's Loaded's circulation was approximately 450,000. Today its 35,000 and its not as if men have become less interested in womens breasts over the last 10 years.

Peoples habits have changed, buying magazines is not part of peoples lives any more.


I have no idea why i have mentioned loaded twice, i have never even read a single issue of it.

Loaded's perhaps not the best example though as in its heyday under James Brown it didn't actually have much in the way of a 'breast count' and had a number of male covers, which previously had been regarded as impossible to sell.
You've still got the likes of The Economist and Private Eye bucking the trend, which is why I'm loathe to proclaim outright that buying mags isn't part of people's lives. It's very much a sector-specific trend e.g. gaming mags are being brutalized, while cycling mags are generally doing well.
Fighters Only, the MMA mag, has been increasing circulation in recent years, reflecting the growth in popularity of that sport.

Aye, i am somewhat removed from the habits of UK consumers, and more than a wee bit out of touch.

The thing about the Economist, Private Eye and The Wall Street Journal is that they have a certain cache about being seen reading it. By sitting in an airport lounge reading the Economist you are letting people know you are not one of the shit munchers.

I supose BN has a cache to it, if thats the right word?

Letting the world know you are a serious boxing fan, etc.

[Deserter]

The thing about the Economist, Private Eye and The Wall Street Journal is that they have a certain cache about being seen reading it. By sitting in an airport lounge reading the Economist you are letting people know you are not one of the shit munchers.

You're 100% right. The best magazines are like a badge of identity for their readers, whether that's the young professional woman clutching Grazia on the tube or the businessman reading Monocle.

[whiskey]

I have no idea why i have mentioned loaded twice, i have never even read a single issue of it.

Nobody 'reads' it.

I blame pornhub for its demise.

[Khaosai-Galaxy]

The thing about the Economist, Private Eye and The Wall Street Journal is that they have a certain cache about being seen reading it. By sitting in an airport lounge reading the Economist you are letting people know you are not one of the shit munchers.

You're 100% right. The best magazines are like a badge of identity for their readers, whether that's the young professional woman clutching Grazia on the tube or the businessman reading Monocle.

Some of my worst experiences of boxing chat with casual fans has happened because i was reading BM or BN which sparked the conversation

Here is a tip for you all, never read "The Beach" anywhere near a beach in Thailand.

Like a red rag to a bunch of wankers,