Boxing News Pacquiao Mayweather...is that it?

[veriton]

Was really looking forward to this week's issue as it seems a few of the team went out to Vegas, but the actual magazine coverage is, in my opinion, quite poor. It feels like a bog standard issue, nothing special for the so-called fight of the century.

There is a weak fight review (in round one....in round two...in round three...) no real analysis, no interviews with characters on the sidelines, no colour pieces, hardly any snippets on what was going on away from the ring (surely that's the idea of having a lot of boots on the ground, to give us the flavour of the event). In fact one of the snippets was on the ring announcers, which we could see on TV.

Nothing on the weigh-in, what was going on at the venue, british fans/fighters out there, no word from ashley theophane who boxed just before and was on mayweather's team. Even a look at the memorabilia, what kind of crowd it was (teddy atlas said it was hedge fund convention). What coverage there was seemed to be almost completely positive, but lots of people seem to be saying it was crap...that opinion wasn't really heard.

I bought the preview special magazine for 6.99 with the old fight reports and it was excellent. Claude Abrams and Tris Dixon really knew their stuff, their anaylsis of the fights was excellent. Claude's take on what was technically happening in fights was a pleasure, Tris always captured the mood and feeling of an event so well, it's like sitting there in the crowd. I just think it's all slipped a very long way from that standard.

I know they had a special website up for this because it kept popping up in my facebook feed, but I don't really bother with that much on the web. The thing with Boxing News is that I like to sit down and read all about it in my magazine when it's published. It's a few days after the event but it's good to read a proper evaluation. I am a subscriber, that's what I am paying for and I doubt they are making much money off the website (who is?).

To be honest, I feel a bit let down by this week's issue. It's too lightweight on such a big event, in my opinion. I'd send this to the editor, but they dont even seem to have one after Tris Dixon left...so I'll say it on here as I know some of the lads read this site. We're getting good stuff on B ox N ation now, Boxing Monthly is a cracking read, but Boxing News seems to be losing its footing a little... I hope that can be changed

[chinny]

I agree it wasn't really up to much. Flexens interview with Benn was the highlight of the issue. And yes, who knows who is caretaker editing it.

You mentioned memorabilia etc and I happened to be out there and posted on another forum about that and plenty of other stuff if you're interested. I even managed to score a ringside seat for the big one. Posted here

http://checkhookboxing.com/showthread.p ... then-Vegas

[Syntax Error]

Maybe they didn't buy into the OTT hype; plus the fight itself was largely unremarkable, so they probably felt that it didn't really warrant a special issue.

[dbflex]

Hi guys

We devoted around 12 pages (I don't have the issue im front of me) of 42 editorial pages to events in Vegas which, in percentage terms, is significant. We did consider upsizing but this comes with a cost attached - for readers as well as us - and having already done so with the preview issue, we decided it would be unfair on fans, especially given a lot of the interest in the event is lost once it has happened.

The expectations based on us having so many boots on the ground are slightly misguided. We had a website that attracted around a million unique users a month, by far the largest audience of our many platforms. We also launched the dedicated micro site so the purpose of having all of us out there was to deliver round-the-clock coverage which we did and which delivered record figures. We do monetise this, contrary to the op's suspicions, so it is a priority, as is the print product.

All that said, I feel (and I'm obviously biased) that we covered Vegas week well, the fight report in particular, given the fight itself was mildly underwhelming. Add that to the site, micro site, special and preview issue and we covered all bases.

I will now take brief questions, lol

Danny Flexen

[Boxerbeetle]

Two small observations:

1. If BN had dedicated more coverage to the fight, it surely would have been criticised for spending too much time & attention on one big fight & neglecting everything else.

2. Does anyone actually believe the fight needed, warranted or indeed deserved any more coverage than it's already had?

Edit: having just read through the thread again, I realise my two small observations have pretty much been covered already I've just spent the last 2 hours moving 140 paving slabs, so am clearly not thinking straight.

[reggaereggae]

Hi guys

We devoted around 12 pages (I don't have the issue im front of me) of 42 editorial pages to events in Vegas which, in percentage terms, is significant. We did consider upsizing but this comes with a cost attached - for readers as well as us - and having already done so with the preview issue, we decided it would be unfair on fans, especially given a lot of the interest in the event is lost once it has happened.

The expectations based on us having so many boots on the ground are slightly misguided. We had a website that attracted around a million unique users a month, by far the largest audience of our many platforms. We also launched the dedicated micro site so the purpose of having all of us out there was to deliver round-the-clock coverage which we did and which delivered record figures. We do monetise this, contrary to the op's suspicions, so it is a priority, as is the print product.

All that said, I feel (and I'm obviously biased) that we covered Vegas week well, the fight report in particular, given the fight itself was mildly underwhelming. Add that to the site, micro site, special and preview issue and we covered all bases.

I will now take brief questions, lol

Danny Flexen

Great summary and I agree with this post completely. There was an in depth preview issue, an editional BN publication to buy, and 12 or so pages is more than enough on a rather dire and disappointing event.

Good luck to BN, which continues to be the best boxing publication in the world.

[veriton]

Hi guys

We devoted around 12 pages (I don't have the issue im front of me) of 42 editorial pages to events in Vegas which, in percentage terms, is significant. We did consider upsizing but this comes with a cost attached - for readers as well as us - and having already done so with the preview issue, we decided it would be unfair on fans, especially given a lot of the interest in the event is lost once it has happened.

The expectations based on us having so many boots on the ground are slightly misguided. We had a website that attracted around a million unique users a month, by far the largest audience of our many platforms. We also launched the dedicated micro site so the purpose of having all of us out there was to deliver round-the-clock coverage which we did and which delivered record figures. We do monetise this, contrary to the op's suspicions, so it is a priority, as is the print product.

All that said, I feel (and I'm obviously biased) that we covered Vegas week well, the fight report in particular, given the fight itself was mildly underwhelming. Add that to the site, micro site, special and preview issue and we covered all bases.

I will now take brief questions, lol

Danny Flexen

Hi Danny, I do have the issue in front of me. there are four pages (15, 16, 17, 18) containing text from Pacquiao v Mayweather in Las Vegas. This is an extremely dry fight report, with four short, weak ringside notes pieces. There is nothing in these four pages that I couldn't know from sitting on my settee watching it on TV. You guys had the access and were all over there yet this hasn't really translated into anything of note in the magazine.

Aside from this you have an anonymous editorial piece where Tris used to write, even suggesting a rematch would be good (not read that anywhere else) then a piece from Dominic Ingle (good attempt at taking it forward, liked this), then you've got The Panel page and the Heroes and Villians pages, which you usually turn over to whatever big fight is on that week anyway, so this is not dedicated coverage. The Shot of the Week always feels like a space filler. If space was at a premium why not ditch these two pages and give us some "behind the scenes" of boxing's biggest night in years?

As someone else stated, your interview with Nigel Benn is the best thing in this week, which is both a compliment and I guess also a bit of a slight considering the potential material that could be in the mag this week.

Good that the website got great figures and that you are putting so many resources into it and acheiving . Since accessing that is free, maybe us dinosaurs who actually pay for the print version should consider just reading everything online instead. I feel a bit cheated, seems like print is an afterthought now, yet I would think we readers are subsidising the free online stuff?

[chinny]

Danny, given your position this may be a little sensitive but can you clear up the editorial situation?

Who writes the Ed column now and what's the situation re a permanent Ed?

Wasn't impressed that Newsquest advertised the job with a "does not require an interest in boxing" tag

[dbflex]

The website and print products both generate revenue and are each afforded significant attention. Again, I believe we covered the events from Vegas incredibly well online and, given the space constraints of print, on paper.

The show report was six pages (including the undercard), many readers appreciate excellent inagery so your views on Shot of the Week, while valid, are of course subjective. Heroes and Villains is rarely devoted to a specific show or fight, so I'm not sure what gave you that impression.

The comments regarding simply getting everything on our website is a strange one for me. If you want immediate news, comment and opinions then you'll be fine with just our excellent site, but print is a different entity and provides more in-depth, rounded coverage including long-form features, previews, ringside reports, fitness content and a superb amateur section. If you feel cheated by that, I am baffled but perhaps the print product is not for you. I hope that's not the case.

[dbflex]

Danny, given your position this may be a little sensitive but can you clear up the editorial situation?

Who writes the Ed column now and what's the situation re a permanent Ed?

Wasn't impressed that Newsquest advertised the job with a "does not require an interest in boxing" tag

The leader column has been shared since Tris departed but will revert to a traditional Editor's Letter in the next issue, in which our recent team changes will also be announced.

[veriton]

The print magazine is a usually a good read, largely thanks to all the things you just mentioned. But it seems strange that you sent all the editorial team to Vegas and we just got exactly the same coverage as if one person had gone. Did you go all the way there just to review Beltran v Ao? (which got the same space as Towned v Fehintola in Doncaster).

The Shot of the Week is subjective, but all it was this time was of a full arena, just the same as when it has been full every other time.

Pacquiao v Mayweather was such a huge event, with such a big build-up that I thought it was going to get better coverage in the edition after the event. I wanted to get a feel of the actual thing, what it was like to be in Vegas that week etc etc. Maybe I was expecting too much. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to reply.

[dbflex]

The print magazine is a usually a good read, largely thanks to all the things you just mentioned. But it seems strange that you sent all the editorial team to Vegas and we just got exactly the same coverage as if one person had gone. Did you go all the way there just to review Beltran v Ao? (which got the same space as Towned v Fehintola in Doncaster).

The Shot of the Week is subjective, but all it was this time was of a full arena, just the same as when it has been full every other time.

Pacquiao v Mayweather was such a huge event, with such a big build-up that I thought it was going to get better coverage in the edition after the event. I wanted to get a feel of the actual thing, what it was like to be in Vegas that week etc etc. Maybe I was expecting too much. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to reply.

I understand what you are saying but the large number of people going out there was to really fill the site with great coverage every day - a massive priority - and to stockpile content for future issues, which we did. We also produced the majority of this week's issue while we were there, which was no small feat. Stick with us for the next couple of issues, if only for my Crawford Q&A and Mitchell feature.

[chinny]

Danny, given your position this may be a little sensitive but can you clear up the editorial situation?

Who writes the Ed column now and what's the situation re a permanent Ed?

Wasn't impressed that Newsquest advertised the job with a "does not require an interest in boxing" tag

The leader column has been shared since Tris departed but will revert to a traditional Editor's Letter in the next issue, in which our recent team changes will also be announced.

Thanks Danny. Look forward to reading the announcement.