Matt Christie leaves Boxing News

[Deserter]

Newspapers have always relied on ads, but now, they rely on them almost totally.

Not strictly accurate James. Those who are faring best have built strong subscription models:
"“In FY 2014, nearly half of News Corp revenues were from advertising, with 31% from circulation and subscriptions. There has been a fundamental metamorphosis – in the first half of this fiscal year advertising had receded to 16%, with circulation and subscriptions surging to 44%.”
https://pressgazette.co.uk/media_busine ... ork-times/

[Frostieballs]

Newspapers have always relied on ads, but now, they rely on them almost totally.

Not strictly accurate James. Those who are faring best have built strong subscription models:
"“In FY 2014, nearly half of News Corp revenues were from advertising, with 31% from circulation and subscriptions. There has been a fundamental metamorphosis – in the first half of this fiscal year advertising had receded to 16%, with circulation and subscriptions surging to 44%.”
https://pressgazette.co.uk/media_busine ... ork-times/

In the nineties I'd have thought actual sales would have generated about 60% upwards of revenue. The Sun regularly sold between 3 and 4 million copies a day.

[jamesmcdonnell]

Newspapers have always relied on ads, but now, they rely on them almost totally.

Not strictly accurate James. Those who are faring best have built strong subscription models:
"“In FY 2014, nearly half of News Corp revenues were from advertising, with 31% from circulation and subscriptions. There has been a fundamental metamorphosis – in the first half of this fiscal year advertising had receded to 16%, with circulation and subscriptions surging to 44%.”
https://pressgazette.co.uk/media_busine ... ork-times/

Yes, but those are the big guys.

Though I take your point.

I'm surprised

[samwbr]

Anyone know what Worsell is moving on to? It’s a bit of a surprise in a way but when there’s a new editor and new ownership staff reshuffles are typical.

Mark Butcher has been in boxing for years and even used to have a full time job there as a writer many years ago so BN is in good hands.

I guess BN are just facing the same problem every print title faces with the net. I still buy it, but of course the buzz is not the same as when you’re young, and unlike pre-web we know all the results, whereas previously we would have to wait til publication for comprehensive coverage.

I do miss Boxing Monthly, I felt it had quality, lengthy articles. Hopefully BN will survive digitally and in print.

I know he's not everyone's cup of tea but Worsell going is a big blow, he's the best writer they've got IMO.

[afcpaul]

quote= Loynesy post_id=6036729 time=1721916713 user_id=2209]
You've both convinced me to Re-subscribe. It's nota money issue of course but a diminution of quality.

I was getting cross with my Saturday morning coffee, but I do miss it. Perhaps it's like a football team as a fan, things go in cycles.
[/quote]

my boxing news time is Thursday afternoons.

[SeanBrennan]

quote= Loynesy post_id=6036729 time=1721916713 user_id=2209]
You've both convinced me to Re-subscribe. It's nota money issue of course but a diminution of quality.

I was getting cross with my Saturday morning coffee, but I do miss it. Perhaps it's like a football team as a fan, things go in cycles.

my boxing news time is Thursday afternoons.
[/quote]

great to hear I enjoy my subscription.

this week was Eliot Worsell's last column by the way.

[JamesPhilips]

Anyone know what Worsell is moving on to? It’s a bit of a surprise in a way but when there’s a new editor and new ownership staff reshuffles are typical.

Mark Butcher has been in boxing for years and even used to have a full time job there as a writer many years ago so BN is in good hands.

I guess BN are just facing the same problem every print title faces with the net. I still buy it, but of course the buzz is not the same as when you’re young, and unlike pre-web we know all the results, whereas previously we would have to wait til publication for comprehensive coverage.

I do miss Boxing Monthly, I felt it had quality, lengthy articles. Hopefully BN will survive digitally and in print.

I know he's not everyone's cup of tea but Worsell going is a big blow, he's the best writer they've got IMO.

He’s unnecessarily pretentious but he’s ok

[SeanBrennan]

Anyone know what Worsell is moving on to? It’s a bit of a surprise in a way but when there’s a new editor and new ownership staff reshuffles are typical.

Mark Butcher has been in boxing for years and even used to have a full time job there as a writer many years ago so BN is in good hands.

I guess BN are just facing the same problem every print title faces with the net. I still buy it, but of course the buzz is not the same as when you’re young, and unlike pre-web we know all the results, whereas previously we would have to wait til publication for comprehensive coverage.

I do miss Boxing Monthly, I felt it had quality, lengthy articles. Hopefully BN will survive digitally and in print.

I know he's not everyone's cup of tea but Worsell going is a big blow, he's the best writer they've got IMO.

He’s unnecessarily pretentious but he’s ok

I think that sums Eliot up well. He has produced some quality amidst the hyperbole.

[samwbr]

Anyone know what Worsell is moving on to? It’s a bit of a surprise in a way but when there’s a new editor and new ownership staff reshuffles are typical.

Mark Butcher has been in boxing for years and even used to have a full time job there as a writer many years ago so BN is in good hands.

I guess BN are just facing the same problem every print title faces with the net. I still buy it, but of course the buzz is not the same as when you’re young, and unlike pre-web we know all the results, whereas previously we would have to wait til publication for comprehensive coverage.

I do miss Boxing Monthly, I felt it had quality, lengthy articles. Hopefully BN will survive digitally and in print.

I know he's not everyone's cup of tea but Worsell going is a big blow, he's the best writer they've got IMO.

He’s unnecessarily pretentious but he’s ok

I get that but I don't find his stuff pretentious.

[Deserter]

I'm not a subscriber any more, but I like my Thursday morning 'ritual' where I walk to my local newsagent and buy the latest issue to enjoy over a coffee. However, at the risk of sounding harsh, I'll share one paragraph from this week's publication that I think sums up why it's lost its way and therefore why I'm close to pulling the ripcord...

"There is also a good-looking 10-rounder between super-feathers Ryan Garner (15-0, 8 KOs) and Archie Sharp (25-0, 8 KOs), both of whom are unbeaten and full of ambition."

My points:
1. Unbeaten and full of ambition - no shi*t Sherlock? Is that literally the only comment our only British boxing publication has on 2 unbeaten British fighters facing off against each other?! Where's the value in telling me that? Google can tell me that. It's lazy journalism at best.
2. Relating to the above, give me some insight and context - as a boxing fan I already know they're unbeaten etc, but I'm buying BN because I want to understand a few related things, including their styles, how they've been matched to date and how this could play out etc.
3. So of course I at least want you to put your flag in the ground and give a prediction on who you think will come up on top and why!

Yes, there's a BM-style feature in there on Sharp, but that just looks even more out of kilter in light of Garner's victory. As others have already mentioned in this thread, features have their place, but in a weekly publication we're looking for quality, time-sensitive previews and analysis of fights that we can't get elsewhere.

Long story short is that the only print publication dedicated to the British boxing scene, only managed one paragraph on two unbeaten British boxers fighting tonight and that paragraph contained absolutely f**k all of value to any reader, just a generic meaningless statement that any of us could have knocked out in seconds as a throwaway soundbite.

Give me expert analysis and predictions that I can't get anywhere else and you'll keep me. Treat me like a mug with this sort of inane content (I can't even call it a proper 'preview') and as much as I want to support you, I'll call it a day.

Sorry, rant over, but hopefully you see where I'm coming from.

[SeanBrennan]

I'm not a subscriber any more, but I like my Thursday morning 'ritual' where I walk to my local newsagent and buy the latest issue to enjoy over a coffee. However, at the risk of sounding harsh, I'll share one paragraph from this week's publication that I think sums up why it's lost its way and therefore why I'm close to pulling the ripcord...

"There is also a good-looking 10-rounder between super-feathers Ryan Garner (15-0, 8 KOs) and Archie Sharp (25-0, 8 KOs), both of whom are unbeaten and full of ambition."

My points:
1. Unbeaten and full of ambition - no shi*t Sherlock? Is that literally the only comment our only British boxing publication has on 2 unbeaten British fighters facing off against each other?! Where's the value in telling me that? Google can tell me that. It's lazy journalism at best.
2. Relating to the above, give me some insight and context - as a boxing fan I already know they're unbeaten etc, but I'm buying BN because I want to understand a few related things, including their styles, how they've been matched to date and how this could play out etc.
3. So of course I at least want you to put your flag in the ground and give a prediction on who you think will come up on top and why!

Yes, there's a BM-style feature in there on Sharp, but that just looks even more out of kilter in light of Garner's victory. As others have already mentioned in this thread, features have their place, but in a weekly publication we're looking for quality, time-sensitive previews and analysis of fights that we can't get elsewhere.

Long story short is that the only print publication dedicated to the British boxing scene, only managed one paragraph on two unbeaten British boxers fighting tonight and that paragraph contained absolutely f**k all of value to any reader, just a generic meaningless statement that any of us could have knocked out in seconds as a throwaway soundbite.

Give me expert analysis and predictions that I can't get anywhere else and you'll keep me. Treat me like a mug with this sort of inane content (I can't even call it a proper 'preview') and as much as I want to support you, I'll call it a day.

Sorry, rant over, but hopefully you see where I'm coming from.

I expect a bit les, it's £2.50 a week, lots of coverage, good Buncey articles, god reviews and previews, and the history section size has doubled which is my fave bit.

[mickey1975]

I'm not a subscriber any more, but I like my Thursday morning 'ritual' where I walk to my local newsagent and buy the latest issue to enjoy over a coffee. However, at the risk of sounding harsh, I'll share one paragraph from this week's publication that I think sums up why it's lost its way and therefore why I'm close to pulling the ripcord...

"There is also a good-looking 10-rounder between super-feathers Ryan Garner (15-0, 8 KOs) and Archie Sharp (25-0, 8 KOs), both of whom are unbeaten and full of ambition."

My points:
1. Unbeaten and full of ambition - no shi*t Sherlock? Is that literally the only comment our only British boxing publication has on 2 unbeaten British fighters facing off against each other?! Where's the value in telling me that? Google can tell me that. It's lazy journalism at best.
2. Relating to the above, give me some insight and context - as a boxing fan I already know they're unbeaten etc, but I'm buying BN because I want to understand a few related things, including their styles, how they've been matched to date and how this could play out etc.
3. So of course I at least want you to put your flag in the ground and give a prediction on who you think will come up on top and why!

Yes, there's a BM-style feature in there on Sharp, but that just looks even more out of kilter in light of Garner's victory. As others have already mentioned in this thread, features have their place, but in a weekly publication we're looking for quality, time-sensitive previews and analysis of fights that we can't get elsewhere.

Long story short is that the only print publication dedicated to the British boxing scene, only managed one paragraph on two unbeaten British boxers fighting tonight and that paragraph contained absolutely f**k all of value to any reader, just a generic meaningless statement that any of us could have knocked out in seconds as a throwaway soundbite.

Give me expert analysis and predictions that I can't get anywhere else and you'll keep me. Treat me like a mug with this sort of inane content (I can't even call it a proper 'preview') and as much as I want to support you, I'll call it a day.

Sorry, rant over, but hopefully you see where I'm coming from.

I expect a bit les, it's £2.50 a week, lots of coverage, good Buncey articles, god reviews and previews, and the history section size has doubled which is my fave bit.

It's £4.25 in the shop.

[Deserter]

god reviews and previews.

This is where we'll just have to politely disagree Sean. A one-line soundbite is not a good preview in any world and while it's an extreme example, I do feel my point about analysis and insights stands.
I'm hugely sympathetic to editors and journalists having to operate in this climate with such limited resources and time, but a professional boxing writer should have the body of knowledge to be able to put something to paper that gives genuine value to the reader. That's missing far too much right now IMO. Doesn't mean I don't appreciate other aspects of the mag, but this feels like pretty core foundational content to me.

[SeanBrennan]

god reviews and previews.

This is where we'll just have to politely disagree Sean. A one-line soundbite is not a good preview in any world and while it's an extreme example, I do feel my point about analysis and insights stands.
I'm hugely sympathetic to editors and journalists having to operate in this climate with such limited resources and time, but a professional boxing writer should have the body of knowledge to be able to put something to paper that gives genuine value to the reader. That's missing far too much right now IMO. Doesn't mean I don't appreciate other aspects of the mag, but this feels like pretty core foundational content to me.

that's fair enough mate. And I have not helped my argument by managing to mis-spell the word 'good' have I?!!!
Good god....

[Deserter]

god reviews and previews.

This is where we'll just have to politely disagree Sean. A one-line soundbite is not a good preview in any world and while it's an extreme example, I do feel my point about analysis and insights stands.
I'm hugely sympathetic to editors and journalists having to operate in this climate with such limited resources and time, but a professional boxing writer should have the body of knowledge to be able to put something to paper that gives genuine value to the reader. That's missing far too much right now IMO. Doesn't mean I don't appreciate other aspects of the mag, but this feels like pretty core foundational content to me.

that's fair enough mate. And I have not helped my argument by managing to mis-spell the word 'good' have I?!!!
Good god....

Ha ha! All god mate

[SeanBrennan]

This is where we'll just have to politely disagree Sean. A one-line soundbite is not a good preview in any world and while it's an extreme example, I do feel my point about analysis and insights stands.
I'm hugely sympathetic to editors and journalists having to operate in this climate with such limited resources and time, but a professional boxing writer should have the body of knowledge to be able to put something to paper that gives genuine value to the reader. That's missing far too much right now IMO. Doesn't mean I don't appreciate other aspects of the mag, but this feels like pretty core foundational content to me.

that's fair enough mate. And I have not helped my argument by managing to mis-spell the word 'good' have I?!!!
Good god....

Ha ha! All god mate

hahahah cheers Deserter.

[TheGoods]

Worsell was OK but writing felt a bit laboured at times. The best young writer of the lot was Oliver Goldstein who seems to have grown up and become a top barrister.

Big criticism of Worsell's fight previews was he often didn’t give a pick at all. As stated earlier in the thread in the industry paper I want genuine insight but also want someone to call it. Enjoy Butcher’s previews to be fair as he clearly likes a bet himself and isn’t shy to nail his colours to the mast.

[veriton]

When Worsell was good, he was really good but it sometimes felt like he was used as a space filler with little editorial oversight so there was 1500 words on something that could have been two paragraphs elsewhere.

BN still great value at £2.50 a week on a subscription. Yes it used to be different but guess some cuts had to be made to ensure its survival.

If it ever folds then I want to be a subscriber when it happens so I know I did my best to support it. Same as with BM.

[MightyWarrior]

As I’ve said before, I thought Worsell was bloody awful, pontificating away to fill pages, saying nowt and using 20 words when one would do. A bit like an In print version of big Ron, but a fatally serious version, who unlike Ron hadnt tipped into pure insanity, but death enducing dullness instead.
And it was almost as if they were like, oh Christ, we’ve got another 20 pages to fill, what we do? oh yeah let’s ask Elliot to write about how boxing gloves can be a different colour, for three pages.

Now he’s gone maybe I’ll check it out again, hopefully there will be lots of full colour pages with photographs of Rob Tebbutt and Andy Clarke.

[mickey1975]

This weeks preview seems to be directly lifted from Graham Houstons website (if he still has one) and is more of a tipping page.

[IRL25]

Worsell was OK but writing felt a bit laboured at times. The best young writer of the lot was Oliver Goldstein who seems to have grown up and become a top barrister.

Big criticism of Worsell's fight previews was he often didn’t give a pick at all. As stated earlier in the thread in the industry paper I want genuine insight but also want someone to call it. Enjoy Butcher’s previews to be fair as he clearly likes a bet himself and isn’t shy to nail his colours to the mast.

Perhaps he enjoys the sensation of sitting on the fence perhaps.

[JamesPhilips]

Worsell was OK but writing felt a bit laboured at times. The best young writer of the lot was Oliver Goldstein who seems to have grown up and become a top barrister.

Big criticism of Worsell's fight previews was he often didn’t give a pick at all. As stated earlier in the thread in the industry paper I want genuine insight but also want someone to call it. Enjoy Butcher’s previews to be fair as he clearly likes a bet himself and isn’t shy to nail his colours to the mast.

I think the new betting angle is not exclusive to Butcher. Graham Houston includes it in his preview this week. I have to say o actually like the betting insight. Butcher made some good calls.

However I feel it’s part of the Boxing news prediction app push which has an affiliate relationship with I think Bet365

[JamesPhilips]

As I’ve said before, I thought Worsell was bloody awful, pontificating away to fill pages, saying nowt and using 20 words when one would do. A bit like an In print version of big Ron, but a fatally serious version, who unlike Ron hadnt tipped into pure insanity, but death enducing dullness instead.
And it was almost as if they were like, oh Christ, we’ve got another 20 pages to fill, what we do? oh yeah let’s ask Elliot to write about how boxing gloves can be a different colour, for three pages.

Now he’s gone maybe I’ll check it out again, hopefully there will be lots of full colour pages with photographs of Rob Tebbutt and Andy Clarke.

LMAO agreed however as for the fence sitting I think it’s gutless not to include a prediction when previewing fights

[olij999]

This does seem like a really rocky period for BN, the rockiest I can ever recall. Whatever its faults, and whatever the areas in which it could improve, I hope it survives, as British boxing is better off with it than without it.

[veriton]

Just got this week's and last week's after renewing subscription - great afternoon in the garden with both.

Graham Houston back on board and beefing up the previews. Shaun Brown and Declan Taylor both very strong writers so plenty of weight in there. Simpson v Chelli preview a cracker.

This week's history piece by Miles Templeton was brilliant. Old Timers really benefiting from the extra space and photos - for all the warbling about Ringside Charitable Trust from the previous editor, the old boys column didn't get much love.

Worsell's goodbye was interesting. I hope he carries on as freelance as I really think his output suffered by being used as a space filler. Once a month could bring the best out of him.

There was a cracking interview with an unsung amateur coach by Matt bozeat. Proper chips and gravy.

The design was first class too.

This week's is the strongest issue I've read in ages.