BoxRec

Richard, I'd agree in terms of fight reports, generally, the BM stuff is better than you find on the net, especially when you're looking at such a biased site as fight news, where the promoters pretty much post their own versions of how a fight went, and fight news takes it at face value.

But sites like maxboxing are bettering you when it comes to fighter profiles, and general up to date boxing pieces on gyms, tainers etc

Young writers like Gerbasi, Kim and Fisher are as good as any writers BM has, excluding Houston that is. And newly reinvented web writer Mike Katz is as good as is gets, though he seems to jump from bed to bed on a weekly basis, the old tart.

Though I'd imagine Glynn and yourself are secretly not too thrilled that Houston is now posting pretty much his same previews on a free website?!

Not that we're complaining, and to be honest, I still buy BM regardless - you can't get the net on a long underground train journey....yet.

Richard Fletcher wrote:A fight can still be in the public consciousness weeks, even months, after it has happened so there can never be too much reflection.

My whole point is that in BM's fight reports there isn't a great deal of 'reflection'. Frequently, particularly in the shorter reports, it's just a regurgitation of what went on - with no more insight than the reports that have preceded it in competitors.
Anyone reading this thread who is involved in business decisions will know that your USP's are key - what differentiates you from the competition, is it price, time-sensitivity, quality of writing etc?
As I've already stated, BM's impressive line-up of writers gives it one USP - there's nowhere else you can get the views of Leach, Farhood and Bunce. And that alone goes a long way towards getting me to hand over my cash.
But when it comes to the fight reports I honestly think you're trying to defend what is currently indefensible. There's no attempt there at the moment to provide content that is unique compared to the numerous online and print reports that have preceded it by up to a matter of weeks.

Richard Fletcher wrote:Like the rest of us, Graham follows a brief. Editorial treatment is the editor's call. If Glyn had asked for deeper analysis, Graham would have delivered it. I would dispute your "dead content" claim. A fight can still be in the public consciousness weeks, even months, after it has happened so there can never be too much reflection. As long as a report is published in the next available issue, there is no problem. I think Graham pretty much covered his bases, as he always does. Reporting fights is also a matter of record. Although we don't do them all, we cover the ones that matter pretty comprehensively. Analysis is reserved for features and Graham in particular does a lot of those, including many with a significant historical perspective. When I did Action UK, I always endeavoured to look for another angle and invariably made sure I spoke to the camps. I don't know if BN does that now, but they certainly didn't used to. With previews, we're often doing them weeks in advance and it requires imagination and self-motivation, which many journalists don't have. Then there is the ever-present risk of a fight being cancelled, which we can do nothing about if it happens after the mag has gone to print.

With respect Rich, I tend to let writers to work within the parameters they seem most most comfortable with, hence the differing styles of writing in the mag - for instance I couldn't tell Farhood to write like Farhood, could I? I suggest rather than direct.

Richard Fletcher wrote:Like the rest of us, Graham follows a brief. Editorial treatment is the editor's call. If Glyn had asked for deeper analysis, Graham would have delivered it. I would dispute your "dead content" claim. A fight can still be in the public consciousness weeks, even months, after it has happened so there can never be too much reflection. As long as a report is published in the next available issue, there is no problem. I think Graham pretty much covered his bases, as he always does. Reporting fights is also a matter of record. Although we don't do them all, we cover the ones that matter pretty comprehensively. Analysis is reserved for features and Graham in particular does a lot of those, including many with a significant historical perspective. When I did Action UK, I always endeavoured to look for another angle and invariably made sure I spoke to the camps. I don't know if BN does that now, but they certainly didn't used to. With previews, we're often doing them weeks in advance and it requires imagination and self-motivation, which many journalists don't have. Then there is the ever-present risk of a fight being cancelled, which we can do nothing about if it happens after the mag has gone to print.

With respect Rich, I tend to let writers work within the styles they seem most most comfortable with, hence the differing types of writing in the mag - for instance I couldn't tell Farhood to write like Farhood, could I? I suggest rather than direct.

No need to bollock him twice Glyn! Boxing Monthly needs less Ron Borges and more Ian McNeilly

Glyn Leach wrote:

Richard Fletcher wrote:Like the rest of us, Graham follows a brief. Editorial treatment is the editor's call. If Glyn had asked for deeper analysis, Graham would have delivered it. I would dispute your "dead content" claim. A fight can still be in the public consciousness weeks, even months, after it has happened so there can never be too much reflection. As long as a report is published in the next available issue, there is no problem. I think Graham pretty much covered his bases, as he always does. Reporting fights is also a matter of record. Although we don't do them all, we cover the ones that matter pretty comprehensively. Analysis is reserved for features and Graham in particular does a lot of those, including many with a significant historical perspective. When I did Action UK, I always endeavoured to look for another angle and invariably made sure I spoke to the camps. I don't know if BN does that now, but they certainly didn't used to. With previews, we're often doing them weeks in advance and it requires imagination and self-motivation, which many journalists don't have. Then there is the ever-present risk of a fight being cancelled, which we can do nothing about if it happens after the mag has gone to print.

With respect Rich, I tend to let writers work within the styles they seem most most comfortable with, hence the differing types of writing in the mag - for instance I couldn't tell Farhood to write like Farhood, could I? I suggest rather than direct.

No...but you should sack Farhood - his writing is childish an uninsightful. He should be writing for a Pro Wrestling mag.

I realise he has probably been employed for the US market, where journalism is largely melodramatic and badly written but BM is a UK production.

E wrote:

Glyn Leach wrote:

Richard Fletcher wrote:Like the rest of us, Graham follows a brief. Editorial treatment is the editor's call. If Glyn had asked for deeper analysis, Graham would have delivered it. I would dispute your "dead content" claim. A fight can still be in the public consciousness weeks, even months, after it has happened so there can never be too much reflection. As long as a report is published in the next available issue, there is no problem. I think Graham pretty much covered his bases, as he always does. Reporting fights is also a matter of record. Although we don't do them all, we cover the ones that matter pretty comprehensively. Analysis is reserved for features and Graham in particular does a lot of those, including many with a significant historical perspective. When I did Action UK, I always endeavoured to look for another angle and invariably made sure I spoke to the camps. I don't know if BN does that now, but they certainly didn't used to. With previews, we're often doing them weeks in advance and it requires imagination and self-motivation, which many journalists don't have. Then there is the ever-present risk of a fight being cancelled, which we can do nothing about if it happens after the mag has gone to print.

With respect Rich, I tend to let writers work within the styles they seem most most comfortable with, hence the differing types of writing in the mag - for instance I couldn't tell Farhood to write like Farhood, could I? I suggest rather than direct.

No...but you should sack Farhood - his writing is childish an uninsightful. He should be writing for a Pro Wrestling mag.

I realise he has probably been employed for the US market, where journalism is largely melodramatic and badly written but BM is a UK production.

Wow - I know we are all different and the world would be a boring place if we all thought the same thing....but don't you find the mix of Houston & Farhood a complimentary one? I think you can tell who wrote a peice out of the two within the first couple of sentences, and while their styles are very opposite in many ways, they surely give a wider scope for the mag in general?

"T.M.K"

Steve - age mate, have started repeating myself. Will try to remember not to preview Hatton-Mayweather again in the next issue lol.

Steve - age mate, have started repeating myself. Will try to remember not to preview Hatton-Mayweather again in the next issue lol.

E - different strokes for different folks fella. It has always been my aim to have different styles of writing in BM and Farhood is a very popular contributor, not to mention one of the most experienced (and in my opinion best) boxing writers in the world.

Farhood is good enough. He's like a colour commentator and has been an analyst on every Shobox to date i think since it's inception. He has tons of experience and is a character, like a watered down Bunce. I actually think one thing BM has going for it is the eclectic mix of writing personalities that balance out well against each other.

A lot of interesting comments here. I would like to address a few points raised by readers and the ex-reader. 1: Outdated reports. In my big-fight reports for BM I try to do an overview of the fight, an analytical and philosophical look at the fight, often bringing in what I think are apposite historical references. I would hope they add a new dimension to these fights. The round-up type of reports at the back of the magazine have always been written as more or less straight reports, in the nature of an overview of the fight with some personal observations. These can of course be handled differently, perhaps written on the assumption that readers know everything about the fights in question. 2: Exclusion of Hatton report in Christmas issue. This was unfortunate, but BM has a printing "slot" with a set deadline. Glyn has pointed out that changing the slot is not feasible at the moment for production and cost-related reasons. 3: Quotes of the year. I understood this to be a popular feature. (Harry Mullan once wrote a whole book of boxing quotes.) I think that Glyn and myself looked on the quotes piece as sort of a book-length feature. Perhaps it has outlived its usefulness. 4: Return of a results round-up. There was little if any reader reaction when we dropped this feature. I liked it personally, but Deserter would no doubt say that readers were being given old information. 5: Absence of a readers' letters page. I always liked having a letters page. Glyn has already said he is considering bringing back the letters. 6: BM vis a vis the internet: I always felt that BM was the sort of magazine with which one could pass an enjoyable couple of hours, perhaps on a plane trip or settled on the sofa with a coffee pot on the hob. The internet offers an entirely different reading experience. The future: I know that Glyn would agree with me that the focus of BM has always been to be informative and enjoyable. We try to have something for everyone in each issue. If we cannot please everyone, it truly is not for the want of trying.

Gents - this is a fantastic opportunity for everyone here...

You have the Editor and the American Editor (as well as two or 3 regular contributors) of BM both reading, analysing, and responding to your thoughts and opinions - so what would YOU like to see in BM? We have a likely return of the reader comments page - but what else?

If you don't mention it now, then you cannot moan in the coming months.

best wishes

"T.M.K"


ps: Mr Houston - who is the youngest 11st world champion of all time?

Collins2000 wrote:I disagree with everything you have said, particularly the last comment.

Are you really suggesting that guys be ranked / not ranked based solely on how many losses they have on their record?

When it comes down to it, in the event that they have lost over half their fights, then yes, and I'm afraid that nobody has yet given me any good reason to change my opinion on this point.

In response to T.M.K., at the time of the fight it was widely accepted that Fernando Vargas became the youngest 11st champ when he stopped Yory Boy Campas. I do not recall anyone coming along to win a 154-pound title who was younger than Fernando was when Vargas became IBF champion, but then I don't claim to know everything. ... And, yes, T.M.K, I know I can speak for Glyn in saying that we encourage and appreciate comments from our family of readers.

I read the latest issue during the holidays and although it seems I'm in the minority I enjoyed the quotes section. It's something a bit different and fits in with an end of year issue well I think.

I agree that the Barkley interview was 'ace' - more of this please.

I have a big interest in coaching so would like to see more features on trainers - their methods, philosophies, strenghts, weaknesses etc. I may even volunteer my services to do them...

Finally, I read my issue in the bath so some waterproofing would be nice. And a BM robe.

T.M.K wrote:Gents - this is a fantastic opportunity for everyone here...

You have the Editor and the American Editor (as well as two or 3 regular contributors) of BM both reading, analysing, and responding to your thoughts and opinions - so what would YOU like to see in BM? We have a likely return of the reader comments page - but what else?

If you don't mention it now, then you cannot moan in the coming months.

best wishes

"T.M.K"


ps: Mr Houston - who is the youngest 11st world champion of all time?

T.M.K, you're right, so in that spirit, I'd suggest the following:

1) Fight reports - think I've made my thoughts on how I'd like to see these developed clear already
2) More comprehensive previews - the polls of leading fight figures for some showdowns make fascinating reading and while I appreciate they can be labour-intensive I'd like to see more of them.
3) As already mentioned, the 'Where are they now' concept would throw up bags of fascinating human interest stories.
4) More writing by Leach and Bunce.
5) In general terms a greater leveraging of BM's contacts to get the 'insider' line on fights and/or proposed fights e.g. what do people in the trade really think about a Hatton/Witter fight - will it happen, if so who do they think will win, has their view on the winner changed in the past year in the light of their respective results and if so, why? etc, etc.
6) More 'behind-the-scenes' content from the fights themselves - I love those sidebars which are rolled out occasionally to add 'flavour' and think they should be used more consistently.
7) More human interest content e.g. a feature of Farnell's gym in Manchester - how and why did he set it up, who's training there etc.
8 A regular 'rising star' section - on the domestic scene alone you've got the likes of Appleby, Fewkes and Vassell coming through. I for one would love to know more about these guys - backgrounds, strengths, weaknesses etc. Someone like Bunce could even give a scorecard summary of them with an assessment of how far they could go and what they have to do to develop appropriately.
9) Touch on the business of boxing e.g. shadow a small hall promoter in the week or 24 hours before a show to see what actually goes on behind the scenes - plenty of drama I'd have thought, given the difficulties involved in staging these days. Would give all of us a greater apprecation of the promoter's game!
10) Secure a leading global fight figure for interview in every issue and allow readers to submit questions beforehand - see 4-4-2 magazine to see how this works in practise, but to my mind it makes compulsive reading, as well as engaging your readers.
Hopefully something there of value

Some of my thoughts, then.

For perspective, I am a publishing professional (newspaper designer/sub-editor day job with some freelance writing, mostly boxing - both print and web).

I have read Boxing Monthly since 1991; bought every issue except for when I took a travel gap year from August 2005-August 2006, and even then I picked up several issues in Australia.

So, Glyn and Graham, my thoughts as both a boxing fan and an employee in the same industry as you:

The price is fine for a monthly.

The writing is and always has been the best quality in boxing journalism. I love BN too, but it serves a different purpose; it is information-rich, while BM is more analytical. Both are invaluable to me as a boxing fan. And, since BM is a more analytical publication, I have no problems with "outdated" fight reports, because I always look forward to seeing what the BM writers think of the big fights.

Your website needs an upgrade. It looks old-fashioned and little more than an advertisement for the magazine. Now, I am a very strong supporter of print media and MUCH prefer it as both a professional and a consumer, but we have to recognise the importance of the net. The website need not detract from the magazine; they can complement each other. For example, perhaps have ratings updated in "real time" and/or extended ratings. I remember in the early 90s you used to carry Euro and Commonwealth ratings, too, and I liked them. Or perhaps extended photo galleries. You can only carry so much in the mag, so put more on the site. Perhaps introduce video. Fine-tune the message board. Have interactive features such as polls. Use poll results and invite readers' opinions and incorporate these into the magazine articles. In my opinion, the web will never fully REPLACE print, but the two forms need to work together, and when they do work together well, the entire brand improves.

The magazine design can be a little flat. Your photography is excellent, but is not always used to the best effect with other page design elements. Your Ricky Hatton cover in the November issue was particularly uninspiring and would not have leapt off the shelf at anybody. The slight re-jig you gave the columnists' pages looked great; why not do something similar with the feature pages?

There are sometimes sub-editing/proof-reading/typographical errors, which I'm sure you don't need me to point out. It's human error and we've all done it. Perhaps you need one more person to cast an eye over things before going to print.

The Christmas deadline - as somebody also in the industry, I can back up Glyn's claim that this could not be changed. This is an unfortunate but unavoidable drawback of print media.

The quotes - I had no problem with them. I like "end of year" style features. Perhaps some of it could have stayed on the cutting room floor (Jameel McCline predicting a win over Sam Peter was not the most insightful thing I've ever read) but generally it was interesting to see again reaction to the big events at the time they happened, and especially the perspectives BEFORE the fights.

Return of a results page? Pointless in this day and age.

Return of a letters page? Excellent idea. Readers' opinion is as popular as ever, which is why this and other forums are so well visited. And the letters page in BN is one of my favourite features.

In conclusion, I think BM is generally a good package. The format is fine and the writing is excellent. The analysis is always good and the depths of knowledge apparent. The team of writers mostly have definable, individual styles, which is great, and I love how they can feel free to say what they see. I honestly can't think of a BM contributor I do not like. Having given praise where it's due, I do have my criticims, as outlined above, and I hope they are taken in the spirit intended, from a long-time reader and continued supporter.

oliverfennell wrote:
The price is fine for a monthly.

Your website needs an upgrade. It looks old-fashioned and little more than an advertisement for the magazine. Now, I am a very strong supporter of print media and MUCH prefer it as both a professional and a consumer, but we have to recognise the importance of the net. The website need not detract from the magazine; they can complement each other. For example, perhaps have ratings updated in "real time" and/or extended ratings. I remember in the early 90s you used to carry Euro and Commonwealth ratings, too, and I liked them. Or perhaps extended photo galleries. You can only carry so much in the mag, so put more on the site. Perhaps introduce video. Fine-tune the message board. Have interactive features such as polls. Use poll results and invite readers' opinions and incorporate these into the magazine articles. In my opinion, the web will never fully REPLACE print, but the two forms need to work together, and when they do work together well, the entire brand improves.

Sorry Oliver, just have to add to these two points:

1) In my opinion, the price is only fine if you've got the pagination to justify it. From memory, the Christmas issue had less editorial pages than Boxing News. Given it's £1.10 more, that simply doesn't cut it. Off the top of my head I can't think of a single other sector where a weekly competitor has a higher page count than its monthly counterpart.

2) It needs Glyn or somone from the BM end to comment here, but what most people can overlook with the web is how difficult it can be to monetize it. All those improvements you've mentioned make sense, but where is the financial impetus for BM to make that investment? I would have thought that the reality is that it will be difficult to generate any sort of financial return from making those changes and you'd therefore be better off placing any additional investment in the core product (the print title). I've seen a lot of publishing companies or individual mags get 'seduced' by the lure of the web, and commit significant sums to develop an online offering, only to fail to see a return. The reality is that BM operates in a sector where ad revenue is sparse, so opportunities to develop online revenue are going to be absolutely negligible.

Matt W wrote:I read the latest issue during the holidays and although it seems I'm in the minority I enjoyed the quotes section. It's something a bit different and fits in with an end of year issue well I think.

I agree that the Barkley interview was 'ace' - more of this please.

I have a big interest in coaching so would like to see more features on trainers - their methods, philosophies, strenghts, weaknesses etc. I may even volunteer my services to do them...

Finally, I read my issue in the bath so some waterproofing would be nice. And a BM robe.

I actually like the quotes section but it was too long.

The BArkley interview and features on past fighters are very welcomed.

Generally I really like features on individual fighters - EG Kelly Pavlik piece.

PLEASE STAY AWAY FROM RUBBISH US-STYLE SPECULATIVE ARTICLES SUCH AS 'WHO HAD THE BEST LEFT HOOK IN HISTORY etc'

Photos are good quality.

Deserter wrote:

oliverfennell wrote:
The price is fine for a monthly.

Your website needs an upgrade. It looks old-fashioned and little more than an advertisement for the magazine. Now, I am a very strong supporter of print media and MUCH prefer it as both a professional and a consumer, but we have to recognise the importance of the net. The website need not detract from the magazine; they can complement each other. For example, perhaps have ratings updated in "real time" and/or extended ratings. I remember in the early 90s you used to carry Euro and Commonwealth ratings, too, and I liked them. Or perhaps extended photo galleries. You can only carry so much in the mag, so put more on the site. Perhaps introduce video. Fine-tune the message board. Have interactive features such as polls. Use poll results and invite readers' opinions and incorporate these into the magazine articles. In my opinion, the web will never fully REPLACE print, but the two forms need to work together, and when they do work together well, the entire brand improves.

Sorry Oliver, just have to add to these two points:

1) In my opinion, the price is only fine if you've got the pagination to justify it. From memory, the Christmas issue had less editorial pages than Boxing News. Given it's £1.10 more, that simply doesn't cut it. Off the top of my head I can't think of a single other sector where a weekly competitor has a higher page count than its monthly counterpart.

2) It needs Glyn or somone from the BM end to comment here, but what most people can overlook with the web is how difficult it can be to monetize it. All those improvements you've mentioned make sense, but where is the financial impetus for BM to make that investment? I would have thought that the reality is that it will be difficult to generate any sort of financial return from making those changes and you'd therefore be better off placing any additional investment in the core product (the print title). I've seen a lot of publishing companies or individual mags get 'seduced' by the lure of the web, and commit significant sums to develop an online offering, only to fail to see a return. The reality is that BM operates in a sector where ad revenue is sparse, so opportunities to develop online revenue are going to be absolutely negligible.

You're right, Deserter, it is a fine balancing act. I have run a website before and not made money from it, and the technology/industry and market has moved on massively since then, so I wouldn't pretend to be an expert on the matter.

The major newspapers do a very good job of merging print and web, although as you say, this would be more difficult for a specialist title.

Perhaps the money could be made in an indirect way, not through subscriptions and advertising, but because the print product becomes more enticing through an improved web presence. Let's say there was a BoxRec magazine. We'll be discussing Haye v Maccarinelli on here for weeks, along with the writers. What will the "official" prediction be? Buy the mag to find out - especially if your name's in it as part of a page of reader opinion garnered from the website.

oliverfennell wrote:

Deserter wrote:

oliverfennell wrote:
The price is fine for a monthly.

Your website needs an upgrade. It looks old-fashioned and little more than an advertisement for the magazine. Now, I am a very strong supporter of print media and MUCH prefer it as both a professional and a consumer, but we have to recognise the importance of the net. The website need not detract from the magazine; they can complement each other. For example, perhaps have ratings updated in "real time" and/or extended ratings. I remember in the early 90s you used to carry Euro and Commonwealth ratings, too, and I liked them. Or perhaps extended photo galleries. You can only carry so much in the mag, so put more on the site. Perhaps introduce video. Fine-tune the message board. Have interactive features such as polls. Use poll results and invite readers' opinions and incorporate these into the magazine articles. In my opinion, the web will never fully REPLACE print, but the two forms need to work together, and when they do work together well, the entire brand improves.

Sorry Oliver, just have to add to these two points:

1) In my opinion, the price is only fine if you've got the pagination to justify it. From memory, the Christmas issue had less editorial pages than Boxing News. Given it's £1.10 more, that simply doesn't cut it. Off the top of my head I can't think of a single other sector where a weekly competitor has a higher page count than its monthly counterpart.

2) It needs Glyn or somone from the BM end to comment here, but what most people can overlook with the web is how difficult it can be to monetize it. All those improvements you've mentioned make sense, but where is the financial impetus for BM to make that investment? I would have thought that the reality is that it will be difficult to generate any sort of financial return from making those changes and you'd therefore be better off placing any additional investment in the core product (the print title). I've seen a lot of publishing companies or individual mags get 'seduced' by the lure of the web, and commit significant sums to develop an online offering, only to fail to see a return. The reality is that BM operates in a sector where ad revenue is sparse, so opportunities to develop online revenue are going to be absolutely negligible.

You're right, Deserter, it is a fine balancing act. I have run a website before and not made money from it, and the technology/industry and market has moved on massively since then, so I wouldn't pretend to be an expert on the matter.

The major newspapers do a very good job of merging print and web, although as you say, this would be more difficult for a specialist title.

Perhaps the money could be made in an indirect way, not through subscriptions and advertising, but because the print product becomes more enticing through an improved web presence. Let's say there was a BoxRec magazine. We'll be discussing Haye v Maccarinelli on here for weeks, along with the writers. What will the "official" prediction be? Buy the mag to find out - especially if your name's in it as part of a page of reader opinion garnered from the website.

It's a very good point about the improved web presence driving the print offering and ties in with the earlier valid point you made regarding the overall brand. I think you're on to something there.

Deserter

Don't really think it's fair to compare the pagination of a one-off issue of BN, that is essentially two weeks' issues in one at Xmas, with a single issue of BM. Plus we gave away a free calendar with our "Xmas" issue (BN charges for their calendar). Swings and roundabouts, I'd say.

Regarding your reply to Oliver re the website (and in indirect response to Oliver's well made points), absolutely spot on mate. It would be lovely to have a really active website but BM is not a rich enough company to compete. It is worth noting that Ring is only expanding its website since the injection of Golden Boy cash, while Boxing News, which has recently employed people with a view to expanding its web presence, is part of an extremely large company with deep pockets. It's not as though BM wouldn't want to compete at website level, but we simply do not have the financial capability to finance such a campaign.

And I should point out that in my 15-odd years experience of publishing and producing Boxing Monthly, there's only ever been one thing that drives sales - boxing. When the sport is going well, like last year, we sell well. When it isn't, we don't. The bulk of people buy the magazine because of the sport not because of the magazine per se. Top class boxing is the best and only advert that works for Boxing Monthly or any other boxing publication.

Glyn Leach wrote:Deserter

Don't really think it's fair to compare the pagination of a one-off issue of BN, that is essentially two weeks' issues in one at Xmas, with a single issue of BM. Plus we gave away a free calendar with our "Xmas" issue (BN charges for their calendar). Swings and roundabouts, I'd say.

Fair point Glyn.

Simply by interacting with readers here, I'm already more likely to purchase rather than read the Editorial and Buncey in WHSmiths.

I really respect the willingness to contribute by Glyn and Graham, both excellent voices, irrespective of the medium.

Glyn Leach wrote:And I should point out that in my 15-odd years experience of publishing and producing Boxing Monthly, there's only ever been one thing that drives sales - boxing. When the sport is going well, like last year, we sell well. When it isn't, we don't. The bulk of people buy the magazine because of the sport not because of the magazine per se. Top class boxing is the best and only advert that works for Boxing Monthly or any other boxing publication.

Conclusive argument!

As Claude Abrams says in his editorial today, it's a good time to be reading - and working in - boxing.

Glyn, I hear you about the website and the finances required. Fair enough, and I think the mag can continue to do well enough on its own. BUT, even if you don't have a bigger/more functional site, at least consider a small redesign of it. Even if its main purpose is only to advertise the magazine, then it could still do with a visual sprucing up, even if the format/content remains the same. There might be people elsewhere in the world who have never heard of the mag and stumble across the website. The impression the website makes on them could convince them to take out a subscription - or not.

DavidPayne wrote:Simply by interacting with readers here, I'm already more likely to purchase rather than read the Editorial and Buncey in WHSmiths.

I really respect the willingness to contribute by Glyn and Graham, both excellent voices, irrespective of the medium.

Agree with you there. Well, I buy every month anyway, but it's been a top move for the editors to interact in this way with their readers.

They're getting a good brainstorming session out of us, too, without having to spend a few grand on consultants!