BoxRec

tonyevs wrote:

all my years in the industry I've never seen a shred of evidence that a high ratio of ads results in damaging declines in copy sales. Readers will bitch and moan (as will editors!) on occasion, but it's never resulted in a substantial drop in copy sales revenue

An eye opener then that those in the industry ignore their readers ... that can`t be good :(

What mag have/do you work for .. I`ll give it a wide berth.

Do TV stations that carry adverts "ignore" their customers"? Do newspapers? Do websites? Radio stations? Cinemas? Bus stops? Don't be ridiculous. Advertising is everywhere. If you can't accept it, move to North Korea.

Jon Saxon wrote:The new format rocks and anyone who doesnt like it is stuck in the past, I love the effort put into the new look the layout style the guest writers etc and its a shame that some of you can's see this either.

The layout is the best thing about the mag now. The content is much the same as it's always been but the visual style is fine and the features are some of the best examples of magazine design.

Does anybody seriously prefer the old black & white "newspaper" or the tabloid?

Jon Saxon wrote:I wonder how many US boxing mags there are left now?

Just The Ring, I believe. British boxing fans are very privileged to have two regular, decent magazines. (Australia has two but one's mediocre and the other's crap)

dbflex wrote:

tonyevs wrote:.... and still they pad out the BN with photos instead of .. boxing news

'Pad out' suggests they are not able to fill the space with text – that's not true. The balance between copy and imagery is a choice based on the superb photography they have access to among other things.

Glossy magazines are the best outlet for quality photography now. The internet doesn't do it justice. A big pic of a vibrant photo on good paper is an attribute to a magazine.

And for people complaining about the space they take up when it should be for "boxing news" - the mag used to be 28 pages and is now 48. Even if you exagerrated and said 10 pages are "padded out", you're still getting a lot more than before.

... some people eh

I still enjoy BN every week, but I also agree it has slipped a bit since Claude left.

For starters, they should not have cut down on the Old-Timer section.
If anything, they should devote more page space to that - after all, BN makes a point out of being around since 1909.

Another thing I disklike are the guest columns.
Who cares what a hypocrite and overrated trainer like Teddy Atlas thinks?
This is the guy who supposedly takes a stance against soft matching on ESPN, and then does exactly the same for his own fighters.
Get rid of him - he ads nothing but fuel to his own ego.

Bob Mee, on the other hand, should be given much more space and work.
He is a terrific writer imo.

Other than those two things, I'm OK with the new BN.

-KOKid- wrote:I still enjoy BN every week, but I also agree it has slipped a bit since Claude left.

For starters, they should not have cut down on the Old-Timer section.
If anything, they should devote more page space to that - after all, BN makes a point out of being around since 1909.

Another thing I disklike are the guest columns.
Who cares what a hypocrite and overrated trainer like Teddy Atlas thinks?
This is the guy who supposedly takes a stance against soft matching on ESPN, and then does exactly the same for his own fighters.
Get rid of him - he ads nothing but fuel to his own ego.

Bob Mee, on the other hand, should be given much more space and work.
He is a terrific writer imo.

Other than those two things, I'm OK with the new BN.

Agreed about old fight reports, I believe that they should have the full unedited fight reports from back in the day.

Love the guest columns though, I liked Shannon Brigg's wee section also.

Bob Mee is good but not harsh enough, a bit friendly for my liking.

I love the new BN and I think it's mega value also.

oliverfennell wrote:

Jon Saxon wrote:The new format rocks and anyone who doesnt like it is stuck in the past, I love the effort put into the new look the layout style the guest writers etc and its a shame that some of you can's see this either.

The layout is the best thing about the mag now. The content is much the same as it's always been but the visual style is fine and the features are some of the best examples of magazine design.

Does anybody seriously prefer the old black & white "newspaper" or the tabloid?

Oliver you the man, thank fuk there is rationale on here.

You make the clearest smartest observations on here mate please keep up the good work.

tonyevs wrote: if the paper is now 46 pages ... why not drop it to 30 pages if they only have 30 pages worth of text?

So, in 2011, you'd seriously prefer a publication to look like this?

tonyevs wrote:

dbflex wrote: but to put it another way, only one person has said they have a serious problem with it... You. Some people consider photos to be an important complement to text, some don't. You seem particularly passionate about this one point.

I`m not sure passionate would be the best description. But I do feel its losing its usefulness and thus shortening the shelf life of this magazine. And it would be a shame if that happened.

but ..

I understand that I may be in the minority with this opinion as far as your concerned. The direct debit has been cancelled. Things seem to be falling on deaf ears.
So I shall spend my money elsewhere .. no big deal to me.
Way I see it. The magazine needs me more than I need it at the moment .. sad days :(

I'd rather imagine the magazine needs the majority who like it as it is now more than it needs you.

they have done it again this week, wasting space on pictures. look at the shot of the week, it's terrible. it's half a page of grass and sky and you can hardly make out the faces in the teams. what a waste of two pages, that could have gone on a feature or extra news or something.

foxwoods wrote:they have done it again this week, wasting space on pictures. look at the shot of the week, it's terrible. it's half a page of grass and sky and you can hardly make out the faces in the teams. what a waste of two pages, that could have gone on a feature or extra news or something.

That was top notch imagery that enhances the mag in this digital era D Seriously, fair play to BN for giving the event good exposure - how much was raised in the end?

gasman wrote:

foxwoods wrote:they have done it again this week, wasting space on pictures. look at the shot of the week, it's terrible. it's half a page of grass and sky and you can hardly make out the faces in the teams. what a waste of two pages, that could have gone on a feature or extra news or something.

That was top notch imagery that enhances the mag in this digital era :DD Seriously, fair play to BN for giving the event good exposure - how much was raised in the end?

Twenty grand near enough, and it got my mush in the BN for the second time. I'll get a parking space at this rate.

DavidPayne wrote:

gasman wrote:

foxwoods wrote:they have done it again this week, wasting space on pictures. look at the shot of the week, it's terrible. it's half a page of grass and sky and you can hardly make out the faces in the teams. what a waste of two pages, that could have gone on a feature or extra news or something.

That was top notch imagery that enhances the mag in this digital era D Seriously, fair play to BN for giving the event good exposure - how much was raised in the end?

Twenty grand near enough, and it got my mush in the BN for the second time. I'll get a parking space at this rate.

Fair do's - that is a great lift

i got the boxing news for 30 years and stopped getting it 2 years ago and its a load of crap,its all the same and this is much better on here with all the sites and of course this one.

i dont think i will renew my sub when it comes around again and ive been a reader for longer than i care to remember. it just doesnt seem very good any more, the writers dont seem to be very knowledgable and they sound inexperienced.
when i read boxing monthly i feel as though i have learned something new, i used to get that with boxing news but not any more. there are a also a lot of mistakes in it, the feature this week on funtime has a big mistake right at the start.
i still have some time to run so maybe it will pick up, and at least they ditched the facebook/twitter nonsense at the back.
someone said they dont like atlas spouting off in the guest column, i actually like that cos he tries to sound intelligent but just comes off as a thug version of dr phil

foxwoods wrote: he tries to sound intelligent but just comes off as a thug version of dr phil

Brilliant, quote of the year.

johnnykayo wrote:i got the boxing news for 30 years and stopped getting it 2 years ago and its a load of crap,its all the same and this is much better on here with all the sites and of course this one.

eh?? the onine writing is mostly awfull.

Everyones a critic on the net,

I think this thread is about getting older and not boxing.

Jon Saxon wrote:

oliverfennell wrote:

Jon Saxon wrote:

Oliver you the man, thank fuk there is rationale on here.

You make the clearest smartest observations on here mate please keep up the good work.

...and when Jon Saxon agrees with you.
It kinda means you need to revise your opinion ASAP...

tonyevs wrote:

Jon Saxon wrote:

oliverfennell wrote:

...and when Jon Saxon agrees with you.
It kinda means you need to revise your opinion ASAP...

Your just jelous Tony, you know you want me!

Jon Saxon wrote:

tonyevs wrote:

Jon Saxon wrote:

...and when Jon Saxon agrees with you.
It kinda means you need to revise your opinion ASAP...

Your just jelous Tony, you know you want me!