BoxRec

dbflex wrote:

Alba wrote:

dalcumly wrote:Df. Thanks for taking the time to respond ,it's appreciated. I understand the BN sells about 10,000 copies per week. If the Froch/Groves cover sells more than Ricky Burns title fight how many do we think we're talking about? I would honestly suggest that you will sell no more copies this week than you did last week. However if you turned up with sellers outside the SECC tomorrow night with Burns on the front page ,maybe you would sell an extra couple of hundred out of 5 or 6,000 punters

You know what that is actually a good point... they could proberly shift a load outseid the SECC if they wanted to .

Not sure you can simply pitch up and sell wherever you like.

And past experience at live events suggests we wouldn't sell hundreds.

I'd ask you Dalcumly what it is that makes you so sure we won't sell more copies this week than next? I know from experience - with next week being Mayweather preview issue - that we will. Trust me, there is significant variance over a year.

Your the experts Danny mate, i just think that it would been a good idea... even if its a preview mag a special or so.

Selling at live events CAN work but only at the really well-attended ones and only if you obtain a good position from which to sell. To get back to the original topic, Burns has been on the cover - more than once - but he faced stiff competition this week.

I don't buy them that regularly these days but that Cleverley/Kovalev issue was quality back to front. A great excuse to get loaded in the boozer whilst having a good read.

Maybe like fight posters, have one fight or fighter on the cover, but lower down, in a smaller picture have another, or the name.

expe wrote:Maybe like fight posters, have one fight or fighter on the cover, but lower down, in a smaller picture have another, or the name.

We do. Burns, Bowe and Morrison all mentioned.

dalcumly wrote:Tris Dixon will have Editorial autonomy ,so I doubt Newsquest suggested this particular front cover.
I don't accept ,or agree ,that the front cover ALWAYS effects sales . On occasion they will ,but not this week. This was simply a mistake.

No, you're right mate, you know better than people actually in the business. Quite frankly I don't care if you don't accept or agree that the front cover always affects sales (and it is affects, not effects, by the way), because having worked in that business and had to make those calls month in, month out, which have directly affected the P&L I've had to report to the UK board, I know that it's fact.
As for your belief about editorial autonomy, I can't comment on BN, but as Publisher, I always had the final say on a front cover, regardless of what the editor recommended, as it was me who was accountable for the newsstand performance.
But clearly you know better...

dbflex wrote:

Alba wrote:

dalcumly wrote:Df. Thanks for taking the time to respond ,it's appreciated. I understand the BN sells about 10,000 copies per week. If the Froch/Groves cover sells more than Ricky Burns title fight how many do we think we're talking about? I would honestly suggest that you will sell no more copies this week than you did last week. However if you turned up with sellers outside the SECC tomorrow night with Burns on the front page ,maybe you would sell an extra couple of hundred out of 5 or 6,000 punters

You know what that is actually a good point... they could proberly shift a load outseid the SECC if they wanted to .

Not sure you can simply pitch up and sell wherever you like.

And past experience at live events suggests we wouldn't sell hundreds.

I'd ask you Dalcumly what it is that makes you so sure we won't sell more copies this week than next? I know from experience - with next week being Mayweather preview issue - that we will. Trust me, there is significant variance over a year.

Those outside the industry always (understandably to a degree) over-estimate the value of 'on-the-ground presence'. Add up the cost of securing the space, building/erecting the stand, the cost of manning it and the cost of shipping copies up to the event, and it's incredibly rare that the return from that ever justifies the investment involved.

Danny

I'm only focussing on my original point. I simply cannot accept that by putting Froch/Groves on the front cover this week the magazine will sell significantly more copies than featuring one of Britains 4 world champions depending his title . The editorial have to consider the disservice done to Scottish boxing fans who buy the magazine.
Even Ringside on Sky, who are actually showing the Froch fight, featured Burns and Beltran extensively.
Although there might not be a south of England bias, can you see the perception this decision brings about. Incidentally is there any BN staff who do not belong to the south east ?
Danny, bad,bad decision, very insular and selfish.
Can you imagine Darren Barker defending his title in a few months time, and a few days before the fight the BN features Marquez or somebody similar on the front page?

In response to the main topic, Burns is the joke dodging the problem.

Team Band Camp would whip him for shits and giggles. End of.

Deserter wrote:

dbflex wrote:

Alba wrote:
You know what that is actually a good point... they could proberly shift a load outseid the SECC if they wanted to .

Not sure you can simply pitch up and sell wherever you like.

And past experience at live events suggests we wouldn't sell hundreds.

I'd ask you Dalcumly what it is that makes you so sure we won't sell more copies this week than next? I know from experience - with next week being Mayweather preview issue - that we will. Trust me, there is significant variance over a year.

Those outside the industry always (understandably to a degree) over-estimate the value of 'on-the-ground presence'. Add up the cost of securing the space, building/erecting the stand, the cost of manning it and the cost of shipping copies up to the event, and it's incredibly rare that the return from that ever justifies the investment involved.

Why do they need to build a stand or secure space? Just walk around outside selling the magazine so people can read it inside.

dalcumly wrote:I simply cannot accept that by putting Froch/Groves on the front cover this week the magazine will sell significantly more copies than featuring one of Britains 4 world champions depending his title . The editorial have to consider the disservice done to Scottish boxing fans who buy the magazine.

Despite having no access to data such as sales figures, I simply cannot accept...

dalcumly wrote:Danny

I'm only focussing on my original point. I simply cannot accept that by putting Froch/Groves on the front cover this week the magazine will sell significantly more copies than featuring one of Britains 4 world champions depending his title . The editorial have to consider the disservice done to Scottish boxing fans who buy the magazine.
Even Ringside on Sky, who are actually showing the Froch fight, featured Burns and Beltran extensively.
Although there might not be a south of England bias, can you see the perception this decision brings about. Incidentally is there any BN staff who do not belong to the south east ?
Danny, bad,bad decision, very insular and selfish.
Can you imagine Darren Barker defending his title in a few months time, and a few days before the fight the BN features Marquez or somebody similar on the front page?

Whether you can accept it or not doesn't make it untrue. I also don't believe that not featuring Burns as the main cover star this time (he has appeared in that position more than once) will be perceived as any kind of affront to Scotland. Where the BN staff hail from - Matt incidentally is from the Midlands - is irrelevant; Froch isn't from the south east is he? Neither is Fury who has been on the cover, Calzaghe, Burns of course, Cleverly (who pipped the south east's Barker to the cover)... I could go on. Cover decisions are based on several factors, sales being a pertinent one. How can a cover star selection ever be "selfish"? What do we gain personally from putting a particular fighter on the front. Isn't it selfish to want your favourite fighter on the cover regardless of what may appeal to your fellow readers? And the Barker comparison is only relevant if he defends against a little-known challenger on a week where we have several other big names in the issue - in which case he might not get the front.

I understand you feel aggrieved but from a business perspective your argument holds little weight.The readership - as a whole not just a vocal minority (of one in this instance) - will determine whether we got this decision right. Given my knowledge of sales trends I'm confident we have.

expe wrote:Why do they need to build a stand or secure space? Just walk around outside selling the magazine so people can read it inside.

Will depend on the nature of the event - if it's a four-day consumer show, for example, you'd want to invest in that physical presence, as it will have additional benefits in terms of brand reinforcement.
However, even if you 'park' the issue of a stand, you'll normally still need to secure a licence from the local authority to sell and to pay the individual to shift copies. The original point still stands that you'll rarely net the type of sales to justify both the physical costs involved and the 'hidden' costs of the time it takes in terms of arranging and monitoring that type of activity.

Those outside the industry always (understandably to a degree) over-estimate the value of 'on-the-ground presence'. Add up the cost of securing the space, building/erecting the stand, the cost of manning it and the cost of shipping copies up to the event, and it's incredibly rare that the return from that ever justifies the investment involved.[/quote]
Why do they need to build a stand or secure space? Just walk around outside selling the magazine so people can read it inside.[/quote]

You can't just do that. Need a license to sell on the street. And without a stand etc how many are we going to stock/sell? Deserter knows his stuff.

As another scottish boxing news subscriber I also find this poor that Burns isnt on the cover this particular week. Not because im scottish but because im a boxing fan and as a boxing fan I want the upcoming fights/fighters getting attention opposed to a fight further down the line grabbing all the headlines. This week i want to read about ricky burns, 6 or 7 weeks down the line I will want to read about Carl Froch but since I havent had an internet connection the past week (on my ipad) I havent been able to download my issue so will reserve my judgement until I read the actual content.

I can understand that the cover is used to attract new readers whereas the content is what keeps the existing readers coming back. I would still be reading the magazine if it was a plain white cover simply saying boxing news on it.

Since you claim that the cover is so powerful in attracting customers then why havent you plastered it with the image of a blonde wearing boxing gloves with her tits hanging out. Realistically that would sell more than Carl Froch's noggin so if its sales your after then give us current readers something to enjoy at the same time! lol

Deserter wrote:

columbo wrote:Why does boxing news even continue with a physical copy anyway? Why isnt it all digital now? Is it people harping after by gone times or something?!

I'm sure they'd love to, but their small number of digital subscribers (of which I'm one) means that business model isn't viable.
I think all publishers hoped the ipad in particular would revolutionise their business and that they'd be able to charge for content while avoiding physical print, production and distribution costs, but the reality is that almost without exception the number of digital purchasers is far smaller than those opting for the print edition. That could well change in time of course, but it's all about how many can hold on in the meantime.

It's great for people living abroad like me in Oz. I missed a couple of years of Boxing News when I first came here. I'm sure the figures for the downloads must be healthy.

polecateddy wrote:It's great for people living abroad like me in Oz. I missed a couple of years of Boxing News when I first came here. I'm sure the figures for the downloads must be healthy.

I'm the same - if I was living in the UK I'd still opt for the physical copy though.
You may be surprised that of a circulation of just under 10k an issue, only 213 copies are actually sold overseas. Danny would know better than me, but I'd be surprised if the download figure was a significantly higher amount than this to be frank.
All the circulation info for last year is here:
http://www.abc.org.uk/Certificates/18270273.pdf

dbflex wrote: We still round up worldwide results (just not in a single column, so they actually get more coverage) and we still use Bob Mee regularly. Graham works for BM. So what is it you would like that we don't currently provide?

I've bought the magazine every week since the Pazienza v Haugen bout (first one) in 1987 and will still buy it in another 26 years (if I'm still around). I guess I am resistant to change and preferred the old 'paper' black and white, there are many magazines that look and feel the same, I didn't like it when the magazine was a 'fold out' to broadsheet size and personally would like it how it was though have no issues at all with the writing etc - last weeks article on depression and mental health was excellent.

Glad to know we have a reader for the future haha. I really liked the old version too. I've been reading since 1992 but I have to constantly remind myself that I'm a serious fan and try and put myself in the position of less dedicated followers of the sport.

Another taker for the old black-and-white paper version here. However, I guess I'm in the minority, and no doubt large colour photos and sleek design are a must in today's sports magazine/newspaper market.

One feature of the old-style mag (now discontinued) that I do think would appeal to a modern audience is the historical feature articles penned by the likes of Gilbert Odd, Ron Olver and O. F. Snelling. No doubt the tone would need to be different from that used by those three distinguished gents, and made more apt for a 21st-century audience; but there are innumerable extraordinary long-forgotten stories of British boxers and the fight game in general from the 1910s, '20s, '30s, '40s and '50s that I think would astound a modern audience and are begging to be retold.

There are lots of guys in their 70s and older who are fans of the sport from the days when boxing was far more mainstream. I've had conversations with quite a few of them and they often bemoan the fact Boxing News no longer publishes articles on the fighters of their generation and earlier. Sadly, some have even stopped buying Boxing News for this reason.

Would BN consider trialling some retrospective feature articles on the British fighters of the 1910s-1950s? I have masses of research material and would gladly draft some articles for your appraisal (with no expectation of payment) if it were something you'd consider.

In any event, it's nice to see a writer and representative of BN listening and responding to feedback on here.

MachoMan09 wrote:Deserter/Danny, you're wasting your time, guys.

You could put a picture of Ricky Burns balls deep in Janette Krankie on the front page and the Scotch would still find something to complain about.

True, it seems to me that they are only happy when they are moaning.

I bet the editor of Boxing News is glad of this invaluable advice, at least now he knows where he has been going wrong all these years !

Not sure how anyone can think the front cover doesn't affect sales, it's astonishing really.

Put it another way, you walking along a section of bland uninteresting non-sport magazines and then you see a boxer, or image from a bout, on the front page of one. Is your eye not at all drawn to it at all? Now the regular subscriber of the bland magazine might not give a hoot about the front cover, but it got your attention. Publications are under continual pressure to increase readership so it's you who is the target for the front cover of bland magazine, not the regular subscriber. The regular subscriber is catered for on the inside pages as the publishers know they will read the inside pages regardless of the front cover.

Total joke by the boxing news disregard Scottish boxing continually that's why I don't buy it anymore

Surely the BN comes out WEEKLY so that it focusses on current events . FRoch/Groves is NOT a current event, Burns ( whether you like him or not) IS THE CURRENT EVENT !!!!

Danny has said that it's likely that the BN will feature Mayweather this coming week and there should be extra sales ,so it would be difficult to quantify how many extra copies are sold this week due to the front cover. That's a pity. Perhaps he'd like to compare last weeks sales with this weeks then?

Deserter - you are very well informed and are clearly an honours graduate in English literature, perhaps you'd like to respond to a previous contributor who referred to us up north as being 'Scotch'. As I understand it 'Scotch ' refers to whisky ,and not the inventors of TV, telephone , penicillin , tarmac etc etc , Denis Law, Bill Shankly , Sir Alex, not to mention Britains best post-war boxer Ken Buchanan!!!

I call it " southern boxing news " now, lets be honest it's biased & shit I stopped buying it 3 year ago and before that I bought it every week for the last 20 year, it's shit now and more like a teen magazine

Alex wrote:

dbflex wrote: We still round up worldwide results (just not in a single column, so they actually get more coverage) and we still use Bob Mee regularly. Graham works for BM. So what is it you would like that we don't currently provide?

I've bought the magazine every week since the Pazienza v Haugen bout (first one) in 1987 and will still buy it in another 26 years (if I'm still around). I guess I am resistant to change and preferred the old 'paper' black and white, there are many magazines that look and feel the same, I didn't like it when the magazine was a 'fold out' to broadsheet size and personally would like it how it was though have no issues at all with the writing etc - last weeks article on depression and mental health was excellent.

Glad to know we have a reader for the future haha. I really liked the old version too. I've been reading since 1992 but I have to constantly remind myself that I'm a serious fan and try and put myself in the position of less dedicated followers of the sport.

Another taker for the old black-and-white paper version here. However, I guess I'm in the minority, and no doubt large colour photos and sleek design are a must in today's sports magazine/newspaper market.

One feature of the old-style mag (now discontinued) that I do think would appeal to a modern audience is the historical feature articles penned by the likes of Gilbert Odd, Ron Olver and O. F. Snelling. No doubt the tone would need to be different from that used by those three distinguished gents, and made more apt for a 21st-century audience; but there are innumerable extraordinary long-forgotten stories of British boxers and the fight game in general from the 1910s, '20s, '30s, '40s and '50s that I think would astound a modern audience and are begging to be retold.

There are lots of guys in their 70s and older who are fans of the sport from the days when boxing was far more mainstream. I've had conversations with quite a few of them and they often bemoan the fact Boxing News no longer publishes articles on the fighters of their generation and earlier. Sadly, some have even stopped buying Boxing News for this reason.

Would BN consider trialling some retrospective feature articles on the British fighters of the 1910s-1950s? I have masses of research material and would gladly draft some articles for your appraisal (with no expectation of payment) if it were something you'd consider.

In any event, it's nice to see a writer and representative of BN listening and responding to feedback on here.

I can speak to Tris about it. Hard to quantify the demand.

billy nelson wrote:Total joke by the boxing news disregard Scottish boxing continually that's why I don't buy it anymore

If continual disregard means Ricky regularly featured and every Scottish show covered then yes you're right. Let's not forget the feature on Beltran last week either.