BoxRec

I do 100% see the logic from a money perspective.

I can only assume the BN staff are being dry-bummed for "Extra Sales"

But you might as well put One Direction on the front cover if you can't justify Burn's on the front cover the week he defends in a very tough 50/50 fight on home soil.

G0mez wrote:I do 100% see the logic from a money perspective.

I can only assume the BN staff are being dry-bummed for "Extra Sales"

But you might as well put One Direction on the front cover if you can't justify Burn's on the front cover the week he defends in a very tough 50/50 fight on home soil.

Expected better of you mate. Beltran is barely known here, a fact we tried to partially rectify with last week's feature. The potential competitiveness of the bout is only a sales driver IF people know Beltran's credentials which many do not. And is it really 50-50? Not sure the bookies agree. As for being "dry-bummed" first of all kudos on the evocative imagery. But why do you assume any desire for sales comes from above (or behind)? We as an editorial team obviously want the most amount of people to read the work we produce. Now you and I may disagree about the best method of achieving this but, as a boxing fan, you should want the same thing.

Guys, this really shouldn't be allowed to develop into a nationality issue because that's honestly a red herring. I've got absolutely no doubt that if the BN guys could put Ricky on the cover without suffering financially, they would.
It's simply about running a business, nothing more nothing less. To give you an out of sector example, if I was running Mountain Biking UK, I wouldn't hesitate to feature Danny MacAskill on the cover as he's a huge star who will maximise sales by pulling in casual fans as well as the 'hardcore' who will buy it month in, month out -whether he's Scottish or not is irrelevant.
Everyone needs to understand that publishing is an incredibly tough business to be in at the moment - my old company has just announced another round of redundancies, for example. I'm genuinely surprised that many of you, who are presumably involved in making your own business and/or financial decisions, are not prepared to understand this.

Deserter wrote:Guys, this really shouldn't be allowed to develop into a nationality issue because that's honestly a red herring. I've got absolutely no doubt that if the BN guys could put Ricky on the cover without suffering financially, they would.
It's simply about running a business, nothing more nothing less. To give you an out of sector example, if I was running Mountain Biking UK, I wouldn't hesitate to feature Danny MacAskill on the cover as he's a huge star who will maximise sales by pulling in casual fans as well as the 'hardcore' who will buy it month in, month out -whether he's Scottish or not is irrelevant.
Everyone needs to understand that publishing is an incredibly tough business to be in at the moment - my old company has just announced another round of redundancies, for example. I'm genuinely surprised that many of you, who are presumably involved in making your own business and/or financial decisions, are not prepared to understand this.

Exactly. We have to choose the best cover star each week based on several factors, with sales potential predominating. Just like virtually every other magazine (subscriber-only titles excepted) on the newsstand.

Again, really appreciate all the comments and Deserter is correct in trying to take this away from a nationality issue ,even though this can be the perception. But I find it significant that in the week George Groves features in the guest article ,and the Editor considers his fight with Froch in the editorial, the British world title holder , defending his crown on the first big promotion of the new season, is removed to a couple of inside pages .

We'll have to disagree I suppose , and its good to debate like this without the petty and childish name calling, but I'm sorry , the BN decision was a BIG MISTAKE.

dalcumly wrote:Again, really appreciate all the comments and Deserter is correct in trying to take this away from a nationality issue ,even though this can be the perception. But I find it significant that in the week George Groves features in the guest article ,and the Editor considers his fight with Froch in the editorial, the British world title holder , defending his crown on the first big promotion of the new season, is removed to a couple of inside pages .

We'll have to disagree I suppose , and its good to debate like this without the petty and childish name calling, but I'm sorry , the BN decision was a BIG MISTAKE.

Dalcumly, the Burns preview is two full pages in length. Groves' column in half a page and the editor's letter is a page. So the Burns fight actually has MORE coverage. All the pages inside are "inside pages". If we lose lots of readers and sales dip alarmingly then - and only then - can we justifiably conclude it was "a big mistake" (with or without block caps). I'm not sure a total (so far) of four aggrieved people on a forum for hardcore fans suggests we have done anything scarily self-defeating. But let's talk again in a few months - assuming BN is still a going concern of course lol.

Think people are reading too deep into this.

Shouldn't ringside have opened with Darren barker piece, rather than the cringeworthy opener they used? Our latest world champ, possessing a great story, in a red-hot division, and a lovely guy to boot.

Maybe, but people make editorial decisions for all sorts of reasons.

I think BN have covered burns fight more than adequately in past two weeks. Its a great fight and i will cheer ricky on tonight.

But, even though 10 weeks away Froch v Groves is a far bigger fight for a number of reasons and u can understand the prominence given

dalcumly wrote:Danny

Even Ringside on Sky, who are actually showing the Froch fight, featured Burns and Beltran extensively.

I wonder why on earth that was then!!!

squared circle wrote:

dalcumly wrote:Danny

Even Ringside on Sky, who are actually showing the Froch fight, featured Burns and Beltran extensively.

I wonder why on earth that was then!!!

excellent though it still probably proves an anti Scottish bias and has a hidden personal slight to an esteemed English trainer of a Scottish world champion.

dbflex wrote:

dalcumly wrote:Again, really appreciate all the comments and Deserter is correct in trying to take this away from a nationality issue ,even though this can be the perception. But I find it significant that in the week George Groves features in the guest article ,and the Editor considers his fight with Froch in the editorial, the British world title holder , defending his crown on the first big promotion of the new season, is removed to a couple of inside pages .

We'll have to disagree I suppose , and its good to debate like this without the petty and childish name calling, but I'm sorry , the BN decision was a BIG MISTAKE.

Dalcumly, the Burns preview is two full pages in length. Groves' column in half a page and the editor's letter is a page. So the Burns fight actually has MORE coverage. All the pages inside are "inside pages". If we lose lots of readers and sales dip alarmingly then - and only then - can we justifiably conclude it was "a big mistake" (with or without block caps). I'm not sure a total (so far) of four aggrieved people on a forum for hardcore fans suggests we have done anything scarily self-defeating. But let's talk again in a few months - assuming BN is still a going concern of course lol.

You do come across quite dismissive and arrogant there, would have thought you'd have a bit more humility in engaging with customer feedback/constructive criticism, especially after your editorial experience at the now-defunct Fighting Fit?

Dalcumly has a point, Ricky Burns fighting in a 50-50 fight on home soil to defend his world title belt again should be on the front cover. Froch fight isnt happening for another 8 weeks or so, so plenty of time to have him on front cover of BN. Just my tuppence worth.

gasman wrote:

dbflex wrote:

dalcumly wrote:Again, really appreciate all the comments and Deserter is correct in trying to take this away from a nationality issue ,even though this can be the perception. But I find it significant that in the week George Groves features in the guest article ,and the Editor considers his fight with Froch in the editorial, the British world title holder , defending his crown on the first big promotion of the new season, is removed to a couple of inside pages .

We'll have to disagree I suppose , and its good to debate like this without the petty and childish name calling, but I'm sorry , the BN decision was a BIG MISTAKE.

Dalcumly, the Burns preview is two full pages in length. Groves' column in half a page and the editor's letter is a page. So the Burns fight actually has MORE coverage. All the pages inside are "inside pages". If we lose lots of readers and sales dip alarmingly then - and only then - can we justifiably conclude it was "a big mistake" (with or without block caps). I'm not sure a total (so far) of four aggrieved people on a forum for hardcore fans suggests we have done anything scarily self-defeating. But let's talk again in a few months - assuming BN is still a going concern of course lol.

You do come across quite dismissive and arrogant there, would have thought you'd have a bit more humility in engaging with customer feedback/constructive criticism, especially after your editorial experience at the now-defunct Fighting Fit?

Dalcumly has a point, Ricky Burns fighting in a 50-50 fight on home soil to defend his world title belt again should be on the front cover. Froch fight isnt happening for another 8 weeks or so, so plenty of time to have him on front cover of BN. Just my tuppence worth.

My comment came at the end of a long and balanced debate; if I was genuinely dismissive of readers' views I would never have contributed to this thread.

As for your view on the cover, saying something 'should' be on the front isn't in itself a compelling argument. It's not a 50-50 fight for the bookies incidentally. Sales will show if we have made a grave error. I hope and believe we have not, for several reasons I've already outlined. That's not dismissing your valid view by the way, it's saying let's wait for the outcome.

dbflex wrote:
Dalcumly, the Burns preview is two full pages in length. Groves' column in half a page and the editor's letter is a page. So the Burns fight actually has MORE coverage. All the pages inside are "inside pages". If we lose lots of readers and sales dip alarmingly then - and only then - can we justifiably conclude it was "a big mistake" (with or without block caps). I'm not sure a total (so far) of four aggrieved people on a forum for hardcore fans suggests we have done anything scarily self-defeating. But let's talk again in a few months - assuming BN is still a going concern of course lol.

You do come across quite dismissive and arrogant there, would have thought you'd have a bit more humility in engaging with customer feedback/constructive criticism, especially after your editorial experience at the now-defunct Fighting Fit?

Dalcumly has a point, Ricky Burns fighting in a 50-50 fight on home soil to defend his world title belt again should be on the front cover. Froch fight isnt happening for another 8 weeks or so, so plenty of time to have him on front cover of BN. Just my tuppence worth.[/quote]

My comment came at the end of a long and balanced debate; if I was genuinely dismissive of readers' views I would never have contributed to this thread.

As for your view on the cover, saying something 'should' be on the front isn't in itself a compelling argument. It's not a 50-50 fight for the bookies incidentally. Sales will show if we have made a grave error. I hope and believe we have not, for several reasons I've already outlined. That's not dismissing your valid view by the way, it's saying let's wait for the outcome.[/quote]

I read the thread before I posted, I do not agree with the argument that Burns was up against stiff competition this week i.e. Froch-Groves - as that fight is still a long way off. I understand the economical arguments behind front covers etc and I am sure that you will do a bit more business with Froch on the front this week. I just think on balance, Burns has earned the right to bank a front cover the week before a highly competitive home world title defence, if he can't get that from the trade mag.....

gasman wrote:

dbflex wrote:
Dalcumly, the Burns preview is two full pages in length. Groves' column in half a page and the editor's letter is a page. So the Burns fight actually has MORE coverage. All the pages inside are "inside pages". If we lose lots of readers and sales dip alarmingly then - and only then - can we justifiably conclude it was "a big mistake" (with or without block caps). I'm not sure a total (so far) of four aggrieved people on a forum for hardcore fans suggests we have done anything scarily self-defeating. But let's talk again in a few months - assuming BN is still a going concern of course lol.

You do come across quite dismissive and arrogant there, would have thought you'd have a bit more humility in engaging with customer feedback/constructive criticism, especially after your editorial experience at the now-defunct Fighting Fit?

Dalcumly has a point, Ricky Burns fighting in a 50-50 fight on home soil to defend his world title belt again should be on the front cover. Froch fight isnt happening for another 8 weeks or so, so plenty of time to have him on front cover of BN. Just my tuppence worth.

My comment came at the end of a long and balanced debate; if I was genuinely dismissive of readers' views I would never have contributed to this thread.

As for your view on the cover, saying something 'should' be on the front isn't in itself a compelling argument. It's not a 50-50 fight for the bookies incidentally. Sales will show if we have made a grave error. I hope and believe we have not, for several reasons I've already outlined. That's not dismissing your valid view by the way, it's saying let's wait for the outcome.[/quote]

I read the thread before I posted, I do not agree with the argument that Burns was up against stiff competition this week i.e. Froch-Groves - as that fight is still a long way off. I understand the economical arguments behind front covers etc and I am sure that you will do a bit more business with Froch on the front this week. I just think on balance, Burns has earned the right to bank a front cover the week before a highly competitive home world title defence, if he can't get that from the trade mag.....[/quote]

No one has a "right" to the cover and BN strives to be both the trade mag AND more, as previously explained. As you said you expect us to sell more copies with the chosen front, I have nothing more to add.

dbflex wrote:

gasman wrote:

dbflex wrote:
Dalcumly, the Burns preview is two full pages in length. Groves' column in half a page and the editor's letter is a page. So the Burns fight actually has MORE coverage. All the pages inside are "inside pages". If we lose lots of readers and sales dip alarmingly then - and only then - can we justifiably conclude it was "a big mistake" (with or without block caps). I'm not sure a total (so far) of four aggrieved people on a forum for hardcore fans suggests we have done anything scarily self-defeating. But let's talk again in a few months - assuming BN is still a going concern of course lol.

You do come across quite dismissive and arrogant there, would have thought you'd have a bit more humility in engaging with customer feedback/constructive criticism, especially after your editorial experience at the now-defunct Fighting Fit?

Dalcumly has a point, Ricky Burns fighting in a 50-50 fight on home soil to defend his world title belt again should be on the front cover. Froch fight isnt happening for another 8 weeks or so, so plenty of time to have him on front cover of BN. Just my tuppence worth.

My comment came at the end of a long and balanced debate; if I was genuinely dismissive of readers' views I would never have contributed to this thread.

As for your view on the cover, saying something 'should' be on the front isn't in itself a compelling argument. It's not a 50-50 fight for the bookies incidentally. Sales will show if we have made a grave error. I hope and believe we have not, for several reasons I've already outlined. That's not dismissing your valid view by the way, it's saying let's wait for the outcome.

I read the thread before I posted, I do not agree with the argument that Burns was up against stiff competition this week i.e. Froch-Groves - as that fight is still a long way off. I understand the economical arguments behind front covers etc and I am sure that you will do a bit more business with Froch on the front this week. I just think on balance, Burns has earned the right to bank a front cover the week before a highly competitive home world title defence, if he can't get that from the trade mag.....[/quote]

No one has a "right" to the cover and BN strives to be both the trade mag AND more, as previously explained. As you said you expect us to sell more copies with the chosen front, I have nothing more to add.[/quote]

Then just pick your top five best selling boxers and rotate them each week, but don't try and pretend Burns was up against stiff competition this week.

Dalcumly has a point, Ricky Burns fighting in a 50-50 fight on home soil to defend his world title belt again should be on the front cover. Froch fight isnt happening for another 8 weeks or so, so plenty of time to have him on front cover of BN. Just my tuppence worth.[/quote]

My comment came at the end of a long and balanced debate; if I was genuinely dismissive of readers' views I would never have contributed to this thread.

As for your view on the cover, saying something 'should' be on the front isn't in itself a compelling argument. It's not a 50-50 fight for the bookies incidentally. Sales will show if we have made a grave error. I hope and believe we have not, for several reasons I've already outlined. That's not dismissing your valid view by the way, it's saying let's wait for the outcome.[/quote]

I read the thread before I posted, I do not agree with the argument that Burns was up against stiff competition this week i.e. Froch-Groves - as that fight is still a long way off. I understand the economical arguments behind front covers etc and I am sure that you will do a bit more business with Froch on the front this week. I just think on balance, Burns has earned the right to bank a front cover the week before a highly competitive home world title defence, if he can't get that from the trade mag.....[/quote]

No one has a "right" to the cover and BN strives to be both the trade mag AND more, as previously explained. As you said you expect us to sell more copies with the chosen front, I have nothing more to add.[/quote]

Then just pick your top five best selling boxers and rotate them each week, but don't try and pretend Burns was up against stiff competition this week.[/quote]

Thought you might say that. If we featured the same boxers every few weeks they would soon lose their drawing power - the law of diminishing returns. Plus the cover star(s) must represent some of the content inside the mag. The thing competition for the cover is not based just on who is fighting that weekend - if it was it would be Burns all the way. It's based more on what's in the magazine that week, so viewed in that context Burns did face stiff competition, both from Froch and Groves AND Riddick Bowe. Haye-Fury were on the cover over two months before their fight. We pick the best option - that we believe will attract the highest number of readers - from our content each week. No pretence, no hidden agenda. Just like a football team select the team they believe has the best chance to win a match.

dalcumly wrote:Again, really appreciate all the comments and Deserter is correct in trying to take this away from a nationality issue ,even though this can be the perception. But I find it significant that in the week George Groves features in the guest article ,and the Editor considers his fight with Froch in the editorial, the British world title holder , defending his crown on the first big promotion of the new season, is removed to a couple of inside pages .

We'll have to disagree I suppose , and its good to debate like this without the petty and childish name calling, but I'm sorry , the BN decision was a BIG MISTAKE.

I dont think there is a nationality issue at BN (im not saying your saying that cumly) i always find they give the scottish fighters and cards an acceptable amount of coverage. By this i mean the bigger televised cards will get the preview, and smaller shows will get a review etc and the fighters also get a feature here or there ...i dont see the problem. As for not putting burns on the cover ,i seen the reasons earlier and its not always going to be popular in some circles but it dont see it as a massive issue mate ...

Anybody with any comments about the Burns -Beltran fight not being sufficiently 'sales worthy ' to appear on the front cover of BN last week !!

dalcumly wrote:Anybody with any comments about the Burns -Beltran fight not being sufficiently 'sales worthy ' to appear on the front cover of BN last week !!

That makes no sense... people can't buy based on it being a great fight to watch BEFORE it's proven to be a great fight to watch . And few would buy a Burns PREVIEW cover story now as they have seen the fight so it loses value. The fact is far more people are talking about Burns-Beltran now - because of the controversy and the great action - than they were in the build-up. Which doesn't help sell a Burns cover that would have come out on Thursday. It's like making a fight ppv after it's happened.