BoxRec

Deserter wrote:

Jon Saxon wrote:One other thing a mate of mine owns a well known UK mag and he said that he would buy BN in a heartbeat.

Well he's a brave man in the current media climate. What magazine does he own Jon, as it's very rare in this day and age for a well-known UK mag to be owned by an individual rather than one of the big publishers such as Bauer or Haymarket?

Jon Saxon wrote:

Deserter wrote:

Jon Saxon wrote:One other thing a mate of mine owns a well known UK mag and he said that he would buy BN in a heartbeat.

Well he's a brave man in the current media climate. What magazine does he own Jon, as it's very rare in this day and age for a well-known UK mag to be owned by an individual rather than one of the big publishers such as Bauer or Haymarket?

I can't say for obvious reasons mate but lets just say that 7 years ago emap offered him 11 mil for it.

Jon Saxon wrote:

Deserter wrote:

Jon Saxon wrote:One other thing a mate of mine owns a well known UK mag and he said that he would buy BN in a heartbeat.

Well he's a brave man in the current media climate. What magazine does he own Jon, as it's very rare in this day and age for a well-known UK mag to be owned by an individual rather than one of the big publishers such as Bauer or Haymarket?

I can't say for obvious reasons mate but lets just say that 7 years ago emap offered him 11 mil for it.

Glyn Leach wrote:

Jon Saxon wrote:

Deserter wrote: Well he's a brave man in the current media climate. What magazine does he own Jon, as it's very rare in this day and age for a well-known UK mag to be owned by an individual rather than one of the big publishers such as Bauer or Haymarket?

I can't say for obvious reasons mate but lets just say that 7 years ago emap offered him 11 mil for it.

Ask them to offer me £11 million for mine please Jon

Deserter wrote:

Jon Saxon wrote:

Deserter wrote: Well he's a brave man in the current media climate. What magazine does he own Jon, as it's very rare in this day and age for a well-known UK mag to be owned by an individual rather than one of the big publishers such as Bauer or Haymarket?

I can't say for obvious reasons mate but lets just say that 7 years ago emap offered him 11 mil for it.

Interesting. My guess is that it's an auto title then.

Glyn Leach wrote:

Jon Saxon wrote:

Deserter wrote: Well he's a brave man in the current media climate. What magazine does he own Jon, as it's very rare in this day and age for a well-known UK mag to be owned by an individual rather than one of the big publishers such as Bauer or Haymarket?

I can't say for obvious reasons mate but lets just say that 7 years ago emap offered him 11 mil for it.

Ask them to offer me £11 million for mine please Jon

Jon Saxon wrote:

Deserter wrote:

Jon Saxon wrote: I can't say for obvious reasons mate but lets just say that 7 years ago emap offered him 11 mil for it.

Interesting. My guess is that it's an auto title then.

No but thats odd you should say that as my other mates auto mag went bust 3 years ago.

Deserter wrote:

Jon Saxon wrote:

Deserter wrote: Interesting. My guess is that it's an auto title then.

No but thats odd you should say that as my other mates auto mag went bust 3 years ago.

Yep, my old company has just announced it's killing one of their auto titles. Brutal market to be in.

Jon Saxon wrote:I saw on The Apprentice that they did a free lads mag, I think that would work.

Jon Saxon wrote:

Glyn Leach wrote:

Jon Saxon wrote: I can't say for obvious reasons mate but lets just say that 7 years ago emap offered him 11 mil for it.

Ask them to offer me £11 million for mine please Jon

funny thing is that today I bet he would only get around 2 or 3 today.

And Glyn you deserve it mate but ffs get that Haye rating fixed, what were you thinking man!!!

dbflex wrote:



And, no offence, a 12-year-old now differs wildly from you and I when we were that age

tonyevs wrote:

dbflex wrote:



And, no offence, a 12-year-old now differs wildly from you and I when we were that age

If the papers are reporting correctly .. 1 in 10 11yr olds boys today are said to have the reading age of a 7yr old when they leave primary school.
So are these the people that BN want to attract? could this be why BN is full of photographs, rather than boxing news

I`m tempted to cancel my subscription to BN, and swap over to BM. It seems to have fewer critism from their readers. here.

dbflex wrote:

bad mamma jamma wrote:

dbflex wrote:Before I express my view, let me declare an interest: while I write only occasionally for BN these days (cue sighs of relief from some), I'm still part of the same team and remain on the same bank of desks. So try as I might, I may not be completely impartial.

That being said I do think there is a lack of understanding here, the benevolent Jon Saxon aside. Just to detail a few of the mixed messages flying in BN's direction: posters requesting more overseas content, something the hardcore fans and trade insiders have, over the years, decried in favour of more and longer British coverage; posters complaining of amateur overkill when last year, as the section was often reduced to just two-three pages per week, we received many complaints for neglecting and disrespecting a crucial element of the sport; BN is implored to aim itself at adults but the future sustainability of the brand - and, perhaps print media as a whole - depends on our attracting new young readers; Matt is criticised for being overly elaborate in a thread that purports to be about BN 'dumbing down' and on a forum where the magazine has previously been castigated for bland writing that lacks 'a voice'.

This litany of contradictions is not intended as a slight on any posters - it's not as if any of you have altered your own previous opinions - but it should highlight how widely opinions differ and how difficult it is to identify a consensus. BN listens - hence the enlarged amateur section (redesigned this week) and other changes like more varied feature stories - but to whom should they be listening? It's impossible to please all of the people all of the time but I can guarantee they strive to at least please most of the people most of the time. Please keep your comnents coming - the more considered and constructive the better - because I know they read them and take them onboard.

Ps: Objective as I can be, I thought Matt's Johnny Tapia article was an outstanding piece of work that would sit comfortably in any sports section or publication.

Pps: Read the next Fighting Fit - Mayweather, Froch, Ward, Barker and more.

matt christie's article on tapia was a good piece i grant you, but i have a beef with his report writing. now i am all for a bit of colour added to a fight report and really enjoy how kenneth sam-bouharie and zachary levin (where is he now?) add a dash of it to their pieces. but matt seems to go overboard on occasions which leads the reader to a state of confusion..its not easy to follow and a fight report should be easy to follow in order to allow the reader to visualise the action as if they were there.

paradoxically BN is IMO at the same time lowering its standards to aim at the younger reader. however i have been reading BN since I was about 11-12 years old (i am 38 now) in the days of Mullan and i wasnt put off by it, even though in those days they didnt make a special effort to attract the "yoof". No matter how old you are you will buy BN if you are a big boxing fan and you are looking for factual




information about the game..and not knowing whether a boxer likes Eastenders or Corrie, or if his favourite colour is blue or red wont put them off buying it.



BN is not a publication that can realistically expect the casual fan to pick up and read it, unlike Fighting Fit. its a trade paper and should be treated as such.

That limits ambition - why not be the trade paper and more. And, no offence, a 12-year-old now differs wildly from you and I when we were that age

bad mamma jamma wrote:thats a massive assumption danny, that a 12 year old from just over 2 decades ago differs massively from one nowadays.

Deserter wrote:

bad mamma jamma wrote:thats a massive assumption danny, that a 12 year old from just over 2 decades ago differs massively from one nowadays.

I think Danny means in terms of media consumption habits, in which case he's completely correct.

bad mamma jamma wrote:

dbflex wrote:

bad mamma jamma wrote: matt christie's article on tapia was a good piece i grant you, but i have a beef with his report writing. now i am all for a bit of colour added to a fight report and really enjoy how kenneth sam-bouharie and zachary levin (where is he now?) add a dash of it to their pieces. but matt seems to go overboard on occasions which leads the reader to a state of confusion..its not easy to follow and a fight report should be easy to follow in order to allow the reader to visualise the action as if they were there.

paradoxically BN is IMO at the same time lowering its standards to aim at the younger reader. however i have been reading BN since I was about 11-12 years old (i am 38 now) in the days of Mullan and i wasnt put off by it, even though in those days they didnt make a special effort to attract the "yoof". No matter how old you are you will buy BN if you are a big boxing fan and you are looking for factual




information about the game..and not knowing whether a boxer likes Eastenders or Corrie, or if his favourite colour is blue or red wont put them off buying it.



BN is not a publication that can realistically expect the casual fan to pick up and read it, unlike Fighting Fit. its a trade paper and should be treated as such.

That limits ambition - why not be the trade paper and more. And, no offence, a 12-year-old now differs wildly from you and I when we were that age

thats a massive assumption danny, that a 12 year old from just over 2 decades ago differs massively from one nowadays.

as for lacking ambition, i cannot for the life of me see BN appealing to anyone except for the ardent boxing fan unless it merges with Fighting Fit that is.

it is and always will be a trade paper - not a lads mag

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

Chris W 1982 wrote:Still prefer the old broadsheet version but I guess that was the format that I became accustomed when I began purchasing the BN back in 2002.

The mag is never going to please everyone so it becomes a balancing act where those running it must do their best to cater for the various audiences. Read back through this thread and other BN related threads then you'll see forum posters asking for less pictures and less amateur coverage whilst another user will demand more of the same subjects.

Personally, I'd like to see the letters pages return back to a two page spread and not just focusing on one matter, and I'd like to see the majority of international action summed up in a results section. Far too much space is put aside for global undercards

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.

tonyevs wrote:

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.

Yes - when I say `pad out` I am suggesting they are unable to fill the space with text.

If its fully intentional to have only half the paper with actual boxing news/boxing articles - then you have kinda made my mind up on cancelling my subscription.
I initially bought it to read about boxing. If you are correct. I am now being encouraged to look at photos instead (even if alot of them are good photos).

Shall cancel 1st thing tomorrow - and pick up a copy of this months BM to see if it ncovers what I`m looking for in a boxing publication.

Dan Dares wrote:Personally, I'd like to see more tits in it.