BoxRec

Boxing has just come out of a short summer recess with a world title fight ,no less, this weekend between Ricky Burns ( a two weight world champion) against a top ten rated opponent in front of 5,000 plus live fans and hundreds of thousands on TV , but the Boxing News chose to feature Carl Froch and George Groves on the front page advertising a fight which is some EIGHT weeks away !!!!
Can anyone explain this ??

This is not a patriotic diatribe on behalf of Ricky Burns , and I know some people don't think he's our best world champion ,but he is A WORLD CHAMPION , a British , world champion, so why is his fight not featured on the cover ? Ask yourself if Darren Barker would be on the front page if he was defending his title, or would he be reduced to a couple of inside pages due to a 'big ' fight happening two months down the road . I think we know the answer and that is no criticism of Barker.
I am a fan of the trade paper ,and all the hard working and able staff who work there but come on lads , this is a disgrace.

I 'm looking for an answer please , and the opinions of other forum members.

Because the Froch-Groves fight is already a bigger talking point than Burns-Beltan, despite being many weeks away.

dalcumly wrote:Boxing has just come out of a short summer recess with a world title fight ,no less, this weekend between Ricky Burns ( a two weight world champion) against a top ten rated opponent in front of 5,000 plus live fans and hundreds of thousands on TV , but the Boxing News chose to feature Carl Froch and George Groves on the front page advertising a fight which is some EIGHT weeks away !!!!
Can anyone explain this ??

This is not a patriotic diatribe on behalf of Ricky Burns , and I know some people don't think he's our best world champion ,but he is A WORLD CHAMPION , a British , world champion, so why is his fight not featured on the cover ? Ask yourself if Darren Barker would be on the front page if he was defending his title, or would he be reduced to a couple of inside pages due to a 'big ' fight happening two months down the road . I think we know the answer and that is no criticism of Barker.
I am a fan of the trade paper ,and all the hard working and able staff who work there but come on lads , this is a disgrace.

I'm looking for an answer please , and the opinions of other forum members.

It's a really easy question to answer. Boxing News is a business and like many other magazines it is operating in an increasingly challenging environment in terms of trying to maintain circulation revenues as people increasingly turn to digital for news through to rising paper costs affecting the costbase and squeezing margin.
Like all publishers, they will have data on which cover stars perform best for them in terms of copy sales and to maximise their revenues they will feature them accordingly. It's highly probable that choosing a Froch and Groves cover rather than a Burns cover could make a difference of thousands of pounds in revenue, so to expect them to go for the latter as some sort of altruistic or noble gesture is sadly a bit naive - I should add I don't mean that in a patronising way, as I wouldn't expect Joe Public to understand the business model of publishing.
At the end of the day, Newsquest (the publishing company), will want to maximise the title's profitabliity, so steps like this are inevitable - I'm sure someone like Glyn will be able to tell you about how covers featuring the likes of Tyson and Hamed sold compared to some of their lesser known counterparts and how this could impact on sales.
If you want to look at an example from another sector check out Men's Health - why do you think it will always have a prominent coverline relating to a six-pack/abs? It's because they know that it will ALWAYS shift copies off the newsstand for them in a way that a coverline regarding bigger quads, for example, simply won't.
Hope that helps explain it

Deserter wrote:

dalcumly wrote:Boxing has just come out of a short summer recess with a world title fight ,no less, this weekend between Ricky Burns ( a two weight world champion) against a top ten rated opponent in front of 5,000 plus live fans and hundreds of thousands on TV , but the Boxing News chose to feature Carl Froch and George Groves on the front page advertising a fight which is some EIGHT weeks away !!!!
Can anyone explain this ??

This is not a patriotic diatribe on behalf of Ricky Burns , and I know some people don't think he's our best world champion ,but he is A WORLD CHAMPION , a British , world champion, so why is his fight not featured on the cover ? Ask yourself if Darren Barker would be on the front page if he was defending his title, or would he be reduced to a couple of inside pages due to a 'big ' fight happening two months down the road . I think we know the answer and that is no criticism of Barker.
I am a fan of the trade paper ,and all the hard working and able staff who work there but come on lads , this is a disgrace.

I'm looking for an answer please , and the opinions of other forum members.

It's a really easy question to answer. Boxing News is a business and like many other magazines it is operating in an increasingly challenging environment in terms of trying to maintain circulation revenues as people increasingly turn to digital for news through to rising paper costs affecting the costbase and squeezing margin.
Like all publishers, they will have data on which cover stars perform best for them in terms of copy sales and to maximise their revenues they will feature them accordingly. It's highly probable that choosing a Froch and Groves cover rather than a Burns cover could make a difference of thousands of pounds in revenue, so to expect them to go for the latter as some sort of altruistic or noble gesture is sadly a bit naive - I should add I don't mean that in a patronising way, as I wouldn't expect Joe Public to understand the business model of publishing.
At the end of the day, Newsquest (the publishing company), will want to maximise the title's profitabliity, so steps like this are inevitable - I'm sure someone like Glyn will be able to tell you about how covers featuring the likes of Tyson and Hamed sold compared to some of their lesser known counterparts and how this could impact on sales.
If you want to look at an example from another sector check out Men's Health - why do you think it will always have a prominent coverline relating to a six-pack/abs? It's because they know that it will ALWAYS shift copies off the newsstand for them in a way that a coverline regarding bigger quads, for example, simply won't.
Hope that helps explain it

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?!

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.

I like my Boxing News in my hand, bought from the man I've bought it from since 1987 and then I want to read it in the bath, with a couple of beers on Friday afternoon after work and I'd be happier if it were black and white and like it was in '87 - but if they try to please people like me they'll go under.

palooka wrote:I like my Boxing News in my hand, bought from the man I've bought it from since 1987 and then I want to read it in the bath, with a couple of beers on Friday afternoon after work and I'd be happier if it were black and white and like it was in '87 - but if they try to please people like me they'll go under.

I dont want to hear about your bathing activities......

If having Froch and Groves on the front cover ,and the other 'main fighters' , means that they have increased sales ,then why do they not feature on every issue ???
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.
I also suspect that our other world champion , Jamie O'Donnell , would not feature either ,perhaps Doncaster is too further north as well ???

I'll keep it relatively brief.

Being in a world title fight does not automatically guarantee someone the cover slot – the OP referenced Darren Barker, but he was not the main cover star for the week in which his preview appeared (Nathan Cleverly was – perhaps we jinxed him). The cover slot is based on a number of factors not least, as Deserter points out, sales potential, both in the UK and (digitally) overseas. I'm not about to debate the respective merits of Burns and Froch as fighters – we could be here all day – but Froch is a bigger crossover name; I don't think even Ricky himself would dispute that. Carl has been on mainstream TV shows, national newspapers, non-boxing magazines and has been involved in the more high-profile fights. Of course sales are not the only driver but we had interesting, exclusive content from Froch and Groves relating to a fight that could be ppv (a sign of its drawing power). Burns scored well for immediacy as he is fighting this week and perhaps if he was fighting say Broner or Gamboa, he'd have walked it (the cover debate, not the fight!). But Beltran isn't that well known in the UK (where the majority of our sales come from) and Ricky is far less well known than Froch in the US, our biggest digital market after the UK.

I'll leave you with this: if everyone who complains about who graces the cover is currently voting with their feet, i.e. buying the magazine when their favourite is on the cover and boycotting it when someone else gets the nod, our sales figures indicate we are, more often than not, getting it right.

dalcumly wrote:If having Froch and Groves on the front cover ,and the other 'main fighters' , means that they have increased sales ,then why do they not feature on every issue ???
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.
I also suspect that our other world champion , Jamie O'Donnell , would not feature either ,perhaps Doncaster is too further north as well ???

The cover affects sales disproportionately when it pertains to the non-hardcore fan. It's less important to someone with a good knowledge of the sport and its fighters. If any magazine focused solely on the hardcore support for their subject they would never grow. That's not to say McDonnell will never make the front (and Burns has been on the cover more than once, plus the cover of Fighting Fit), but it does mean that the general public's familiarity with a boxer is a factor and should not be ignored. If I told you that the cover stars who shift the most copies are the most famous, would that shock you? It's not the only factor but to deny it as A factor is ludicrous.

dbflex wrote:

dalcumly wrote:If having Froch and Groves on the front cover ,and the other 'main fighters' , means that they have increased sales ,then why do they not feature on every issue ???
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.
I also suspect that our other world champion , Jamie O'Donnell , would not feature either ,perhaps Doncaster is too further north as well ???

The cover affects sales disproportionately when it pertains to the non-hardcore fan. It's less important to someone with a good knowledge of the sport and its fighters. If any magazine focused solely on the hardcore support for their subject they would never grow. That's not to say McDonnell will never make the front (and Burns has been on the cover more than once, plus the cover of Fighting Fit), but it does mean that the general public's familiarity with a boxer is a factor and should not be ignored. If I told you that the cover stars who shift the most copies are the most famous, would that shock you? It's not the only factor but to deny it as A factor is ludicrous.

Was it always a factor though? I remember buying the magazine in the 80's and there were people on the cover I'd not heard about; the magazine used to have the feel of a 'trade paper' and not riding on the new big star who may get knocked out tomorrow and disappear.

palooka wrote:

dbflex wrote:

dalcumly wrote:If having Froch and Groves on the front cover ,and the other 'main fighters' , means that they have increased sales ,then why do they not feature on every issue ???
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.
I also suspect that our other world champion , Jamie O'Donnell , would not feature either ,perhaps Doncaster is too further north as well ???

The cover affects sales disproportionately when it pertains to the non-hardcore fan. It's less important to someone with a good knowledge of the sport and its fighters. If any magazine focused solely on the hardcore support for their subject they would never grow. That's not to say McDonnell will never make the front (and Burns has been on the cover more than once, plus the cover of Fighting Fit), but it does mean that the general public's familiarity with a boxer is a factor and should not be ignored. If I told you that the cover stars who shift the most copies are the most famous, would that shock you? It's not the only factor but to deny it as A factor is ludicrous.

Was it always a factor though? I remember buying the magazine in the 80's and there were people on the cover I'd not heard about; the magazine used to have the feel of a 'trade paper' and not riding on the new big star who may get knocked out tomorrow and disappear.

Easy explanation here. Boxing in the 80s (and, as a result, Boxing News) could rely on a far larger audience. The sport was regularly on terrestrial TV and covered in national media. In the noughties, boxing has been, until recently, increasingly marginalised and to maintain and ultimately grow sales figures we cannot rely solely on hardcore boxing fans. We aim to retain all of you – hence why we cover every show and still feature little-known fighters (see Karim Mayfield this week for example) and the greats of yesteryear – but we also want to get the mainstream audience on board. The theory goes that they will get involved for the major fights and fighters and then stay to become more dedicated fans. This helps not only our future at BN but also the sport as a whole. We did used to have the feel of a 'trade paper' – that was intentional but to grow in 2013 we need the best of both worlds so the change in he magazine is also intentional.

And incidentally, Froch can hardly be described as "the new big star who may get knocked out tomorrow and disappear"

dbflex wrote:And incidentally, Froch can hardly be described as "the new big star who may get knocked out tomorrow and disappear"

No, I wasn't reflecting on this weeks issue alone; Froch is rightly recognised by boxing fans and the wider buying public; I used to enjoy Gilbert Odd and Graham Houston, Bob Mee used to do a round up of results from around the world and the magazine was very, very different and far superior to The Ring or KO magazine - and not only because it was weekly and faster off the mark with results etc. I appreciate that times change and magazines in particular in the internet age just don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

palooka wrote:

dbflex wrote:And incidentally, Froch can hardly be described as "the new big star who may get knocked out tomorrow and disappear"

No, I wasn't reflecting on this weeks issue alone; Froch is rightly recognised by boxing fans and the wider buying public; I used to enjoy Gilbert Odd and Graham Houston, Bob Mee used to do a round up of results from around the world and the magazine was very, very different and far superior to The Ring or KO magazine - and not only because it was weekly and faster off the mark with results etc. I appreciate that times change and magazines in particular in the internet age just don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

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?

dbflex wrote:

palooka wrote:

dbflex wrote:And incidentally, Froch can hardly be described as "the new big star who may get knocked out tomorrow and disappear"

No, I wasn't reflecting on this weeks issue alone; Froch is rightly recognised by boxing fans and the wider buying public; I used to enjoy Gilbert Odd and Graham Houston, Bob Mee used to do a round up of results from around the world and the magazine was very, very different and far superior to The Ring or KO magazine - and not only because it was weekly and faster off the mark with results etc. I appreciate that times change and magazines in particular in the internet age just don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

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.

palooka 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.[/quote]

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.

I'd like to see a 'where are they now' thing, a quarter of a page maybe every other week; I read about some fantastic boxers and interesting people through those sort of articles - the internet is brilliant but sometimes you need a guide as to where to start looking.

Boxing News was where I learned about gifted and exotic boxers like Salvador Sanchez, Julio Cesar Chavez, Jose Luis Ramirez, Mike McCallum and Azumah Nelson - it really fed my interest in the sport and made me better informed than my peers who didn't read it. I hope I haven't come across as knocking the magazine - it has had to change to survive - I think I just yearn for simpler times; I hope Matthysse get a look in on next weeks cover - that is some bout and they deserve to be shown to a wider audience

palooka wrote:I'd like to see a 'where are they now' thing, a quarter of a page maybe every other week; I read about some fantastic boxers and interesting people through those sort of articles - the internet is brilliant but sometimes you need a guide as to where to start looking.

Boxing News was where I learned about gifted and exotic boxers like Salvador Sanchez, Julio Cesar Chavez, Jose Luis Ramirez, Mike McCallum and Azumah Nelson - it really fed my interest in the sport and made me better informed than my peers who didn't read it. I hope I haven't come across as knocking the magazine - it has had to change to survive - I think I just yearn for simpler times; I hope Matthysse get a look in on next weeks cover - that is some bout and they deserve to be shown to a wider audience

We do 'Life After the Bell' and 'My Career' for that specific purpose lol, but perhaps they could feature more regularly. As for next week's cover, I don't need to scream "spoiler alert" before saying that it's unlikely to be anything other than Mayweather-Canelo on the main front.

I used to buy BN, amateur boxing scene, boxing monthly and the ring pretty religiously between about 1990 and 2007, in the last 6 years I've just slowly bought it less, I do feel a little bad as they served me well over the last two decades and were good value for money too, various boxing websites, forums and tv channels have helped me keep up to date with the boxing world so I have not had the need for them as much, I enjoy buying a copie of BN and boxing monthly before a holiday and that's it really, as far as the front cover goes, as someone stated earlier it's a business and like all magazines the front cover does help to sell !

Barely a week went by without a picture of Diana Prince of Wales or Madeleiene McCann on the front cover of the Daily Express.

Buy a copy overseas and the front page story will inevitably be about severe weather conditions or property prices back home.

Both the above shift bigger numbers......

Tarquin Tarpaulin V wrote:Barely a week went by without a picture of Diana Prince of Wales or Madeleiene McCann on the front cover of the Daily Express.

Buy a copy overseas and the front page story will inevitably be about severe weather conditions or property prices back home.

Both the above shift bigger numbers......

Your talking about national newspapers ! What's your point ?

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

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 .

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.