A COMMENT AND MY RESPONSE TO THIS BLOGGER VS. WRITER ISSUE...
SGB (a blogger who uses the call sign SERIOUS GUN BLOG) wrote the following in a comment to my observations about bloggers vs. gunwriters in my post about the SHOT SHOW, Part One:
"If new media is squeezed out by the NSSF they will suffer because of it. My guess is that some people who make money writing articles have their shirts in a wad because others are stealing their thunder.
One thing is certain - traditional media is dying. I follow the money in publishing because I'm a writer. At every turn I'm hearing the same thing over and over - 'We have to get online, we have to embrace new media.'
This response is from major publishing houses, magazines and newspapers. I've been in journalism for 30 years. The way forward is new media. Those who try to fight it are no different than those who tried to stop the switch from manual to automatic transmissions. Sure, you can buy a manual but most don't"
To which I replied in part (but I've expanded upon it here):
I don't see NSSF shutting anyone "out" after all they have been the leaders in granting bloggers 'Press Credentials', but it wouldn't surprise me to see different levels being applied to the press credentials that are issued in future years. (After all, NSSF is subject to pressure or Paul Barrett would not have had his press credentials pulled prior to the 2012 Shot Show?)
I'm old enough that whatever happens it's not going to affect me one way or the other economically and truth be told I've done more during my days of professional gunwriting than I ever dreamed I would. I've had a good run in terms of my professional writing career, but this issue of the New Media vs. Traditional does raise certain issues about the economics and professionalism of media distribution in our industry and elsewhere.
No one to my knowledge is making the kind of money (even without being adjusted for inflation) with the New Media that the first gun magazines and their publishers enjoyed back in the 1950's when they started.
George von Rosen started GUNS Magazine (the very FIRST gun magazine that wasn't published by the NRA) and he was a good friend of mine. The first issues of GUNS came from a collection of gun-oriented articles that were originally published in his men's magazine, MODERN MAN. The response was overwhelming and soon it became its own magazine. George told me one time that in the late 1950's those two magazines produced over $600,000 after tax profits in one year! (It should be noted that Hugh Hefner got his start in magazine publishing working for George at MODERN MAN.) George said the profits were so high he had trouble figuring out what to do with the money, so he bought a farm, a BIG farm, in northern Illinois. See how I came by this information and conversation?
Now unless I've missed something I DON'T see anything close to that with the New Media and gun blogging, but then I'm an old guy and I miss alot from falling asleep involuntarily and dribbling down my chin and so forth.
In fact, only those enjoying numbers in terms of 'hits' and 'views' that are virtually impossible in the gun market are seeing anything close to real MONEY with their usages of the New Media. Those numbers and income amounts still pale in comparison to that seen during the heyday of thick Madison Ave. 'slick' women's magazines. Even NEWSWEEK failed as print media, but it hasn't succeeded in the New Media either.
So the question really is, Will professional writing (in any form) be doomed by the 'volunterism' of the New Media and gun bloggers?
Because like it or not gun blogging has yet to find a way with ALL the technology available to be highly profitable.
The only way seen so far to earn income off a gun blog involves an old print media method -- advertising, and that raises suspicions among those who champion the gun blogs and the New Media as to their creditability. How can you keep those people if they feel advertising taints the product? And if it doesn't, how can those readers in good conscious condemn the traditional print media?
Well, other than the fact, they're getting the product for free, paying nothing in the process, so what does that say about the future of ANY professional writer? (It also raises questions, both culturally and economically about the future of Capitalism versus some form of "...ism" sponsored socialism and welfare expectation among those who prefer the New Media for this specific reason.)
To their credit the Quinn brothers are the only ones that, in my view, are making any decent income gun blogging with GUN BLAST, but they are actually doing it in the old fashion manner with that hated technique called "advertising". They're just doing it without killing any trees. (That were meant to be harvested, by the way, by some tree farmer who wants to make a profit selling them to the pulp mills, but that's beside the point.)
I close this with a personal question to SGB; You say you're a writer and by that statement I assume you mean 'professionally', so my question is HOW ARE YOU GOING TO PAY YOUR BILLS AS A 'WRITER' WITH THE NEW MEDIA???...
All The Best,
Frank W. James
PS: I also use 'automatic transmission' when I can, because although I prefer a manual gearbox, all the new heavy-duty automatic trannies handle high horsepower and high torque better and more efficiently than even the best manuals because of their computer controls.
"If new media is squeezed out by the NSSF they will suffer because of it. My guess is that some people who make money writing articles have their shirts in a wad because others are stealing their thunder.
One thing is certain - traditional media is dying. I follow the money in publishing because I'm a writer. At every turn I'm hearing the same thing over and over - 'We have to get online, we have to embrace new media.'
This response is from major publishing houses, magazines and newspapers. I've been in journalism for 30 years. The way forward is new media. Those who try to fight it are no different than those who tried to stop the switch from manual to automatic transmissions. Sure, you can buy a manual but most don't"
To which I replied in part (but I've expanded upon it here):
I don't see NSSF shutting anyone "out" after all they have been the leaders in granting bloggers 'Press Credentials', but it wouldn't surprise me to see different levels being applied to the press credentials that are issued in future years. (After all, NSSF is subject to pressure or Paul Barrett would not have had his press credentials pulled prior to the 2012 Shot Show?)
I'm old enough that whatever happens it's not going to affect me one way or the other economically and truth be told I've done more during my days of professional gunwriting than I ever dreamed I would. I've had a good run in terms of my professional writing career, but this issue of the New Media vs. Traditional does raise certain issues about the economics and professionalism of media distribution in our industry and elsewhere.
No one to my knowledge is making the kind of money (even without being adjusted for inflation) with the New Media that the first gun magazines and their publishers enjoyed back in the 1950's when they started.
George von Rosen started GUNS Magazine (the very FIRST gun magazine that wasn't published by the NRA) and he was a good friend of mine. The first issues of GUNS came from a collection of gun-oriented articles that were originally published in his men's magazine, MODERN MAN. The response was overwhelming and soon it became its own magazine. George told me one time that in the late 1950's those two magazines produced over $600,000 after tax profits in one year! (It should be noted that Hugh Hefner got his start in magazine publishing working for George at MODERN MAN.) George said the profits were so high he had trouble figuring out what to do with the money, so he bought a farm, a BIG farm, in northern Illinois. See how I came by this information and conversation?
Now unless I've missed something I DON'T see anything close to that with the New Media and gun blogging, but then I'm an old guy and I miss alot from falling asleep involuntarily and dribbling down my chin and so forth.
In fact, only those enjoying numbers in terms of 'hits' and 'views' that are virtually impossible in the gun market are seeing anything close to real MONEY with their usages of the New Media. Those numbers and income amounts still pale in comparison to that seen during the heyday of thick Madison Ave. 'slick' women's magazines. Even NEWSWEEK failed as print media, but it hasn't succeeded in the New Media either.
So the question really is, Will professional writing (in any form) be doomed by the 'volunterism' of the New Media and gun bloggers?
Because like it or not gun blogging has yet to find a way with ALL the technology available to be highly profitable.
The only way seen so far to earn income off a gun blog involves an old print media method -- advertising, and that raises suspicions among those who champion the gun blogs and the New Media as to their creditability. How can you keep those people if they feel advertising taints the product? And if it doesn't, how can those readers in good conscious condemn the traditional print media?
Well, other than the fact, they're getting the product for free, paying nothing in the process, so what does that say about the future of ANY professional writer? (It also raises questions, both culturally and economically about the future of Capitalism versus some form of "...ism" sponsored socialism and welfare expectation among those who prefer the New Media for this specific reason.)
To their credit the Quinn brothers are the only ones that, in my view, are making any decent income gun blogging with GUN BLAST, but they are actually doing it in the old fashion manner with that hated technique called "advertising". They're just doing it without killing any trees. (That were meant to be harvested, by the way, by some tree farmer who wants to make a profit selling them to the pulp mills, but that's beside the point.)
I close this with a personal question to SGB; You say you're a writer and by that statement I assume you mean 'professionally', so my question is HOW ARE YOU GOING TO PAY YOUR BILLS AS A 'WRITER' WITH THE NEW MEDIA???...
All The Best,
Frank W. James
PS: I also use 'automatic transmission' when I can, because although I prefer a manual gearbox, all the new heavy-duty automatic trannies handle high horsepower and high torque better and more efficiently than even the best manuals because of their computer controls.
Labels: Economics, Group Association, Gun Writing, Popular Media, SHOT SHOW REPORT, Writing As A Craft
16 Comments:
Frank,
I was told that newspapers expected advertising to pay for the content, and subscriptions and sales to pay for printing and distribution.
I wonder if the new media will be changing that formula.
For the first GUNS magazine, there was little competition. Before the internet there was mostly print media for responsive and general access to information, that is, still a constrained number of media sources, each providing a fair return for advertising dollars.
The new media, I think, follows a different formula. Advertising dollars online, for the most part, don't return good value.
Put up a web site with basic contact and product information? Better return than a yellow pages ad, if you are careful and sensible. (Flashy and expensive don't pay off as well as courteous and informative, generally.) This is a guess on my part -- I have put together several web sites for less than constrained-region phone book ads cost. Some have done well for the owners, others not so well.
Seth Godin on his blog contends that "new media" really means personal interaction with each follower or "tribe" member. You get permission to send product information and appropriate promotion material to a specific individual, you don't send anything that wasn't requested; no pushing or tie-ins, etc.
The result is that there is precious little advertising money being spent, because of the dismal returns, on new media. And print media is facing the same prospect, diminishing ability to provide value for advertising dollars they take in, with a few exceptions.
In general, I think the pool for paying writers is shrinking on all fronts, and moving to a different paradigm in the new media.
The NSSF question, then isn't about who gets paid more, or even who provides the best return for advertising revenues. The question is how to serve the people best, that have products to sell. I personally think the money to be made writing for new media is going to be more widely dispersed. Known names will be able to demand decent pay; new names will be able to write on spec. And the subscriptions will expand from print issues to smartphone apps.
And I think magazines will continue to find the marketplace less needful for them, as more people turn to indirect and direct sources for information online and on their smart phones.
Brad K: A number of points...
1) I'm told by many from all kinds of businesses, that well working websites are EXTREMELY labor intensive and some question their return on the dollars spent. (Businesses have to hire someone to maintain and police them.) I suppose it depends upon the product, service and the market whether web-sites per se are worth the time and money.
2) I'm not sure the issue depends completely upon the print media. What I'm seeing more and more of are people who started in the print media and they are moving to some form of television. (That I did was more from coercion and not by design.)
3) Print media has been marginalized. No questiona bout it but that's a kind of 'water is wet' statement. The electronic media includes that age old favorite but in a new format and that's television.
4) As far writing for the print media or even the New Media are you saying that writers will join poets and become starving artists in order to practice their craft? I've known some people who made big dollars during their gun writing careers. That is now history......unless they move to television and few here are commenting on that aspect of this dilemma, other than to say they don't watch these shows on television. (Which is a meaningless declaration because obviously MANY ARE.)
Thanks for your comment...
All The Best,
Frank W. James
I responded to your response via podcast and post. Thank you for the chance to discuss the issue. Like any good writer, you made me think.
Frank, excellent post and points... Unless somebody does something like the XXX sites and makes it pay per view, I really don't see any blogger/new media person making anything approaching a living off the net unless they are selling product or have HUGE numbers of hits and a ton of advertising on their site at a lot more than a penny a click. Just my .02 worth...
I know you're a good writer because I've read several of your books. I know this isn't a blogger vs writer issue but do you have an opinion of electronic publishing like Amazon does. I own both a Kindle and a Nook and willingly pay $3-$4 for an electronic book. I suspect the writer makes as much on an electronic book as he does on a "dead tree" one. A plus is that it never has to go out of print or languish on a clearance rack.
Anon 7:59: Funny you should mention E-books as I am presently in the process (slow that it is) of going about the process of publishing my novel "LIVE POOR, DIE RICH" as an E-book.
I have no absolutely NO expectation of significant renumeration, but I figure it needs to be published somewhere as opposed to laying on my office floor as it has been doing for the past year or so.
If I ever get the job done, I think I'm more curious about the process and the reaction as opposed to any actual 'sales'.
I've already decided it's only going to have a $2 or $3 price tag. I truly didn't write it to make money. I wrote it just to say I once wrote a novel, poor as it may be or in my case, just plain ridiculous...
All The Best,
Frank W. James
Frank,
A 'well working' web site is indeed expensive in effort and money. My experience is that a simple, static web site is a useful replacement for a yellow pages ad, and the cost need not be all that high to start, and much less expensive to maintain.
Trick the thing out, though, and I have to ask what the point is. A web site, like any ad or story, should have what is necessary to serve the viewer/reader/visitor -- and nothing else. A web site designed to entertain every visitor won't be as cost effective, usually, as a site intended to reduce the cost of keeping customers. I think there are too many entertaining designers, and not enough site owners willing to keep the techies in line, and focused on keeping it simple.
Put very little more information onto a web site than in your yellow pages ad, and the cost/return ratio should be quite satisfactory. From there, decide what information your visitors will use -- what you want them to know is much less likely to pay off for you. What the visitor *uses* is information, the rest is entertainment or distraction. Only information has a useful cost/benefit ratio.
Forty years ago, "television" essentially meant one of the three or four channel syndicates. Today cable has splintered "television" into thousands of niches. The diversity makes entry into TV niches achievable for many. So, yes, niche publications, and the advertising dollars that fuel them, are turning to lucrative opportunities in venues like radio and TV that appear to be reliable standards. But the massive guaranteed audience of forty years ago is now a niche crowd, with much smaller audiences and less return for advertisers.
All I mean about the writers is that the known names will still be able to earn a living, and the new kids will still be scrambling for a by-line. But I think the total pool of pay has stopped expanding, while the opportunities for the new kids are growing and niches for the established names aren't growing.
I suspect everyone believes they will pull a 'Rachel Ray", who took a slot on the cooking channel and won a major network slot, her own magazine and product lines. I wish everyone that hopes for that, the best of luck.
For all I know, one of the big networks is planning to dust off Walter Brennan's "The Real McCoys" TV program, and are grooming an Indiana farmer and writer for the lead role as "Grandpa Amos". It could happen! Or a situation comedy that pits an Indiana farmer, tilling corn and beans for export on the dark side of the moon, against an uncaring colony leader that always caters to the big money.
Anyway, thank you.
Brad K: I've talked about this with other writers at my experience level and their consensus is the same as mine; If I were starting out today as opposed to the early to mid 1980's when I did....IT WOULDN'T HAPPEN!
The opportunities, the titles and simply the money aren't there.
Anyone, regardless of experience level, starting out as a professional writer in the outdoor field faces far higher hurdles today than I did when I started and a good part of that is because print media has now been marginalized.
It's still possible, but the chances of success are far fewer and the pay is far less, even then.
Amazing how these things work. I walked through a 'window' that is now virtually closed and seriously there is NO New Media alternative that pays as well as what I did.
Some may say 'Good Riddance', but I don't see how the present New Media 'volunterism' is going to produce the Great Writers we saw in the past, like Cooper, Keith, Askins and Skelton.
For you see I'm a Capitalist and I believe in being well paid when you do good work...
All The Best,
Frank W. James
Before the internet we went to the magazines for product information and comparisons and the authors opinion of the product.
Company websites take care of the first and you can go to message boards and get all the opinions you want.
Now what happens is that a company can't censor the message board because the opinions come in fast and not from any one that has their living on the line.If posts disappear everyone knows what happened.
A really smart company puts more money into product quality and not advertising because the consumer is no longer isolated and dependent on print.
So the real question is"what is the purpose of product journalism?" today.
While everyone is trying to decide if the bloggers will replace the print journalists the real question is do either have a purpose.
I personally think that there is a future and the ones that will survive are those that figure out what their audience want and their employer need.
Glenn
Glenn: Capitalism can not exist without advertising...
All The Best,
Frank W. James
Frank,
I think one of the things that has to happen is that all TV channels have to be available on the web. Right now, the big name outdoor sports channels require a premium monthly payment to the cable companies to access. In some cases, it isn't even an option that's available.
In essence, you have two tiers of cost now to watch tv. Access charges, plus the advertisements in the shows. That expensive monthly charge means I don't even have the option of checking the program out.
When cable tv stand alone systems go away, and it becomes simply web access, then program advertizing will make sense.
Will: What you say is true, but that is also part of this 'New' media problem.
Everything is so fractionalized now that no one really understands the best course of action. What I'm seeing is money movement toward cable/satalite television when everyone says the interweb/facebook/special apps for smart phones is the way to go, but I honestly wonder if that isn't an AGE relative thing?
For instance, I tried a 'droid' this fall and it was a fucking disaster. Does that mean its bad technology? Of course not, but I'm not going back to it.
I get both the Outdoor Channel and the Sportsman Channel on my Direct TV sat service, does that mean everyone else does as well? Of course not. Nor does it mean everyone else is willing to pay extra for those services.
And I think that's the problem many manufacturers/marketers are facing when they are trying to figure out where to put their advertising dollars, because in point of fact CAPITALISM can't operate efficiently without advertising.
Its just a question of who is going to get it and where it is going to have the biggest impact?
A big problem I see with the interweb is this suspicion that advertising taints the review, if that view becomes dominant then we are headed towards a communist or socialist society whether anyone agrees with me or not...
All The Best,
Frank W. James
Two names.....Oleg Volk and Cornered Cat.....both used the "new media" to achieve notariety and influence long before becoming commercial successes. Bloggers should be judged by the amount of influence they have on the discussion....whether by hits on their sites or by cross-linking on other sites. The commercial success comes later (sort of "paying your dues").
Gun Culture 2.0 didn't come about like the previous generation....and it won't respond to the old way of doing things.....
Frank,
Costco,Ben and Jerrys',Body Shop,Ferrari,Lulu Lemon are all companies that do not advertise in the conventional sense.They rely on word of mouth and products that deliver.Word of mouth is the best advertising you can get and the internet provides access to the personal opinion of users in a way that is unprecedented.
The suspicion that advertising taints the review has some basis in fact as you have mentioned at least 2 instances when advertising dollars have influenced a situation.
In the old days a show like "Top Gear" could not have done the reviews that they do now.What's changed?
The manufacturers know that they can't restrict information about the quality of their product.They gain trust by not trying and they gain credit by responding to criticism quickly.
Sorry about the rambling posts.Dealing with a concussion.
Glenn
Frank,
I just noticed a Wired.com article on "the golden age of television", and noticed the *thousands* fewer new TV shows now than a decade ago.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/01/how-to-search-for-the-golden-age-of-television
I suspect this has an impact on cost to start a show, and ability to generate revenue for advertisers.
I cannot remember the last time I bought something to read at retail.
Information, amusement, and news come free from the web, or from used paper books at 10% the price of new ones.
Part of the "problem" is that writing is something a lot of skilled, talented people will do for free, for the joy of it.
Writer for money is like artist or gigolo- a nice ambition, but have a plan b.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home