Mark Wintle
Well-known member
As someone who contributed 200 articles to Fishing Magic in the distant past, and has a vast collection of fishing books, magazines and newspapers, I have great regard for the written word. Encouragement from FM's Graham Marsden and others set me on the path to writing several books and contributing to others, plus getting a few articles published in the angling press.
Yet that same angling press is diminishing year on year, especially for the general coarse angler. Coarse Fisherman, Coarse Angling Today, Total Coarse Fishing and Anglers Mail have all bit the dust. Angling Times changed its article format a couple of years ago so that there's very little meat on the articles - typically just 200 to 250 words now, and I finally admitted defeat last year and stopped buying it.
About five years ago I finally stopped wondering what it would be like to video myself fishing and set up a camera (DSLR) to record a short session fishing for dace. A couple of years later I discovered some simple editing software (Movie Maker) and took my first step at editing it and put it on YouTube. I then decided there was a lot more scope in making video and have since made over 100 videos, moved on to much better gear including camcorders, microphones and a sophisticated editing package, and found some sort of following on Youtube.
Which brings me to my point: Grayson (better known as John) made the valid point that lots of YT coarse fishing videos are dull, have poor sound and horrendous music (why does just about every documentary and drama on TV have so much music?) yet there is no doubt that video content is winning over the written word for reasonably short pieces. The filters on quality that exist for publishers of the written word are absent on YouTube so it's a case of finding what you want to watch. In my case as a creator I strive to improve the visual and audio side of things, not always cheap, my part-time cameraman helps, as does my wife who reviews my final cut, and it's a long apprenticeship, occasionally boosted tips from by neighbour Hugh Miles. But it's clear that making a video can be much more time-consuming than writing a short article, accepting that articles generally need some decent photos.
So the question is whether the FM articles actually reach more than a minimal audience compared to popular YouTubers? And is the way forward vlogging?
Yet that same angling press is diminishing year on year, especially for the general coarse angler. Coarse Fisherman, Coarse Angling Today, Total Coarse Fishing and Anglers Mail have all bit the dust. Angling Times changed its article format a couple of years ago so that there's very little meat on the articles - typically just 200 to 250 words now, and I finally admitted defeat last year and stopped buying it.
About five years ago I finally stopped wondering what it would be like to video myself fishing and set up a camera (DSLR) to record a short session fishing for dace. A couple of years later I discovered some simple editing software (Movie Maker) and took my first step at editing it and put it on YouTube. I then decided there was a lot more scope in making video and have since made over 100 videos, moved on to much better gear including camcorders, microphones and a sophisticated editing package, and found some sort of following on Youtube.
Which brings me to my point: Grayson (better known as John) made the valid point that lots of YT coarse fishing videos are dull, have poor sound and horrendous music (why does just about every documentary and drama on TV have so much music?) yet there is no doubt that video content is winning over the written word for reasonably short pieces. The filters on quality that exist for publishers of the written word are absent on YouTube so it's a case of finding what you want to watch. In my case as a creator I strive to improve the visual and audio side of things, not always cheap, my part-time cameraman helps, as does my wife who reviews my final cut, and it's a long apprenticeship, occasionally boosted tips from by neighbour Hugh Miles. But it's clear that making a video can be much more time-consuming than writing a short article, accepting that articles generally need some decent photos.
So the question is whether the FM articles actually reach more than a minimal audience compared to popular YouTubers? And is the way forward vlogging?