Articles on Fishing Magic

[Badgerale]

A fee to use the forum would kill it. Even if I was willing to pay (I'm not), enough people wouldn't that the place would be dead. You get this sort of thing for free these days.

A fee to see the articles, again, I wouldn't. I've enjoyed reading a few but similar content is out there for free - and to be honest, there is only so much you can say about fishing before it gets repetitive. If they went behind a paywall it would just mean I skip them.

In this age, it's going to be hard to sell this sort of content.

 

[John Aston]

We live in a wild west world of free content , and copyright is missing presumed dead . Nobody is going to pay for a few blog posts on a website. Websites aren't like magazines , what few are left, as articles tend to be read in depth on the printed page , and can be far longer than is digestible on a website.

Some weeks I'd pay not to hear another grumpy old man , 'we've had enough of experts' rant by JB , and I can find plenty of free stuff on lure fishing on line , expert though Robbie Northman seems to be. Mr Coster's stuff is by far the most interesting (in spite of the fact that I don't tend to use his methods ) and he has the good grace - often lacking elsewhere - always to respond to reactions to his posts.

 

[john step]

I enjoy Dave Costers articles . Even if you dont fish his style there is plenty of advice which is adaptable .
I like the community of a forum and like others have said have met and fished with some of the anglers on here.
I find the written word and photos of a forum better than Youtube. Yes there is plenty of content and advice on Youtube and an awful lot of poor camera work . I often look at Youtube but prefer it here mostly.

I disagree strongly with comments about another place . I have enjoyed fishing with those bods also. They are on average younger than on here and proportionately more match orientated but not solely.

What that other place has but this place doesnt have is a political section.
This place has a creeping political scene against the rules which is putting some off from personal conversations I have had.
Perhaps if the forum was revamped and there was such a section on here and then kept out of all other threads might work. Enforced!
Things could be got off peoples chest without antagonising those who dont want to get involved .



I pay for the other place £10 per annum. It is not a lot. I would pay this small sum here as a per annum but not a monthly DD. Paypal? perhaps.
I think the 3 article contributor's have lifted the Forum. I dont know if the articles are wider advertised which might encourage more joiners?

 

[steve2]

I am also a member on other non fishing forums and none are paid for. Would I pay to post on here seeing that I now do very little fishing the answer would be no. My guess would be that few others would seeing that only few of us ever post on this branch of the forum.

 

[Badgerale]

The kind of content I would consider worth, potentially, paying for is something that goes beyond just a description of a man going fishing, embellished with vauge reflections and nostalgia

What I would really like to read is something that does real research and number crunching on subjects like how fishing is changing in terms of disciplines... what the state of our rivers is regarding pollution... the spread of species like carp, Zander and catfish...

Hard, factual, stuff, that angling journalism is very bad at. Not old man catches fish and tells story about something that happened in the 80s.

I appreciate that that kind of thing requires work, but if you want to be paid...

 

[markcw]

I have only recently viewed MD just to see what I was missing . I concluded it was not a lot. The bleatings of ex fm members , particularly those of very dubious authenticity , did not attract me one jot and the expression there of abhorrent views persuaded me to click off never to return.

Mike how do you know they are ex F M members, ?
There are members on here who are also on MD.
Both forums are totally different. It must be doing something right considering the amount of members it has,
Some good info regarding venues,bait ,tackle, comparison of rods ,reels ,poles is on there,
There seems to be a wider age range on there compared to on here,

 

[nottskev]

Mike how do you know they are ex F M members, ?

One way Mike might have noticed is that two with a lot to say about FM tag themselves as XFM in their user names.

 

[Mark Wintle]

The kind of content I would consider worth, potentially, paying for is something that goes beyond just a description of a man going fishing, embellished with vauge reflections and nostalgia

What I would really like to read is something that does real research and number crunching on subjects like how fishing is changing in terms of disciplines... what the state of our rivers is regarding pollution... the spread of species like carp, Zander and catfish...

Hard, factual, stuff, that angling journalism is very bad at. Not old man catches fish and tells story about something that happened in the 80s.

I appreciate that that kind of thing requires work, but if you want to be paid...

That's called 'writing a proper book'....

 

[no-one in particular]

I am thinking along the lines of not what we get although I understand that sentiment. This is more how much people put work into this site, how much it actually is I do not know and it also costs money, again I do not know what but we must understand this. What I am getting at is does someone deserve some financial reward for what they do and invest on our behalf or at the very least cover their costs and time. Personally I don't mind that as long as it is reasonable and fair. Whether it would work! The nub is, existing members may contribute but it would be a put off for new members, how many are just not going to bothered. I think some would still join but at at at a speculative guess 50% would not. Still, 50% paying is better than 100% not. I do not think the management of this site will get very far asking all our opinions, they should just decide one way or the other and take as calculated a gamble as they can if they want to
However, I cannot think why a better sponsor could not be found, nothing against Thomas Vintage but it doesn't work very well. That would go a dream on the traditional fishing site for example but not so much here. I would approach some big manufacturer or tackle trader.

 

[Philip]

We are now considering how we can continue to provide this content in the future.

Just to clarify, I'm not just talking about a fee to pay the writers, but more generally to cover the running costs of the site.

Kirsty's question appears aimed primarily at fund raising to help fund the site & keep the current content going rather than specifically how to improve the site. However the way I see it the two go hand in hand. If you improve the site you will attract more members and in turn become more appealing to would be sponsors.

Lets get one point out of the way straight away - a fee will kill the site stone dead.
There is too much content already out there which people don’t need to pay for. Maybe a few hard core members would pay a small fee to keep the forum / community aspect alive but I suspect it will be a small number and it wont last very long or make much difference to the sites income. The site will dwindle even further and die.

Second I am not sure the current content is actually making the site more attractive.
As Bad Generale suggested, I think encouraging people to submit articles will have an impact on the sites wider appeal. I suspect people will be as interested to read content from some of the very experienced anglers we have on the site as they are with the “name” anglers. Plus I think if there was incentive (even small) for people to contribute and to see their articles as headlines for a couple of days then that also acts as a catalyst for more people to join. Graham Marsden encouraged this back when he was editor ..it generated some great content and he would put their articles as the headline for a day or two on the site. It worked well and the site thrived.

In addtion, much as I like & respect all 3 of the principle article writers I think paying a fee for articles alone is not money well spent. Paying a fee for a more active role in the open forum I think would make a difference to the sites appeal. The best days of Fishingmagic was when we had Graham Marsden as Editor who actively contributed to the forum along with some of his friends and collegues. It was a far cry from what it is now. I think anyone who has been around from that era would agree.

Finally, as already said by others I would further limit what guests can see. Allowing a guest to see the majority of what a member can see makes no sense at all.

 

[Dave Coster]

A wide ranging set of replies, so thank you for that. From my perspective, I have striven to put together interesting and informative features since I was approached by FM to be a regular contributor. The aim was to make the website more interesting and pull more anglers into the forums. I am very grateful to those who like my stuff and sorry about those that don't. The main problem with other forums that have been mentioned is there is not much that is constructive on them. A good example was when I moved to Lincolnshire and wanted to check out the Grantham Canal. Don't bother was the reply from the Internet armchair "experts". In reality, I was pleasantly surprised to discover although tricky to fish due to weed problems, the venue provided me with some pretty amazing results, which I have since publicised to put the record straight. The same applies in trying to give more accurate information about all the different venues I fish. Angling is its own enemy in many ways. Fishing Clubs and commercial enterprises want a fee to fish their waters, but very few give you any useful information on their websites. Many don't even tell you what species to expect. I at least try to fill that gap and help anglers have a better chance of enjoying some success.

 

[no-one in particular]

Maybe it would be more interesting to ask who would pay and how much. I would pay £5-£10 yearly. That amount would not bother me and I do not think it would bother perspective new members too much. At least those that join will really want to. It would put of the "one question and disappear without a thanks" merchants. I would add a small monthly/yearly prize as well for best post, best article, professionals not included; they can get some remuneration from the subscriptions and it would not be fair to compete but, that might encourage a few articles. Cliff, the old editor used to get on at me to write articles, in fact I have a half started one still on my computer from his days, I have just never got round to re-starting it again, who knows, a pack of floats or something might just make me want to. And a big tackle/trade sponsor would interest a lot of anglers I would think. The subject/thread options has always needed up dating in my opinion as well, not a lot of junior/family orientated going on and some are hardly ever used, what's the point of them.

 

[steve2]

Maybe it would be more interesting to ask who would pay and how much. I would pay £5-£10 yearly. That amount would not bother me and I do not think it would bother perspective new members too much. At least those that join will really want to. It would put of the "one question and disappear without a thanks" merchants. I would add a small monthly/yearly prize as well for best post, best article, professionals not included; they can get some remuneration from the subscriptions and it would not be fair to compete but, that might encourage a few articles. Cliff, the old editor used to get on at me to write articles, in fact I have a half started one still on my computer from his days, I have just never got round to re-starting it again, who knows, a pack of floats or something might just make me want to. And a big tackle/trade sponsor would interest a lot of anglers I would think. The subject/thread options has always needed up dating in my opinion as well, not a lot of junior/family orientated going on and some are hardly ever used, what's the point of them.

I have said I would not remain a member on a pay to view site.

At £10 a year on the so-called 100000 memberships is a million pounds. That is a nice little earner for someone. May be the AT would like to get some of that.
There is an idea get the AT to sponsor the site and collect the money.

 

[no-one in particular]

The kind of content I would consider worth, potentially, paying for is something that goes beyond just a description of a man going fishing, embellished with vauge reflections and nostalgia

What I would really like to read is something that does real research and number crunching on subjects like how fishing is changing in terms of disciplines... what the state of our rivers is regarding pollution... the spread of species like carp, Zander and catfish...

Hard, factual, stuff, that angling journalism is very bad at. Not old man catches fish and tells story about something that happened in the 80s.

I appreciate that that kind of thing requires work, but if you want to be paid...

Interesting that as I have a take on it. I used to publish data oriented posts from a lot of data I collected on weather, temperatures etc.. It was straight off data from spread sheets. I even tried a monthly weather species prediction thread if I remember rightly, I even gave it its own website. It just never worked and hardly anyone was interested.

 

[markcw]

You say there is not much constructive on the other forum mentioned .
Is that based on the " Don't Bother" comment you received,?
There is a tackle review thread on there that gets regular contributors, same for venues, One thread going is the merits of the hardcase holdalls such as Guru and MAP, Cresta.there have been some good comments on it.That is just one of many on there.
Myself and lots of others have picked some good tips off there,
It has been mentioned about having a members article as headline for a few days , this is a good idea, and is already going on the other forum, it would give members an incentive to contribute more.
I read most of your articles if I think they are of use to me,
Maybe The site could reach out to say a commercial all round fishery to advertise or an up and coming bait manufacturer.
The angling clubs I am in or been in have been very informative on venues , one even has a small book on its venues detailing baits, rules, species and how to get there from club headquarters ,

 

[fishface1]

My tuppence worth….

Pretty much the same as the consensus.

I’ve dipped my toe in MD and in my opinion there is a larger proportion of knuckle dragging racists and match anglers (not that this is a correlation…) so it’s not for me.

This site has an (albeit) smaller group of generally more enlightened anglers and the forum content is more to my taste. The articles by Mr Coster and Northman are interesting and informative. The other contributor, not so much…..

However, there is so much free content available on the internet, IMO charging will only drive people away.

Some other way to monetise is required.
Although I don’t like advertising, and always have concerns over potential censorship, the fishing market is awash with money, so I’d have thought a suitable arrangement could be made to cover costs.

Having run a couple of small sites myself, I’d be interested in what these costs actually amount to and what they cover?

 

[markcw]

My tuppence worth….

Pretty much the same as the consensus.

I’ve dipped my toe in MD and in my opinion there is a larger proportion of knuckle dragging racists and match anglers (not that this is a correlation…) so it’s not for me.

This site has an (albeit) smaller group of generally more enlightened anglers and the forum content is more to my taste. The articles by Mr Coster and Northman are interesting and informative. The other contributor, not so much…..

However, there is so much free content available on the internet, IMO charging will only drive people away.

Some other way to monetise is required.
Although I don’t like advertising, and always have concerns over potential censorship, the fishing market is awash with money, so I’d have thought a suitable arrangement could be made to cover costs.

Having run a couple of small sites myself, I’d be interested in what these costs actually amount to and what they cover?

MD is more match orientated and pleasure fishing orientated.
,as for racists they don't last long as with any forum .
What do you mean by larger proportion ?
There are more on there than on here ?

 

[steve2]

Just been on the Fly Fishing part of this forum there no mention on there about paying to join on the news page.

 

[fishface1]

MD is more match orientated and pleasure fishing orientated.
,as for racists they don't last long as with any forum .
What do you mean by larger proportion ?
There are more on there than on here ?

Nothing scientific- just a feeling I got from reading a number of echo chamber threads re F1, Eastern European’s.

 

[steve2]

EE's antics have been spoken about on FM many times so no difference there then between FM and MD.