Hi All
I've been reading this thread and have a few things to say.
B&W has never claimed it is an entirely analogue title. When it first launched, perhaps, as no other methods were really available, but a lot of the readers now use digital (a lot of the reader gallery are digital or analogue/digital) and the magazine doesn't want to exclude them. I'm sorry to hear that you feel there perhaps isn't enough analogue content, or the content it does have is too simple, but B&W has to try and cater for a lot of people, and try and attract new readers at the same time. People just getting into photography, as sad as it is, opt for digital equipment. B&W wants to encourage people to try B&W photography in all sorts of media.
As for advertisements, B&W actually has one of the lowest ratios of ads to editorial content and as everyone knows, the magazine needs advertisers to stay afloat. There simply aren't enough analogue suppliers to fill the whole magazine, so it needs ads from canon/nikon etc to generate revenue.
Also if you have any ideas for the mag, send them in. The editor doesn't post here, and will never do so, and is a busy woman so doesn't have time to look through internet forums! The mag is always interested in receiving pictures and ideas!
If you want the letters page back - send in some letters! Did you ever think that perhaps the editor hasn't received enough interesting letters lately? The letters page is free for us, and people enjoy it, so there's no other reason why it would get taken out!
Oh by the way, it's Alice, editorial assistant here. I may well have spoken to some of you. I'm on here taking on board what people say because your opinion really does matter. I'd just like to say that please don't give up hope just yet. Liz is passionate about analogue so don't think for a minute that she loves 'digi snaps' or whatever someone said (I'm laughing reading that!).
It takes a while to make these sorts of changes.
The next issue will hopefully be enjoyable to you.
Also, the B&W photographer of the year is back with loads of great prizes. I hope a lot of you enter.
Oh, and if you do send in images, please be patient to wait for a reply. Please take note that we do try and view all submissions as quickly as possible.
Alice, your words here are good enough for me. I will cross that unholy threshold, enter a Barnes/Borders bookstore--around here they are the Walmart/Starbucks of bookstores--and pick-up a copy of B&W UK.
I have a suggestion, put all the ads in a single section at the back of the magazine.
... with perforations all the way down the spine edge... .
Seriously, good luck with the changes. The trick of attracting new readers without alienating too many of the existing ones is a very... umm... tricky one...
Thanks for posting, Alice. I have a project I finished a while ago and just need to spend a bit of time in the darkroom, and print some photos for the Readers' Gallery, so will try to get a move on.
I have a suggestion, put all the ads in a single section at the back of the magazine.
Good call. Why not go one step further and put all those silly ads in a completely different magazine. Obviously all those Ad bookers would be too stupid to pick on this.
Good call. Why not go one step further and put all those silly ads in a completely different magazine. Obviously all those Ad bookers would be too stupid to pick on this.
If you're willing to pay about £100 an issue, then we could lose the ads!
Good call. Why not go one step further and put all those silly ads in a completely different magazine. Obviously all those Ad bookers would be too stupid to pick on this.
Tongue in cheek or damned cheek Mark?! Some of those stupid Ad bookers even read APUG forums!! I can't see much to complain about with BW but perhaps some contributors to the forum haven't actually looked at DigiAmPhotoPracticalAnswers magazines recently - they're usually on the shelves next to porn where they deserve to be, in an orgy of nasty digi ads. Yeuch!
Keep up the good work at BW: Girl Power!!
I am sure it was tongue in cheek, Mark. Simple magazine economics says it has to be unless you're a millionaire and can pay a £100 per copy. If you are please stand surety for the mag or better still buy it.
I have no problem with ads, very useful they can be at times, but Andy's idea of putting them all at the back is sensible. AP does that and doesn't do it simply to please those readers who would prefer there weren't any. It does it for good sound business reasons.
Quite frankly if you need to look at or like looking at ads then having them all together is useful. If you don't like ads or even if you do then having them interspersed with articles is a distraction.
No probs with digi stuff either provided we get our fair share of analogue stuff. It was signs of the "thin edge of the wedge" that was worrying me and I suspect a few others
.
Linear Mode
