Gordon - thanks for your feedback - as ever, you put it very well and I'm sure you won't mind me responding likewise...
Dave, this is far too long for me to adequately respond to at Christmas time and I think some of your remarks are a bit personal and inflammatory. I’ll just comment on some of your points.
Dave Grennan said Astronomy and Space is an "excellent" magazine. I disagreed. You disagreed with my disagreement. In my opinion, it is not an "excellent" magazine. Its a 'not bad' magazine, but 'excellent' is not a word I would use.
Dave Grennan thinks it’s an excellent magazine, I think it’s a good magazine considering the resources, you think it’s not a bad magazine. These are subjective viewpoints based on interest in the content and what the reader gets out of it, so I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
I used the words 'poor quality' but then qualified it by adding 'for the price'. And I maintain that - here's why.
You take issue with comparing the various magazines - but I disagree. Fom a quality point of view, similar products of similar price are comparable - I can't see it any other way. If you would like to elaborate more fully, I'd be happy to listen.
Only if the resources are the same and they patently are not as I pointed out in my previous message. Smaller production runs incur far heavier expenses; therefore the per capita price goes up. Larger magazines can also offset advertising revenue against production costs and issue price.
I am talking about value-for-money here - so a comparison, I believe, is neither silly nor unreasonable.
And if A&S is a club magazine (like Arcturus) then it should charge 'club' prices.
Why do you think A & S is like Arcturus? It’s not at all – A & S is a club magazine for AI members, but it is put together by a professional graphic designer, sent to a printing house and also sold commercially; the other is a computer file which the user prints out himself. They’re like chalk and cheese. And, as Shane pointed out, Arcturus exists due to John Flannery’s generosity in time and effort (and contributors like Shane himself).
As I said in my post, I have only gotten two or three genuinely unique articles in 12 issues of A&S.
In my opinion you are being disingenuous here. See your own comments further down.
So, why not produce A&S electronically and remove those costs? A charge can still be recouped via the A&S subscription. Or, go for black and white or go for non-glossy. Simply reduce the costs to a level that is equitable with the volume and quality of the magazine.
I’ve got absolutely nothing to do with A & S magazine except as an occasional contributor but I should think that would be a very bad marketing decision. You have to be glossy colour to compete on the shelves with other glossy colour magazines. On the question of an electronic magazine, that automatically precludes newsagency stands both here and in the UK. Why would A & S disenfranchise all the people who buy the magazine in this fashion? Not only that, A & S would be totally dependent on every member not only having a computer, but also Internet access and for a 48-page colour magazine, broadband for reasonable download times. On a general basis, Internet magazines are not all that successful. Personally, if I download an Internet magazine, I don’t want to be at the computer reading it; I want to print it out and read it at my leisure. Few people are going to download and print 48 colour pages every month. The cost in colour reprodcution paper and ink would be prohibitive.
I'm sorry if you felt that I was moaning but let's take a look at what you say. 3 Euro a month - cheap indeed. Discretionary? Only if you buy it off the stand and then its 50% dearer. I pay 40 Euro a year to be a member of Astronomy Ireland. As a service, the magazine is thrown in - that is not discretionary. As for 'moaning', if customers didn't 'moan', people selling stuff would never improve their products and would continually charge more and more for less and less....
I often buy magazines (predominantly computer or digital photography) just for a cover disk or even one or two interesting articles and they often cost 10 euro or more. Paid 8.60 for one today just to get the cover disk. I still consider it money well spent so personally I just don’t get too excited or worked up about 3 euro. Joining AI is discretionary just as is buying the magazine off the newsagency shelf. If you wish to offer constructive comments on the content of A & S, you should write to the editor.
Let's get onto ads. So, January A&S - 48 pages and five of adverts. That's 10.5% adverts. Sky and Telescope (December) 168 pages, my estimate of 65 pages of ads is about 40% ads.
65 pages! Didn’t realise I was paying for so many ads when buying S & T. Not only that, the advertisers are paying S & T handsomely as well! Profitable business to be in!
On the ads themselves - the ads in S&T are ads I want to read.
Perhaps, but it’s usually the same 65 pages of ads every month with only occasional changes. Same for most magazines.
Of course, if you get Arcturus, you pay precisely, er, nothing.
We've already covered this - the genorisity of JF et al.
Unique articles - yes A&S has them - of course it does. But wholly unique content? Let's see, Jan issue we have William Rowan Hamilton - a piece I thoroughly enjoyed. Human Orrery at Armagh - nice piece.
Now! There’re two of your three unique articles in one issue, both of local interest to Irish readers! Now we only have to find the third. Can my article on the Great Clusters of Taurus count? I can assure you it is unique – observations, text, maps and research by ‘moi’. I haven’t shamefully recycled it from previous issues as you accuse Denton Walter of doing (see below). Three articles already and we still have 11 issues to find some more! Wholly unique? The articles are either unique or they’re not. Just look up a dictionary for the definition of unique. There is absolutely no need to try and add your own embellishment to this term.
Everything you always wanted to know about astronomy but were afraid to ask. Hmm. Where have I seen this before? Wasn't this a series of some antiquity? 2003 perhaps? Oh, and it starts at the letter C - don't recall the letter B being in the December issue... Will the letter D be in the February edition? Blatantly recycled from PREVIOUS editions of A&S - shameful in my opinion - we have already paid once for this, now we're paying again.
I think you should withdraw that statement unless you can produce conclusive evidence to substantiate it. Denton Walter has been mixing these definitions with his constellation and other general articles for the past couple of years but I don’t believe he has recycled any content whatsoever and a quick thumb through the issues confirms this. I’ll pass your comments on to him. Like me, he takes his reputation very seriously and I suspect Bart Busschots (as IFAS webmaster) will be on the receiving end of some very stinging remarks.
Let's carry on - Observers log - ah yes that's unique. Wait a sec, who is this Dave McDonald who gets 3 column inches? Oh, that's me! Ah, I get it, write a mag, charge a membership and do you know what, we'll have the mugs that are PAYING for it write in and contribute 10% of the content!
Did someone send this in without your knowledge or did you actually submit it yourself hoping to have it published?
Deep Sky Challenge - very nice piece - I like these articles. Oooh Gordon, you naughty boy - YOU wrote that! Shame it ends with an ad for, guess what, A&S magazine!!!! At least subscription isn't by premium phone line, you can just post it in.
Now here's where I really get annoyed! “Oooh Gordon, you naughty boyâ€! Where do you think you are, primary school? Of course I wrote it. That’s why my name is credited. And what are you trying to imply - that I personally added the A & S notice to the end of my article or that there is something shameful about my article because the graphic designer chose to insert it there? As I said, I protect my reputation so you will need to clarify your remarks.
(Diversion - I actually like ALL of your pieces Gordon - you write extremely well and I would consider your articles the better written pieces because they are hands on and useful - and I'm not just saying this because I'm giving out - you should write for Astronomy Now in my genuine opinion)
You'll need to clarify your comments above before I thank you for these remarks.
Turn the page - oooh - lovely pictures. What? Provided by the readers? All 3 pages?
I wonder where the other astronomy magazines get their readers pictures from? Could it be their…. readers? Yes, I do believe it is! Personally, I like seeing these. Keith Geary, a member here, is a fine photographer and seems to get one in most months.
By all means use my Dear Diary piece posted on this site - which is free to all.
Why would I? All my work is original and I don’t require anything you write.
Gordon
