Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

T&FN Critique

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • T&FN Critique

    Found myself enjoying the September issue of T&FN more than usual especially the interview of Gay, the 200M discussion and the piece on the high schooler Wynn. Don't want to bring up what may be an old thread but isn't it time for T&FN to back away from excessive coverage of old meets? With the internet providing all the info one could want on major meets, shouldn't emphasis change to:

    1. interviews of top performers
    2. in depth analysis (like the 200M in Sept only more detailed)
    3. analysis of coaching styles and techniques
    4. analysis of runners' styles and techniques
    5. analysis of workout regimes if anyone will make public
    6. historical comparisons
    7. any number of things discussed on this site

    There are many more things of interest other than old results. Or at least cover old meets in a more in depth inciteful manner. I subscribe to the magazine as a way to support track & field and this web site (and the photos are quite good also). Would prefer to to support the magazine on its own merits. Agree or disagree?

  • #2
    I know that you (you plural) may find it hard to believe, but the large percentage of our still-significant subscribership evidences no interest in following the sport on the internet. Indeed, we get nothing but ongoing complaints that we don't publish nearly enough meet results, lists, or ancient meet stories.

    It would be suicide for us to turn outa product that alienated the largest part of our subscriber base. Particularly since there are (sob) very few encouraging signs that there are enough people out there willing to BUY (what a concept) a magazine like you describe.

    Don't think this hasnt' been the overwhelmingly dominant theme of every annual meeting we've had for almost a decade.

    Comment


    • #3
      We already have Runners World for most of that stuff Lag. I love looking at results and pics, even for meets i have already watched.
      phsstt!

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by gh
        I know that you (you plural) may find it hard to believe, but the large percentage of our still-significant subscribership evidences no interest in following the sport on the internet.
        I don't really believe that, and if it were true, you guys are in big trouble, because that would mean your readership is older than me!! In my 37 years as a subscriber, I don't ever remember a reader survey being conducted. But . . . be that as it may, one of T&FN's greatest strength is its niche as THE archive of all things T&F. There is no permanance, in a tangible sense, to the internet - results, interviews, articles are all available, but try finding them again even a year after the fact and you run into trouble. Speaking as an EXPERT READER (whether or not anyone wants to buy that credential) of the magazine, I say that REAL fans of the sports 'need' it as much as they need that live webcasts, and detailed up-to-the-minute results. I am not being an old fuddy-duddy by saying that real fans need to hold the sport in their hands and 'savor' it. Look at all the sports magazines that still flourish. People want and need them. T&FN is the ONLY magazine that serves this purpose for the REAL fan.

        The internet has become an indispensible ADDENDUM to the print media, but we need both . . . still. Perhaps that will change in the next 50 years. I appreciate eTN also for its ability to archive ALL the important 'facts' of our sport.

        In short, the magazine, while continuing to evolve (albeit slowly), does what it's supposed to do - encapsulate the sport, take a snapshot of it at a certain moment in time. I'll keep subscribing for a while . . .

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by tafnut
          Originally posted by gh
          I know that you (you plural) may find it hard to believe, but the large percentage of our still-significant subscribership evidences no interest in following the sport on the internet.
          I don't really believe that,....
          Doesn't make it any less true :-(

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by gh
            Originally posted by tafnut
            Originally posted by gh
            I know that you (you plural) may find it hard to believe, but the large percentage of our still-significant subscribership evidences no interest in following the sport on the internet.
            I don't really believe that,....
            Doesn't make it any less true :-(
            At the last trials I tried to talk some old friends, themselves old track nuts and TFN subscribers to check out the Internet version as well as the message board. They showed no interest.

            BTW GH, I just read your September monthly column and agree with pretty much all of it. One thing woke me up, though. You said that the athletic quality of WC exceeds that of the OG's. On par, perhaps, but exceed?
            "A beautiful theory killed by an ugly fact."
            by Thomas Henry Huxley

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Pego
              Originally posted by gh
              Originally posted by tafnut
              Originally posted by gh
              I know that you (you plural) may find it hard to believe, but the large percentage of our still-significant subscribership evidences no interest in following the sport on the internet.
              I don't really believe that,....
              Doesn't make it any less true :-(
              At the last trials I tried to talk some old friends, themselves old track nuts and TFN subscribers to check out the Internet version as well as the message board. They showed no interest.
              My Dad flat out will not touch a computer, much less the Internet.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Pego
                On par, perhaps, but exceed?
                Definitely exceed if you count ALL the entrants

                Originally posted by bad hammy
                My Dad flat out will not touch a computer, much less the Internet.
                And right there lies the problem for TFN, as tafnut pointed out. That means that most subscribers are in the higher age group. Once the're gone, then what?

                Comment


                • #9
                  I suppose thte key question is whether there are younger people who are in the category gh describes--people who prefer following the sport through the magazine (and presumably newspapers and other print media). If not--if all such people are the age of bad hammy's father--the future looks bleak, as Daisy suggests.

                  I'd like to believe there will always be a role for T&FN and that there will, at least in the foreseeable future, be enough people who want to read it--whether or not they are also interested in following the sport on the Internet--that the magazine will continue to be sustainable.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by tandfman
                    If not--if all such people are the age of bad hammy's father--the future looks bleak, as Daisy suggests.
                    I fear, it is hard to imagine young people in the catgory that gh describes. Unless you count young as 40. :shock:

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Daisy
                      Originally posted by tandfman
                      If not--if all such people are the age of bad hammy's father--the future looks bleak, as Daisy suggests.
                      I fear, it is hard to imagine young people in the catgory that gh describes. Unless you count young as 40. :shock:
                      One small point I failed to mention is that my Dad is not a T&FN subscriber ( :lol: )- he couldn't care less about T&F either. But the point is that he is old enough to feel this way about the Internet (and he is not the only one that age I've seen who feels that way).

                      That said, I'd be surprised to find much of anyone under 60 who is a T&F fan and does not use the Internet to keep up with what is going on T&F-wise. We all know that depending on any daily media for this coverage is worthless, and there is no reason to wait for a monthly (or even weekly - AW) update. This does not mean that T&F periodicals have no place - they do, and (warning - suck-up comment ahead) T&FN does a great job at what it does - and that includes the magazine, these forums, the main page and the eTNs. As a package they are my primary source of daily updates for all things T&F. If it was just the magazine, I'd still be a subscriber but T&FN would no longer be my primary media source of things T&F.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Just a suggestion - tafnut may want to steer clear of this thread :lol:
                        There are no strings on me

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Daisy
                          I fear, it is hard to imagine young people in the catgory that gh describes. Unless you count young as 40. :shock:
                          I do. ops: ops:

                          And when we all move to the T&F News old folks home (please don't take away my hope for that-I don't wanna go where they stick a tambourine in my hand and make me sing Bicycle built forTtwo! :roll: :roll: ) we can all share one sub amongst us. 8)
                          At least those who can still read and know how to turn the pages.

                          Obviously putting out magzine is not easy in this day and age but the perks with the job are mighty good. 8)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by guru
                            Just a suggestion - tafnut may want to steer clear of this thread :lol:
                            Too late, bucko. Look at 16:52 post (extensive)!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by tafnut
                              Originally posted by guru
                              Just a suggestion - tafnut may want to steer clear of this thread :lol:
                              Too late, bucko. Look at 16:52 post (extensive)!

                              I know, I meant from now on lol.
                              There are no strings on me

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X