Are golf magazines still relevant ?

[Crow]

I've been reading a few magazines from the 60s and 70s (surprise, surprise) and can confirm that much that's talked about now was talked about then, but I do find the earlier articles more thoughtful and there's definitely less product focus, no best driver or best putter, in fact hardly a club review to be seen.

As an example; included in the Golf Monthly, February 1971 contents list:
Correspondence
Talking Golf
The putting tip that helped me to win
My first scores were 109 and 100
Odds are against Jacklin repeat
Two aids to correct line up
The other side of the (Dollar) coin
Looking back 50 years
The correct grip
The Doug Sanders story
How Trevino keeps on the shot
Decisions on the rules
The uniform ball (R&A statement)

There's an interesting letter in the correspondence page headed "Same Length Shafts" which says A good 5 years ago a firm brought out a set of irons with the numbers 3, 4 and 5 all the same length. These clubs never really took, as the complaint was loss of distance on the longer irons, that is the 3 & 4; all three had 5 iron standard lengths. Unfortunately it doesn't say who made the clubs.

The uniform ball follows the debates around the 1.62" and the 1.68" diameter ball, and discusses a proposed 1.66" ball...
GM editorial comment believes that the 1.68" ball is not the ball for the ordinary golfer in the weather conditions so frequently experienced in Britain. (Also mentioned is the importance of limiting the distance of travel of the golf ball.....)

 

[Imurg]

They'll be relevant for as long as enough people buy them

 

[Parsaregood]

They'll be relevant for as long as enough people buy them

I can't see them in shops 20 years from now, i think the people that still read paper magazines are generally older and do it out of habit. As the people grow older and there become less of them there just won't be the need for them

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

Do magazines offer value for money ?

Yes

 

[abjectplop]

I get Bunkered (Scottish Golf Mag) but only for the three free rounds each year. Some months I don't even take the mag out of the polythene wrapper it arrives in!!

 

[Jacko_G]

I agree with this but would you pay a subscription for the online content, i personally wouldnt

Not a chance. Why would I when I can find what I need for free? I can choose what to read, ignore "writers" or columnists that I don't like or dislike their writing style.

I can access a vast knowledge and unbiased manufacturer lead reviews elsewhere. I can basically get a far better service for the price of my broadband.

 

[PJ87]

I have GM on subcription due to the free 2 dozen ball offer

I have read about 2 of them
90% adverts
Yawn

 

[IanM]

It’s not the content, it’s the medium.

I’ve got a great Canon EOS camera that hasn’t been out of the cupboard in over 10 years. It’s been by passed by technology. Not digital, not used.

Mags are the same. I’m reading this on a tablet... as are most. People will pay for certain content, others they expect for free. That’s the editorial challenge

 

[3offTheTee]

It would be very interesting to hear the views of Mike H or Jez regarding this post.

 

[Parsaregood]

Yes

How do you come to this conclusion, they don't offer anything that isn't widely available online. I think they once had a valuable place but nowadays with forums, YouTube and the like, they just seem a bit pointless

 

[DCB]

Well I still have a subscription and enjoy reading the new mag every month.

 

[Jamesbrown]

I get TG delivered. I save them up for a job that pops up at work and I have nothing but press a button every 45 minutes.

 

[chimpo1]

I subscribe to two magazines digitally, it’s cheap and easy. Both are the US versions though. I find the UK content very repetitive and without any decent interviews.

 

[robinthehood]

Be interesting to know what the average reader age is . I doubt they attract many younger readers

 

[Grant85]

How many people still buy or subscribe to golf magazines ? Do they still have a place ? With soo much information freely available online, player interviews etc, i can't help but think the time may soon come when we will see the end of golf publications in newsagents etc, i suppose it's a similar story for newspapers. I can't tell you when I last bought a physical copy of either

Personally think anyone whose business model is simply to sell pieces of paper and generate revenue from sales and print advertising is completely flawed these days.

Online has to be the way to go and it would be interesting to know if many publications still break even with their print runs, or need the online revenue to make it worthwhile. The costs must be huge in comparison to simply self publishing on your website or app.

A culture has developed that if it's online, it's free and I can just click on it. That's fine if you want to read the trashy clickbait in the Daily Mail, but for good quality content, there should be a fair price point that people will pay for. Of course the publication & distribution costs for a paper product are huge and so there is an opportunity to lower the price and attract a wider audience.

I recently subscribed to the New York Times. £1 per week for unlimited access to all articles. Clearly if I was buying the paper product, it would be more expensive and I wouldn't get it as quickly.

The challenge is not to simply recreate your print offering, but use the technology available to create a better product.

Print media is not dissimilar to 'normal tele' in terms of becoming redundant and creating programmes for mass appeal. I cringed last night, on BBC was Strictly, it takes two. They went to a 5 minute section with the hair and make-up team and did a 'tutorial' for a 1950s look.
Not dissimilar in theory to Sky sports doing the 'masterclass' feature on their golf broadcasts.

This sort of thing has long since become common place online and 'YouTubers' have become extremely skilled broadcasters. Ok, so there can be a lot of 'noise' to sift through, but there's a lot of very engaging content to get your teeth into. The beauty of a YouTube tutorial, be it golf, beauty, crafts, software etc is that they can spend 30 or 40 minutes doing a genuine tutorial and going into sufficient detail to actually teach you something. On a TV segment, they are not going to spend more than 5 minutes on something like this because they are trying to appeal to a wide audience.

Other dynamic is ad revenue. Clearly the online market now has a huge slice of this that previously would have been directed to traditional print and broadcast media. The beauty of an online campaign is that it is far easier to direct your ads to a particular audience. While you can make assessments about the demographics and characteristics of a readership, this information will not be as good or up to date as the kind of thing Youtube can tell their advertisers, or the feedback and stats podcast users will be able to access on who has listened to their show.

The big problem traditional media has is that they were, up until 10 to 15 years ago, successful, profitable businesses and maybe some of them can still squeak out a profit from a slick operation, some good cost cutting and a loyal readership and a wee bit of online revenue thrown in. But of course in business, genuinely if you wait until you have to change, then it's too late.

 

[Trapdraw]

The golfers journal 👌👌

 

[backwoodsman]

I'm intrigued by the concept expressed by some, that if it is "on paper" it is trashy & repetive, but if it is online it is not. There is only so much one can say about golf, and pretty much all of it has been said already, whatever medium is being used. But that wont stop us continuing to say it. It's not the medium that defines relevance.

Personally, yes i think magazines are still worthwhile. I get most of my golf info online these days, but still enjoy GM dropping through the letterbox once a month. In the same way that although most of the books l read are e-books, it still nice to have a "real" one from time to time.

And, of course, the defining factor in the continued need for magazines - you can't sort out a wobbly table by shoving e-content under one of its legs.

 

[User2021]

I subscribe to three golf magazines
Still prefer a physical copy as opposed to a digital version.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

How do you come to this conclusion, they don't offer anything that isn't widely available online. I think they once had a valuable place but nowadays with forums, YouTube and the like, they just seem a bit pointless

What happens if you are in a place with no or poor access to the Internet - plenty of people in the country still get papers and magazines, just look on the train and see how many are still reading a paper or a mag. They are still relevant and will continue to be so

 

[patricks148]

i think they would be given the right content. when i started playing i got TG, but as i improved and started getting GM, i found the difference in the publications night and day. but i think GM has gotten more and more like TG over the last couple of years so the reason i started getting has disappeared, so now don't bother.

As for magazines, i still do buy a guitar mag and a history publication. Newpapers i do pick up time to time maybe once a week, but we get them free at work, but if i had to pay i wouldn't bother. I think its the same for print in all titles these days its only advertising that keep them going IMO