Afternoon all
As ever it's good to get feedback - be it good or bad! - On what we're doing in the mag and online so thanks for your comments on the GPS thread and also on DCB’s thread about the revamped April issue.
The team and I put lot of stock in your views and I hope when you see the April issue you’ll see we have incorporated a number of the suggestions you made when I asked for ideas last year.
GPS debate....
I thought I'd answer a few of the points/queries in this thread. I couldn't do this yesterday as was otherwise engaged playing very very badly in a golf day (one par in the first 12 hole is not the stuff of a supposed 8 handicapper!).
* Definitive “Best on Testâ€
Those who have read the new April issue will have noticed we have discontinued the Tested feature. We have done this because the recent massive advances in club technology/options and custom-fitting means we feel we can no longer accurately say driver A is better than driver B, C or D.
Even on GPS or electric trolleys or suchlike we don't believe we can give a definitive answer because of massive variables like your individual budget and what you yourself want out of the product. If you can’t afford anymore than £200 on a unit it’s no good us saying we think the SG5 at £299 is the best. Likewise if you already have a Sat Nav unit then one of the main USPs of the Snooper will be irrelevant. We highlighted 3 products as a “GM recommendsâ€
As we say in our new “Gear Manifesto†(P129) only through a proper custom fitting based on your individual swing is it possible to get the right club that’s going to help take YOUR game to the next level.
We have replaced the test with Gear Focus (the GPS feature is the first in the series) which gives you an overview of all the products in a particular sector – be it GPS, Tour balls (May issue) or drivers under £200 etc. In that we give you an overview of the key technologies (hopefully having put into real terms what the manufacturers bumpf and marketing speak says) and then some positives and negatives based on our testing.
In the main “New Arrivals†section we have introduced a new format (inspired by suggestions you made last year about advice being more tailored to you as an individual), which we hope, addresses the issue of recommending a product. We now give our opinion (given the amount of kit we see and hit each year) on what type of golfer a particular product is suited to and indeed what playing ability (i.e. handicap range) we feel it’s appropriate for.
* Not featuring the SG 2.5.
I appreciate it’s a popular unit but we have featured this in the mag before and only wanted to include one unit per manufacturer and for that to be the latest model.
* Advertising/editorial relationship
The scenario of us writing anodyne editorial to appease advertisers or only including products from companies who advertise with us is, as Jezz has said, simply not the case.
4 of the brands featured in the GPS have never done any advertising with us and as far as I’m aware have no plans to do so.
The reason advertisers place ads in Golf Monthly comes down to two things
1. We’re most widely read magazine in the UK and Ireland meaning they get their ads in front of the largest possible audience of golfers.
2. They know the GM readers are serious golfers who are interested in equipment which is exactly the sort of golfer they are trying to attract to their brand.
Its not because they get favourable reviews. In terms of bigger advertisers/higher profile brands winning tests then I’d give you the best recent example that proves this isn’t the case. Driver test in July 08 Ben Sayers Benny (£99) won the test and beat TM, Callaway and Mizuno. The three big names spend an awful lot more on advertising with us than Ben Sayers do!
* “Real reviewsâ€
We clearly put plus and minus points to highlight strengths and weakness in a product in the GPS feature. I.E. poor battery life, too bulky, complicated to download courses, fiddly to operate etc.
Last year we responded to feedback form the forum for more gear reviews from “real golfers†so we introduced the Reader Test Panel featuring you guys and your fellow readers. In there the testers say it as it is. We don’t edit out any negative comments and there have been a number of reviews in the 70 odd we have done the last 12 months which have said – I don’t like this product or I don’t get on with it.
Anything we don’t think is a decent product and therefore worthy of your further research we don’t include! We only feature products we believe are worthy or your consideration not based whether we can get advertising revenue on the back of a certain feature.
If however you’re looking for us do a TG and purport to rate and slate products you’ll be disappointed. We choose not to include poor products just so we can look like ‘no nonsense – straight talking journalists’ and say “product A is crap†or “Product B is rubbishâ€. The truth is there are very few products out there that you should avoid like the plague. They nearly all have some positives, even if it’s only their bargain basement price or being suitable for a complete newcomer to the game.
Golf Monthly prides itself in providing objective, independent reviews of products. We are confident the advice and reviews we supply will help you draw up a shortlist of kit that’s worth investigating further. At the end of the day only you (with advice from a PGA pro and custom fitting expert) can drill down and find the best kit for your game.
* "Barn-door front covers"
I agree they are a bit of nuisance but it's a high impact creative option that some of the advertisers like to use. In a very ideal world I'd say no to them but especially in these economic times like these we can't walk away from the revenue they generate. The advertising and sponsorship we have in the magazine underpins my budget to produce a good magazine each month. Without the advertising revenue we get we would not be able to do as many pages as we do each month and would certainly not be able to afford bundling free stuff like the calendar, equipment and instruction supplements and the GreenFree vouchers.
Producing a supplement or buying in a gift to distribute with 140,000 copies we print in peak months and then poly bagging it costs an awful lot of money. That money has to come from somewhere.
I am sure reason TG did not do their gear guide as a standalone magazine this year was because they couldn't afford to. This will be down to dropping advertising and sponsorship revenue.
One only has to look at Golf International and Golf Punk to see what happens when advertising really diminshes. You have to go bi monthly or just don't come out for 6 months. I'm sure no one wants that.
Therefore on balance I hope you'll agree that having to contend with a "flappy cover" is a price worth paying if it means you're getting a decent magazine and associated free supplements/gifts
I hope the above is a useful explanation on all of the above queries?
If I can, I'm always happy to "show my working" on why things are the way they are and I’ll say it again we really do welcome your views and comments because without them we have no chance of improving the magazine and website and therefore making it more reflective of what you’re after!
All the best
As ever it's good to get feedback - be it good or bad! - On what we're doing in the mag and online so thanks for your comments on the GPS thread and also on DCB’s thread about the revamped April issue.
The team and I put lot of stock in your views and I hope when you see the April issue you’ll see we have incorporated a number of the suggestions you made when I asked for ideas last year.
GPS debate....
I thought I'd answer a few of the points/queries in this thread. I couldn't do this yesterday as was otherwise engaged playing very very badly in a golf day (one par in the first 12 hole is not the stuff of a supposed 8 handicapper!).
* Definitive “Best on Testâ€
Those who have read the new April issue will have noticed we have discontinued the Tested feature. We have done this because the recent massive advances in club technology/options and custom-fitting means we feel we can no longer accurately say driver A is better than driver B, C or D.
Even on GPS or electric trolleys or suchlike we don't believe we can give a definitive answer because of massive variables like your individual budget and what you yourself want out of the product. If you can’t afford anymore than £200 on a unit it’s no good us saying we think the SG5 at £299 is the best. Likewise if you already have a Sat Nav unit then one of the main USPs of the Snooper will be irrelevant. We highlighted 3 products as a “GM recommendsâ€
As we say in our new “Gear Manifesto†(P129) only through a proper custom fitting based on your individual swing is it possible to get the right club that’s going to help take YOUR game to the next level.
We have replaced the test with Gear Focus (the GPS feature is the first in the series) which gives you an overview of all the products in a particular sector – be it GPS, Tour balls (May issue) or drivers under £200 etc. In that we give you an overview of the key technologies (hopefully having put into real terms what the manufacturers bumpf and marketing speak says) and then some positives and negatives based on our testing.
In the main “New Arrivals†section we have introduced a new format (inspired by suggestions you made last year about advice being more tailored to you as an individual), which we hope, addresses the issue of recommending a product. We now give our opinion (given the amount of kit we see and hit each year) on what type of golfer a particular product is suited to and indeed what playing ability (i.e. handicap range) we feel it’s appropriate for.
* Not featuring the SG 2.5.
I appreciate it’s a popular unit but we have featured this in the mag before and only wanted to include one unit per manufacturer and for that to be the latest model.
* Advertising/editorial relationship
The scenario of us writing anodyne editorial to appease advertisers or only including products from companies who advertise with us is, as Jezz has said, simply not the case.
4 of the brands featured in the GPS have never done any advertising with us and as far as I’m aware have no plans to do so.
The reason advertisers place ads in Golf Monthly comes down to two things
1. We’re most widely read magazine in the UK and Ireland meaning they get their ads in front of the largest possible audience of golfers.
2. They know the GM readers are serious golfers who are interested in equipment which is exactly the sort of golfer they are trying to attract to their brand.
Its not because they get favourable reviews. In terms of bigger advertisers/higher profile brands winning tests then I’d give you the best recent example that proves this isn’t the case. Driver test in July 08 Ben Sayers Benny (£99) won the test and beat TM, Callaway and Mizuno. The three big names spend an awful lot more on advertising with us than Ben Sayers do!
* “Real reviewsâ€
We clearly put plus and minus points to highlight strengths and weakness in a product in the GPS feature. I.E. poor battery life, too bulky, complicated to download courses, fiddly to operate etc.
Last year we responded to feedback form the forum for more gear reviews from “real golfers†so we introduced the Reader Test Panel featuring you guys and your fellow readers. In there the testers say it as it is. We don’t edit out any negative comments and there have been a number of reviews in the 70 odd we have done the last 12 months which have said – I don’t like this product or I don’t get on with it.
Anything we don’t think is a decent product and therefore worthy of your further research we don’t include! We only feature products we believe are worthy or your consideration not based whether we can get advertising revenue on the back of a certain feature.
If however you’re looking for us do a TG and purport to rate and slate products you’ll be disappointed. We choose not to include poor products just so we can look like ‘no nonsense – straight talking journalists’ and say “product A is crap†or “Product B is rubbishâ€. The truth is there are very few products out there that you should avoid like the plague. They nearly all have some positives, even if it’s only their bargain basement price or being suitable for a complete newcomer to the game.
Golf Monthly prides itself in providing objective, independent reviews of products. We are confident the advice and reviews we supply will help you draw up a shortlist of kit that’s worth investigating further. At the end of the day only you (with advice from a PGA pro and custom fitting expert) can drill down and find the best kit for your game.
* "Barn-door front covers"
I agree they are a bit of nuisance but it's a high impact creative option that some of the advertisers like to use. In a very ideal world I'd say no to them but especially in these economic times like these we can't walk away from the revenue they generate. The advertising and sponsorship we have in the magazine underpins my budget to produce a good magazine each month. Without the advertising revenue we get we would not be able to do as many pages as we do each month and would certainly not be able to afford bundling free stuff like the calendar, equipment and instruction supplements and the GreenFree vouchers.
Producing a supplement or buying in a gift to distribute with 140,000 copies we print in peak months and then poly bagging it costs an awful lot of money. That money has to come from somewhere.
I am sure reason TG did not do their gear guide as a standalone magazine this year was because they couldn't afford to. This will be down to dropping advertising and sponsorship revenue.
One only has to look at Golf International and Golf Punk to see what happens when advertising really diminshes. You have to go bi monthly or just don't come out for 6 months. I'm sure no one wants that.
Therefore on balance I hope you'll agree that having to contend with a "flappy cover" is a price worth paying if it means you're getting a decent magazine and associated free supplements/gifts
I hope the above is a useful explanation on all of the above queries?
If I can, I'm always happy to "show my working" on why things are the way they are and I’ll say it again we really do welcome your views and comments because without them we have no chance of improving the magazine and website and therefore making it more reflective of what you’re after!
All the best
