I was in town this morning where I nipped into W.H. Smiths and bought 2 fishing mags. FF&FT and T&S.
Last time I bought a fishing mag was February 2012 in Manchester Airport.
I have not read them yet but first thing that struck me is how thin they are. Are they using lighter weight paper or struggling for articles?
£9 for the pair.
Both Fred. You will probably find the same articles you read in 2012. When you catch a salmon in the Lunan that will be worth a whole issue to itself.
They do tend to be formulaic Tom and it must be difficult to come up with new and original stuff.
I'm remaking the old Fish Wild online mag right now and will recycle some of the old lost articles myself. Some of them are actually very good. :)
Far fewer adverts.
Quote from: arawa on October 08, 2021, 04:37:06 PM
Far fewer adverts.
I just had an hour with T&S. Yes, far fewer ads. Quite a few decent articles though, Stan is forever there.
I also see the letters page is as daft as ever. :lol:
QuoteStan is forever there.
He is aways there :D :D
There was a nice article in T&S about fishing a high level Welsh reservoir. reminded me of The Backwater.
I'm sitting here with FF&FT and T&S in front of me.
FF&FT is thinner and lighter than T&S and it appears to use a smaller font to allow more to be crammed into less space - if you follow me.
It's all a bit "busy" and distracting. T&S gives articles more room to "breath" - much more white space.
While this no doubt saves on costs, is marginally environmentally better and allows the mag. to be sold for less than T&S, for me it makes the reading experience much less enjoyable- a lot of eye strain.
Anglers are an aging and dying breed - does it make sense to sell them a magazine that is difficult on their old eyes?
I'd rather pay the extra 50p and read T&S to be honest, which is a shame because some of this months FF&FT is actually rather good!
A subscriber to FF&FT will also have access to a web edition and archive editions which many might find handy especially if there is search function as well.