 Sorry, a bit late on this one guys but I had to smile when Dave requested we help him identify where he should place his ads this year!
Looks like TG gets the paper vote, Dave, but golfmagic gets it electronically. Strangely no votes for Golf Monthly, Golf World or Golf International - though they're all much of a muchness, as I discovered when I actually bought copies last week!
Having been Editor of four different golf mags over 11 years I can confirm TG has maintained its style and adopted some of the old FORE! attitude, whereas the others now tend to be written for, as well as by, the journalists who work on them. Very little reader interaction - that's why the web is so vibrant. I rest my case.
|
 |
Just curious to see what effect websites like Golf Magic are having on traditional magazines.
There's so much information available right now that the reasons for buying a magazine are reducing.
Bottom line is that a good read is a good read, no matter where it is.
That's why TG are still doing well
Whoever puts the best features together will attract people - whether they are on line or not.
Having said that you do have the massive advantage in that most people can't read a golf magazine at work.
David - Mizuno
Tough life.
David
|
|
Agreed Dave. You need a bit of peace and quiet - on a plane or a train - to get the most out of a mag, whereas on a site you can dip in and out. Research has proved that 55 per-cent of mag purchase is for instruction, followed by where to play and what to play with. I always wanted to do 3D instruction in my magazines (with cover-mounted specs) but camera technology wasn't up to it and the fuzzy pix looked too weird on the page. Maybe one day, eh?
|
|
 If I've bought magazines in the past it is usually for equipment reviews, problem is, on a lot of occasions the reviews have merely been reiteration of the manufacturers blurb.
Real value is user reviews on sites such as this, where an honest assessment can be given by the forum. More of this would be welcome.
In magazines I get the impression that some manufacturers can do no wrong - funny that these manufacturers also spend most on advertising.
Or am I just being an old cynic again.
|
|
I think that the mags are braver than they were a few years ago.
Back then there were no bad reviews for anything.
But the sort of equipment people want to read reviews on is generally good. There isn't any bad equipment manufactured by the leading brands.
It all comes down to personal taste.
So its tough for a journalist to split the brands. The best they can really do is provide a good description of the differences.
I've had moments when i've questioned certain reviews we've recieved. But i've always been satisfied that there was honesty (if not accuracy) behind it.
The editorial equipment guys on the main magazines - John McKenzie (Today's Golfer), Gary Firkin (Golf World), Nick Bayley (Golf Monthly) are very detached from the advertising side. They wouldn't allow advertising to influence their reviews. They take the job too seriously for that.
I'd say that actually the smaller mags are likely to have product reviews that are advertising lead. Smaller teams of people, money is tighter and there are more conflicts of interest.
Net result - product reviews are hard to do.
Take the information on board and test a few different options.
Or ask Martin Park who's played about every piece of equipment on the market.
David
|
|
There may not be 'bad' equipment Dave but there is definately poor value for money equipment that is overpriced and overhyped.
What I would like to see is full objective comparison with price taken into account.
|
|
 Agreed Alan. I generally buy magazines if there is anything in them that takes my eye. I've just got the latest edition of Today's Golfer because it has it's "What Gear 2000" guide. Only thing is most of the award winners seem to be middle to top end makes. Not many of the budget makes. Are the big names really that much better? Oh, and no tips on on how to get out of a bunker! Maybe some of the pages fell out.
|
|
I think the best way is for equipment to be tested on its merits.
If one club gets 4 stars but costs £1000 and another gets 4 stars but costs £200 i think people can make their own judgement on the value for money.
I don't think it would be particularly helpful to the reader for the cheaper set to get 5 stars unless it is actiually better.
David
|
|
If you're a statto like me and want all the facts & figures and tournament results and rankings etc, then Golf Weekly is the only one. I don't believe I've seen mention of that here ? You can normally get it for just over a £1 a copy on subscription.
|
|
but the tournament websites have all that information Andrew, in the Pros section on this sie I think. Uses less paper!
|
|
 A simple philosophy on Equipment reviews - tell it how it is. SOme writers simply shy away from the fact that a club/ball/glove/shoe etc is crap.
Generally, it is down to the manufacturer to send the reviewer the right spec equipment, that way it gets a beter chance of an honest review.
Personally speaking, I can hit anything but always go for good feeling clubs - golf is a feel game, not a science and if it feels comfortable, looks good and is built with good components, then it stands a good chance of getting into the bag.
I have always played with blades (Dave knows that) and now it may be time to change to more forgiving clubs. Today, the top brands have made game improvement clubs look better, feel better when you hit the ball. They are also made from quality components with a choice of fittings and shafts (the most important piece of the club)
That's why GOLFmagic is a bit better than the mags because we can get real golfers to test, review and give comments on equipment on the forum, some even write a review (FOC) for the main pages.
There is no manufacturer yet who has taken the gamble of sending out some equipment for the members here to test - it would be an interesting experiment.
That way, you get honesty. These guys and girls on the forum buy the stuff and tell everyone here about it - that would inspire me more to go and test/purchase a club/ball/glove etc.
Having this community feel would make me more inclined to go and buy something on recommendation - word of mouth is the best form of advertising.
Over to you Dave
|
|
 I would like to long term test a set of Ping irons please!!
|
|
mostly agree up to the bit about sending free kit to test.
i think that buyers reviews are just as honest and work as well.
i don't really think anyone could be really impartial if Mizuno were the only ones to send in free test kit.
David
|
|
Buyers are, I think, always a little reluctant to admit that they have paid good money for an indifferent product. In the main they will try to see the positive side of their equipment.
Some people will actually buy without trial.
Golf forums like this should point out, as I have, that a lot of what you read about the latest, greatest, will put 20 yards on your drive (because of the billions we have spent on design and research)improved new flavour, spring faced, hyper titanium, better than our previous model driver, is just a pile of poo.
You just get a better shaft - and you have been.
|
|
alan - i'm not suprised that people are cynical.
but drivers are going further than a few years ago.
millions are spent on R&D and production methods.
the price of our products does directly relate to the cost of design and production.
Whether that extra 10 yards, nicer shape, better finish or softer feel is worth the extra £'s over a budget model - only you can decide.
If you can genuinely find a set of irons at £200 that you think is as good, i'd recommend everyone to get a set.
But if you'd ever seen just how many procedures and sets of hands our heads go through before they end up in the shops, you'd realise where the money goes.
We can see and feel the difference.
David
|
|
Dave, if so much has been spent on R&D (and I take it that this is nothing new)surely with C.A.D. and such a simple thing as a clubhead, then the definitive shape, size and COR factor has already been achieved.
So how will you market your next 'improved' models?
|
|
PS Just finished playing 18 holes at my new club - shot a gross 84 (par 74)
This was due partly to the superb Mizuno equipment that I play (last years models)
Oh, except for a Cobra 7 wood - could not get a steel shafted Mizuno 7 wood to match my set for love nor money.
|
|
not quite that simple i'm afraid.
forging plants gain experience with new materials or manufacturing techniques that open new avenues of design.
changing raw costs and supply (eg Titanium or even Persimmon) mean that some materials become viable and others not - this all has design implications.
there's the human element too. the computer only does what we tell it. with every design we learn and can see something to improve on next time.
lot's of factors. sometimes there's a big advance. sometimes a marginal one.
either way - if you're happy with the clubs you've got, test anything new against it before buying.
if you genuinely need new clubs, you might as well have the best in your price bracket - rather than something that was the best 3 years ago.
its all about choice.
if we're not improving, we'll stop selling.
that's enough motivation for us to make sure that we're not delivering empty promises.
David - Mizuno
|
|
 I get them all except Today's Golfer.
I also subscribe to Bunkered the Scottish mag, that one keeps me in touch with what's happening at home.
The reason I don't read TG is that it is more instruction based and I feel that there is only so many ways to tell you about how to adopt the fundamentals.
If I want instruction I'll go for an half hour lesson with the pro.
I have tended to drop Golf Monthly, it should be re-named the Tiger Woods monthly.
Another thing that annoyed me about GM is the amount of reproduced Golf Digest articles in it.
This annoys me because I want to read about European issues, players and courses.
I read all the magazines that I do mostly for the player profiles/interviews and other non instruction articles.
Golf World seems to be particularly good in this respect.
|
|
Final word from me on mags - All very well to read if there is something worth reading by a good journo - I do enjoy Paul Mahoney and Jock Howard at Golf World and anything written by Claire Middleton from the telegraph and Patricia Davies from the Times on women's golf. John Hopkins (Times) is always interesting and Bill Elliot is always good for anecdotes.
Websites are much better for interaction though - GolfMagic is so cool for this and it's nice to see the site doing so well now. On the Ladies' Tour site, we have the same forum layout and people love it - it's amazing that every player you ask has been on there, some even contribute, so that's got to be the perfect way of keeing in touch with fans and becoming a bit more personal. How many of you have had "live" tip from a pro over the internet?
Also, I'm doing a Ladies golf magazine this year - Red T - out soon, and I've opted to go for more player features, fashion tips for golfers, a review of last season and preview of this season, Solheim Cup issues, lots of them, inside the ropes ditties, anecdotes, a little bit of instruction, (different to TG) and event a track day with 7 supercars, driven by a well know player and Arsenal supporter!
To ask a question - what would you guys want to read about women's golf? Is it the chic/sex angle, the instruction? Do you want to know what makes the players tick? Or do you wnat to know how to drive a 200mph car really fast? Let me know, I've got lots of time to do it!
All the best
Martin
Ladies European Tour
|
|
