Magazines

[p111dom]

To avoid offending anyone I will take a different tack. Years ago I was heavily into car audio and bought most of the modified car mags at the time. Every article was heavily biased in favour of the manufacturer Alpine. They came out on top in almost every review. However whenever I fitted a radio of system by them bought my a customer on a recomendation from a mag I just couldn't understand it. Vastly overpriced and not superior in any way to any of the other manufacturers. My preference at the time was Pioneer. Superb build and sound quality better IMO than the alpine and yet more technologically up to date and with better egronomics yet cheaper to boot. I always recommended them to anyone due to personal experience. I always came up against resistance with this though as their was a general perception that Alpine was better any why? Not because of peoples physical experiences with the products but purely from what people had read. Call me a cynic but when it came to advertising space Alpine outstripped it's nearest competitor in some cases by 4 to 1. Fifteen years ago I had a friend who took out a full page advert for his tuning garage and even back then it cost somewhere in the region of 5k. With Alpine having 4 pages an issue that's 20 grand per issue. What mag editor is going to bite that feeding hand? While I agree with Steve about writers integrity the bottom line is that most things are editied by the editor, chopped, cut or rejected ets regardless of what the originator thinks. These magazines are a business and who are they going to be more friendly to. The reader shelling out £3 per issue or the manufacturer shelling out 5 grand? Common sense says it happens but I don't think that really matters. Most of us arn't that nieve hence this thread. I just take it as a given that there will be a certain amount of not so much bias but maybe pulling of punches when it comes to tool critisism. The best advice is to go to a show and play with everything you can regardless whether you are in the market for it or not. That way if you do need a new tool in the future you will have personal experience to rely on.

 

[bjm]

I fully accept the finer points of maintaining good relationships between magazine editors and manufacturers. My personal observation though is that many 'reviews' are nothing more than longer adverts. Constructive criticism - and it has to be constructive - is far more informative.

There will always be an element of compromise between price/performance and if you shop based on how low the price is then you also accept that you will not get the performance you might expect from a more expensive alternative. Conversely, there is a point at which high-end prices fail to deliver better performance and a cheaper alternative would perform equally well. Surely the whole point of a review is to be a warts-and-all assessment from an experienced persons perspective?

I'm sure that some manufacturers are only becoming aware of their shortcomings - and doing something about it - because of the unbiased reactions that forums, such as this, offer - the nitty-gritty you never see in many reviews.

Brian

 

[Nick Gibbs]

I agree that the Internet has changed the game. The forum performs a hugely valuable service in providing advice and discussion on topics that magazines could never do in their old ways. When I first edited Woodworker, 20 years ago, we were inundated by questions and had a huge panel of experts. We answered (and paid for) many more solutions to questions than we could ever publish. Nowadays we get hardly any technical questions, and to be honest that is a great relief. I thank forums and the community of woodworkers for that. Not all the answers are always spot on, but then neither are they in magazines.

That is why British Woodworking aims to offer something a little different. Specifically we try to make it interesting to read. This issue we have the expert on Arts & Crafts, Mary Greensted, looking at furniture at the Celebration of Craftsmanship and Design, and commenting on A&C influences. We try to find and tell stories. I'm sure we can do better, but the idea is to produce a magazine that is really interesting to read, as well as having some useful bits.

Increasingly websites will be offering projects and tests for free, so my aim is to focus on good journalism, and hopefully inspiring images. So far the woodworking websites (and most other specialisms as well) haven't been able to afford the sort of editing and writing that goes into a good magazine. That may change in the future, but for the moment I hope British Woodworking (and our new mag Living Woods) provide an excellent read.

We're fortunate at British Woodworking because we're young, and we don't have a large management structure. When I edited Good Woodworking there was huge pressure from publishers to chase readers, offering yet more Best Ways to Cut a Mortise. That is how you capture the new readers.

That is why the content can feel repetitive. Even Popular Woodworking, which is a great magazine, sometimes feels a bit samey for that reason. And don't forget that readers usually outgrow magazines (for any hobby) in a few years. They think a magazine has changed, when really it is they that have improved and learnt new things.

My hope is that British Woodworking can stay more impulsive and challenging, and keep coming up with evolutions of ideas rather than repeating the same old thing. Once we have the website running properly we'll have the basics of How to Cut a Tenon there, so that we don't have to repeat it every time in the magazine.

Thanks again for everyone's support. It's been an amazing year. Hopefully see some of you at Stoneleigh next week and Harrogate in November.

Nick

 

[Losos]

The OP started by saying FWW had slipped a bit recently, and I tend to agree with him. I suscribe now, but will be looking for a return to their previous very high standard.

By comparison 'tho I considered all the UK mags well below FWW until British Woodworking came on the scene. I suppose one shouldn't compare FWW and BWW as they have different agendas.

But I must say that currently BWW is the only UK mag. I subscribe too, and the style is somewhat unique. It is an interesting read so I will likely be a suscriber for some time to come.

 

[johnnyb]

i have just brought fww tool guide 2009 on the strength of the 2008 issue.
dont bother it has many of the same articles!! i have thoroughly enjoyed the 2008 issue but why rehash the reveiws from last year? and the new reveiws are pretty shoddy unfortuneatly.... marking knives? just a heads up as its in the shops now.
fww tool reveiws are superb as to unbiased... well probably not. when i read them with the tool in my hand i cant figure out there problem is. but they are infinitely better and more objective than the bilge in the uk mags. these are basically just reveiws of the features of a tool no opinion is usually expressed in case advertising gets pulled. at least people on the forum give honest opinions of stuff they buy if its rubbish they say.

 

[Nick Gibbs]

I think it's a bit harsh to describe all UK tests as 'bilge'. Have you read all the ones in British Woodworking? We did one on table routers a few issues ago which was as objective as you can get. It takes a lot of time to do so, but it was an effort to test objectively, not so much to drop the tool and see how it bounces, but to devise criteria that are linked to the use of the kit.

We tested screws with a series of objective, 'scientific' test, and also glue. We'd love to do more, but it is hugely time-consuming and expensive.

And there's the rub. The more US mags people buy, the fewer UK mags get bought, and the less money UK mags have to spend on testing, and the worse their tests become. US mags sell so many, many more than UK mags that they can afford to do things we can only dream of. As a publisher I have to accept those terms, take it on the chin and battle on, aiming to produce the best magazine I can, but consumers have to recognise that they may also be partly responsible. Perhaps we should start a Save British Publishing Campaign!!!!

Thanks for listening!

Nick

 

[johnnyb]

probably a bit harsh as i have never read bww. but as a magazine consumer if i decide a magazine is better(for me) even though many of the machines reveiwed or advertised are not available to me and the furniture articles have an unbritish style bias and the adverts dont apply and the price is higher then how bad must my experience of brit mags have been and how good is fww. ps i will of course try bww with baited breath. fww can also be a tedious read but some issues are just pure gold especially the technique articles.
i dont think its possible for an english mag to equal them(us mags) on many scores tbh. its just a question of numbers. for instance fww rarely has a beginners guide to ....... . obviously a proportion of british mag buyers are newbies exploring there hobby a bit and they must be aimed at these. but they can be very tedious. adverts are the life blood of a magazine but are also tedious to read as i never buy from them as products are invariably cheaper sourced on the net. the smaller the readership the greater the proportion of adverts...the less im interested.
on the positive side british woodworking(in general not the mag!) is a unique niche with its own slant on things and products. so maybe a magazine could be a thoroughly good read and be published in this country. it strikes me there are to many brit mags for there own good with the talent spread thin between the lot!

 

[Nick Gibbs]

I agree with everything you say, Johnny. Email me your postal address and I'll send you a copy of British Woodworking for free. That offer's open to anyone who hasn't seen the magazine before.

We aim to celebrate British furniture styles, British furniture makers and British toolmakers while also offering good technical information and interesting projects. We are far from perfect, and in trying to be impulsive and interesting we are possibly too chatty at times. The alternative is the more 'textbooky' approach of most US mags, which is very sleek and deep, but does by its nature tend to repeat itself.

Cheers

Nick

 

[Ironballs]

The only one I subscribe to is F&C as it is generally interesting and aspirational with some useful reviews and projects - though it would be nice to see Kevin Ley occasionally build something that has no elm in it :wink:

Of the others I browse in Smiths and decide then if I'll buy them so occasionally will buy Fine or British

 

[beech1948]

Some comments just straight from my brain. No offence intended to anyone just my JUDGEMENTS:-

1) The UK market is small with too many magazines chasing too few readers. Its time to amalgamate some of the mags

2) The Woodworker added the Woodturner and became less than the sum of both parts. I have no interest in turning so 50% of the mag is wasted on me. Other mags suffer similar and worse dilution of focus its not just The Woodworker.

3) rubbish tools are reviewed but never given a rubbish rating. We 20yr + amateur woodworkers know what they are but we still see gimicks and rubbish reviewed as though the item was the holy grail. The ingrained lack of awareness of the intelligence and understanding of readers is staggering.

4) I saw a mag get 5 or 6 articles about Felder from one factory visit..it might even have been the Eden-Eden but the content was poor, repetitive and just too sucky to warrant such a waste of paper. This sort of thing happens too often and is an insult to the readers who spend hard earned cash on such stuff. The same with the repetitive standardised articles.

5) Where are the projects, properly photographed, fully described. These are what we want to see. Where is the meat.

6) Too much tool porn to no point.

7) Recent F&C projects photographed from strange angles but no overall view of the end result so no way to assess design aesthetics. This is a major irritation. All magazines are guilty of this at some time or other each year.

8) Too many large photos where several smaller ones would give more info and be clearer to understand.

9) The same adverts all the time....I know that this is essential...but where is the innovation eg a map with all of the timber suppliers on it that could lead to more adverts from timber suppliers...and I don't mean Travis Perkins.

Finally the shear dearth of innovation from the mags editors is astounding and a condemnation of the paucity of adventure, effort and striving for excellence.

Nick Gibbs is making something of an effort. But in general much more should be expected and delivered.

My final comment is to challenge why there is no internet magazine of good style and repute available. A UK based FWW + F&C+ BW but only offered as a digital medium.

regards

Alan

 

[Tierney]

I am a hobbyist woodworker and have been buying FWW and F&C for a couple of years now; and now find myself questioning both. Certainly repetition is an issue; and techniques you can pick up from several good books, e.g. Tage Frid, David Charlesworth etc.; which pound for pound are probably better value.

What I still look for from these magazines are the making of inspirational furniture (Kevin Ley step away from the elm!) and good tool reviews / tests. FWW did a couple of reviews on joint strength and glue's which had proper scientific measurement; which really impressed me; but, I haven't seen any facts and figures quoted in the F&C reviews - some of these tests are only as scientific as something an engineering student would do within their first couple of weeks at University. Similarly when FWW do reviews of say chisels, they have about 20 or 30 which inspires confidence (although I have read posts here where people have quite a different view).

What particularly infuriated me is the review of the de walt planer thicknesser coupled with the bench restoration article in the latest issue of F&C. I have been trying to decide which planer/thicknesser to buy and the following comments from F&C didn't help:

1) In the bench making article he describes two pieces of wood that were too big and heavy for the de walt, although they were well within the advertised capacity of the de walt. In the separate review of the p/t there was no mention of the fact that it apparently cannot handle its advertised capacity
2) In the review of the p/t he states that he achieved thicknessing accuracy of 1m; but thinks he could have achieved more by careful setting. Bearing in mind that Scheppach and I believe Jet (only 15% more expensive) quote accuracy of +/- 0.1mm. So why didn't the reviewer bother to trying to get a better accuracy; because 1mm seems rubbish and for the price of the de walt represents terrible value for money.

Finally for both magazines, if they put an article from the magazine for free on the internet it just makes me feel cheated out of part of the cost of the magazine.

David

 

[Nick Gibbs]

All very good points Alan. There should be fewer magazines.

When we bought Traditional Woodworking and relaunched it as British Woodworking (a completely new mag really), I thought for a moment that the biggest favour I could do for the woodworking market would be to close and go away.

But then I saw that Good Woodworking was going to the stable that had amalgamated Woodworker and Woodturner and wasn't convinced they would put the effort into Good Woodworking unless I was there as competition. On balance it's been a good decision, but there's still a way to go.

We need every bit of support we can get. I'm convinced we can produce great multi-media woodworking information and entertainment, but it will take a huge amount of effort and some good fortune to succeed, and the journey is long. I love what I do, so it's no chore, and really appreciate the help from other folk. Thanks.

Once again I extend the offer of a free trial mag to anyone who hasn't seen British Woodworking before. Just email me at the address below.

Cheers

Nick

 

[andy king]

I've followed this thread with interest and stayed away for my own reasons, but there are a couple of points i'd like to make, bearing in mind, like everyone else on this, and other forums, it's my own point of view.
Firstly, and most interestingly, when I worked with Nick, he made gret efforts to try and help and offer assistance on this forum, and was hounded from all angles, yet now he is held in high esteem.
Nothing has changed, he is still the exceptionally hard working bloke I know and admire, and his current postings follow similar tack, and most importantly, I am proud to call a friend now as I did then. So what is different? His goals a Good Woodworking were equally focussed as now with British Woodworking, yet he was given short shrift for trying to promote it.
I assume either those who hounded him have left, or kept quiet, or maybe have actually met him and realised what a really down to earth very entusiastic and helpful guy he really is? The latter I hope.
Now tool testing. This is where I always end up in a bit of a bun fight!
I review for one person, and one person only, and that is the person who buys the magazine.
When Nick edited me, he took everything I said as it was written, only altering to make it fit the page. (and edit my bad grammar!) The salient points remained. Phil Davy did the same, and my current editor does so as well, so what is put down by me is invariably published, irrespective of advertising.
I have always said if something is amiss, along with positives where necessary, and use my own woodworking qualifications to form judgements on them and how some things would be better for some than others, so a £20 sander can be brilliant for an occasional home user, but wouldn't last five minutes in industry.
Common sense maybe, but there are end users who see bargain as suitable unless told other wise.
I suppose its like me wanting some spanners. I know that I could buy Snap Ons, but if i only want to use them occasionally, a set of budget ones will do, but if I read a review that says a set are great, yet are actuall under or over sized, what signal does that send?
THe review should be aimed at the people likely to buy it, and should therefore tll the reader what to look for, positive and negative, and they can then look at the product in a shop or show and decide for themselves whether it affects them or not, but it is a guide.
Despite postings to the contrary on reviews, I do make negative judgements on tools as well as positives. As examples, Makita have recently launched a screw base router, that has been available in the US for a number of years, yet its single speed, has limited plunge, won't detach from the base for addition bases to be used or left inverted, and commented and marked accordingly.
Bosch released a dual base before that and had it well thought out, clever use of plunge and screw base, but no fence supplied, and quite expensive, but its a 'blue' model, so should be classed as 'expensive, but durable for industry' and priced higher accordingly.
Draper have just launched a similar one, and that is fantastic value, superbly built with some cracking features, and a bargain, and has been reviewed and marked accordingly.
At the other end, the latest S&J Predator saw with the laser? Absolute nonsesnse of an idea, and I've said as much in my review.
I think if the postings were along the lines of ' I read a review that said this tool was great, but its absolute rubbish, then the poster would have absolute right to post the review as 'bilge' and call the reviewer into question about his morals, but that isn't the case in the majority of postings.
Most interestingly for me in all of this, is the constant dismissal of reviews across the board, yet I get emails and PM's from members of this and other forums asking my advice on tools, and have done for a number of years and still do!
I answer them all, and offer the best advice I can based on my knowledge of the tools in question, my own background, and the needs of the questioner, yet in open debate on th forum, I never seem to hear any positives about someone reading a review, looking at the tool or machine in question and buying accordingly and being very happy.
There are members here who have done just that, and thanked me at shows, which makes it worthwhile for me, but I wonder whether sometimes people don't want to admit to being a closet magazine reader if it doesn't fit with current forum climates! :roll:

cheers
Andy

 

[Losos]

On the subject of tool reviews I can honestly say I've never had reason to complain, going back over the years I have learned to treat them usually as a 'guide' not a 'bible' as mentioned above for so many UK mags there is a budget which is nothing like that of the American mags.

In the case of British Woodworking I would like to comment on one review - OK it's not a tool review but they recently featured Abranet and praised the product out of this world. To be totally honest I was dubious at first and thought there must have been some 'backhanders' involved.

But you know what - It is fantastic - It is a major improvement over the traditional sanding materials - and it does not 'clog up' in fact it is everything the magazine said it was - on bare wood it is a revelation (OK I've yet to try it on paint)

It always puzzles me why there are so many woodworking titles in UK. Nick Gibbs seems to have the right idea in producing a magazine with more human interest storeys and more of a good read. There are of course some 'how to' stuff and some 'projects' but with a recession on the horizon and still so many titles it seems to me that a magazine needs to differentiate itself from the crowd or it won't be around for too long.

As I said in a previous post BWW is my only subscribed UK mag and I expect it to be dropping into my post box for a good while. FWW on the other hand needs to get back to it's past standard or I may not renew when the time comes.

 

[p111dom]

I hear what you're saying Andy and I do believe you. I guess it all comes down to tone. You guys are just too nice. Where as in a motoring magazine I read recently the final verdict one one particluar car was "I'd rather cut my own arm off than be seen dead driving this thing". Where as faced with having to review the same vehicle a wood writer might tone this down to something like "well it's better than walking." Car mags probably give the most ferocious critisism but even home hi fi mags can hit pretty hard. I remember at one time Panasonic made the best alround plasma screen TV apparantly according to most mags. All that followed where compared to it regardless whether it was a back to back test or not. This was very useful info to a purcheser (so I don't know why I bought an LG :roll: ). At the back of car and hi fi mags there's extensive lists of everything tested with a corresponding star rating and while GW does this to a certain extent I think all the mags could do more. What I want to know is what is the best PT for the money without having to order a back issue for the specific review. A review might say the latest offering from say Jet is good but what I want to know is it better than the equivelent Scheppach regardless of whether that machine is reviewed in the same mag. Car mags will review say a new Astra and conclude that you're better off buying the Golf again regardless whether or not it was reviewed in the same issue and this is very useful. Why not with wood mags?

As for content I can see why some people find thing repetative but it is difficult to find the right medium. The last issue of BW I looked at was the one with that staggering jewelery box with metal circular hinges but as gorgeous as it was (and it was) I couldn't help but be a little frustrated when he got to the section where he got a relative to get the metal parts machined at work with a machine that probably cost tens of thousands of pounds. I don't have access to that facility so what have I learned there except for the fact that I cant make it? I stopped watching NYW for just for that reason. Every episode it was "now I'll just run the full 4 foot width piece though my horizontal drum sander" (or similar) and I'd just loose interest after that. Things are alot easier it you have a 5000 square foot work shop and 200k worth of tools and I can see that sort of stuff on an episode of 'How it's made'. None of this has any relevence to the kind of stuff I could make and I have a reasonable sized work space. I can imagine this sort of thing is doulbly frustrating to those producing decent usable furniture out of a 6 by 4 shed. Respect to them.

 

[Nick Gibbs]

This is very interesting. I support Andy King entirely. He is a fantastic tester, and if I want to find out what to buy I will view his tests. That's not just honour amongst thieves: I know that Andy tests things as rigorously as he can and gives an honest opinion.

At British Woodworking we've taken a slightly different approach. Years ago I introduced star ratings when I launched Good Woodworking because it was seen as a simple way of saying what's best. Very clear. Actually I've come to think that it hinders as much as it helps, for a number of reasons.

1. It stops readers reading, because all they do is jump to the star rating at the end.
2. It means people don't read about the products that come second and third.
3. It makes it more difficult to give a balanced view. You have to recognise that many products are produced to a tight budget and there are many different types of user. Take for instance our test of the Record Power TS200C saw last year. We concluded that this saw has huge potential for many keen home woodworkers, offering power, reasonable accuracy and some good features. However, setting it up is tricky and there are some possible safety issues. It has bags of potential in the right hands. We've had ours for a year now, and sometimes it needs a tickle, but most of the time it's great. But we wouldn't necessarily recommend it to someone who's unwilling to fettle. That's what happens when consumers demand cheaper products!!! We are all to blame, to some extent.

We reiterated in that test the importance of woodworkers learning how to adjust and maintain their machines. We said that that is where freedom comes from. We even did a special article on how to improve that Record saw. We'll do more of the same in the future.

The trouble is these days that so many products are so similar. It's often hard to be a vitriolic as some people want us to be. And actually, I often wonder if the people in car magazines spout forth based on objective evidence or just their prejudices. Perhaps we are too nice, but perhaps also we are encouraging readers to make up their own minds, providing them with only some of the ammunition to make purchasing decisions but recognising that all woodworkers are different, and nothing's simple!!!

Once again, if you want a free copy of British Woodworking as a trial do email me, and if you want a PDF of our router table routers test (which is a good example of what we do) please email me.

Cheers

Nick

 

[Rich]

Hi Nick,
Having been a mechanical engineer all my working life, I would say that I could expect to purchase a "cheapo" machine and after"fettling" it I could expect to get a very good performance out of it, however, if I were to purchase a brand new car(some hope) I would not expect to have to fettle it.
I suppose it's horses for courses really. the more you spend you expect a better performance, this is not always the case, and a lot more can be achieved with a cheaper model and a bit of fettling.

Regards.

Rich.

 

[Ironballs]

Nick - I'm with P111dom on his second para, I saw that issue of BW and homed in on the jewellery box article as I'm building a couple. However, as soon as I saw the bit about getting those metal bits made up it turned me off. It may be just me but I'm only interested in the woodworking and if I have to break out a welder or milling machine then it's not for me.

That said you do have a tricky line to walk and it goes without saying that the jewellery box in question was utterly fantastic. The only other magazines I subscribe to are Evo (fast/interesting cars) and Singletrack (mountain bikes/general biking related b****cks), they offer a mix of great journalism, good reviews, aspirational items, real world reviews, personal interest and above all a genuine love of the topic in question, even if it leads to degrees of personal ruin to achieve that.

This I think is what some of the woodworking mags lack at present, F&C in particular can lack that warmth and human interest. I'd love to think that I could document a high end guitar build (this may be dreamworld!) and submit for publication, but they'd turn it away as it was too far away from their core values/beliefs?

 

[Nick Gibbs]

You've hit upon another frustration when you mention the jewellery box. Projects!

From all the research I've done over the years I've concluded that a tiny tiny percentage of readers actually make the projects featured in a magazine. My aim is to provide a few smaller projects and jigs that people will make, but more interesting projects that are for inspiration and ideas. They are more about techniques and design than Here's How to Make this Box. If you only want step by step how-to-make projects you'll get very boring stuff. If you want something to read we have to find you something interesting to write about. Which means that sometimes it will be irrelevant or too advanced or whatever for your desires and needs.

As you say, it's a tricky line. If you want projects you can make we can give you that, but it will probably be a bit dull.

Singletrack is a very good magazine, full of character. In fact it's the sort of magazine we are aiming to be, and if you read British Woodworking I really think that you'll find: "great journalism, good reviews, aspirational items, real world reviews, personal interest and above all a genuine love of the topic in question, even if it leads to degrees of personal ruin to achieve that".

The offer's there for a free copy for anyone who'd like it! Just email me at the address below. We've got a good list of people already!

Nick

 

[OPJ]

Every episode it was "now I'll just run the full 4 foot width piece though my horizontal drum sander" (or similar) and I'd just loose interest after that. Things are alot easier it you have a 5000 square foot work shop and 200k worth of tools and I can see that sort of stuff on an episode of 'How it's made'. None of this has any relevence to the kind of stuff I could make and I have a reasonable sized work space. I can imagine this sort of thing is doulbly frustrating to those producing decent usable furniture out of a 6 by 4 shed. Respect to them.

You obviously didn't see my article in the same issue! :roll: In one of the earlier issues as well, we saw Bill Newton make a tilt-top from the tiniest of workspaces with some of the smallest machinery (4" bandsaw, etc.).

Have you seen the current issue? Nick's looking for someone to join the team and produce furniture from the BWW workshop for both clients and the magazine, while testing some of the new kit they get at the same time. I'm sure this will eventually fill many of the needs you've stated above.

You can add my name to the list of people regularly asking Andy for tool-buying advice. :wink: