Woodworking magazines

[Nick Gibbs]

I'm a bit mystified what this high end magazine will publish. I've worked with professional woodworkers a lot of my life, and the techniques that we show in British Woodworking are the techniques that are often used in professional workshops.

My suspicion, I'm afraid, is that people are asking not necessarily for high end techniques and kit, but for a magazine that looks high end, and which projects an exclusive impression of how they'd like to be viewed. It becomes a badge. That is a different beast, and I think F&C has been successful for that reason, and other reasons. I don't mean to denigrate them, but there have been jigs and techniques in British Woodworking that I doubt have ever been seen in a British woodworking mag before. But we try to be inclusive, embracing all sorts of folk. The pencil article, for all its failings, put professionals beside ordinary home woodworkers. Perhaps that's why some readers didn't like it. But to me that is what matters. The woodworking market in Britain is so small that the last thing we need is to split it into tinier segments.

In publishing terms, my little company is as close to a boutique as it comes. And I agree that people like me can produce niche titles, like our other title, Living Woods. Though printing and postage are expensive, it is actually the skills and time taken to produce quality articles that matters and really costs, whether it's for a magazine or on the web.

 

[The Bear]

I just want to make it clear that the comments I have made refer to the current issue of BWW only. I am generally a happy reader, and would have no hestitation in recommending it to anyone.
I genuinely wish Nick all the best in making it a continued success.

Mark

 

[Nick Gibbs]

Thanks, Mark

 

[Lons]

. I do a lot of digging on the web too when I need to buy or figure out something, but it's a frustrating and frighteningly inefficient way of getting to good information.

Completely agree with that Ian and I'm sure like me you quickly find a way to discard the rubbish and look for the meaty stuff. Not difficult to identify reliable sources of information.

My point about kids reflects what you say though except that many of them are too inexperienced, lazy or naive to use the web properly. They are allowed to largely follow poor practice on the internet in school and get unsupervised access at home and it's fast becoming the norm.

The practice of cut and paste has reduced the need to research and learn properly hence the dumbing down comments.
I've taught GNVQ lads of 16 - 19 in college. Ask many of them a question and they'll use their iphone and give you the first answer they find on the web. The good ones of course do learn it's only a tool and do it properly - eventually.


I love the facility of the web, the 24hr access and instant answers - hate the way it's abused.- but that's another topic

Predictably enough I'd like to think that Moose's suggestion of a high end magazine makes a lot of sense - but yes, we'd have to be prepared to pay.

I'd pay a premium price for a magazine I felt was worthwhile and absolutely nothing to do with perceived cudos or exclusivity. just good old fashioned quality of content and therefore value for money.
Worst thing possible is to buy a product, ANY product and feel it wasn't worth having! Every one of us has done that .

And that, Bob, is why I reviewed the books on the back page of the last issue of British Woodworking as I did. I passionately believe that people gain the most satisfaction from life when they discover things for themselves, and the books I reviewed encourage exactly that approach to woodworking. Convenience is a drug that deadens the mind.

=D> =D> I read the mag properly last night and admit my 5 minute skim through comment was a bit harsh - I'm done now - no more Nick knocking from me

cheers

bob

 

[Nick Gibbs]

Thanks, Bob.

Nick

 

[ondablade]

I'm not knocking Nick, as I'm not sure where the sweet spot lies so far as what's commercially feasible. Pardon the length again too, or any impression of my being pushy.

I was though trying to highlight a very real issue which is a lot more substantial than bragging rights or anything like that - specifically the previously mentioned need of especially higher hobby/entry level professional woodworkers for trustworthy information.

With this in mind tool, machine and equipment reviews are a good example of something specific that from the reader's view point surely needs handling differently by the mags.

I'm nearing the end of a fairly major upgrade of my workshop, and really struggled to get good information. This followed a fairly sizable initial investment based largely on mag reviews made about ten years ago. I got by, but bluntly none of the big purchases from then performed as implied by either the mags or the makers at the time.

It's no trivial matter, in that it had significant financial consequences in the form of the need to upgrade all of my machines and my dust system again now.

As an engineer and manager from an industrial background I was (and have remained) shocked at the level of smoke and mirrors (and I could be a lot blunter) that I now know to be rife in the selling of hobby/entry level professional woodworking kit - no company dealing with industrial customers with clout, or subject to even basic regulatory frameworks could hope to get away with what goes on.

I think the problem is so prevalent however that there's a 'what do fish know about water' aspect to it. People in all parts of hobby woodworking seem so used to it that they don't notice it any more. The sellers always have a glib defence to hand, and the punters expect to be lied to - and anyway they are often motivated to defend their purchases come what may. If they do find their way through luck or experience to good kit, it's often seen as being the basis of bragging rights - rights which would be lost if the minions didn't frequently screw up.

The problem has various sources, but starts with the fact that many manufacturers don't publish data that truly captures the capability of their machines. What data is published it is surely driven more by marketing than by any sincere attempt to inform. Much of it seems also deliberately pitched to mislead - HP gets rated by means designed to make the kit look powerful, or is simply exaggerated; airflows are produced using test set ups designed to support inflated numbers that bear little relation to user realities, capacity numbers (e.g. re-saw capability on band saws) are often carefully positioned so that at the level of the precise words used it turns out not quite to be a lie, and everything from a saw in a biscuit tin upwards is pitched as top quality, professional standard. etc. etc.

So-called tests or reviews of this kit by the mags tend often read much like the local guy down the road reporting a quick try out of a machine they already know is the business - certainly not like the output of an open minded and objective test designed to produce hard and repeatable data and conclusions.

Now of course there is such a thing as a quick try-out - but bluntly all of the woodworking mags I've seen seem to bottle on calling the makers' bluffs.

Take one example, the above mentioned seeming 'claims' about the re-saw capability of band saws that caused me a lot of bother, and recently cost me significant money. Makers routinely talk of 'vertical capacity', but that doesn't necessarily relate to true re-saw capability. The sucker though it seems is fairly clearly intended to confuse what in practice are two very different matters.

Why do the mags not test band saws to establish and accurately describe their level of capability (speed, straightness/drift, finish, pernicketyness etc) at varying depths of re-saw?? Can it be that difficult?? Why did a long test of a high end hobby/entry level professional saw in one of the mags I'm thinking of not bother taking it past happy happy talk of easily re-sawing 10in of oak?

I'm well aware actually of the degree to which most mags depend on advertising revenues, and of the practical need to not alienate the makers, but surely there have to be other considerations beyond total capitulation in play too??

The point here is not that there shouldn't be equipment available at varying price/capability points, with the cheaper stuff delivering only basic performance. The point is that it's next to impossible to establish where individual bits of kit lie on this continuum - to know what you are buying.

This Nick is one example of the information gap that one or two mags could fill. But doing so requires the previously mentioned investment, and a decision as to who your real customers are. Not to mention a decision as to whether or not it's commercially feasible...

 

[Nick Gibbs]

We did a test of a Makita saw in the recent issue of British Woodworking. Makita (who are generally very good about supplying kit for testing) could only let us test in their workshop. Ultimately it meant I had about four hours to test the saw. I freely admit that's not enough in many ways, though I've tested enough kit to quite quickly work out what the main strengths and weaknesses are. I think I might have mentioned this in the test.

What I am trying to do is to incorporate kit tests into projects in the magazine. Stephen Prescott shares our workshop, and is currently making a desk using the new Lamello Zeta 'biscuit' jointer. He's also been testing edge-banding gear on the desk.

If British Woodworking was to go monthly, which is a current thought, I would almost certainly employ a full-time project maker, to build us projects specifically for the magazine whilst testing gear at the same time. We would design the furniture and stuff ourselves and then potentially sell it locally afterwards. If anyone is interested in such a post do please email me.

Testing is always a nightmare. I don't think magazines should be seen as police as we'll always disappoint in that regard, not just because we are compromised by advertisers, but because budgets mean we just don't have the time to do the testing to confidently make the claims readers might like to see. Imagine how long it would take to test a bandsaw long enough to be able to say that it will always drift, irrespective of the type of blade and type/thickness of wood. And who knows if the one you buy next month will come from the same batch? That is why I favour a roundup, giving the reader substantial information about specs, but not necessarily testing the products. Even specs, though, are vulnerable to claims it's difficult for us to substantiate.

 

[yetloh]

Nick is absolutely right on all scores, in my view. BW and F&C are, for me, complementary. BW has good practical stuff and in addition, is a good read which is very important to me. F&C is more design led and is now doing a good job.

The fact is that all British woodworking magazines are run on a shoestring; they have to be if they are to make a profit on the circulation levels that are achievable. This means they can only be run with very low staffing levels and must rely upon freelance authors for much of their content. The problem with this is that those authors must not only know what they are talking about, but also be able to write fluently in a way that clearly conveys the process or ideas being described and engages the reader. I am sure we can all recall articles where we thought that the author clearly new what he was doing but failed dismally to convey an understanding of the process in words. This combination of skills is really not that common and mere mortal editors are sometimes forced to compromise when faced with a deadline. This is where the bi-monthly format of BW really scores but, inevitably, the tight budget will show through from time to time. The fact is, that the price that can be charged, and the limited circulation that is possible, make these compromises unavoidable. This is something I can accept in exchange for all the really good stuff which these two mags currently produce.

Jim

 

[Nick Gibbs]

By the way (without meaning to be patronising nor sycophantic), fair play to the members of the UKW forum for conducting this debate in an interesting and thought-provoking way. The thread has stayed on topic, and though only a few of us may be following it, there haven't been any asides and chit-chat, which can put off members who aren't in the know.

 

[tisdai]

By the way (without meaning to be patronising nor sycophantic), fair play to the members of the UKW forum for conducting this debate in an interesting and thought-provoking way. The thread has stayed on topic, and though only a few of us may be following it, there haven't been any asides and chit-chat, which can put off members who aren't in the know.

I have been following it from the start when knappers first started the thread off, Their have been some great points made about the mags and about the internet, " without which this discussion would have not even been thought of ". I am one of the ' not in the know ' Nick, that is why i joined UKW because of a review i was looking for on a particular tool and came across it on here.

I bought my Table Saw, Bandsaw and other powertools / handtools because of some the members reviews and experience that they have had with them. For me this forum and the members have been more help to me than any magazine could have been. They say America is the capital of Adverstising, well for me the Uk is certainly in their with them, you can not hardly turn a page without try this, buy this, go here, go their, thats the main reason i stopped buying them some years ago.

Cheers

Dave

 

[woodbloke]

Nick is absolutely right on all scores, in my view. BW and F&C are, for me, complementary. BW has good practical stuff and in addition, is a good read which is very important to me. F&C is more design led and is now doing a good job.

The fact is that all British woodworking magazines are run on a shoestring; they have to be if they are to make a profit on the circulation levels that are achievable. This means they can only be run with very low staffing levels and must rely upon freelance authors for much of their content. The problem with this is that those authors must not only know what they are talking about, but also be able to write fluently in a way that clearly conveys the process or ideas being described and engages the reader. I am sure we can all recall articles where we thought that the author clearly new what he was doing but failed dismally to convey an understanding of the process in words. This combination of skills is really not that common and mere mortal editors are sometimes forced to compromise when faced with a deadline. This is where the bi-monthly format of BW really scores but, inevitably, the tight budget will show through from time to time. The fact is, that the price that can be charged, and the limited circulation that is possible, make these compromises unavoidable. This is something I can accept in exchange for all the really good stuff which these two mags currently produce.

Jim

Jim...I agree completely on all counts and your post describes the issues clearly with regard to the UK mag situation. Just to add, I recently tested a Bosch table saw for F&C. The criteria that the ed set was around 1000 words (about three pages) with an emphasis on accuracy. Given those constraints, it would be impossible to do a full scale evaluation of the saw and if one were to be done, it would take up half the mag space, so the general 'feel' or 'overview' is what the tester is looking for within the limits imposed by the ed.
Don't forget also of course, that contributors have to take their own high quality (wherever possible) pics which is something that's so far not been touched on...and we still get paid next to nothing - Rob, David Bailey mode

 

[big soft moose]

The pencil article, for all its failings, put professionals beside ordinary home woodworkers. Perhaps that's why some readers didn't like it. But to me that is what matters. The woodworking market in Britain is so small that the last thing we need is to split it into tinier segments.
.

I think you might be missing the point nick - the idea isnt to split the existing market into tinier segments but to expand the market by offering a proffesional level title that might be of interest to proffesionals (and firms) who dont currently buy woodworking magazines because they have "outgrown" the titles and content currently on offer.

Also with regard to what content the magazine would print, you are undoubtedly right that many of the techniques used in beginer projects are also used by pros - but at the same time (with no disrespect to the authors concerned) it is unlikely that the average pro is going to be that interested in a project on making a tea tray, or how to mask knots etc.

taking the model of pro photographer magazine, I would envisage the content being pro level projects (same techniques but applied to more advanced work), reviews of pro level machinery - spindle moulders, panel saws, big *** bandsaws etc, interviews with other pro makers, and as i mentioned above comercial advice on marketting, web design an optimisation, tax and legal matters etc. (plus whateverelse pro makers want - as i'm not one i'm not best placed to guess, but there are planty of prosd both here and on wwuk who could be asked). Maybe it wouldnt work, maybe I'm full of pineapple, but if its not tried no one will ever know whether it works or not.

 

[big soft moose]

also with regard to pencil gate, without wanting to return to a detailed disection, the main issue for me appart from the length, was that it wasnt "an article" but just a collection of anectdotal - "I use this, well i use that" and as such while it might have suceeded in putting pros and amateurs on the same page, it didnt give that much actual help or advice, and thus gave the impression of it being filler.

I wouldnt have objected so vociferously to an actual article about pencils with pro advice on what hardness to use when, tests of which brand/type are best for what and maybe a side bar of readers comments, and a collection of stats from the survey of how many readers use H, HB, B, chalk, crayon, marking knives, the blood of their enemies or whatever

 

[ondablade]

As before I think too that there has been a great improvement in F&C recently, and that BW delivers more than enough for me to buy it. (I've only quite recently tripped over BW - it may be that it was not much distributed over here)

Thanks for the honest reply Nick, and as before please don't read what I've written as criticism. I'm to a fair extent consciously flying a kite in pushing for higher quality machine reviews, in that it's clear that all concerned (given the current structure of the industry) are working under very constrained circumstances, and generally doing a good job.

Sorting that one (even presuming that it's feasible) requires a very different business model and approach to investment than currently seems to be the norm. Failing a Sugar Daddy owner/investor prepared to back a higher risk/cost/price model e.g. like what I've described, or an organic build up to it as conditions change the decision to make such a jump is probably well beyond the remit or span of control of any editor.

One very good US mag editor I have had some contact with has said (better not name names) that they have for reasons of conflict of interest, need for qualified staff and testing facilities, probable need to buy test machines, need to maintain advertiser relationships, liability concerns, cost/resourcing etc. decided as a matter of policy that they can't/won't do full on testing of machines at all. Only impressions.

So for sure the mags can't police the makers. It seems to me though that it's very important for their continued relevance that they so far as is reasonably possible act as honest brokers.

A final thought - might there be something to be gained/might your writers find it useful if some time was put into developing lists of items to be assessed when writing about the more standard machine and equipment types? The emphasis might be on identifying the real world factors (not necessarily the stock headings in machine specs) that determine true capability. So that when you the four hour window is made available it's staright in and at it.

Beyond that perhaps I should be more thankful for the way the web and forums have so massively opened up the amount of information about, and as Lons said concentrate on tuning my own radar!!!

Thank you all for your patience, the topic rather got me going...

 

[Nick Gibbs]

Good points Ian. I think we're all learning lots here. I do try to set criteria for a test, and have at time published those criteria. As you rightly say, those don't always relate to spec boxes. Actually I completely forgot to mention bandsaw speeds on the roundup of bandsaws, because I've never come across anyone who changes bandsaw speeds.

Regarding the top end market, sadly professionals very rarely buy magazines, unless there is a real need fulfilled (like job ads). Funnily enough it tends to be the keen home woodworkers who do the most innovating, and that is why the American market seems so vibrant because there are so many amateurs who can buy machines and timber cheaply. But they are suffering from deskilling just as we are from changes in education, and the numbers participating are reducing over there too from what I hear.

Cheers

Nick

 

[Lons]

the idea isnt to split the existing market into tinier segments but to expand the market by offering a proffesional level title that might be of interest to proffesionals (and firms) who dont currently buy woodworking magazines because they have "outgrown" the titles and content currently on offer.

Also with regard to what content the magazine would print, you are undoubtedly right that many of the techniques used in beginer projects are also used by pros - but at the same time (with no disrespect to the authors concerned) it is unlikely that the average pro is going to be that interested in a project on making a tea tray, or how to mask knots etc.

taking the model of pro photographer magazine, I would envisage the content being pro level projects (same techniques but applied to more advanced work), reviews of pro level machinery - spindle moulders, panel saws, big *** bandsaws etc, interviews with other pro makers, and as i mentioned above comercial advice on marketting, web design an optimisation, tax and legal matters etc. (plus whateverelse pro makers want - as i'm not one i'm not best placed to guess, but there are planty of prosd both here and on wwuk who could be asked). Maybe it wouldnt work, maybe I'm full of pineapple, but if its not tried no one will ever know whether it works or not.

Well said Moose

I don't earn my living directly from woodworking, (kitchen installations excepted) but I'm way past the basic mundane stuff which holds little interest for me and if someone comes up with a more professional mag then I'll buy it and pay the going rate. I would prefer it to be a British publisher if at all possible!

Photography is one of my hobbies as well and I think Moose has made valid comparisons.

Thank you all for your patience, the topic rather got me going...

Got my juices flowing as well ( a little too much at times )

Nick has to be applauded whether we agree with him or not, he has answered questions asked and opened himself up to critical examination =D> =D> a potentially uncomfortable situation. Not many editors would be so brave and that certainly earns my respect.

cheers

bob

 

[woodbloke]

sadly professionals very rarely buy magazines
Nick

Again, spot on the money. I did a trawl round six pro makers in my local area recently...not one of them took a magazine, even on 'once only, have a quick skim' basis - Rob

 

[dickm]

Are we all a bit unrealistic in our expectations here? The commercial reality is that magazines, and even professional journals, have to cover their costs and make some profit for their owners. This means that whatever they do is going to be affected not only by what their readers want, but also what makes money. And we have to recognise that without advertising, the costs of a magazine could never be covered from subscription or cover price. This means that advertisers are going to have a strong influence on what can and cannot be said, so "warts and all" reviews are not likely to be popular! (though, in the 1970s/80s, it was possible to get a pretty clear idea of what good old Gordon Warr thought of a product by reading between the lines, once you tuned in to his style)
I'm a member of a couple of professional societies as a hangover from my "proper" career, and the content of their journals is authored free by members and others who have to publish to get ahead. They do employ professional editors to copy edit the final product, but the technical editing of content is done for free, again, by members as part of their professional responsibilities. The journals are often still monochrome, with quite limited illustration, but, of course, they generally do have very professional and relatively unbiased content. It's possible that one way to get what people want in terms of a professional magazine/journal would be to run it on similar lines, as part of a professional organisation, but who is going to take those responsibilities?
If it's just unbiased product reviews you want, then possibly another model is Which, but think of the size of their membership compared to the total community of professional and semi-professsional woodworkers.
In the end, caveat emptor........

 

[Nick Gibbs]

The idea of a community magazine has crossed my mind over the years. The trouble is that time is the greatest hurdle (after the cost of printing). To make magazines simple to produce actually the best approach is to do everything in-house, with a workshop that makes all the projects and tests all the tools. Though freelancers obviously bring colour and change to a magazine, they also cause the most problems and because of the variability of their contributions it makes the production of a consistent high-quality magazine very difficult. I spend a lot of time travelling around taking photographs of completed projects made in workshops around the land. I don't resent that because it takes me to workshops, which is always valuable, but unless I did that the look of British Woodworking would be very shoddy. Travel is time consuming and expensive. Anyone who has experienced one of my forays to their workshop will know that I'm generally in a mad dash to fit in two or three more visits to other workshops on my way to or from home.

 

[ondablade]

Bloody hell, I'm off again! To draw on some insights from my past life in change management. Of course things are the way they are - but they ended up there as a result of the decisions that brought the industry to where it is.

So if there is to be change somebody has to make the first move - but for this to be feasible they have to progress the organisation through a series of states of punctuated equilibria. Meaning that they must balance all of the factors, all along the way - vision and objectives, situation and resources, leadership, culture, right people and capability, and systems/methods.

The blocker, and the reason that change is so difficult (before you ever consider the tangible realities like markets, and cost and earnings) is that the existing system (which was successful in its time) creates a culture (or default ways of thinking and behaving) that people fear and resist moving away from. This is why people see what is as unchangeable, why organisations find it so difficult to respond to new realities, fail to respond to changing external environments, and keep on doing the same old things the same old way regardless. (they cling to their comfort zone - which admittedly given the way our intentions condition our perceptions seems perfectly reasonable)

Many of the 'why it's not' factors being talked of now are not to my mind in any way fundamental - they in fact are only a reflection of the current status quo. Of course the trade/high end woodworkers don't buy mags much when so much of the content is dumbed down. When little hard information is provided and relates mostly to situations where low budget equipment is in use. Of course new entrants tend to go for cheapo rubbish (with many I suspect discouraged as a result) - why wouldn't they when it features in many of the mags (not so much in the ones we have discussed), and the maker's OTT claims are left unchallenged.

Of course woodworking is declining - the resulting slide to the lowest common denominator can only result in loss of status and respect, consequent loss of any attraction for high quality people, loss of critical mass (training and manufacturing), not to mention the end of any viable industry.

The pressure you find yourself under Nick is surely not an absolute necessity, but rather the inevitable result of the under resourced pressure pot low cost/max profit business model created by the methods of the big publishing houses - a lowest common denominator 1980s greed based business model which is now with competition from the web on the slide. It's also for me a very significant factor in the decline of woodworking.

We're conditioned to think that we are driven by external forces, and that we're the prisoners of these. They do define our starting point, but in the end the only factor that matters is vision and intention - and woodworking to my mind really needs the application of some higher vision these days.

Caveat emptor is a case in point ****. It's of course essential we're careful in the current business environment, but how in the end can we have a decent woodworking scene (or indeed society) if it's accepted that the only way for anybody to get ahead is at the expense of somebody else? There has to be a higher vision in play that looks past this.

I'm somewhat tongue in cheek again Nick because there are other factors in play too (as even with vision and belief it's hard to build up to what I'm talking of) - so please don't feel I'm laying it all on you. But I'm serious too..