Wh Smiths

[TonyMac]

Thanks to both of you for the positive feedback, but an online version is not an option that would have strong appeal to the majority of our readers, many of whom are of a 'certain age' and much prefer the good, old fashioned feel of a magazine in the hand and a relaxing favourite armchair to read it from. Some, believe it or not, do not even have internet access or have any desire to have it.

 

Many of our subscribers still pay using snail mail and a cheque (or postal order), refusing to trust online transactions.

 

The other question is viability. Would we be cutting our throats by offering online content at a significantly discounted rate, because many would expect a cheaper version online compared to the printed magazine?

 

I take your point about NZ and all overseas posting costs. The cost of postage continues to rise at an alarming rate and it's a situation we need to examine carefully, including an online option - even if it may be restricted to non-UK readers, at least initially.

 

Print and paper price increases are also a key factor to very small independent publisher like ourselves in what is a very, very niche market.

 

Would we sell twice as many issues online at £2 as we do now at £4? The sums are not quite that simple, but you get my drift?

 

It is all food for thought, though, and we always welcome constructive comments and suggestions.

 

I would definitely subscribe, as I did to the Star, if an online version became available.
Postage to nz doubles the cost of the issue.

 

 

As a long time subscriber, it would be more convenient if an online version could be produced as well. From a selfish perspective I tend to move around a bit and I don't want to keep changing the subscription address, but more generally it's increasingly the way things are going.

 

It's an excellent mag though.

 

Come on, Humph, how long would it really take you to pick up the dog and bone and tell Susie that you're moving from Park Lane to Berkeley Square....?

Edited October 22, 2014 by tmc

[Humphrey Appleby]

The other question is viability. Would we be cutting our throats by offering online content at a significantly discounted rate, because many would expect a cheaper version online compared to the printed magazine?

I'd be happy to pay the same price, although I'm sure the online stores take a reasonable percentage of the cover price.

 

One assumes that Backtrack is DTP'ed these days (i.e. not using the old Speedway Mail techniques), so would it really be substantially more effort and expense to churn out a online version?

 

Come on, Humph, how long would it really take you to pick up the dog and bone and tell Susie that you're moving from Park Lane to Berkeley Square....?

Well I'm not just moving round the corner from Park Lane, but halfway around the world. The point though, is more than things like Backtrack are what I'd read when I'm away from home, and I don't really want to cart around books and magazines when I can take an iPad instead.

 

Yes, I'm sure much of your current readership isn't like me, but frankly if even my mother is moving to reading stuff online, then I don't think the traditional print media has much of a future.

 

BTW - I hardly every pick up the phone to talk to anyone these days, which suits me fine. Far more efficient to do stuff online.

Edited October 22, 2014 by Humphrey Appleby

[The White Knight]

I'd be happy to pay the same price, although I'm sure the online stores take a reasonable percentage of the cover price.

 

One assumes that Backtrack is DTP'ed these days (i.e. not using the old Speedway Mail techniques), so would it really be substantially more effort and expense to churn out a online version?

 

 

Well I'm not just moving round the corner from Park Lane, but halfway around the world. The point though, is more than things like Backtrack are what I'd read when I'm away from home, and I don't really want to cart around books and magazines when I can take an iPad instead.

 

Yes, I'm sure much of your current readership isn't like me, but frankly if even my mother is moving to reading stuff online, then I don't think the traditional print media has much of a future.

 

BTW - I hardly every pick up the phone to talk to anyone these days, which suits me fine. Far more efficient to do stuff online.

You really do, on occasions, show some very selfish traits Humphrey.

 

Count me among those who Tony mentioned in his first paragraph. I would not thank you for an 'On Line version'. I like my Magazine I collect them. If that makes me old fashioned - then so be it. I would have no problem if Tony were to do an 'On Line' version of his Magazines - but I would much prefer, as I said, the Paper Copy even if I had to pay a bit more for it.

 

I do hope you wouldn't deny me that Humphrey.

[Humphrey Appleby]

You really do, on occasions, show some very selfish traits Humphrey.

And perhaps you should read things more carefully. Where did I say there shouldn't be a print version of Backtrack - simply that print media has a questionable future and publications need to think about that, especially if it costs more to print and distribute than an online version. The clue is in the sentence "it would be more convenient if an online version could be produced as well."

 

There's no reason why there can't be both a print and online version of Backtrack for the foreseeable future, just as there is with the Spar.

Edited October 22, 2014 by Humphrey Appleby

[The White Knight]

I'd be happy to pay the same price, although I'm sure the online stores take a reasonable percentage of the cover price.

 

One assumes that Backtrack is DTP'ed these days (i.e. not using the old Speedway Mail techniques), so would it really be substantially more effort and expense to churn out a online version?

 

 

Well I'm not just moving round the corner from Park Lane, but halfway around the world. The point though, is more than things like Backtrack are what I'd read when I'm away from home, and I don't really want to cart around books and magazines when I can take an iPad instead.

 

Yes, I'm sure much of your current readership isn't like me, but frankly if even my mother is moving to reading stuff online, then I don't think the traditional print media has much of a future.

 

BTW - I hardly every pick up the phone to talk to anyone these days, which suits me fine. Far more efficient to do stuff online.

 

 

And perhaps you should read things more carefully. Where did I say there shouldn't be a print version of Backtrack - simply that print media has a questionable future and publications need to think about that, especially if it costs more to print and distribute than an online version. The clue is in the sentence "it would be more convenient if an online version could be produced as well."

 

There's no reason why there can't be both a print and online version of Backtrack for the foreseeable future, just as there is with the Spar.

You never said that in your original Post.

So - there you go - I did read it properly.

 

Edited October 22, 2014 by The White Knight

[stratton]

And perhaps you should read things more carefully. Where did I say there shouldn't be a print version of Backtrack - simply that print media has a questionable future and publications need to think about that, especially if it costs more to print and distribute than an online version. The clue is in the sentence "it would be more convenient if an online version could be produced as well."

There's no reason why there can't be both a print and online version of Backtrack for the foreseeable future, just as there is with the Spar.

Backtrack is a great publication i would be willing to pay more for it, online is not the same for me.The only grumble for me is why isn't this terrific magazine available at every track? saying that i thought ordering it is was easy and always prompt.

[Humphrey Appleby]

 

You never said that in your original Post.

 

 

And I also didn't say there shouldn't be a print version. You chose to interpret it that way...

[The White Knight]

 

And I also didn't say there shouldn't be a print version. You chose to interpret it that way...

As do you on occasions. It's all in the perception.