Interesting.
Some very interesting comments here. I used to buy both magazines in question, though mostly AM, with an occasional annual subscription. FP was originally published on paper somewhat akin to War Economy newsprint. It was also the domain of groups of mudlarks obsessed with digging-up junk. Rather more beer & skittles back then...
AM was far more high-brow. It was very well-connected. There were endless articles written by the subjects, along with lots of fascinating photos, often from personal collections, never seen in public before. B&W of course, but it mattered not. All that first hand account stuff, backed-up by excellent, knowledgeable articles, was it's bread & butter. During these 'Golden Years', it's worth remembering that there were still people alive who could remember ALL of our aviation history..... It was inevitable that this format - the magazines greatest strength, would hit a brick wall when, ultimately, these actors all died off. This has proven to be the case, and for many, has been a core issue. Added to that, instead of aeronautical history being centred on 1914 - 1945, it now stretches for over one-hundred years, and, arguably, folks interests are far more diffuse too. An inevitable shift perhaps.
Sure, the internet has made an impact, but lets not overstate the case.... Frankly, if AM was as good as it used to be, I'd still buy it every month, as I did for many decades. It's not, and I don't. Bluntly, it's too expensive to buy casually, simply hoping that the issue is a 'good one'. A paper mag' can offer what the web cannot easily do. Much on the web is rubbish. A magazine can commission experts to write quality, authoritative content.
Most enthusiast use the web today, so if articles are primarily web-derived, readers will switch off. You can bet they will have already read that content before.
Certain articles appear to have been cut and pasted from 'The Eagle'. Some are, bluntly, just not very interesting space-fillers.
Today, FP & AM are effectively identical. FP has remodelled itself over the years to ape AM to become far better than it originally was, but AM, - for decades a far superior rag, has moved toward FP. They have met and become Flickr in print. In trying to cater for everyone, it is possible to cater for no one.
We all realise advertising is necessary. Actually, I'd say the problem isn't the amount, - it's how intrusive it is. Bookending an article is fine. Splattering it isn't.
For the more serious enthusiast, photos and freebies alone don't cut it. I have never bought a magazine because of a freebie. Ever. Ads' and price aren't decisive either. Content is. If one buys a magazine and a huge percentage is photos and ads.....
It's worth noting that, since many buyers no longer buy every month, they will flick through it before buying. It it's in a plastic wrapper, they can't, - so they don't...
Both magazines now feature terrific photography, in colour, way beyond anyones wildest dreams twenty years ago, but it's in no way a substitute for content. Both magazines have become more Americanised. Style over content.
AM did of course go through rather moribund periods years ago, several times, but it always managed to bounce back. It's not been alone. Pilot magazine used to occupy a similar 'pole-position' in GA. It was ruined and it opened-up the market for rivals. As in many things in life, one doesn't realise how good things are until they change (For the worst.) or are lost...!
Once customers stop buying regularly, they stop looking. I went from a regular buyer, to a browse-before buying punter - but I'd still look every month. Now - unless I suspect there is some big news etc, I don't even bother to browse. That pattern has nothing whatever to do with the web. Of course, I may be an old curmudgeon, but my contacts seem to take a similar view.
Last edited by GQ2; 9th Aug 2014 at 14:31.
Reason: Sp.Sp.