ALL AT SEA

[StephenSails]

Just heard they have gone in to voluntary liquidation. A sad day

Leaves IPC Dynasty/Monopoly? in CONtrol with no competition well....Sailing Today but thats it' really, what a bummer!!

Comments welcomed.

Kind regards

Stephen

<hr width=100% size=1>http://www.yachtinguniverse.com

 

[Nick2]

That is a real shame as I find it a good read and MDL had just started sending it out to me FOC.

Back to IPC for me then.....

Nick

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://arweb.co.uk/argallery/Nick2>http://arweb.co.uk/argallery/Nick2</A>

 

[Jools_of_Top_Cat]

my favourite read on board, this is truly a sad day, for no nonence up to date news at sea and land it was excellent.

I would have paid for it too, so no need to go bust

ah well



<hr width=100% size=1><font color=blue> Julian </font color=blue>

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.topcatsail.co.uk>Homepage</A>

 

[byron]

<font color=blue>The cost of printing such a publication is quite reasonable, distribution would cost more. You can't sell it because the distributors run a closed shop and it needs the likes of IPC to force them to take a publication.
They will have folded for one reason only. Lack of advertising. It is the advertising revenue that keeps such publications afloat (pun intended). They may have looked healthy enough but I reckon they were discounting it so much that there just wasn't enough income.

<hr width=100% size=1>http://www.alexander-advertising.co.uk

 

[Strathglass]

A great pity. Up here in the frozen north a copy had even managed to reach the local newsagent through the normal distribution channels.

/forums/images/icons/smile.gif<font color=red> It was the ONE sailing publication SHMBO read fully.</font color=red>/forums/images/icons/smile.gif

She sometimes reads Yachting Life, but never looks at any of the YBW mags other than to gather them up from random locations throughout the house to tidy the place up.

Perhaps it was the non 'Yachty' glossy image which was the attraction but, whatever it was, there was something about the All At Sea chemistry which was right.

<font color=blue>Should other publishers should be looking at this aspect?</font color=blue>

Iain

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[snowleopard]

what happened to Compass

the other free paper which was around before we went cruising. we read the parent paper avidly in the caribbean but there was no sign of the brit version when we came back.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[kimhollamby]

Monopoly/dynasty

What -- that's the same monopoly/dynasty that charges you an arm and a leg for posting such complimentary comments on its own forums? /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

I hate to ruin your fun but you are not suddenly going to see any change in our advertising and cover pricing policies in the wake of All At Sea's demise. Further down the thread someone has alluded to the fact that it takes an IPC-strength operation to get good distribution for a sport/pasttime) that is often seen by retailers as elitist and marginal these days and there's certainly a lot of truth in that. So carrying a portfolio of boating titles is one of our biggest business strengths -- ironically, given the free platform you have for raising this point that applies to the Internet too.

In one sense I'm sorry for the people at AAS...having worked outside of IPC for many years I know what it is like to play the small 'independent' game, although in my case I fortunately didn't have the pain of seeing all the hard work go down the plug hole.

Whatever their attraction magazines and businesses and have to be viable, so there must have been something there that wasn't working for AAS. But the list of 'others' outside of IPC is more than the one magazine you cite. Off the top of my head, without even checking:

Boat International
Boards
Boat Mart
Dinghy
Sportsboat International
Rib International
Sailing Today
Sea Horse
Yachts and Yachting

There's no more reason for anyone here to be complacent this week than there was last week, I can assure you.


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[StephenSails]

Re: Monopoly/dynasty

Kim, whilst your post does put things in to context and makes some very valid points, I have had IPC advertising sales Rep round to my house telling me that I cant advertise certain parts of my business such as the online sailing news and I am only allowed to advertise my chandlery products. When I mentioned that I thought that a business in a more dominant position (IPC) in the market place is not supposed to be so selective about its advertsing and that the office of fair trading had given me that advice I was laughed at and shouted down by this employee.

Is it fair that a company that ownes at least 6 marine magazine publications which it claims beats all the rivals for circulation refuses certain types of advertsing and pursues a policy of agressive tactics to stop advertising from small business trying to start up?

My sadness at the All At Sea loss is that their advertising team where flexable and fair, would at least listen and be pro-active when dealing with me. The content in their publication was up-to-date and gave the customer value. This leaves me in a very dificult situation and all I am really presented with is the IPC axis of expensive advertsing and pushy sales reps and the other publications which dont have the same prestige or circulation.

I think IPC cover prices are fair and I havent suggested they are expensive or cheap.

The reason why I post on this IPC owned forum is that its one of the largest forums, lots of good advice, comment and humour from a great bunch of readers, most of them will have found this website becuase IPC is allowing advertising of its website in its publications and this is a relavant place for this discussion as many of your readership also enjoyed All At Sea as a source of up-to-date news.

I hope you see the frustration from my perspective.

Regards

Stephen



<hr width=100% size=1>http://www.yachtinguniverse.com

 

[poggy]

Re: Monopoly/dynasty

Hi,

If you've got a problem with the sales reps, go above their heads and get some direct action. Selective restriction of advertising is I am sure not a policy for the magazines, but maybe the sales reps protecting there patch. I.e they have a deal with other advertisers if they make it difficult for others in the same business to take up an advert. Don't roll over and take it, keep on their backs until they give in.

Not wishing to have a go at sales reps, but they do sometimes operate outside of the company policy to get results.

Good luck.

Poggy


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[byron]

Re: Monopoly/dynasty

<font color=blue>Whilst it is frustrating for you not to be able to advertise part of your business in certain IPC publications, you cannot really blame them. Can you imagine say Tescos allowing Waitrose to put a sign in their shop window? Although a somewhat extreme parrallel to draw it makes the point. IPC are not alone in adopting such a policy. i.e. The Times Educational Supplement will not allow my company to advertise the website <A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.oceaneagle.fsnet.co.uk>http://www.oceaneagle.fsnet.co.uk

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.alexander-advertising.co.uk>http://www.alexander-advertising.co.uk</A>

 

[kimhollamby]

Not true, needs correcting

Whoever told you that you couldn't advertise your Internet service in IPC titles was wrong, although you were not to know that, for which sincere apologies. If that's what you want to do, as far as I am concerned then you can.

As you can see I'm also not stopping the debate about other publications in these forums and never do, unless the comments comprise blatant advertising for those journals which I hope you agree would be a bit rich. We also welcome staff from other journals who post here from time to time, as long as they respect the facility and its users.

Hope that clarifies.


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Strathglass]

Re: Monopoly/dynasty

Kim

One of the points of my posting was to question if there was perhaps some way that PBO or one of the other YBW puplications could be modified to make it as readable to SWMBO as All at Sea seemed to be.

This of course may not be practical or possible.

I myself am quite happy with the format and content of the three YBW mags I currently purchase monthly, in fact I thought that the current issue of PBO had a much higher percentage of content with direct interest to myself than I have seen for a very long time.

Iain


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[kimhollamby]

Re: Monopoly/dynasty

Thanks for your comments regarding PBO...I will make sure that the editor sees them as it is about now that the issues will start to reflect her influence on things following a relatively recent appointment.

As for your comments about making magazines more accessible, I'm sure they will be noted also.



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[warrior40]

What a real shame, I was only wondering at the weekend when the next issue would be out in its empty rack at the marina. It was a good regular read for us over the last winter.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[LeonF]

I always found it an interesting read but it was only so as an adjunct to the other publications around, and on its own would not have filled the gap that the others do. Interestingly I've been ploughing through a heap of Yachting Monthlys that were donated to my club, from the 70s and 80s. The tone of the content is remarkably different. More depth to the articles, more emphasis on seamanship and a greater feel for the 'romance 'of the sea. Current publications only reflect the time we live in, I suppose.

<hr width=100% size=1>L.A.R.Ferguson

 

[Jeremy_W]

They seem to have stopped paying their contributors months ago. My loss is minor, £150 or so, but regulars like the authoress of "Janet's Galley" (Janet having bailed out long ago), must be well displeased. Say what you like [or rather what Kim will allow] about IPC but they pay more or less on time.

Still, I am sad to see AAS go. It was refreshingly different, but clearly unable to attract advertising which is the essential of magazines. If everyone who says they miss it had actually put their money where there mouth is (by subscribing) who knows?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[dk]

Re: Not true, needs correcting

They might be wrong, Kim, but it certainly used to happen. I used to work for an internet chandler a few years ago and we were most definitely denied access to any IPC pages for advertising, no matter what we threatened (legally that is)!

I'm not saying I blame IPC for this - I would probably try to enforce the same (unwritten) policy myself if it was my business - just stating that it happened.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[PeterGibbs]

Re: Dear Kim,

A strong supplier is the very backbone of a market. I am sure you would agree.

Flushed with such confidence, will you then share with us not just a simple list of non IPC titles serving the market, as you posted above, but your share of revenue?

Ah, I thought not....

Just checking!

PWG

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[byron]

Re: Dear Kim,

<font color=blue>The list is quite considerable. Ask your advertising agency to provide it. Working out who has what share of the advertising revenue is a bit more difficult but for a fee I am sure the ad agency will do that too.

<hr width=100% size=1>http://www.alexander-advertising.co.uk

 

[kimhollamby]

Re: Dear Kim,

Well, thanks for drawing your onw conclusion before waiting for the answer /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

Even if I was so inclined company reporting requirements do not allow me to disclose those figures, at least from our perspective. And non-IPC titles don't report their revenues to us so to declare our market share as a percentage would also require public speculation about competitors which is not our style.

<hr width=100% size=1>