Bill's FWW Correspondence
HC Sakman
>Sorry Bill, I took the liberty to re-post this up here. I hope it's ok.
I got a quite prompt reply - two, in fact, from different editors. The one I've copied below (which I think was in response to my e-mail, though I'm not absolutely sure), from Anatole Burkin, was honest, forthcoming, and thoughtful.
It does confirm that FWW made a conscious decision to juggle a focus on beginners and some stuff for the more experienced. I continue to be disappointed, because I think they're serving the beginners a lot better than the more experienced; but it's clear that they're not oblivious to what they're producing. I'd still like to see a magazine with "Fine" in its name focusing on a higher mission than testing bevel gauges; but they clearly decided that they needed to change their approach to survive.
He also refutes the cure for the lever-nut bevel gauge mentioned by some on earlier threads - apparently, the Gladstone doesn't work as well as the old Stanleys in this regard.
When I asked Anatole Burkin for permission to post his reply, he granted it with the request that I "...make it clear that this was a note to you and not a post; I don't want to come off as rude by not replying to others if a thread develops. I simply can't take the time to do that right now."
-----------
Bill:
I came across your comments on Wood Central and just wanted to respond. While I don't dive into on-line discussions of the magazine -- not enough time -- all of us editors here do pay attention to what readers are saying. Your comments showed that you were very familiar with the magazine and had a history of reading it; you were also specific and thoughtful in what you said. Once in a while I like to send a personal note in hopes of explaining how we work here and what goes into our decision making.
The core audience of any magazine is always in flux. Every five years or so, about a third of our readers are new; others drop off. We have a much higher than average group of folks who stay with us for many years, some since the first issue. But because the audience is revolving and composed of people with wide differences in skill level, we have to consider their needs as well as the long-term subscribers. It's an impossible task to please all readers all of the time. But as you can imagine, we need to cover the basics regularly to assist those readers in the early years of their woodworking. Back in the late 1980s, early 1990s, we reached a point where we were focusing heavily on the "elite" woodworkers and their techniques. Our circulation took a downward spiral that took 5 years to turn around. That's the problem with aiming a magazine too high -- there is not enough audience to sustain it.
A smaller magazine, such as Woodwork, is better suited to going after the smaller niche market. I read it too, and enjoy some of what I see there.
In regards to articles by or about cutting-edge designers, some of the names you see in the magazine today might be well known in 10 years. Or maybe not. We have to take some chances. Folks like Steven Hammer, David Lamb, Leonard Bechler, Leonid Zakurdayev, Deby Zito, who have been featured in the last year or so, are excellent designers and talented technicians. I'm sure that in 10 years, some readers will bemoan the fact that those names are no longer in the magazine (too busy with their successful furnituremaking to take time to write for such a populist magazine!).
We continue, however, to feature well known makers. In the last year we've featured Michael Fortune, James Krenov, Graham Blackburn (twice), Silas Kopf, Paul Schurch, Miguel Gomez-Ibanez, Will Neptune and David Marks. An upcoming issue has a feature on Hank Gilpin. That said, I understand why experienced woodworkers sometimes feel that there is too much in the way of tool testing and standard technique material in the magazine. Been there, done that. But hopefully, with the occasional design article, Master Class, Current Work and the Back Cover, veterans of the craft will at least see one or two things of interest in each issue. It's a critical balance, and looking at our circulation metrics, it seems to be working.
Oh, and by the way -- regarding Steve Latta and the bevel gauge article (another thread on WoodCentral). We did play around with rotating the bolt 1/4 turn on the Gladstone tool. Yes, you can get it out of the way for one operation, but the next time you might have to fuss with it again (this particular tool would never lock firmly with the lever totally out of the way; perhaps we should have gotten a replacement). Not a fatal flaw, but given that other tools had solved the problem more elegantly, we figured, why waste your time with mediocre technology? We don't always have room to print every point about every tool. That point was eaten by the delete key. And as a result the author (who by the way is an amazing builder -- his Federal style pieces are exquisite) takes it on the chin.
In publishing, one has to develop a thick skin and not take criticism personally. But our skin is not so thick that we don't listen or don't change our ways now and then.
Thanks for you comments and for listening.
Regards,
Anatole Burkin
Editor
Fine Woodworking