Magazine Startup *Please Read*

[CalebJ]

No need. The lack of a response is very telling, and what it tells could be almost anything, and none of it is good.

And it couldn't be that someone just missed an email?

 

[mh9162013]

And it couldn't be that someone just missed an email?

So now they're not being unprofessional, they're just incompetent. Got it.

 

[jqavins]

Sure, more pictures of rockets being launched are nice, but the meat of such a publication is in the "How-To" article.

I disagree. In my view, the main purpose of any periodical is to publish what's new, and occasionally retrospectives. That can be news of events or competitions, someone's new build, new emerging techniques and technologies, etc. Even the occasional retrospective is in the form of a new view of history.

There are any number of how-to books available. If you want a solid source of timeless information, get a book. If you want what's new and exciting, get a magazine.

Make: provides a good example of this. From the same publisher come both a magazine with new items on varied topics, and a library of books of "durable" information on specific topics. They also have an annual article about the SBCs and microcontrollers on the market; while some of the boards appear year after year, the purpose of the article is to keep up with the current market at the time of printing. Perhaps Sport Rocketry would do well to have similar annual market roundups of rocket electronics, of new entrants into the kit market (kit makers, probably not specific kits) and other such market watching articles. (There is the annual listing of certified motors, but I mean articles, not just big [and useful] tables.)

 

[Steve Shannon]

Sport Rocketry thru NAR and High Power thru Tripoli should STRONGLY consider re-publishing already printed "How-Tos" in their magazines. Sure, they have printed how to set up a dual deploy rocket before, but there are many out there that have no clue whatsoever on how to do it. Sure, more pictures of rockets being launched are nice, but the meat of such a publication is in the "How-To" article. There is absolutely no need for another rocketry publication. Just my 2 cents, carry on.

Although not “dual deploy” did you read Fred Traverni’s absolutely fascinating article describing in detail how he did his electronics for the five stage rocket he launched? It’s in the latest High Power that just came out. It’s the kind of article that made HPR magazine so good in the first place.

 

[mh9162013]

I disagree. In my view, the main purpose of any periodical is to publish what's new, and occasionally retrospectives.

But seeing a picture of a rocket launching is not new. A how-to article is more likely to be "new" in that there will be readers haven't seen it or aren't aware of what's being discussed.

Maybe it's me, but I find videos and pictures of a basic rocket launch to be incredibly boring. Unless it's a rocket that's different in some way (oddroc, cato, using a new type of motor mount, blah blah blah), who cares. The only exception is if the videography/cinematography is unique or different...kind of like those drag race videos and pics we've been seeing (sorry, I forget the TRF user who posts them).

 

[Steve Shannon]

So now they're not being unprofessional, they're just incompetent. Got it.

No, I think they probably are ignoring you.

 

[mh9162013]

No, I think they probably are ignoring you.

Then all the more reason not to write for them. It's also evidence that they're not as eager to find new articles as they say they are.

 

[CalebJ]

So now they're not being unprofessional, they're just incompetent. Got it.

That's one interpretation.

Another is that they're... human. And emails get missed. Around the world. Daily.

 

[Steve Shannon]

Then all the more reason not to write for them. It's also evidence that they're not as eager to find new articles as they say they are.

As someone who receives a lot of email and has missed some either due to the sheer number of emails or because they end up a spam bin or because the people who address them have made an innocent mistake, I would urge you to suck up your ire and try again, maybe double checking the address.

 

[mh9162013]

That's one interpretation.

Another is that they're... human. And emails get missed. Around the world. Daily.

You're just proving my point. Assuming you're right, then that means they're not as eager to find new articles as they claim.

 

[mh9162013]

As someone who receives a lot of email and has missed some either due to the sheer number of emails or because they end up a spam bin or because the people who address them have made an innocent mistake, I would urge you to suck up your ire and try again, maybe double checking the address.

No, I'm good. You're probably right...my email simply fell through the cracks; it happens, I get it. And it annoys me, but that's my problem.

But my whole point is not whether NAR purposely ignored me. My whole point is that they don't want articles as badly as it might seem.

 

[dr wogz]

I think you are giving up too easily / painting them as 'wrong' too quickly. And you somewhat admit you are giving up based on one attempt to reach out. I don't see how one failed attempt leads to "they don't want articles as badly as it might seem"..

• Maybe they missed the e-mail: spam / junk folder, etc..
• Maybe their reply is sitting in your spam / junk folder..
• Maybe you sent it to the wrong person / misspelled their e-mail address
• Maybe the person you e-mailed is sick / on leave / on vacation / is backlogged and is in the process of getting back to you
• Maybe you rubbed them the wrong way.. (We have no idea as to your initial e-mail / what you wrote or said)
• Maybe they are waiting / wanting an an actual article
• Maybe you did include an article, and they deemed it not up to their standards / missing content / badly written / etc..

 

[mh9162013]

I don't see how one failed attempt leads to "they don't want articles as badly as it might seem"

That's fair, but that's your opinion (and probably the majority one).

As for your list of potential explanations, many of those are inapplicable to what happened.

Here's my take: if they wanted articles badly enough, they would not allow emails to be missed so easily. You and others might disagree and that's fine. I just draw a different conclusion than you do. All I know is that in about 98% of my professional communications, when someone doesn't respond to you, it's b/c that they don't want to rather than they never got your messsage. So yes, that 2% exception could apply here, but I'll go with what's more likely.

And if something I did/said was wrong and that's why I didn't hear back, then they should have at least taken assertive steps to say they're not interested. Not doing that shows that they're unprofessional (I'm speculating, so this is just a hypothetical conclusion).

And just to be clear: I'm not saying the NAR doesn't want or need articles. All I'm saying is that the way they go about getting articles doesn't reflect the idea that they're eager to find new content for their magazine.

 

[jqavins]

But seeing a picture of a rocket launching is not new... Maybe it's me, but I find videos and pictures of a basic rocket launch to be incredibly boring. Unless it's a rocket that's different in some way (oddroc, cato, using a new type of motor mount, blah blah blah), who cares.

I've never seen a photo in Sport Rocketry of a 3 or 4FNC launching without some context that makes it something new. Reports from major regional or national events. Competition flights. Something novel inside even though the exterior shot appears mundane. Things like that. While most of those photos interest me personally little if at all, they do fall into the category of news for the hobby, and they are mainly decoration for an article which may or may not interest me more. Which is a big part of what, imo, a magazine is for.

It's like newspapers, news magazines, or web sites showing pictures of some old white guy in a suit standing at a podium. Who cares, right? But if it's a picture of someone in an important public role, talking about an important topic, the the picture goes along with the article, which is news. A 3FNC going whoosh is like the old white guy in the suit; it's the context that makes it worth publishing.

New or "rediscovered" how-to techniques are also a sort of stuff to put in a periodical. Still, I stand by the position that the tried and true methods which some folks have yet to learn belong in books. You won't find Newton's laws of motion in any physics journal; you find them in every freshman physics textbook.

That's one interpretation...

As someone who receives a lot of email and has missed some...

I think you are giving up too easily / painting them as 'wrong' too quickly...

C'mon guys, just drop it.

 

[Lawndart]

Hello Everyone!

I would first off like to say that this is strictly an idea that just came to mind recently. I've been on the search for magazine subscriptions recently involving rocketry.

I plan on selling the magazines for roughly $7-$10 based on the cost of printing, shipping, and handling. If you have any ideas, please feel free to suggest anything. Feedback is needed. Thank you all!

First, you’ll need at least 10,000 subscribers
Second, you’ll need at least 40% of the pages being paid ads
Third, you will need to pay for articles.
Fourth, put together an electronic version
Fifth, publish on time, every time.
Sixth, lots of continuous promotion on a host of media and physical presence at a lot of physical events.
And then “newstand” distribution (with a return rate of around 50%) used mostly as promotion to grow subscriber base.

You are competing with online forums, personal/club websites, YouTube, Facebook groups, and other free sources of material. I can think of 8 rocketry publications that didn’t last. Only the NAR mag has continued and it’s all volunteer and only going to NAR members (I think that last statement is correct).

 

[modeltrains]

based on the cost of printing, shipping, and handling

There is a current events factor in that,

https://www.piworld.com/article/painful-paper-cuts-continue-supply-chain-shortages-persist/

"June 13, 2022 ... And it’s not just anecdotal. In the most recent PRINTING United Alliance/NAPCO Research State of the Industry (SOI) Panel, while 64.3% of respondents actually expect to see an increase in sales for the year, just 37.5% expect that to translate to an increase in profitability, as the costs of paper and other substrates — when they can get them — continue to skyrocket. Even worse, 47.6% expect to see costs continue to rise as fast as their sales growth through at least mid-year, if not longer.

Unfortunately, most panelists see no end to the troubles in sight. And 93% expect shortages to continue through the end of 2022, and likely into next year, and 85.5% expect to see additional increases in paper costs during the next few months. This is on top of other inflation-related costs going up, such as labor, transportation, ink and toner, and energy.

and,

https://knk.com/the-current-print-paper-shortage-origins-updates-and-remediation/

Sep 12, 2022 The print paper shortage and its resulting increase in costs for the publishing industry represents only a portion of the general supply chain malaise that is affecting the US and the world today. However, it’s one that keeps publishers awake at night, with every indication that the problem will not be resolved easily or quickly.

...

What do we do about it ?​

It’s useful to divide the measures that we can take into short term actions, and those that will take a little longer to accomplish but which will have possibly more impact for the industry. Let’s start with the latter.

The most obvious thing that publishers can do is to continue the move to content and delivery digitalization that the pandemic has already accelerated. Publishers must do this with caution as there appears to be a cyclical backlash to digital readership and a move back to paper in places. Digital-first or even mobile-first are good watchwords in some sectors. The deployment of Print-on-Demand processes will help improve efficient use of paper, lower waste, and by printing locally, will aid in the industry’s Sustainable Development Goals. “Think Globally, Print Locally” is a helpful mantra here.

And for the long term, publishers will need to make some tough decisions about the wide varieties of trim sizes, colors and shapes that they have used in the past. Managing the relationship with paper suppliers will be critical for the long and the short term, and the use of flexible planning and forecasting systems for paper consumption will be important for buyer and seller.

On the subject of systems, the most common method of costing in the past was to focus on unit costs, which of course became lower as more books were printed. A more efficient approach using the vast amounts of data that are now available to publishers, is to look at the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) of each title, ...

 

[hartlch]

I've never seen a photo in Sport Rocketry of a 3 or 4FNC launching without some context that makes it something new. Reports from major regional or national events. Competition flights. Something novel inside even though the exterior shot appears mundane. Things like that. While most of those photos interest me personally little if at all, they do fall into the category of news for the hobby, and they are mainly decoration for an article which may or may not interest me more. Which is a big part of what, imo, a magazine is for.

It's like newspapers, news magazines, or web sites showing pictures of some old white guy in a suit standing at a podium. Who cares, right? But if it's a picture of someone in an important public role, talking about an important topic, the the picture goes along with the article, which is news. A 3FNC going whoosh is like the old white guy in the suit; it's the context that makes it worth publishing.

New or "rediscovered" how-to techniques are also a sort of stuff to put in a periodical. Still, I stand by the position that the tried and true methods which some folks have yet to learn belong in books. You won't find Newton's laws of motion in any physics journal; you find them in every freshman physics textbook.

This and your earlier post made me think about magazines and what purpose they serve, particularly now with the internet. As an old person, I grew up with only printed media and for whatever reason I still prefer reading a printed book or magazine. But this thread made me think about it some and in particular Sport Rocketry vs High Power. I read them the same way i.e. flip through mostly, but stopping for things that catch my eye. While I like receiving the printed Sport Rocketry magazines, do I really "need" it to be printed? No I don't. I'm perfectly happy consuming the information in the online High Power magazine. Maybe because High Power has page layout like a printed magazine. And the page count isn't high enough that the keyboard/screen interface is annoying.

And then there are books. I have to agree that they are appropriate for all the stuff that is foundational to a subject area. Yes, some of the particulars used to demonstrate concepts may be out of date, but the actual concepts are still the same. Often all the basic information in one self contained place. Confused newcomers to rocketry are regularly pointed to Stein's model rocketry book or say Canepa's high power book. Newer versions have updated pictures of current implementations of the technology, but the concepts are largely the same. But I find using online books cumbersome to peruse. Somehow I can thumb through hundreds of pages in a paper book to locate the section I want faster than navigating a web based version. Not to say well done hyperlinked content isn't handy, but it often doesn't replace a book's index very well. There is something that just seems tiring about consuming large amounts of information via online media.

So I would say "no" to the OP's original question, we don't need another printed magazine. I assume modern publishing requires an electronic version of the to-be-published page layout before sending to be printed. So skipping the expensive printing step and providing an online version would help cost wise. But as someone else mentioned, there is a whole lot of work required to bridge the gap between forum posts and magazine worthy content. And then consider how much forum content is actually of interest to any one person. Like the launch reports, competition results, and even technical articles - much is only of interest to a few. But it is cool to see your name or a picture of a rocket you are proud of in a magazine.

I wonder if the magazine concept is outdated? Being able to publish full articles as soon as they are complete to a website seems to warp the traditional concept of a magazine published on a monthly (or other) schedule. There is no real reason to gather up some number of items before publishing if it is not tied to printed physical media.

 

[jqavins]

I still like the magazine quality written and edited articles, but I do agree that they could be published electronically and on an as available basis rather than on a schedule.

Also, I completely agree about printed books for reference material. The ability to flip around 20, 50, or a hundred pages just by putting your finger at about the right spot on the edge and picking a bunch of pages up beats the pants off scrolling back and forth. Every time.

 

[jahall4]

If you have not read Mark Canepa’s book, Large and Dangerous Rocket Ships you need to for several reason, but specifically, it discusses this topic of rocketry magazines. Elaborating in detail about the history and challenges.

https://www.google.com/books/editio...Ships/fpe2DwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0&kptab=getbook