Magazine?

[winsor68]

I am still a bit disappointed in the whole process... the magazine will sink or swim on its own merits now.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Sink or swim? This mag has a rather large captive circulation. whether or not members read or contribute to it is another thing altogether. As long as it can acuately inform those members that do not have Internet access as to what is happening in the big wide world of ultralighting, LSA, sport aircraft, recreational aviation etc etc is the real purpose of it's existance.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I'll give you three guesses BR, I'm reading what you wrote 9 minutes ago.

 

 

[poteroo]

Definitely an improvement. Suggestions:

 

1) Pilot Notes - p53 Let's not be too PC about this stuff - call it what it is. It's about flying mishaps, so be up front. Why not 'forensic flyer'

 

2) Flight Instructors Forum - select a single subject for several months ahead, perhaps with regards to seasonal conditions, and invite advice/comments/experiences. eg, July/Aug - frosts & fogs. Sep/Oct - fronts & turbulence. Nov/Dec - thunderstorms & handling safety. Make sure the answers are short,precise, and easily read.

 

3) 'People at Natfly' is the type of article which creates plenty of interest. Good pics of people, & their aircraft, add real value to the mag. vg.

 

4) 'Forming Shadows', p12 - about formation flying, is a subject that could be expanded. There are now many more RAAus schools which have instructors with formation experience. It's a good social and safety skill for pilots to have, and creates interest from the general public too. Maybe it could be used to describe formation activities in a number of locations around Australia?

 

happy days,

 

 

[Guest GraemeM]

I received mine yesterday and have already read all of it, I liked it.

 

Good job people.

 

For a couple of years I was the editor of the ASRA magazine ( best magazine around) and would get a lot of people complain about it, they ring or face to face tell me they thought it was crap. When I would then ask for their opinion on how to make things better in their eyes and to forward an article, they had nothing to offer except it was crap, I would thank them for their given opinion and tell them to piss off.

 

It was a thankless job taking up a lot of my volunteered time, but I enjoyed it none the less.

 

Graeme.

 

 

[Wangaratta]

Personally, overall I like the new magazine.

 

I believe as a young aviator, that the new make-up/cover of the magazine would appeal to more people (rather than the old bland 'boring' cover').

 

I haven't actually read the entire magazine, but from what I've seen, I find the new layout of the magazine great, and more in ways interesting. Although, yes the classifieds being cropped actually doesn't look that great.

 

There is a lot of talk about too many advertisements within the magazine, I don't mind them, I actually think they are good because the magazine is really meant to promote everything Recreational Aviation, and in doing so advertisements allow the ability for business and services to be seen by RAA Members and the general public who buy the magazine, therefore promoting Recreational Aviation. But yes, there needs to be a balance of good content also.

 

But so far, thumbs up.

 

-JACK

 

 

[coljones]

Got my Mag yesterday, 9 days after the start of this thread. I have a PO Box number and we are on the main north-south highway so it beats me how there can be such a large variance in the distribution chain unless they are drip fed into the post by the publisher. Mail normally gets to me within 2 - 3 days from almost anywhere in Australia.

Ah, I have been wanting to move to Red Rock. Is the mail system another dagger into the heart of my plans. How are you going with the floods and storms? I hope everything is OK with you and yours.

 

Col

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

Well I've now read it.

 

My subjective overall impression was that it contained less content than in the past.

 

Quite a few others have counted the pages. Advertisements vs articles, but is that a fair measure? From a publisher's perspective, colunm inches of article vs advertisements may be important from a cost versus revenue perspective, but a reader has a different perspective, and the publisher must also share that perspective to be successful in the longer term. We all understand the need for advertisements, both from a business perspective and from the reader's perspective, so let's not focus too much on that aspect. "Content" should be measured by quality, not quantity, although the latter is also a factor. The usefulness or interest value of the articles is what will grab reader's attention and entice them to buy the next edition.

 

We do have a different situation to many magazines which must survive by sales. This is effectively a "club newsletter" which is also distributed, for sale publicly as an enticement to non-members to gain an interest in flying and perhaps join, or at least taste it with a TIF, which is really the next step after acquiring an interest.

 

I'd hope that after the new RAA web site is launched, there is greater integration between the two, particularly as it has been indicated that the magazine will also be published electronically on the new web site. As Blackrod has said, the scales are starting to tip for physical publishing.

 

While in the past we were content to receive the magazine at whatever date it arrived for us individually, the access to on-line content and forums like this cause the realisation that delivery is far from uniform. As an aside, I suspect that the non-uniform delivery that we all complain about is an artifact of the "Print Post" service from Australia Post, rather than anything that the publisher is doing. If you look at the conditions of use for the service they contain this little gem "NOT be of itself, or contain, a letter, carriage of which

 

is reserved to Australia Post by the Australian Postal Corporation Act 1989". Now lets think about that for a moment.. There are many laws that rely on notifications and provide default delivery periods after which notification is deemed to have been given. That implies an imperative to deliver "Letters" in a timely fashion, but the condition on "Print Post" would exclude any item that had such a requirement.

 

Every new technology follows an adoption curve in terms of its penetration into the particular market. The bell curve describing adoption of new technology has been written about and analysed many times, but in short it is driven by the quantities of people who fall into the following categories:-

 

1. Innovators
    
    
   
2. Early adopters.
    
    
   
3. Early majority
    
    
   
4. Late majority
    
    
   
5. Laggards
    
    
   

 

 

I'd suggest that the publishing industry in general is yet to encounter the type 3 people in any significant quantity, but it is getting there as evidenced by the marked decline in readership across all print publications. Many infomercial TV shows now combine their programme with a magazine and web site. We are starting to see mass adoption of Facebook and Twitter integration in the television and radio media. The latter is probably attracting early adopters, but you can see the evidence spreading. It will be a very different environment in another generation, and that is the key to the "laggards". They only adopt then there's no alternative or never adopt, but die out.

 

So where is RAA? As an organisation Regular posters to this site would fall into types 1 to 2. The lurkers are probably type 3 and will come on board actively at a later time. As a generalisation, young people make up the larger proportion of types 1 to 2 whereas older people more often fit into types 4 to 5. Look at the median age of RAA membership, and you can see the situation and the problem. We, as an organisation must appeal to the young, while not alienating the majority of the membership who also possess the bulk of the practical knowledge that can be passed on to the next generation.

 

So where does this leave our magazine... Struggling to fulfil several significantly different objectives. On-top of that the contributors aren't professional journalists or writers, so the standard of articles will struggle to match commercial magazines. Our advantage: Journalists don't typically have much knowledge of flying or recreational aviation as a market segment (lamented in many posts on this site), but our members do. We now have a new magazine editor and if the submitted articles are edited to improve composition and grammar, then this is the best chance for quality content.

 

Let's provide constructive feedback and articles to assist the process.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

That's pretty deep David !.......................................................Maj...

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

I have read most of the articles now and found most of them cut short to fit either one page or at most two. Even the RAA reports are mostly one page with a little appendium in the back somewhere. This is no doubt to make for more ad/revenue space. I like a good multiple-page story I can get my teeth into, not some little abreviated number that is over before it has begun !!...Otherwise I'll just put it aside and stick to Smithsonian Air and Space....................................Maj...

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

That's pretty deep David !.......................................................Maj...

Just trying to prompt people's thinking, looking forward, rather than just this month's circulation. Everyone has an opinion on what they individually want to see, but the editor and the executive, need to be looking at the future, strategically as well as tactically.

 

 

[winsor68]

I reckon Ra-Aus as good as sold the mag. Doesn't matter any more. As long as its self funding it will continue. It is my hope that the website will be essentially the only place to find all the info for members only.

 

Currently the ONLY way Ra-Aus has to keep in touch with members is written word... many members probably don't have any contact with Ra-Aus except through the mag. The important thing is that members get information... unfortunately a mag that sells on a public news stand is probably not the best way to do that. And the cost must be considerable for the mail out.

 

 

[Guest Steven Runciman]

All,

 

It is good to see that there are many well considered comments and suggestions on the first edition of the new magazine. It is also pleasing to hear that the editor is monitoring this forum to get feedback on the magazine so that it can go from strength to strength.

 

My personal opinion is that we must not lose sight of the main purpose of the magazine and that, in my opinion, is first and foremost the main communication tool between the staff/board and all members of the organisation and secondly to promote good safe flying practices. The staff and board members do this through their columns in the magazine and one thing I found wrong with this edition is that the CEO and the Tech Managers' articles were placed towards the rear of the magazine. The Ops and Tech managers articles in particular are designed to give us pilots advice, guidance and keep us all up to date with regards to our flying practices and the upkeep of our aircraft and nothing is more important than that. All articles from Staff and board members should remain towards the front as they always have been.

 

It is also very important for members to share their aviation related experiences (whether that be a flying trip or building experiences etc) and I have enjoyed reading some excellent articles during my time as a member of RA-Aus and long may it continue.

 

There is a need for the editor to put it on the newsstands to make it worthwhile for him and he also needs the revenue from the ads. However, from a board members perspective the main point to the magazine is as stated above and I am sure we will continue to ensure it remains this way and the magazine continues to contain this important information.

 

For the first edition I think he has done well and if he takes on board some of the criticism and suggestion in this thread I am sure it will only get better as time goes on.

 

Kind Regards,

 

Steve

 

 

[bushpilot]

Well we have been told that the Editor is reading all our comments in this Thread - which is a good sign. (Why wouldn't he; feedback in this detail would cost heaps using typical product acceptance research methods - and here it is, all laid out..) But I would suggest, to give encouragement to those of us who bothered to offer commentary, that the Editor post his summary of which of the ideas and suggestions here he will take on-board and incorporate in future editions..

 

It's "our" magazine after all, so I'm sure we all want to see it at its best - and see it sell well on the newsstands, to assist in growing our segment of aviation.

 

 

[winsor68]

Steve or other board members,

 

Could we inquire whether the magazine until this point in time has been profitable? Are the changes strictly in the pursuit of a more profitable magazine?

 

 

[Guest Steven Runciman]

Steve or other board members,Could we inquire whether the magazine until this point in time has been profitable? Are the changes strictly in the pursuit of a more profitable magazine?

Don (and all),

 

The magazine has not been profitable for RA-Aus and the changes made are not in pursuit of profit. The magazine was costing a lot of money and it was getting more expensive as time went on. The changes were brought about mainly to obtain better value for money.

 

There will always be opposition to change but lets give the editor a chance to work on this. Remember we have seen one edition only. It has been stated that he is looking at this site to obtain feedback so lets give him a chance to read what has been said here and act upon it.

 

Regards,

 

Steve

 

 

[HEON]

I think it is fair to state that the change over from the old to new magazine was not handled well by most parties, mostly apparently to a lack of appreciation of the time required.

 

To me "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet!"

 

I think it would be fair to let the new "mangement" a (small) margin to get all their ducks lined up. If they fail, THEN let's have an open seasion!

 

 

[mAgNeToDrOp]

Finally had a chance to have a read, personally I like the new name "Sport Pilot" much more appealing that "Recreational Aviation....." No doubt it will get more people interested. I wish they would change the name of the whole organisation to Sport Aviation or something similar. To me recreational aviation sounds a bit, well, boring....

 

In terms of content, yeah that needs improvement, more articles, I like the idea about features on particular aerodromes.. maybe more articles on the adventurous side, not just we flew to this airport and then that airport. How about abandoned or out of the way bush strips, camping under the wing, going places (within regulations of course) you can't go with anything other than the aircraft we fly? Of course we don't want to be seen as cowboys but need to promote the fun side of it, and that it can be done safely and legally.

 

I also find articles of students learning to fly (ab initio that is) interesting, was we've all been there, and what a ride that is ;)

 

 

[Bryon]

Oh come on mate .. we really are two old Twitts anyway David

I agree with the above statement , but I dont even know how to find twitter

 

 

[Wayne T Mathews]

The most likely replacement will be a notice on a website. Late "majority adopters" and "laggards" will just have to suck it up eventually and get an online presence. I know this will probably not bother anyone reading this - for obvious reasons. However, I do have some sympathy for that group because I fear that one day I may have to get sucked into Facebook - but I'll resist Twitter to the very end!

 

I agree with Don.

 

The Kids are trying to get me onto Facebook, and one day I may have to do it. But Twitter? Come on, just the sound of it is revolting.

 

Keep the sunny side up,

 

Wayne.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

The advertising rates are based on the fact that you reach saturation point in a market. This is very hard too do in any industry and should give advertisers a commercial advantage. Consider it from the advertiser's perspective: what other medium gives you 100% penetration of your market? They will have to spend a lot of money in a lot of mediums to be able to reach the market as well as Sport Pilot does.

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

..The day is coming when a notice on a website will be deemed to be "notice given" much as it was, historically, in a newspaper.

...

While perhaps not enshrined in law as a "Public Notice", many companies utilise their web sites in this way, and have done so for quite a few years. Specifically, it can be written into the contract conditions when you have a business relationship with an organisation.

If you have a mobile phone, I'll bet it was in the fine print on the contract. All the companies who don't have a physical shopfront use this method and you agree that they can change the conditions at any time and your agreement will be signified by using the service after the change has been made.

 

There's absolutely no excuse for notices to members not being on the new web site, with RSS feeds for them under several categories. eg.

 

• Rule changes.
   
   
  
• Service Instructions
   
   
  
• Service Advisories
   
   
  
• Announcements
   
   
  

 

 

For those members who want to opt-i to email notifications, that could easily be incorporated and again broken down into separate subscriptions per topic. As an example of where this could be useful... How many pilots arrived at Natfly before hearing that the CAOs had changed? My CFI heard it from me, and I heard it here... Do you think he was impressed that RAA had not notified him? <--rehtorical question-->

 

They can still be posted in the magazine, but really the content is too great for the magazine to publish the actual notices. As is done now, you have to look at the web site or subscribe to the individual manufacturer's sites for your aircraft and engine etc..

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

... but it does assist, there are people out there who may not even know or think about it until they see the magazine and the interest begins, the odds of those people searching the net randomly and coming across RAAUS are slim to no chance at all if they aren't looking for it. Yeh, there might be some savings to cull it, and rely on online sources instead, however there are plenty of old people in RAAUS who struggle to use a computer, let alone surf through websites who may just miss out on that vital bit of info; along with those who don't even have a computer or access to internet. ...

One lower cost option would be to just take out an advertisement in one of the other magazines.... lateral thinking :-)

 

 

[turboplanner]

In any office, where communication can be by print mail, industry magazines, email, text, phone, or internet based message, a fart is still the fastest method of getting a response.

 

Efficiency of communication is everything.

 

 

[Powerin]

There's absolutely no excuse for notices to members not being on the new web site, with RSS feeds for them under several categories. eg.

 

• Rule changes.
   
   
  
• Service Instructions
   
   
  
• Service Advisories
   
   
  
• Announcements
   
  

 

 

Speaking of the website...it's probably old news, but I only just noticed that the Natfly meeting minutes went up on Friday.