Cycle World goes quartely, 4 issues/year

[Ulvetanna_imp]

I don't want anyone to give away his time for free. I was willing for many, many years to pay subscriptions to quite a few (maybe 8 or 10) car and motorcycle magazines. But there was less and less content. Not gonna pay for that.

And the amount I have to pay for internet access and a smartphone plan is ridiculous, considering that any site I view is polluted with ads. I couldn't care less if all the motorcycle magazines went belly up. YouTube videos provide tons of product information, and I'm pretty sure I'll never have to pay to see Matt Laidlaw testing all the new Harley-Davidsons that his family sells in southern California. I don't have to wonder what his motivations are; he wants to sell bikes. But he makes great videos.

Clearly I am not alone in not having any intentions of paying for content on the Web. If I should see real value to me, perhaps I could be persuaded. Value used to exist when there was a nice, thick, color magazine every month in my mailbox.

I doubt that anyone cares about how much internet access and smartphone plans cost other than the providers for those services. As soon as the print world shrinks enough in size you can look forward to a lot more ads than you're seeing now, or paying a lot more for content to fill the screens of your various devices, or possibly both. It won't be fun. I don't mean that to be as cold-hearted as it sounds, but I'm guessing that it will be sooner rather than later when my take on this is proven to be true.

I doubt that anyone cares about how much internet access and smartphone plans cost other than the providers for those services. As soon as the print world shrinks enough in size you can look forward to a lot more ads than you're seeing now, or paying a lot more for content to fill the screens of your various devices, or possibly both. It won't be fun. I don't mean that to be as cold-hearted as it sounds, but I'm guessing that it will be sooner rather than later when my take on this is proven to be true. Not cold-hearted; the world has changed. It's just the way things have evolved. But you are right on with the above statements. Things inevitably have to change.

I don't want anyone to give away his time for free. I was willing for many, many years to pay subscriptions to quite a few (maybe 8 or 10) car and motorcycle magazines. But there was less and less content. Not gonna pay for that.

And the amount I have to pay for internet access and a smartphone plan is ridiculous, considering that any site I view is polluted with ads. I couldn't care less if all the motorcycle magazines went belly up. YouTube videos provide tons of product information, and I'm pretty sure I'll never have to pay to see Matt Laidlaw testing all the new Harley-Davidsons that his family sells in southern California. I don't have to wonder what his motivations are; he wants to sell bikes. But he makes great videos.

Clearly I am not alone in not having any intentions of paying for content on the Web. If I should see real value to me, perhaps I could be persuaded. Value used to exist when there was a nice, thick, color magazine every month in my mailbox.

I doubt that anyone cares about how much internet access and smartphone plans cost other than the providers for those services. As soon as the print world shrinks enough in size you can look forward to a lot more ads than you're seeing now, or paying a lot more for content to fill the screens of your various devices, or possibly both. It won't be fun. I don't mean that to be as cold-hearted as it sounds, but I'm guessing that it will be sooner rather than later when my take on this is proven to be true.

I doubt that anyone cares about how much internet access and smartphone plans cost other than the providers for those services. As soon as the print world shrinks enough in size you can look forward to a lot more ads than you're seeing now, or paying a lot more for content to fill the screens of your various devices, or possibly both. It won't be fun. I don't mean that to be as cold-hearted as it sounds, but I'm guessing that it will be sooner rather than later when my take on this is proven to be true. Not cold-hearted; the world has changed. It's just the way things have evolved. But you are right on with the above statements. Things inevitably have to change.

I am certainly willing (by evidence of the subscriptions I have had since the 70's paying every year) to pay for my subscriptions.I have every issue printed of some of the mags. My wife wants me to give them to someone. She's tired of looking at the stacks. I do think they used to do more thorough reviews of the bikes years ago, but I can sympathize with the hit the high points and get on to the next piece editors must push for.

I love the printed word. I don't read any magazines on line. I want to hold paper in my hand. I'm a dinosaur in that regard. Also a voracious reader. I can digest the contents of a magazine, every article, including all the ads in a single evening. I don't like the thought of going from 12 issues to 4 for the same content (and you know it will be less content) spread out 3 months apart. But hey, have to keep the doors open. I will see how it goes.

Heck for 23 years I wrote for hunting magazines. Sold my first article in 1990. My last maybe 5 years ago. Was an associate editor for Primitive Archer magazine for 15 years maybe? I know the electronic media is now eating into print sales big time. Not enough young people want the "burden" of magazines.

Agree. Reading is not something anyone routinely does well. Reading for accuracy and precision, and especially contextual comprehension, is nearly non-existent, even in college-educated people. People want to be -- no, NEED to be -- told what to do these days.

Reading the printed word used to be a very special and personal experience. That need is now satisfied with endless hours of video and mindless browsing.

I know some, perhaps many, will misunderstand my point here, but when the "Harry Potter" series supplanted J.R.R. Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" as the fantasy-adventure of choice, I knew the days of true "reading" were over.

J.K. Rowling is in no wise any where nearly as well-qualified to imbue her work with any level of social subtext as was Mr. Tolkien. While some may see Tolkien's major life's work as an allegory for the continuation of the British Empire, it is still an astonishing and remarkable read, and always will be. While not true "literature" in the pure academic sense, they hold a great deal of truth and many lessons on the human condition.

These things are sadly lacking from nearly all popular reading now.