[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] QST Contest Results

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] QST Contest Results
From: Ron Notarius WN3VAW <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 11:21:02 -0500 (CDT)
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Like Jim, I couldn't tell you the last time I saw QST on a magazine rack at a 
magazine/bookstore or in the magazine aisle of a supermarket.  And I do see CQ, 
but it's sporadic.

There are reasons why, and at least some of them come from the periodical 
distributors, not the ARRL.  Primarily, if the magazine doesn't sell well, or 
well enough, it eventually gets bumped to a lower position -- or off the rack 
entirely -- to make room for something that will sell.   And if a magazine 
sells poorly, generating a lot of returned publications to the distributor, 
they stop carrying it.  

So what often happens with both QST and CQ (and 73 when it was still around) is 
that someone spots it on the newstand, buys a copy, keeps buying for a few 
months (we hope), and eventually gets a subscription because it's much cheaper 
in the long run.  Which means one less off-the-rack buyer... and it adds up.

Personally, years ago when I worked in downtown Pittsburgh, I was always amused 
that certain "adult" stores always prominently displayed CQ, PopComm, and/or 73 
in their front windows, along with some photography, travel, and other hobby 
magazines.  Why?  I asked once.  It was there way of showing that they catered 
to "legit" interests too -- and they didn't care how many the sold (they only 
stocked a few copies of each anyway), it was basically a "for show" / good 
publicity loss leader.

Now, regarding contest scores in QST:  OK, I understand it was a business 
decision and why.  Still don't like it, but I understand it.  I doubt that if 
all else remains equal, that the League or QST staff will change that decision 
due to the practicality of the finances involved (remember, while they're a 
not-for-profit organization, they still can't afford to lose money in the long 
run).  Therefore:  Why don't we as contesters start asking the various 
manufacturers and suppliers for us to start sponsoring the results?  I know 
traditionally there's been little if any advertising within the "content" pages 
of QST, but still... would you be willing to tolerate a page of advertising 
from XYZ Radios, and content in the article clearly indicating "contest results 
sponsored by XYZ Radio," in return for getting the results back in?  I would, 
but then, who the heck am I, anyway?

73, ron wn3vaw

Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 07:44:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jim Reisert AD1C <jjreisert@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] QST Contest Results
To: W2RU - Bud Hippisley <W2RU@frontiernet.net>,

--- W2RU - Bud Hippisley <W2RU@frontiernet.net> wrote:

> June 2006 QST contains a double-barreled reminder of the unfortunate 
> ARRL policy re non-publishing of contest results.
> ...
> With all due respect to Ford and Kelly, I firmly believe a simple 
> tabulation -- in print -- of *all* (repeat -- *all*) entrants by 
> Division and Section does more to encourage youngsters, non-contesters, 
> and our fellow club members to get on and make QSOs than all the 
> wordsmithing about a handful of elite category leaders.

Bud, the ARRL made a BUSINESS decision.  Whether we like to believe it or not,
contesters are a SMALL minority of QST readers. They get the amount of space
proportional to that readership.

I agree it's unfortunate, but we can't change the facts.

73 - Jim AD1C

p.s. I was at Barnes & Noble last week picking up the May "Harpers" to read the
article about W6AM's rhombics.  While browsing, I noticed a "CQ Magazine"
prominently displayed in front of the "Men's Interest" section (along with
hunting, fishing, etc. magazines) but did not see "QST".

Jim Reisert AD1C, 7 Charlemont Court, North Chelmsford, MA 01863
USA +978-251-9933, <jjreisert@alum.mit.edu>, http://www.ad1c.us

CQ-Contest mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>