*IF* CQ goes away maybe a group of folks will start something new and
better.
If there is a hole to be filled in that market someone will fill it.
I believe in the free market and capitalism. Subsidies are an admission
of failure. If you can't keep the doors to the Art Museum open then
what you are showing is not what the public wants to see or you are
charging too much to get in or are open the wrong hours etc. Change it
up and provide Art or a service that the public wants.
We already subsidize them by subscribing or paying for the magazine at
the radio store counter? If people are not subscribing or buying the
magazine then it is up to the owners, managers, publishers to find
content that people will buy or other solutions such as finding a
cheaper printer or adjusting the price of the magazine up or down as
appropriate or find better mediums such as Itunes, or digital to
continue on.
I have been a long time CQ subscriber. I enjoy CQ much more than QST
but both have a place and I find value in both. However when I have a
subscription and they cannot deliver what they promised me then they
lose my support.
Ham radio did not die when other Ham Radio magazines failed.
Mike W0MU
On 2/1/2014 8:02 AM, Charles Harpole wrote:
I am happy, like everyone, to see that CQ style contests may continue.
Congrats to the heavy hitters listed on the web site.
BUT, more is lost with the demise of CQ Magazine than contesting:
-alternative voice and view to QST.... just like the TWO newspapers in
cities of old, ham radio benefits from multiple voices... none of which
need be distinctively contending but plurality of ideas, contra web site
censorship, is good for the health of the hobby.
-cohesion and shared experiences and purposes... A group holds together via
shared experiences (the way squads of soldiers are trained) and shared
solving of troubles. A real tangible magazine can help lots. A real
magazine is under pressure to offer good, useful, entertaining and
promotional articles; its goal is to include ideas, not exclude, and sell
to a broad readership. That is not so true of narrow-topic and closely
censored web sites which live by servicing only those IN the IN group. A
system that avoids lively debate and diversity will die.
I feel so sorry for those writing here who don't see the value of
continuing these services and simply wish to discard anything the market is
too weak to fully support. I see no other substitute that will come onto
the Web; instead there will be even more insular sites, happily
reinforcing each others' opinions while condemning and excluding any
reasoned alternatives.
A civilized society subsidizes the arts, for example, for good reasons. I
see only good resulting from a subsidized CQ Magazine to help keep vibrant
life in this aging hobby.
73,
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|