[CQ-Contest] what else is lost

[W0MU Mike Fatchett]

*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,