I don't disagree , but I don't entirely, either...how's that for equivocating? :)
I think there's perhaps some of that, but I also think there's been a very conscious impetus (backed by some of the editorial content) to add more "novice level" and "ordinary" (as exemplified by the tool reviews, etc.) articles since the early years.
This isn't necessarily all bad as the audience/circulation may require it to remain economically viable, but I personally think there's no question that the "average" skill level of the articles has come down...of course, they've also backed off of the more extreme era of "form over function" and "green issues" some, too, which is the point in time a number of years ago when I almost quit subscribing.
Yes, I don't recall just when, but during the "makeover phase" there were several editorials indicating their intent to try to appeal to a "broader" audience. That of course, means precisely more routine and mundane construction articles and the much higher concentration on reviews...
down to attract a wider
...
Yep, they announced it as they were doing it--as noted, I recall the editorials although I can't point to specific issues.
WoodenBoat magazine dealt with this and they did it right, I think:
They, too, had slowly migrated to the big, multiple tens of thousands of dollar rebuild articles, or build-from-scratch articles. Beginners were left way behind. Someone who just wanted to start out and maybe learn how to build a simple boat were out of luck.
To fix that they started an Apprentice Corner where, each issue, they would tackle basic operations, like plank replacement. They also have multi-issue articles on building smaller boats.
I think it's a good mix now. FWW can do the same thing.
OTOH, FWW didn't "migrate" high-end work, that (almost exclusively) was the initial focus--hence the name.
They've gone the artsy/environmental trend and now looking more to the masses. While total circulation is probably up, it's likely coming at least partly at the expense of former long-time readers. Of course, that was a niche market and was self-limiting, so if corporate objectives are revenue-enhancement-driven, they have no choice to meet that objective in all likelihood.
How much longer I'll hang in there is becoming more and more an issue each year for the same reason--too much of the low-level stuff, while not bad in of itself, it is simply becoming a magazine for a target audience of which I may no longer be a member to the extent it is not worth the expenditure...
To attract beginners, obviously. And those beginners enjoy the more advanced articles at least as much as the pros do. In fact, we tend to save the issues, with the hope of eventually getting up to the skill level required for a really fine piece of work.
I would be interested in knowing how one might determine whether an article is for a beginner or not. For example, a piece on hand planes and scrapers is good for even the _pros_ who don't use these tools very often.
How FWW and WB got there is rather irrelevant to my point which was to say they got to, or started at, the high end and found it wasn't optimal for circulation.
But your point about maybe it's simply no longer the mag for your level is well taken.
But I think it quite relevant that the evolution in FWW at bequest of circulation (apparently) is in essence changing the fundamental nature of the magazine from its founding whereas (as I understood your example) the WB seemed more to be returning closer to its roots. That is, the fact that there appears to have been a concsious effort to change the fundamental premise seems relevant to me. But not knowing WB at all, I may have misinterpreted...
I can't say how WB started out because I hadn't subscribed that far back. I've been with them since the late 80's and for most of that their articles were mid-to high level of complexity and cost.
Well I guess I don't have an expectation that most mags are going to adhere to the beginning premise, though I'm sure there are some that have.
My experiences have been the opposite:
With WB, Photography mags, and now FWW, I've seen them all go to or return to less complex/less costly project articles in an effort to increase circulation.
A good magazine, and I do buy it occasionally. But I'm not much into cabinetmaking since I retired through ill-health - a bit or woodturning and scrollwork is usually my limit these days. I haven't done any proper cabinet work in many years - just don't care to start what I may not be able to finish - though I did manage a pretty nice (if I do say so myself) pendulum cradle for my new grandson last year, if that counts. And with a new face in the family, there'll probably be some toys in the offing.
My late father was a cabinetmaker by trade - I inherited his enthusiasm, if not all of his skill. But that doesn't stop me from buying FW ... and occasionally Furniture & Cabinetmaking ... and The Woodworker ... and Traditional Woodworking ... and a few others, if only to dream about what I might make next! I sometimes feel as though it's all dreaming, until the wife points out all the stuff around the house I've made over the years.
I don't have a subscription to anything - I'd far rather inspect magazines on the shelf and buy carefully - though shrink-wrapping is making that increasingly difficult.
I claimed I rarely threw a copy of FW away. That was a bit of a cheat. I never throw ANY woodworking magazine away - her indoors plays hell about the growing mountain. Not to mention enough books to beggar a public library.
I leaf through them all regularly - on the days I'm not fit for the workshop I can at least fantasise about it! And - even with stuff I've read 100 times - I nearly always come up with something 'new'. Or perhaps just something my farty old brain had forgotten. But what the hell - whatever works. Anything's better than daytime TV!
It was actually called "Home Furniture" and I subscribed from #8 through #14 when they transferred the remainder of my subscription to FWW. It was a fine magazine for its short run.
I allowed my subscription to lapse last fall after subscribing from #117 to #172 - and even sent a note as to why I wasn't renewing. In my opinion they've become too Borg-ish with ho-hum tool comparisons that are riddled with inaccurate testing methods as well as losing the artistic slant and the variety of woodworking interests they covered in the B&W days. I covet my B&Ws - many of the articles are still inspirational.
I've mentioned this before: The article that I view as the "Jumping the Shark" moment was #144s "Tying Down Lumber." Not long after that issue I discovered Woodwork and have been happy with it since. (I had both subscriptions simultaneously for about 4 years - so I did give FWW a number of chances after they jumped the shark). In my note to FWW about my not renewing I commented on how Woodwork was addressing much more than the how-to and this vs. that of FWWs recent past. Never heard a word from them.
(BTW, #160 carries evidence of the $35 I received from Taunton.)
I had both subscriptions for about the same length of time. I gave away the Woodwork magazines and dropped their subscription. :-) Different strokes for different folks. I'm more interested in 18th century furniture than I am art'sy projects.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.