Fine Woodworking Magazine - 'polite' suggestions for improvement?

Not to be negative or to rant, but FWW is increasingly getting up my nose.

It's unchallenged in terms of production values (nice pictures, together look and feel etc) but it starting to read like a lot of those writing are not at the top of the hobby/profession, the production values seem to be swamping the content, care seems to be taken to not challenge advertisers, and the high pressure marketing is increasingly an irritation.

I'm posting here because while (surprise) the e-mail addresses of the sales, account management and advertising people selling to prospective advertisers are up front in the magazine, there's no obvious means offered for contacting the editor or staff writers. (names, but no e-mail addresses)

Is it just that I'm bored, past it and spoiled, or is this a more general feeling?

Some personal irritations based on recent and fairly recent developments:

1. On contact information. It'd be nice to feel that key staff were an accessible part of the broader woodworking community.

2. On projects. Taking the dado jig in the recent issue as an example. It's a nice design, but the piece is swamped in pictures and information and as a result is such hard work to read, and more to the point to extract key information from.

There's for example little or nothing that separates what are often largely optional construction details from the principles that matter - like the use of a fixed rt angle fence, use of the guide bush, the width adjustment and so on.

It's like it's dumbed down - written for 'never did it before' readers of an excessively intense mindset (that's something coming from me :p) slavishly following the instructions step by step, but with little overview of what they are at. A much more basic drawing and more concise piece which set these out and not much more would be so much more effective.

3. On technical pieces. There's a similar tendency to provide mountains of isolated facts, but again typically not much by way of an up front addressing of the underlying especially technical principles and broader practice. Especially not if these risk drawing attention to uncomfortable facts.

Product comparisons typically lack the broader and more insightful input you might expect from a user of the equipment on test, and often read more like the five minute impression of a first time user.

This can be misleading, significantly so on occasion judging by the rapid reversing away from some implications following the piece on cyclone based dust systems some time ago. It never really got to the core of these systems - that in the end it's about achieving the required (pretty high) intake CFM for good dust and chip collection, and separation and filtration capability after that. The other details are all just enablers.

4. On the hard sell. I'm sick of the incessant bombardment with e-mails relating to both the website (which I was foolish enough to take out a sub to), and to magazine sales. Not to mention the high handed automatic debiting of my credit card when I didn't specifically ask them to stop.

5. On operation of the website. The video series on the coffee table for example seems to have been stuck on the second or third episode for weeks now. Problems are perfectly acceptable (stuff happens), but it'd be nice if it was handled up front.

6. On language and hype. How's about turning the volume down a bit?

Etc.

Is it just me?

ian

Ian,
I have every issue of FF (I was an original subscriber) and have read them all. I have to agree with your observations. IMHO, the magazine has slipped over the past several years....I find that there is less and less of value for me. I used to spend hours poring over every issue....except for the odd article, I now find I am scanning more and reading less...

My impression is that it is now compiled more by marketers, with the associated language and hype, rather than woodworkers. While, as you note, the look of the magazine is still high quality, the content is starting to have a hollow ring to it.....IMO, it's not the high craft magazine it used to be. I still subscribe, but more to keep my collection complete than anything else. My $0.02

i agree about the quality of content in the magazine. i do however love the subscription to the website. i find that i am searching for articles almost everyday. it seems that most of the useful articles that i find are from issues several years ago, if not decades ago. the magazines also seem much thinner. not sure if it's due to less content, or thinner paper.

Ian - I like Bob, Subscribed to the magazine in the very beginning. Couldn't wait for it to come in the mail. I had quite a collection. I gave it up quite a few years ago because I came to the conclusion that they were staring to repeat themselves. Now I check it out on the news stand and will occasionally buy it if there is an article that interests me but that's not too terribly often. That's not to say that the publication does not have some merit. I have quite an extensive library and find that there is something useful in them. I think the problem might be they are trying to make changes occasionally to keep people's interest. Just my two cents.

I subscribed for a while when I started WW, but have since let the subscription lapse as there just isn't much in there that is of interest to me. My wife likes to get me old back issues for stocking stuffers at Christmas, and I found more things of interest in magazines 30-40 years old than the current ones. I was also a subscriber to Woodwork, and really enjoyed their content. They always had a really interesting profile, as well as articles that addressed all areas of woodworking. They didn't have the "I can do this" kind of content for novice woodworkers. Certainly there is a place for that content, but it seems that magazines now focus most of their attention on this area.

I've been reading FWW for over thirty years and the whole company(Taunton Press)have really lowered their standards. FWW's direction has completely changed in the time I've been reading it. The SAPFM group has a yearly publication of very high quality,from some of the best in the country. My main interest is 18th century period furniture.

I think the magazine is a pretty good reflection of society itself- or the dumbing down of the same. Dave

Honestly, I think I like the magazine better now.
In the "old days" the writers sometimes appeared to be snobbish and condescending to anyone that dare do something a different way.
The magazine still features projects which are more ambitious/difficult than the typical woodworking magazine.
I guess I don't see why anyone would criticize giving more detailed instructions.

I can understand why the staff does not want to give their email addresses. All that does is open them up to more criticism.
Unfortunately, a lot of people are rude over email. I am sure the editor is very busy and does not want to deal with it.
I am not a regular subscriber to the magazine, but surely they have a general contact to the magazine. I can't remember if they still have their "mailbag" feature or not.. but if they have a general contact for the magazine, isn't that good enough?

Obtuse opinion here. I too have subscribed to FWW for a lot of years, even when I was unemployed and did'nt need the extra expense. Like most periodicals their contents, layout and overall general direction has changed over the years. But each issue has been a wealth of knowledge; even the subjects that were repeated over the years. I think lots of us, me included, have become the victims of information overload. I subscribe to other WW magazines, and it is sometimes amusing that when one publishes an article, a competitor comes out with a similar article later. I still think FWW is one of the highest quality woodworking publications. At least they have not printed any plans/articles on making lawn ornaments (no offense to those who do).

I'm still annoyed from when Scientific American started going down hill in the 80's, and I was only in my early teens then. I've been grumpy ever since.

I dropped my subscription a few years back. I still keep the online service, mostly as a search feature, and occasionally for the videos. I was given a pretty complete collection of FWW that goes back to the earliest days, I've read them all. IMO they now have more flash, less depth, and way to much recycling of content. I guess it's cheaper than original work? I think it's a natural progression with any craft that as your skills advance your interest in periodicals will wain. I'm not sure they could simultaneously attract new wood workers and challenge seasoned craftsmen with one magazine consistently. Given the declining. Umbers of people making things they seem to be Positioning themselves to attract that next generation with approachable content which unfortunately leaves many of us bored stiff.

So no Ian, in short it's not just you. If they email me one more ime asking for my opinion I just may give it to them. And I live in the next town over, so perhaps I can deliver it in person!

I never subscribed because the issues I did read were all advertising. Just like Wood, and others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Coloccia

I'm still annoyed from when Scientific American started going down hill in the 80's, and I was only in my early teens then. I've been grumpy ever since.

---

+1.
I enjoy Fine Woodworking, but I too find that the website provides more useful information than the issues. Production values, and the amazing work of the contributors in the gallery are high points.

Thank you for that guys, you're echoing a lot of my own thoughts and it's nice to feel that I'm not alone - although I'm sure there is an element of the jaded 'seen it before' to my perception. I have back issues of the mag on CD, and agree 100% that the thrust was very different back in the day.

:) The motorcycle mags that I was brought up on John were my equivalent of your Scientific American situation. I've been grumpy ever since too - looking forward to the next issue of whatever was a valued part of my life.

Predictably enough I have a view, in that I have a strong sense that the slide in magazine content in general (in Europe too) indeed started in the 1980s as smaller specialist publishing houses were bought up by large combines managed by accountants. The resulting trend towards ad hoc freelance (but mostly amateur) contributors and hype driven sales ended the era of staff writers of long expertise and experience.

It was probably part of the broader 'greed is good' sentiment and shortened attention span that surfaced then too - but here's hoping that we'll get a bounce back towards the opposite polarity sometime soon. Maybe this time without the stifling conservatism...

ian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ed Griner

I've been reading FWW for over thirty years and the whole company(Taunton Press)have really lowered their standards. FWW's direction has completely changed in the time I've been reading it. The SAPFM group has a yearly publication of very high quality,from some of the best in the country. My main interest is 18th century period furniture.

---

Add Fine Homebuilding to that as well. Searches for articles on subscriber site of FHB are all totally polluted with results from a separate publication of theirs, Green Building Advisor which you can't view anyway unless you're a (paid) member of that as well. Very, very annoying.