Why is my new FWW so thin?

[Steve Branam]

In defense of the underdog here, my last 5 issues of FWW since I re-subscribed have all been the same: 98 pages. My previous issues from 2005-2007 were 102-120 pages. I also have a hit-and-miss collection of issues from the 80's and 90's that a fellow bequeathed to me when he moved to Florida, and they range from 100-130 pages, most of them between 110 and 120. So the most recent ones are a bit thin, but are still in the range of most of their history.

Also, for the one article on benchtop sanders (who needs a handplane? those of us who don't want to mess with sanders!), there are three articles on doing similar operations by hand: Phil Lowe on using chisels, Jeff Miller on curved joinery (where he shows cleaning up inside curves with rasp and scraper, not spindle sander), and Garrett Hack on chamfering with block planes and chisels. There will always be a tension between power-tool and hand-tool articles in a general interest woodworking magazine, with statements about how one is better than the other (like Hack calling machine-sanded edges "overcooked").

Here's the call to action. At the bottom of the "Contributors" page, they say they are a reader-written magazine, and list this link: http://www.finewoodworking.com/submissions, which takes you to a page with various information on contributing, including this link for author's guidelines: http://www.finewoodworking.com/pages...rguideline.asp.

So take them up on that and contribute! I would love to see articles by many of the people here. You don't have to be a skilled writer, you just have to be a skilled woodworker. George, while they may not have responded well in the past, try again! That was eons ago in the publishing world, especially given the rapid rise and competition from online sources. The guidelines state that they send a professional photographer out once they've decided on an article, so you need to make a convincing pitch with your initial proposal and photos. Show them that it's more than just a few photos for the online reader's gallery.

Also remember that magazine publishing has fairly long lead times, measured in months as they plan article layout and placement. Online we can blog or post about stuff the day we do it, but magazines are working multiple issues in advance. For a bimonthly magazine, that can easily be 4-6 months.

When someone here does get something published, we should all write in to let them know we enjoyed the article! They need that feedback to know that readers are looking for that content. Otherwise the only feedback they'll get is from advertisers. In fact, we can start now with the current issue. Find something that you liked and send an email to fw@taunton.com. Gripes and complaints they probably get by the boatload, try a little positive reinforcement.

That's how we can go about influencing the direction.

[Dave Anderson NH]

You are probably right about the thickness (and weight) of the magazine decreasing. One of the major costs for a magazine is that of mailing it out. Even with bulk rate psotage and presort by ZIP code we al speaking about a significant amount of money each issue. Postal rates have risen steadily as the profitable first class mail volume decreases due to email and cheap phone rates. Bulk mail is at best a break even proposition for the post office and often loses money. I would almost guarantee the decrease was thinner and lighter paper to save weight and add the smaller side benefit of lower printing costs. I see merit in the comments by Chris F, Andre C, and Steve B. I myself dropped my FWW subscription about 3-4 years ago, my Am WW subscription after it was bought by Reader's Digest, and and currently recive only PWW. Needs change as skill levels change.

[Steve Branam]

I just watched Mark Spagnuolo's video about behind-the-scenes at FWW that's linked from their submissions page: http://www.finewoodworking.com/Skill....aspx?id=30223. It's worth watching, very educational. You can see there's a lot of staff behind what goes on. They also talk a bit about repeated material, and the submission process (keep trying!).

Also, having met Garrett Hack, Christian Becksvoort, Matt Kenney, and Mike Pekovich at various LN events and other shows, I feel they are genuinely interested in good hand tool work (Hack is just mesmerizing to watch!). As with many enterprises, these are good people who want to produce a good product, and they have to find their way around the economic issues. That's why we need to give them the support of positive feedback, so they'll keep it up and ramp it up.

[Casey Gooding]

I think they are just running out of articles to re-run. Is it just me or do they seem to keep re-writing the same articles over and over. Which wouldn't be so bad, if they didn't do it in back to back issues. I may be mistaken, but didn't they just do and article on building guitars from kits??

[Jeff Bartley]

Well said Steve! Thanks, it's nice to see a positive attitude, what's that phrase about catching more bees with honey than vinegar?

[Mike Brady]

Not directed at you in particular, Dave, but FWW seems to be the publication that everyone loves to hate. The simple fact is that those of us who enjoy FWW have to literally pay the price when support from the woodworking community dwindles. Continued lack of support ultimately means the magazine will just go away, as Woodworking magazine did; and that will be a loss for the entire community.

I'm a bit puzzled by the support that continues for PWW, which is the equal of neither of its parents, Woodworking, or the original PWW. I can only justify that by the loyalty that is being paid to Christopher Schwarz for his major role in the revival of hand tools and the associated skills. The magazine itself, from a production quality standpoint, doesn't come close to FWW. Their future direction might be revealed in this quote from publisher Steve Shanesy on the WIA website: "What is the appropriate joinery for non-period furniture? This seminar will challenge the accepted ideas about what is “best” and what is “quality” by looking at the engineering of case goods and box building (including drawers). It will also touch on the question of why woodworkers are so chained to the past when it comes to styles and methods of work. Does it not strike anyone as contradictory that woodworkers are eager to learn SketchUp so they can head to the shop and build 18th-century furniture using a lot of hand work?" With Chris having moved on to ...who knows what?...it will be interesting to see what lies ahead for Popular Woodworking and even their spinoffs such as Woodworking in America. Those of us who are hungry for hand tool editorial content may find the pickings pretty slim.

I think it is safe to say that periodical publication, like all printed media, is in a state of flux right now. Are we the last generation to anxiously watch the mail box for delivery of our favorite magazine? Could be.

[Dave Anderson NH]

I know it wasn't directed to me in particular, Mike and I don't take offense. All I was saying from my personal viewpoint is that my needs have changed and I dropped 2 subsciptions because they no longer met my needs. I didn't "hate" either publication and each January in Willimsburg at the 18th Century furniture conference I enjoy speaking and interacting positively with FWWs editorial staff. I have also dropped subscriptions to other non-woodworking publications as my interests evolved. You raise an interesting question about our generation(s) being possibly the last to see a viable and vibrant periodical print media. The whole landscape has been changed by the instant communication of the web and email and its integration into everyday life. In addition to magazines and printed newsletters, newspapers are also struggling to develop a "publishing" and profit model that works for them. The book printing-publishing industry faces the same issues when faced with downloadable books for devices such as Kindle. These are huge challenges when you consider the resistance that exists by the majority of web users to paying for content. Even Sawmill Creek faces this issue and had to change to an advertiser based model since the few who contribute financially were insufficient to pay for equipment and bandwidth. Who has their crystal ball out and is willing to predict the future.....and will they be right?

[Steve Southwood]

Going to agree with Dave. Ideas change just as methods of work. When I started, I was power tool all the way. Now, I am not afraid to pick up a hand tool and use it. So just as our tool usage progresses so do our interest. What magazine used to fit that bill, no longer does. What tool used to fit the bill, no longer does. I get more from online areas than mags anymore. Instant answers to questions and I sometimes get to meet the people I am talking to.

I do however keep Shopnotes and Woodsmith subscriptions. My wife like most of the projects that come out of those, so it's a no brainer for me.

[Mike Brady]

Hi, Casey. One of the criticisms that I most frequently hear about FWW magazine is their repetition of prior content. For those that have been long-time subscribers, that may be disappointing, but I find that different takes on familiar topics can be very stimulating...even game-changing. You have to keep in mind that we hand-tool woodworkers are involved in an arcane and archaic craft. The research into old masters like Andre Roubo that is going on right now is evidence that we are having to go even further back in history to find new information.

My biggest disappointment is that more contemporary furniture, made with hand tools, is not featured in any of the magazines. Quite honestly, how much period furniture do you want in your home today? I would never expend the energy or materials to build a tilt-top pie-crust table, no matter how gratifying the result might be. Stylistically, period furniture is taking a long, much needed rest from popularity today. The same applies to anything "colonial". Shaker and Craftsman styles still offer opportunity; but work from likes of Brian Boggs, Thom. Moser, Christian Becksvoort show more direction to the hand tool craftsman of today who wants to be able to make pieces that function today.

[David Keller NC]

These are huge challenges when you consider the resistance that exists by the majority of web users to paying for content. Even Sawmill Creek faces this issue and had to change to an advertiser based model since the few who contribute financially were insufficient to pay for equipment and bandwidth.

Ah yes - the irony of it all. I notice in reviewing the 3 pages of this thread that there are many folks that have many posts to their name, and have been on the board quite some time, so they clearly value the content. But those same folks have "member" under their name instead of "contributor". One might could understand that if SMC asked for $50 a year (and it would still be a massive bargain), but the last time I re-upped the asking price was $6/yr. Pretty hard to argue that that asking price is a financial burden in any sense of the word.

And yes - this post was meant to publicly embarrass those that are longtime "members".

[Ben Johnson WI]

This is the problem with the subject matter of much of our current woodworking journalism today - quality handtools are more available now than ever before in history. Ever. And as much as we piss and moan about it, quality tools have never been more affordable. We need to get this into our heads - you can do great work with crap tools and conversely you can do crap work with great tools. This is not the subject matter we should be self-flaggelating over. Pick your camp and do great work with a sharpened slot screwdriver or knock out garbage with a full set of Ashley Isles. Let's see the work, I really don't care about your tool brand or investment. (How you sharpen, tweak or customize? Yeah let's hear about it.)

Our craft has got to concentrate on encouraging quality work. This quality tool mantra is a red herring that encourages "tool offs" and not much else. Clifton vs LN vs Holtey spills ink but none of us are further ahead for it. Write articles about quality woodworking and the rest will fall into place.

I think you misinterpret. Quality hand tools != expensive hand tools or new hand tools. Obviously, without good technique, you can't get good results out of good or bad tools. I'm referring to quality of workmanship in the tool themselves regardless of cost, and then balancing the cost of a tool versus the time it takes to tune it to its fullest potential. I don't mind tool articles in a magazine - if I'm going to buy a new hand tool, I want to know the details of the experience using it, warts and all, so I can get the tool best suited to my needs.

Suppose LN and LV's BU planes are priced exactly the same, and perform exactly the same. LV uses a Norris adjuster and set screws. LN uses a depth only adjuster, and lateral moves are made via hammer taps. I want to know that kind of stuff in a review / comparison, because I like a single adjustment point and my hammer-tap skills at setting lateral position aren't that great. You might like hammer taps and hate Norris adjusters. In either case, a tool comparison is useful, as long as it focuses on features and capability fairly.

In other words, if a magazine is doing a comprehensive review of 12" swing lathes and doesn't include the Harbor Freight 12x36, but does include Jet, Rikon, Grizzly, and Nova, then they're just pimping brands, as opposed to showing their readers what options exist.

[Chris Fournier]

Ah yes - the irony of it all. I notice in reviewing the 3 pages of this thread that there are many folks that have many posts to their name, and have been on the board quite some time, so they clearly value the content. But those same folks have "member" under their name instead of "contributor". One might could understand that if SMC asked for $50 a year (and it would still be a massive bargain), but the last time I re-upped the asking price was $6/yr. Pretty hard to argue that that asking price is a financial burden in any sense of the word.

And yes - this post was meant to publicly embarrass those that are longtime "members".

Why not just phase out membership status? Bandwidth and hardware requirements will drop. Oh yeah, as the bandwidth drops so too do the interests of advertisers so they'll drop out to some extent too. Then you may well get to pay $50 a years David. SMC is a chatroom, I have yet to pay for or be asked for payment from any chatroom on the web but here at SMC. That's not true actually SMC has asked nothing of me and I respect and appreciate that. But every now and then someone who has decided for their own reasons to become a contributor makes the same call out that you have here. Perhaps you can become a "Gold Contributor" and pay $12.00 and I will feel even more shame, continue not to be a contributor but SMC will benefit as though I had. Win win for all parties!

[David Keller NC]

SMC isn't a chat room, at least in the sense that that word was originally coined, or that true chat rooms on the net have evolved into. And nothing on the net is actually free - you do pay for it in one way or another, either by giving up personal information that companies can sell, being captured so that companies can pitch to you, membership fees, or taxes.

And yes, I've contributed more than I was asked to in the past, but more importantly, getting something for free just because you can, especially when others actually carry one's load, is not something I would boast about (nor feel good about).

[Ron Conlon]

Honestly, the only thing I really look at in FWW is the Reader's Gallery. I miss the magazine Woodwork that, as Sean mentioned above, is only published once a year now.

[Mike Brady]

Sounds like contributor=sending $ and contributor= posting something of value are being confused here. If money is need to keep the board open then make use of the board contingent upon paying a fee. That's a pretty simple concept. Let me know how that works out. You might just want to take a gander over at FWW's Knots board first. A cautionary tale, for sure.