Photo: Cody Simms Photo Stream via Flickr
...or is something being missed here?
An excerpt from the most recent Copy of Angling Trade Magazine reporting survey results that should be of interest to fly shop owners.
FACT #4:Fly shops and word of mouth
are the most popular methods consumers hear of new products
How Do Consumers Hear About FlyFishing Products?
1.Fly Shops
2.Word of mouth
3.Magazines (reviews,article mentions)
4.Catalogs
5.(tie)Fly/Outdoor Shows, magazine ads
6.Internet chat rooms
7.Company websites
8.Press releases
Another excerpt from the same publication
Consumer flyfishing media has done a lot to bring new
anglers to the dance and keep them there. Now,the
knee-jerk reaction for many companies is to cut costs by
cutting ads. No ads, no pages in magazines. No web-sites
either,other than amateur ones.No pro media,no
pro information.No pro information,no anglers.It ’s a
lose-lose cycle.
We love traditional media. Many of our friends and fishing buddies work in it. We subscribe to fly fishing magazines. We know that they add value to the industry. We agree that the fly shop is and should always be the cornerstone of the industry when it comes to new product and fly fishing education. We also believe that to ignore websites such as Midcurrent, Trout Underground, and Moldy Chum, as valid sources of information for gear and fly fishing education who also add value, might be ever so slightly naive.
9 comments:
....yeah...because when i review gear on my blog....who am i? i'm just a fat bald guy who loves fly fishing.
Me too Rob! I bet there are a few more of us out there too.
those were my thoughts when I read that article. Must still be in a state of denial....
If i review a product on my blog, chances are, i bought it with my own money. If i like it, i'll blubber about it incesantly. If i don't like it, i'll say so. Seems to be a better way to get a real review rather than a magazine who takes money from a company for advertising and gives a sparkling review for every product that said company puts out....and i'm not knocking the pro writers or reviewers....just sayin'
I read that and also felt they were being a little too protective of their own butts.
I don't think it was meant to be biased as much as oddly conducted and presented. It's an MBA class project after all.
I mean, "Internet Chat Rooms?"
Do those still exist?
For that matter, was Internet communication included in the "word of mouth" category?
We don't know how the survey was done (mail, email, phone) or what choices were presented to participants (if multiple choice, then the choices tend to dictate the outcome).
The "facts" themselves are a little contradictory.
The reality is simple: Better than 80% of all purchases are researched on the Internet - even if the product is purchased in person.
That cuts across all age groups (except the very oldest - say Murdock's age), and while print and fly shops remain important, I know how many equipment-related searches find their way to my site every week.
You can't discern what media channels are influencing buyers without looking hard at who has credibility with the reader (I'm not making any claims around this).
It's also amusing that the three fly shops profiled in a later article all suggest that an active email program is at the core of their marketing efforts during the recession, yet few of the industry's manufacturers can be bothered to run an email program.
Print and traditional media aren't dead, but there is a core to this industry that isn't too good at change, and several companies/publications risk becoming fly fishing's equivalent to GM.
I'm relieved to see "fly shops" being at the top of this list, followed by "word of mouth." But this incredibly self-important statement made me laugh out loud:
"No pro media,no
pro information. No pro information, no anglers."
Would anyone actually expect a different perspective from "Angling Trade Magazine?"
And what exactly defines "pro" media for this purpose anyway? As far as I can tell, all that "pro" indicates in this context is that media which accepts advertising dollars. And sure, people may hear about new products via these "pros," but at the same time, when it comes to real, objective information about gear, the "pro" media I can think of seems to serve little other function than to slavishly regurgitate whatever PR blurb the manufacturer peddles. It's blatantly obvious and everyone knows it, which is why I have never spoken to anyone who puts much stock in magazine gear reviews, if they bother to pick up said magazine to begin with.
Is that what being "pro" means? If so, I'll take the honest, unbiased opinions of "amateurs" any day.
I'm relieved to see "fly shops" being at the top of this list, followed by "word of mouth." But this incredibly self-important statement made me laugh out loud:
"No pro media, no pro information. No pro information, no anglers."
Smithhammer, I admit I missed this one first time through the magazine.
Truly, a thing of beauty. I shall treasure it.
Post a Comment