A new era for Sport Aviation?

[Mel]

Originally Posted by Jaypratt

I I am a EAA and AOPA member and get the mags,,, they get filed in 13, hardly look at them.

Jay, Are you aware that you can be a member of AOPA without the magazine? I haven't received the magazine for many years. Membership is $19/yr.
Unfortunately EAA doesn't give us that option.

[N941WR]

Originally Posted by Auburntsts

I guess I'm a cool-aid drinker. I love both SA and AOPA pilot--can't get enough. A. I love aviation (all aspects of it) and B. since I only participate in a very narrow segment of it, I like to follow what the rest of of it is doing. To that end I'm also an active participant on both the AOPA and Purple Pilots forums. To each his own.....

Exactly my point!
That's why I get different magazines, each with their own focus. If SA changes their focus to be more like AOPA or Flying, I don't need it anymore because I can read about that those types of planes in the other magazines.

I like the stories about some guy who doesn?t have two nickels to rub together but managed to build a pretty cool airplane of his own design. Or about someone who designed and built a fast glass airplane and then realized his wife wanted to ride so he stretched so his wife could ride in back and when he brought it to OSH no one could get enough of it. Or construction tips that I may never use but make me feel like I could build that Hatz if I just read my back issues. Even restoration stories are welcome because I can appreciate the craftsmanship involved.

Stories about how to buy a twin reminds me of something a racing friend of mine once said, ?Any Ahole with money can buy one of those, a real racer builds his own car.?

[flytoboat]

I heard Rod Hightower speak at Wicks Aircraft in Highland IL, a few months back. He was comparing the membership of EAA to AOPA and said that they would start adding content to SA to attract more pilots. He said it would not water down the experimental content, but I don't think the mag has gotten any bigger since they added spam can content. I don't agree with his philosophy of increasing membership if all it does is make another AOPA. That said, less than half the membership in my EAA chapter are involved with experimental airplanes. Our past and present presidents drive spam cans.

[KPmarc]

Hi, guys:

I didn't see this thread until this morning, and I'll comment only on the rumor that KP is hanging on by a thread. It's BS. Pure and simple.

Hightower made an ungracious comment at the Wicks thing about small magazines really hurting, seeming to imply that EAA had it all over the rest of us in print journalism. And on the face of it, that might be true. Our ad pages are down, as are those of just about every magazine in existence. (We don't have an airshow to use as a lever to get advertisers in, and we don't discount our ad rates.) I had the benefit of speaking after him, and made the following points.

But, and this is a big but... we are an extremely efficient and lean business. There are three people between me and the owner of the company--absolutely no layers of profit-sucking fat. Even in the darkest days, we remained profitable. I have many friends at big magazines, and I know that some of the real high-circulation titles ran in the red through 2009 and 2010. We worked to further improve efficiency, and to do more with a reduced editorial budget.

What many readers don't fully realize is that we're what you call a fixed-length book, always 80 pages during the year and more than 100 for our December buyer's guide issue. (I should know the exact number, but I despise that issue, and try to put it out of my head as soon as it's at the printer...) When ad pages go down, editorial content actually goes up. I haven't counted the pages in SA recently, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that we had as many pure editorial pages as they do. In normal magazine practice, we would have a much smaller book overall, but our management has committed to keeping the value up and accepting lower profit margins during the lean times to maintain the brand and keep subscribers happy.

Not only that, but KP probably has far more pages dedicated to Experimental aircraft than does SA. Each time I hear EAA wants to expand its market and broaden the appeal of SA, I do a little jig. Perfect. Wonderful. Keep at it. It simply makes my job easier, continuing the focus and permitting me to ignore the rest of the stuff. Cirrus gets a new wing? Great, who cares?

So, bottom line: KP is a profitable magazine that has become even more efficient and is patiently waiting for the market to recover to reap the rewards. Anyone who tells you otherwise is ignorant of the facts.

Marc

[Fearless]

Thats good to hear Marc. I'll send in my renewal for another two years.

[odlee]

in a certain Eastern NC military base...HooRahh!

Keep up he good work.

[Bob Axsom]

Originally Posted by KPmarc

Hi, guys:

I didn't see this thread until this morning, and I'll comment only on the rumor that KP is hanging on by a thread. It's BS. Pure and simple.

Hightower made an ungracious comment at the Wicks thing about small magazines really hurting, seeming to imply that EAA had it all over the rest of us in print journalism. And on the face of it, that might be true. Our ad pages are down, as are those of just about every magazine in existence. (We don't have an airshow to use as a lever to get advertisers in, and we don't discount our ad rates.) I had the benefit of speaking after him, and made the following points.

But, and this is a big but... we are an extremely efficient and lean business. There are three people between me and the owner of the company--absolutely no layers of profit-sucking fat. Even in the darkest days, we remained profitable. I have many friends at big magazines, and I know that some of the real high-circulation titles ran in the red through 2009 and 2010. We worked to further improve efficiency, and to do more with a reduced editorial budget.

What many readers don't fully realize is that we're what you call a fixed-length book, always 80 pages during the year and more than 100 for our December buyer's guide issue. (I should know the exact number, but I despise that issue, and try to put it out of my head as soon as it's at the printer...) When ad pages go down, editorial content actually goes up. I haven't counted the pages in SA recently, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that we had as many pure editorial pages as they do. In normal magazine practice, we would have a much smaller book overall, but our management has committed to keeping the value up and accepting lower profit margins during the lean times to maintain the brand and keep subscribers happy.

Not only that, but KP probably has far more pages dedicated to Experimental aircraft than does SA. Each time I hear EAA wants to expand its market and broaden the appeal of SA, I do a little jig. Perfect. Wonderful. Keep at it. It simply makes my job easier, continuing the focus and permitting me to ignore the rest of the stuff. Cirrus gets a new wing? Great, who cares?

So, bottom line: KP is a profitable magazine that has become even more efficient and is patiently waiting for the market to recover to reap the rewards. Anyone who tells you otherwise is ignorant of the facts.

Marc

I started this thread based on what I saw in the SA magazine compared to what I had been seeing since Jack Cox retired. I saw it as an improvement and I have longed for that for years.

In another area of product evaluation, I just receive my first issue of Kit Planes with a radial engined Kit Fox on the cover. I saw your photo on the "Round the Patch" page and I recognize a hard and focused man when I see one after 74 years of living and I know one driven man is the soul of successful efforts. I like what I see in the magazine and I will keep buying it as long as you keep producing the quality of content that is meaningful to me.

The only other magazine I read (every single word with my eyes riveted to the page) is Jack and Golda Cox's Sportsman Pilot.

I have no hope for the new EAA President doing a job that aligns with my likes and away from my dislikes - it becomes a "don't care" cell in my memory table. I do care about the Sport Air Racing League and how it succeeds and I hope EAA keeps the AirVenture Cup Race alive each year.

Bob Axsom

[elippse]

[quote=N941WR;509465]Exactly my point!
That's why I get different magazines, each with their own focus. If SA changes their focus to be more like AOPA or Flying, I don't need it anymore because I can read about that those types of planes in the other magazines.

I like the stories about some guy who doesn?t have two nickels to rub together but managed to build a pretty cool airplane of his own design. Or about someone who designed and built a fast glass airplane and then realized his wife wanted to ride so he stretched so his wife could ride in back and when he brought it to OSH no one could get enough of it. Or construction tips that I may never use but make me feel like I could build that Hatz if I just read my back issues. Even restoration stories are welcome because I can appreciate the craftsmanship involved.QUOTE]

Then you'll certainly appreciate not only Kitplanes, but also Jack Cox' Sportsman Pilot and Pat Panzera's Contact! Jack can sandwich incredible amounts of copy in a small magazine because it is filled with lots of detail in fine print. It is also the best coverage of the Reno Air Races each year, where almost a full issue is devoted to who did what in each heat and class. With Pat's Contact! you will get grass-roots experimental aviation with lots of engine details, both certified and alternate. You know how he has been able to bring this back in the monthly on-line Experimenter from EAA, which has been such a success!

[bhassel]

I've loved and subscripbed to Kitplanes for years and will continue to do so!

SA I find less exciting...hmmm...an aritcle that mixes in RC aircraft...WTF? There's never an article I just skip in Kitplanes but at least one a month in SA. The only reason I'm a member of the EAA is the local chapter. I could care less about the Wisc mafia and SA.

I'm also a strong and long supporter of the AOPA.

Bob

[seward747]

I agree, the magazines from EAA, as well as AOPA, have changed over the years. I keep my memberships up with both more so for the work they do back in D. C. As small as our community is (and getting smaller) we need all the voices, and horsepower, we can get.
Case in point, last year here in Washington state, we fought a hard battle against a proposed aircraft ownership tax. We won, this time, but several alphabet groups were involved in the effort, including a national voice from AOPA.
I think that alone was worth my dues money, no matter how good/bad the magazine is.

Doug
Seattle area
-4, wings