• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Magazines (1 Viewer)

Steve

Member
Staff member
United Kingdom
Does Anyone Buy Or Subscribe To Birdwatch Or Birdwatching?
what do you Think? Value for Money Or Same Old same Old?
 
Steve

I buy both magazines and have done so virtually since I started birding in 1995. I do enjoy reading them but I must admit that, in my opinion, they are a bit expensive, especially Birdwatch. Birdwatching is better value than the other.

Octobers Birdwatch contained 68 pages (if you include the front and back cover) and within those 68 pages, at a cost of £3.20p and there were equal to 21 pages of adverts . Birdwatching at a cost of £2.95 is 108 pages long (40 more than Birdwatch and cheaper by 25p) with 28 pages of adverts.

I have learnt a lot from these two publications but am seriously thinking of just buying Birdwatching.

Regarding content. I do think that trips abroad could be covered on the cheaper end of the market. Not many birders can afford these tour guide type holidays (I know I can't) and articles by birders that have information regarding areas that can be easily reached, together with excellent birding, should be nurtured.

I know that Birdwatching does cover UK sites in fairly good detail with their Go Birding supplement but even that could have an article each week by a visiting birder to one of these sites
that gives an actual insight into what can be found, where they had been etc.

Magazines, like these, can't please everyone but I do think that they should look long and hard at the current content.

I don't know, what do other members think?

Regards
John J
 
Sorry to keep banging the 'British Birds' drum, but the high street mags, appear to just keep turning out the same old stuff on a fairly regular cycle, its great for a new birder keen to learn and pick up information, however, once you have decided on your niche, I think the more serious works really stand out, both in terms of developing knowledge and production quality.

Otherwise, join the BTO and get the scientific view point with their excellent bulletin and support surveys and other study projects at the same time.

Just a thought

Paul
 
I subscribe to them both, but only because I couldn't find a reliable source locally to buy them each month.

I really enjoy Birdwatching, which is by far the better of the two. The content and quality of the magazine is of a higher standard and appertains more to my interests. Having said that, I've enjoyed the atricles recently in Birdwatch, by Andy Bright, but would have preferred them to be longer and in more depth. Which sums up the whole magazine. I probably won't renew the subscription to that one.

I prefer the popular style of the magazines and as has been mentioned by Camberley red, if you want a little more then there is always the likes of Bird Study by the BTO or join the RSPB to get the Birds magazine, which falls somewhere in the middle.
 
I'd like my articles in Birdwatch to be far, far longer with many more pics ;)
I think the detail allowed in my articles is far greater than most magazines would want, most just skimming the subject. I did submit a longish article on the subject of 'optional extras' but they just cut it in half and will use it for two issues (which at least gives me a month off!) They can only devote about a page a month.... they've got to leave room for the birding holidays 3:)
Andy B
 
I've been subscribing to Birdwatching for several years now and find it an excellent read. However, I agree with the others about the overweight emphasis on holidays abroad! I'd like to see them expand the "local" side of things.

Their identification guides are excellent; a shame they didn't think to include them as a "part-work" to "cut out and keep"! Carting around several dozen copies of the mag gets a bit tiresome when you're in the field! :)
 
I prefer Birdwatching to Birdwatch, it seems better value for money as outlined above but after several years I agree with the opinion that they are turning out the same thing at each season. Although to be fair, Birdwatching does have a great Sightings section and local reserves spotlight.


Colin
 
Do you think anyone from Birdwatch is lurking here and if so do you think that will take any notice. I hope so for their sake. It's a shame as the magazine is well turned out, cosmetically, but could do with a facelift material wise.
 
I expect someone from one of the mags is lurking around somewhere John!

;)

Anyhow, I want members to cast their minds back a few years. Well, about ten years actually.

One of the birding mags of the day (1992) gave away a little black book, sponsored by Leica, with the January issue of their magazine. Basically, the book was a systematic list of birds of Britain and Europe, and you could tick the birds off as you saw them. Mine came in extremely handy, and after five years, I had completely decimated mine, filling it with every bird sighting of those five years, plus drawings and phone numbers and things.

Since then, I've seen nothing like it, but would dearly love to get my hands on a few more of them. If anyone knows of their existence or whereabouts, I'd be most grateful to hear from you.

Thank you.

:t:
 
little black books

Funnily enough, earlier today, I was hunting high and low for a little book published by the BTO and given away (last year, I think) with Birdwatching mag. The reason I was looking for it was to dispute Colin's claim to 600 on his British list (see Avatar postings), cos I've got a feeling that the BTO British list is under 300!

But that's by-the-by. Hopefully BW will continue to promote this handy little booklet!

B :)

Al
 
Would those be the field list booklets Monkeyman......
you can buy them from BTO - short list 50p, field list 95p.

318 listed in the filed list and 187 in the short list.

El Annie

:t:
 
Speaking as a newcomer to this lark, I get both magazines because there is so much I don't know. I agree with the general view that Birdwatching is superior. The layout, photographs and subject matter give it the edge. I like the combination of general interest stuff (evolution of birds from fossils), gizmo stuff (review of the latest scopes) and the Go Birding section. And of particular interest to me are the many identification hints and UK sightings. Now, how expert do you have to be to find this boring or beneath you? The feature distinguishing Chaffinches from Bramblings was excellent, as was the article on Ruffs.

I can't see why any of this should pall, even if you consider yourself to be a cut above. After all, I read all the newspapers every day and get very different things on the same story from The Sun and The Daily Telegraph, for example. They just have a different take on things.
 
Peter

I buy both magazines as well but if you read my earlier post in this thread you will see my idea on why Birdwatch isn't as good a value read as Birdwatching. It is based around cost as Birdwatch is more expensive than Birdwatching and yet Octobers edition had 40 pages less than Birdwatching plus 30% of those pages were adverts compared to the 25% of Birdwatching.

There are other things that need improving in my opinion but as you say, it is all relevant to the readers needs. There isn't a magazine that will ever satisfy all of the needs of the birdwatchers who buy it.
 
John J

I did read your earlier posting, and I quite agree with your analysis. As for advertisements, however, I must be quite sad - I like them! I find them quite useful for picking up the feel of different products and organisations. I even got the web site address for this forum that way...........
 
Peter

Don't get me wrong regarding adverts. I too like them but I was just stating a fact that one magazine tends to cut down on pages relating to actual birding topics in favour of adverts. Final analysis of a 68 page publication devoting 30% of its pages to adverts, to me, seems over the top a bit.
 
It's a question of economics, JohnJ. If the mags couldn't raise income from advertising, then the cover price would go up! Adverts, unfortunately, are a necessary evil.

Birdwatching will always come out on top for me, regardless of the ads/editorial split (where most publications strive for a 40/60!) due to its good design, intelligent layout of sections and well-written and knowledgeable articles!.

Could be worse . . . somebody might invent the "pop-up" magazine ad (like those horrible ones you get on the web!) and then where will you be? :)


Al
 
Monkeyman

I realise it is down to economics but Octobers Birdwatching was 25p cheaper, 40 pages longer and only 25% adverts. Somebody has got there economics right and someone not so good.
 
QED

BTW: d'ya know where I can get one of those new Hubble telescopes? I've heard that they're pretty spectacliar! I've tried in all the High Street stores, but can find one anywhere!

;)
 
MM:You could try NASA, but i hear the're a bit on the expensive side, put it on your Santa list, you just never know ;)
 
Warning! This thread is more than 20 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top