As the Technical Editor of ProBoat (Wooden Boat's sister pub, btw), I am biased, but I agree. There are a few reasons PBB is, and remains, successful and profitable, even in this challenging publishing landscape. Having said that, the old days of print publishing's wild profitability, where they were the only medium available, are clearly gone. ProBoat is available to anyone, but is subscription-free to those in the trade.
There is a formula in publishing that still works, it worked for PMM, it continues to work for PBB. Above all else editorial integrity is paramount, without it readership withers, and without readership advertising dies. And yet today, this simple formula seems to be lost on so many editors and publishers; I've dealt with this 'tension' virtually my entire journalistic career.
I won't criticize the current PMM, I haven't read it in years and only know what I hear from others, and have seen in this thread. My comments refer to my tenure, 2000-2014.
While this applies to virtually every article, it applies especial to boat reviews. Bob Lane, Bill P and I wrote nearly all of the boat reviews while PMM was owned by the Parlatores. While there was a guideline of sorts, Bob and I were free to say virtually anything we wanted, however, every review had to include one key element, legitimate, constructive critique. And, contrary to the current trend of many boating mags, where articles rarely exceed 2,000 words, PMM boat reviews had to be detailed and thus long, mine ranged between 4,000 and 6,000. If critique was absent, it would not be published, period. While builders might supply art, Bill, Bob and I took all our own photos for the reviews we wrote.
I didn't enjoy writing these reviews (unless they included a destination passage, to Iceland for instance with Tony Fleming aboard his vessel Venture II). They were a lot of work, and involved the almost inevitable backlash from the builder, the responses to which were time consuming. I never shared a review, or company profile, with a builder before it was published, primarily because I believed that compromised my integrity, or gave the appearance thereof, as if I was checking with them to see if my comments were OK with them. And, I didn't want to argue with them. I felt it was my job as the journalist to get the details of the story right, and the critique was my own.
Boat builders of course balked at some, well, all, of the critique, and it was made clear they were free to do so in letters to the editor. The result was the establishment of credibility with readers, which grew loyalty, and increased circulation, and increased ad revenue. Subscriptions were never given away or discounted, unheard of in the marine publishing world, and it wasn't unusual for couples to have two subscriptions, one for each of them. This loyalty was, I believe, one of the reasons why Trawler Fest was so successful.
This is in no way meant to be self-aggrandizing, it's simply an explanation of the formula that worked well, I didn't invent it. Every boat review I ever wrote included criticism, and in virtually every case the boat builder eventually realized that review was far more valuable than the puff piece filled with platitudes and a dozen ways to say "beautiful" or "perfect", as it telegraphed to the reader legitimacy; the builder's/advertiser's balking usually died away and most ordered reprints of the review to be distributed at boat shows and sales offices, again realizing they were more valuable than the run of the mill pieces. Parlatore understood the value of this criticism, he insisted on it. There were exceptions, some builders pulled advertising, in some cases permanently, over reviews, a couple of those are legion among PMM alumni, and the debate over who was right in those cases continues to this day. I believe, if a magazine isn't losing an advertiser now and again over something that's been written, they probably aren't being critical enough, and are thereby doing the reader a disservice. I've been subject to this retribution a few times, and good editors have supported me, and I think about it when ever I'm writing, it reminds me to be prepared to back up what ever I write.
Finding authors who can write critical boat reviews (and solid destination and technical pieces) is no easy task. The author has to be able to critically evaluate a vessel, identify the strengths and weaknesses, and then be able to justify them with both readers and builders. The builder is apt to say, "What do you know about boat building? We've built XXX boats, you are just a writer" and in some cases they are right. Bob Lane, a life-long boat owner, experienced cruiser, and retired professional newspaper journalist, was one of the best. His passing was a great loss, I miss him as a friend and colleague.
Predictably, authors who can do this well command a higher fee, or once did anyway, which doesn't sit well with many publishers. As a result, most boat review authors play it safe, filling the review with accolades, shielding them from builder/advertiser critique, while readers stop renewing subscriptions. Many editors/publishers gravitate to this format as well, as they never have to worry about getting that angry call from an advertiser, threatening to cancel an ad contract. At first this seems like a workable format, ad revenue remains steady or even climbs as advertisers love it, but over time it's like the moth attracted to the flame, the bond of trust with readers is broken and it all begins to crater.
I worked for PMM for 14 years, and was the Technical Editor for 12 of those years (I proposed the position to Bill P, and he created it for me). During the Parlatore's ownership I had at least an article in every issue, and lectured at every Trawler Fest, it was some of the most enjoyable writing and lecturing I ever did, as I was free to cover almost any subject I wanted; nothing I wrote was ever edited for content without my permission. The longest article I ever published, about, of all things, Sir Ernest Shackleton's epic Antarctic saga, which I wrote after PMM sent me on an expedition cruise that retraced some of his route, was over 9,000 words, I'm pretty sure it holds the PMM record.
Clearly the world of publishing, marine and otherwise, has changed and print publishers do struggle to remain profitable for many legitimate reasons. Positions continue to be cut and consolidated and those who remain are told they need to do more with less. I see more and more magazines forming advertising and editorial "partnerships", in a seeming effort to remain profitable, as readers gravitate to online publications and forums like this. My instinct says the firewall between ad and editorial should remain in place regardless of the format, without it all-important reader trust is once again forfeited for short-term gain. ProBoat continues to do this effectively, their editorial integrity is among the highest I've ever encountered. They have no real competition and they command a world-wide readership. How that landscape will change in this new decade remains to be seen.
Finally, I'm looking for a PMM article written many years ago, maybe by Bob Lane, about Northern Lights/Alaska Diesel Electric. If anyone has an issue with that article in it, and can find it, I'd gladly pay to have it mailed to me. Thanks.
