• For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.

Ski Mag Buyers' Guide

Tricia

The Velvet Hammer
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
27,297
Location
Reno
Like @Muleski I never paid for a subscription to Ski or Skiing magazine. I found 2 or three copies of it in my mailbox every season, likely because of memberships with some ski organization or attending a Warren Miller Movie.
Since these magazines were addressed to my old address in Michigan, I don't see them anymore.

I did some checking to see what subscription costs are on magazines like this.
At $6.99/rack issue, the subscription is a bargain, but not worth it if they continue to decline in content.
Screen Shot 2017-09-13 at 8.59.14 AM.png
 

Jilly

Lead Cougar
Skier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
6,409
Location
Belleville, Ontario,/ Mont Tremblant, Quebec
I paid $7.99 + GST for Ski. SKI CANADA is the same for this issue. Others will be $6.99 + HST in ONTARIO . I've had a number of magazines send me notices that they are discounting printing and going digital. Hard to tear out that page to keep for future reference.
 

Stikki

Booting up
Skier
Joined
Aug 1, 2017
Posts
6
It would be interesting to see how many subscriptions are sold, and how many single copies are sold. I have this opinion that a lot of trees are killed and that many copies arrive in the mail and are never read.

You can find some of that in the postal statement required each year for magazines. From the Nov 2016 issue:

Total free or nominal rate distribution: 99,998
Total distribution: 241,148
Copies not distributed: 36,425
Total: 277,573
Percent paid: 58.5%

https://issuu.com/min-mag/docs/ski_nov_2016/112
 

Jerez

Skiing the powder
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2015
Posts
2,992
Location
New Mexico
Bought it on a whim in the grocery store.

The tables of ratings in various areas have been removed.

RIP!

Apologies if someone already pointed this out. But the tables are available online; it was a link in an email. Maybe they were reading PugSki and decided to post them.
 

Philpug

Notorious P.U.G.
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
42,624
Location
Reno, eNVy
You can find some of that in the postal statement required each year for magazines. From the Nov 2016 issue:

Total free or nominal rate distribution: 99,998
Total distribution: 241,148
Copies not distributed: 36,425
Total: 277,573
Percent paid: 58.5%

https://issuu.com/min-mag/docs/ski_nov_2016/112
Is that a years worth? If so, thats not very good.
 

mike_m

Instructor
Skier
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Posts
385
Location
Summit County, Colorado
My letter the the editor:

Hello,

I have been a "Ski" subscriber for over 15 years. Obviously, I value your publication. I would like to share with you my reaction to the latest Gear Guide issue.

First, the good:
The category divisions you chose were logical and helpful. Someone looking for a "Men's Groomer," "Men's All-Mountain Narrow," etc., were well guided. The categories made good sense and worked well.

Now, the not so good:
The information on each ski was remarkably sparse. I assume this issue is your most important of the year, probably your biggest seller, and people go to it for as much information as possible to make an informed choice about their next purchase. We need you to list specific strengths and weaknesses, who the ski is best suited for and those for whom it likely would not be appropriate. To skimp on necessary information defeats the entire purpose of the issue and engenders real anger in readers. I know you published more info on your website, but that doesn't help those who bought the print edition. Big, big mistake.

I'm sorry, but your creative director and art director should be embarrassed. Whether Jackie and Signe were told they had to reduce the type size or not, I don't know, but if you are going to produce a print edition, the first rule is that it needs to be legible! The font was absurdly small and, again, defeats the whole purpose of using print.

In addition, even if you were constrained for some reason on type size, you could at least have chosen color contrasts to heighten legibility. Look at the "Dimensions" listings for each ski and, even worse, the "Average Score" box at the bottom of each ski's evaluation. No contrast between type and background! Minimal legibility. What in the world were you thinking?

If you are going to continue as a viable publication, you need to address the basic needs of your readers. I want you to succeed, but, in all honesty, this issue was an embarrassment.

Best,
Michael Martorano
 

Started at 53

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Posts
2,129
Location
Not Ikon, UT
For those who are regular subscribers....where is the information as to the scores? Is 1 good or bad? I couldn't find it.

Equating skis to golf equipment, I am pretty sure in this day and age all skis are pretty damn good, but as stated above.... Good for who? Good for what level of skier? Weight?

I think the template for ski reviews should be taken from this website.

Just saying :daffy:
 

Myles

Putting on skis
Skier
Joined
Mar 13, 2016
Posts
96
I spy a SKI Canada in that mess. It should be out this week. Maybe I won't make a trip to Chapters to get SKI, but I need something for a plane trip this week.
Ski Canada is indeed out! Enjoy.
 

Tony S

I have a confusion to make ...
Skier
Team Gathermeister
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 14, 2015
Posts
12,612
Location
Maine
Mysteries of consistency and mysteries of inconsistency.

Example of mystery of consistency: Why do Kastles and Stocklis consistently score middle-of-the-pack at best? (I can think of a couple of exceptions, but they are just that.)

Example of mystery of inconsistency: Last two years the Volkl 108 was at or near the top of both men's and women's tests. This year it doesn't even make an appearance.

Lots of these kinds of mysteries seem to have their roots in the fact that mfrs are apparently invited to submit the skis they want for the categories they want. What kind of test is that? The mags should do what Consumer Reports does: Head down to the shop with a checkbook and make sensible decisions about which boards to buy, and group them in the way that makes the most sense for objectivity and consumer-advocacy. Let the sales chips fall where they may. I'd pay triple for they buyer's guide issue if they did that.

I know: this is where all the industry insiders give a long list of reasons about how that wouldn't work with the economics of the business, yadda yadda. Okay, fine. Then the mags should call their "tests" what they are: Advertisements conceived and executed with profits in mind for the publications and the ski makers, with consumer education a distant third in the "features that are nice to have but not at all necessary" category.
 

RuleMiHa

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Sep 2, 2017
Posts
576
Location
Philadelphia, PA
I know: this is where all the industry insiders give a long list of reasons about how that wouldn't work with the economics of the business, yadda yadda.

Seems to me given the fate of Skiing Magazine, the "economics of the business" aren't working very well. Reminds me of that definition of insanity "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result".
 

Viking9

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Sep 9, 2016
Posts
788
Location
SO CAL
What's with atomic and stoakley getting to submit a 65 and 70 while the rest have skis in the 80's , I guess maybe they need the help.
Stoakley should stick to hot chocolate and marshmallows, l'd much rather ski on skis hand made by a Spaniard than a Swissman.
 

Tony S

I have a confusion to make ...
Skier
Team Gathermeister
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 14, 2015
Posts
12,612
Location
Maine
Apologies if someone already pointed this out. But the tables are available online; it was a link in an email. Maybe they were reading PugSki and decided to post them.

Dredging up an old thread here because I downloaded the score tables this morning and found ...

... that they are so carelessly done as to introduce doubt into the entire scoring process. This is not new this year, btw; I've noticed it for a long time.

Specifically what I see again this year is that the highlighted cells that are (I think?) supposed to indicate the top score in each evaluation criterion appear to have been done very hastily by an unpaid intern using the "just eyeball it" method. Lots of obvious errors. It would be SO easy to get this little detail right. It takes maybe fifteen minutes with a spreadsheet to get it to color code the largest value in a range, yadda yadda. It makes me wonder if they did a lot of other things inaccurately, in carelessness and haste.
 

crgildart

Gravity Slave
Skier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
16,321
Location
The Bull City
Somewhere there is a thread to be "first to post" 2018 gear reviews. Well, I looked and couldn't find that thread so I'll just post here since the discussion is germane here as well. I had already come to believe that SKI wasn't going to send free issues to NASTAR folks this season since I never saw any November issue. Well, December came today with "GEAR OF THE YEAR: EDITOR'S PICKS". So, who else got their first issue of SKI 2017-2018 season today??

24294334_1899710950044434_2861489607295146699_n.jpg
 

Don'tfit

Putting on skis
Skier
Joined
Nov 22, 2017
Posts
76
Leave the gear guide to Blister and let ski and powder stick to their alcohol,drug and dope guides.
 

Tricia

The Velvet Hammer
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
27,297
Location
Reno

Sponsor

Top