HamRadioNow: CQ Magazine Update from Editor W2VU

HAMRADIONOW.tv

Episode 136: CQ Magazine Update
or Hey, Rich... what the heck?

​

The January issue is in the mail. As news goes, that can't be considered really 'good' when you're saying it on March 11, but in this episode, CQ Magazine editor Rich Moseson W2VU puts the best face he can on a bad situation at CQ. Well, you might call it good when the alterntaive is no January issue, or February.... Rich talks with me about what happened and why, and more importantly what is happening now at CQ. That includes publishing print editions of the missing issues, catching up with a combined March/April issue, and getting back on track.

But there was even more radical surgery to save the patient. CQ-VHF, Popular Communications, and WorldRadio are being discontinued as independent publications. Some of their columns and content will be absorbed into an expanded section of the digital edition of CQ called CQ-Plus which premiered in the February 2014 issue. They'll add about 50 pages (including advertising) to CQ, but again only in the digital edition.

Speaking of the digital edition, everyone can view the January and February 2014 issues on-line here (the link may be valid for a limited time, so if you're coming to this page in 2017, it might not be there). Click on the cover image of either issue, and you'll go to the Zinio site to read the full magazines.

I like the digital editions, but I respect that not everybody does (but no, we're not going to send you a VHS tape of HamRadioNow). I wish Rich and CQ the best, and hope the worst is behind them and it's on to more excellent Ham Radio journalism.

73, Gary KN4AQ

[video=youtube_share;Ok7RfQStPjg]http://youtu.be/Ok7RfQStPjg[/video]


[B][B]Watch this episode here, and see all our programs on our web page:
[URL="http://hamradionow.tv/"][B][COLOR=#0000FF]HAM[/COLOR][COLOR=#FF0000]RADIO[/COLOR][COLOR=#0000FF]NOW[/COLOR][/B][/URL][/B][/B][B][COLOR=#000000][B][URL="http://hamradionow.tv/"].tv[/URL]
[/B][/COLOR][/B]
[URL="http://hamradionow.tv/"][COLOR=#0000FF]Ham[/COLOR][COLOR=#FF0000]Radio[/COLOR][COLOR=#0000FF]Now[/COLOR][/URL] is supported by viewer contributions
If you enjoy the programs, visit [URL="http://hamradionow.tv/"][COLOR=#000000]www.[/COLOR][COLOR=#0000FF]Ham[/COLOR][COLOR=#FF0000]Radio[/COLOR][COLOR=#0000FF]Now[/COLOR][COLOR=#000000].tv[/COLOR][/URL] and "click the pig"

[IMG]http://arvideonews.com/contribute/Piggy%20Bank.png[/IMG]

THANK YOU to all our contributors!​

 

We all wish them well.

I dropped my CQ digital sub because I found it hard to access and even harder to read. I no longer read ANY paper magazine and haven't for years.

Ham magazines have a tough time competing unless they are INTERACTIVE. Hams find this natural given the nature of our game. That's why QRZ has such a huge worldwide audience.

CQ survives mainly based on the contest results being published IMO.

Just a thought: if QRZ bought CQ then the QRZ-CQ on-line combo would be an important and synergistic marriage. Essentially a one-stop shop.

I suspect the ARRL is also having some pub decline issues, but that is not a speculation based on knowledge.

73
Chip W1YW

 

Nice interview, discussion, and explanation.
I haven't subscribed to CQ since a few years ago for my own economic reasons back then, This made me consider resubscribing and trying the digital edition for the new expanded CQ plus content.
I can't say I agree on the comment on merging with QST. Although I am an ARRL member I think it is important to have an independent magazine from the ARRL for obvious political reasons. Thanks Gary you are doing HAM radio a great service.
My donation will be coming soon.
73,
Tom K2BEW

 

I bought a 2 year subscription at the CQ Vendor booth when at the Orlando Hamcation Hamfest.

Yes I belong to the ARRL and automatically get QST in the mail.

Nice to have choices, and I felt it important to support another "Ham" Magazine.

Choices, that is why I have more than one radio and more than one antenna.

73 K2HAT Lee Hatfield Jr.

 

I was a subscriber to Popular Communications magazine. I am not really interested in subscribing to CQ though it is a good magazine, and Rich is
a nice guy when I have met him. Anyway. When I received the digital version of February 2014 CQ with CQ Plus, I was unable to print a couple of
pages, and zinio has been unable to help me with the problem. So I have terminated my subscription. I do receive QST and as a member of the
RSGB receive RadCom magazine too. I wish CQ good luck with their publications. I still like to read paper publications.

Ray W2CH, licensed 52 years.

 

I must have missed that one. Who said that?

73
Chip W1YW

 

I have to be honest, I'd rather receive a PDF in the mail each month than have to read on Zinio.

 

QRZ.com is great, but they aren't doing what CQ does - consistently good ham-radio journalism. Yet.

And what is this interactivity doing for us? The signal-to-noise in the comment sections below the mostly very amateur "stories" is pretty bad. Well, it is popular, I'll give you that. Honey-boo-boo is, too.

The broader world of newspapers and magazines are all struggling to find their way in the digital world. They still excel in journalism, with more real reporters breaking more real stories and in-depth investigations than their on-line counterparts that are still mostly commenting, blogging, and just lifting their deeper content from the old-school media. But they are losing readership to those same online outlets that don't pay beans for content. Maybe the online world will eventually pick up the slack, but so far we're just seeing the quality of media taking a dive.

The CQ situation is similar. The quality and frequency of their stories is better than most on-line stuff (though there are some hams who put some really good equipment reviews on their web sites). I'm happy that QRZ lets me announce my videos as "news" on their news forum, and it's in my interest to sometimes embed my YouTube video in the story, looking a bit like it's QRZ's content. But they're sure not paying me for it. Then again, I haven't asked them to. And come to think of it, I value my independence too much these days to produce video for anyone but myself (and you).

As long as "we" have the mind-set that stuff online should be free or extremely cheap, people who make content for a living won't be able to make that living there. And as the traditional media world crumbles beneath them, they won't have a home there, either. The next decade will be interesting to watch.

73, Gary KN4AQ
HamRadioNow.tv

 

Gee Gary,

I guess I am supposed to dust off my copies of Newsweek

For some reason, this wont happen. Of course I am often accused of thinking young...

Qrz with articles is the killer app.Hence my suggestion.. And I pay for qrz,so the notion of a magazine for subs is already possible. Not everything is free.

73
Chip W1YW

 

I've got over 40 years of CQ back issues in PDF format. As well as 73 and Ham Radio Magazine. More magazines than I'll read in my lifetime. Like the old magazine better.

Cancelled my subscription years ago when the timely mail delivery stopped being timely.

 

LET'S GET THE FACTS STRAIGHT!

I just got off the phone with the live bodies at CQ magazine in Hicksville. They are NOT, repeat NOT, going to stop printing CQ Magazine. You will STILL be able to get CQ by subscription if that is your choice.

They ARE going to create "CQ Plus", which will be their online-only mash-up of CQ, Popular Communications, CQ-VHF and World Radio. That will be the end of CQ VHF and Pop Comm as printed magazines, "Worldradio" having been an online-only "publication" for some time now.

Personally, I think it's an incredibly stupid thing to do. Now, the only people who are going to be aware of these "publications" are people who are already in the hobby. NOT having these publications, even at an increased per-issue cost, on newsstands where casual readers and potential newbies to ANY of the radio communication hobbies can find them and subsequently become long-term subscribers was asinine. Yes, I know there are a lot of folks who couldn't afford the extra per-copy cost of a print version on a regular basis, but at least if the general populace got that exposure, they could then opt to "subscribe" at the lower digital issue rate.

I'll keep my "hard copy" CQ coming, since it will be available. I don't have to drop $300-$750 for a tablet or computer to get to it, I don't have to worry if "the server goes down", and I don't have to pay the cable company for Internet service to deliver it (local monthly Internet services hover around $25-50/month. Now where's the savings...?!?!?) The only people this serves are the people in Hicksville. If John Q. Public started adding all those other costs together, they'd see that the "cost" is probably more, not less, to them.

73

Steve Robeson, K4YZ

 

I think that was just a faux pas. Someone else suggested merging QRZ.com and CQ, not QST.

73

Steve, K4YZ

 

Let me know if you ever decide to share your 40 years of PDF copies. I really enjoy reading about some of the older rigs and looking at ads for accessories in the "old days!"

 

Well, it is not incredibly "stupid," it is an unfortunate reality. If they don't have the advertising base or readership subscriptions what other choice do they have? Apparently it looks like they should have done this sooner. Print media is dying. QST survives because the magazine is part of the membership cost. How long with QST survive if ARRL membership was separate from a QST subscription? Advertising revenues never recovered after the economy dipped. And newer hams weren't subscribing.

Pete