Camp Chase Gazette and the Watchdog

[dusty27]

Re: IMHO: What's wrong with the CCG

My primary problem with the CCG was the delay in receiving the magazine. We would get July's issue during the first week of August, rendering large portions of the magazine (event schedule) useless.

I only got the magazine for one year, all if it under Nicky's guidance, so I don't have anything to compare it to, but not getting the magazine on time really bugged me.

The other magazines I subscribe to get the July issue out in June. My suggestion for better service would be to skip August's edition, change the date to September and issue it in August. Don't wait to catch up in December................

[Possum Skinner]

Re: IMHO: What's wrong with the CCG

All right, so where is the money? Show me the money, and I'll show you the problem.

CCG, like all periodicals, needs advertiser revenue. Subscriptions are neat, but ad revenue pays the way. How many authentic vendors pay for CCG advertising in comparison to "Billy Joe Bob's Sutlery and Polyester Emporium"?
Not to mention that there are hundreds more non-authentic sutlers than authentic ones.

The problem isn't that the majority of people don't want to know better. The problem happens when an authentic-minded person does a "how-to better your impression" article, and Billy Joe Bob realizes that this could hurt his business. Billy Joe Bob isn't going to support a magazine that is showing how horribly wrong his stuff is made, and "Authenticity Limited, LLC", isn't giving any advertising money anyway.

There obviously lies one of the rubs. The authentic-minded community isn't supporting with dollars, so why should they support the authentic community. Now I haven't talked with anyone at CCG, and I am basing my assumptions purely on common sense, but I would have to think that this would be an issue.

Just my opinion. I could be wrong.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: IMHO: What's wrong with the CCG

Hallo Kameraden!

Herr Kevin brings up a number of valid points.

To further the discussion, I am going to play Devil's Advocate (Sheesh! How many hats can this guy wear?) ;-)

Is this a Chicken or the Egg type of thing at work here?

In a previous life, I was (among other things) a "professional writer," at "work" as well as for several magazines. I have written anonymously, as well as under my own name and pen-names.

In 1984 I wrote a series of articles for a national magazine on "experimental achaeology" and on using a combination of research in the form of documents,
accounts, artifacts, and sometimes art to form a basis for historical reenacting/living history. They ran in 1985.
Tame stuff now, but....
The articles generated over 1,000 pieces of favorable mail, and but three (3) pieces of "unfavorable" mail.
For some reason unknown to me, my editor (said by some to have wanted to maintain a "happy magazine," took the three- and I was "black-listed" for nine years. Five years into that period, I received a large box of my articles with a note of apology that they were found in a broom closet after a move.

"We have the ability to "fix" this magazine and make it what "we" want--something a bit more scholarly and a bit less farb-oriented. I think if that happened--and admittedly I'm doing the pie-in-the-sky thing here with these musings--everyone would benefit. "We" would have a magazine we feel is much more worthwhile, the newbies who read it would learn more, and maybe the farbs-by-choice might see that the rest of the hobby doesn't agree with their lazy attitude toward history.

So, we can wait for "them" to fix the magazine, but we all know that ain't gonna happen. When they had a good editor recently he did a good deal but was unable to make it happen alone. Right now I think CCG is a huge void that's waiting for someone to fill it. Why shouldn't "we" be the ones to fill it?"

Okay.. here comes the Devil's Advocate part...

Fix what? Fix what ain't broken?
1. What percentage of the CCG readership base REALLY is P/H/A (or wanting to grow there)?
2. What percentage of the CCG readership base REALLY is P/C/H and would "comeback" in large enough numbers to not risk for the editor/publisher alienating and driving off the larger F/M/C?
2. What percentage of the CCG readership base REALLY is interested in what the P/C/H/A Community has to say:
a. How DARE you tell me I am wrong in what I wear and do? and
b. Don't tell me what I don't want to know! and
c. I am rightfully happy with my hobby just the way it is!!
d. Don't mess with my Mental Picture!
e. Go write and read your own magazine, and leave this one alone!!

As a student of the Past, with a history degree with a specialization in the ACW, and with a little experience in all of the alphabet letters of F/M/C/P/H/A- some hold that I have a decent, basic, level of knowledge and competency to sometmes speak on the subject.
Having been a professional writer, as well as a writer paid for writing articles, I could write articles for CGC.

Right now, and likley for the future I will not, would not care to.
And the reason would be I, me, personally do not believe that there are enough lads interested in my material. First for me to take the time to share it, and two, that what I would write would not be what the editor of CGC would want to publish for his percentage of non- P/H/A readers.

Instead, along lines of what was already shared on this and another post... for me, and me alone, I prefer to spend my time and efforts reaching what I, right or wrong, may better "served" on the perhaps larger base on the Glowing Screens of F/M/C/P/H/A Electronic fora and boards.

I don't do it for the recognition, or the money. I do it for the change.

And, as a writer or potential writer, I (right or wrong) do not feel I would be reaching/seerving/helping enough numbers to share my meager knowledge and limited experience with those interested in hearing, er, reading it with?

And that may be the shame of it- a chicken or the egg, or possibly a "build it and they will come" kind of thing.

Don't know... don't believe or think so.

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt
Who Actually Believes He Could Share a Thing or Two Other Than Guns Mess

[Kevin O'Beirne]

Re: IMHO: What's wrong with the CCG

Herr Devil's Advocate,

I guess the basis for my entire post was the assumption--and it's quite possible I'm totally wrong--that A) C/P/H writers want to share their research with others--and many writers prefer larger audiences to smaller ones, and B) that the typical CCG subscriber doesn't really care what he sees in the magazine, as long as its readable and not pictures instead of words.

Maybe I've got rose-colored glasses (I'm a realist: I'm not under the assumption that the majority of reenactors want to improve by leaps and bounds, and there ARE a lot of militant farbs who adamantly oppose any type of change for any reason), but I tend to believe that the average mainstreamer (not the "militant farb") prefers to read stuff on authenticity, even if he doesn't really act on much of what he reads.

What's undeniable in the last 8 or so years is that, while parts of the hobby have been backsliding, there are larger numbers of 'streamers who are less and less afraid of, if not becoming campaigners, at least attending one or two "campaign-type" events per year. I have to imagine that, overall, bodes well. Certainly the market for higher-quality kit is there, and I don't see the ranks of the "hardcores" really increasing much, so that means someone is buying that gear and keeping the better vendors in business. Who's buying that stuff, and who's attending the ligher-weight "campaigner" events like McDowell and Franklin? I suppose it's some of the guys who read this forum who are (and will probably remain in) mainstream units, but who also read the online how-to articles and think a little bit about improving, although perhaps not at the pace that some of us would like them to improve at.

What I'm saying so poorly is that I believe that better articles in CCG will not translate into reduced advertising revenues and declining subscriptions and sales. Now, maybe the number of subscribers has gone down the last few years, and maybe the number of vendors has too, but that's part of an overall hobby-wide decline, not because Nicky printed some better-than-average articles. In general, the mainstreamers I know (some of them being fairly militant mainstreamers, but not farbs) were pretty happy with the Nicky Hughes version of CCG. Why can't "we" make CCG into what Nicky did by contributing a few articles, and just see where the thing goes?

Now, if CCG falls flat on its face due to poor business decisions, or potentially poor editorial management, that's another thing. I just hate for folks to complain that the content stinks when no one seems to be writing for it. It's kind of hard for any organization or business to pull out of such a downward spiral, and that spiral was a problem for Nicky too.

[paulcalloway]

Re: IMHO: What's wrong with the CCG

Kevin -
I read your posts with interest and also noted another new note from Brad Peery on the CCG regarding this thread which I intend to post in a new thread to allow direct responses.

Here's the rub however, as I see it. I don't see it as my responsibility to track down the CCG editors and offer my writings. I have from time to time - they printed one of my articles, "The Case for Comrade" a few years ago - but I've written a lot more that has never been professionally published.

So have a lot of our users. If you took 3 days worth of Curt Heinrich Scmidt's posts, always incredibly informative, you could probably fill the CCG's article quota through 2006.

I'm befuddled why the editors of these magazines don't approach us individually or corporately and simply ask for contributions. I'm furthermore befuddled why none of them participate here on the AC or for that matter, ANY of the CW-related forums.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I've yet to receive a request from any of them for articles even though I've seen repeatedly references to Nicky, Bill, Ed "begging for articles".

If that's true, if you are in desparate need for articles - ASK! I'm busy working, being a father and running a website community - you all have things you're busy with too... is it that unreasonable with our busy lives that they would approach us and simply ask?

Make and announcement - run a contest, do something to invite authors and researchers to submit something for publication... am I missing something?

[paulcalloway]

CCG: To the A/C forum from Brad Peery

First, in case anyone is concerned about this back and forth between the AC and CCG - I'm not targeting the CCG, not trying to cause them problems. I'm simply not able to post there and apparently Brad Peery isn't able to post here.

Here's a letter that appears on their forum to the A/C. I'll formulate a response shortly but feel free to read it and post a reply of your own if appropriate. Just remember, this isn't the AC vs. the CCG - and don't want it turning into that. Keep things factual, helpful and informative.

To the A/C forum .... You great big bunch of intelligent people of whom I greatly admire, you are missing the target.

CCG has historically been a magazine BY reenactors FOR reenactors -- by subscribers for subscribers. Even more now than ever.
BUT NONE OF YOU WILL CONTRIBUTE WHAT YOU WANT TO READ!!!!!!!!

I've tried to be a mediator here because I see what's going on both inside and outside the magazine -- I don't speak for Lakeway, but I am privy to some of their attitudes. And I don't want the Gazette to be diluted into a meaningless pile of worthless pulp. I want to see it contain the best information available. I enjoy reading and LEARNING about this wonderful hobby. Unfortunately, I am physically unable to march to the mailbox somedays, let alone participate more fully -- but I love the hobby nonetheless. .... So it kills me to see the Gazette malnourished and shriveling to skin and bones because no one will send content. And it kills me to hear people scream for improvement yet do nothing to make a difference. I want what you want. If I could do it, I wouldn't be sittin here reading all the bitching and moaning while being irradiated by this glowing contrivance, I'd be out there with you.

The Gazette WILL print the best material available ..... unfortunately the problem is not the Gazette ..... it is the material available.

I encourage you to send material -- send items from your newsletters. Send photographs. Send NOTES to Ed informing him where to find the most authentic reenactors. I would love to see the best and brightest this hobby has to offer ..... but I guess the best and brightest are too bright to do all the work, while everyone else just sits around complaining.

Everything you guys want, I want. I want more unit history, more living history coverage, more articles on authentic period items & attitudes, heritage articles .... you've presented a fine list of content desires .... you've offered many good ideas. I believe that material from the best people this hobby has to offer, will be desirable content for all levels of participation. Lakeway is not avoiding this kind of content because it fears the market is too small. You just won't send it in. They'll print it. Believe me they want to make you happy .... THEY HAVE TO MAKE YOU HAPPY .... but can't do it without your input.

Brady Peery

P.S. ... Just to set the record straight .... I never encouraged people to sneak cameras into events. I said that IF you sneak a camera into an event, please have the courtesy to conceal your actions so you don't impose yourself on others .... and then I offered ways to be less IN-trusive. ... You are not going to stop cameras. so let's use them wisely.

[paulcalloway]

Re: CCG: To the A/C forum from Brad Peery

Incidentally, Brady, if you're reading this - your account here should be functional now.

[paulcalloway]

Re: CCG: To the A/C forum from Brad Peery

BUT NONE OF YOU WILL CONTRIBUTE WHAT YOU WANT TO READ!!!!!!!!

Brady, have you asked?

I'm going to, with humble intent, assert that there is no better method for attracting writers and researchers for your publication then by simply posting an announcement/request on these very fora and plainly asking for that which you wish to have.

I think most of us are willing to contribute, but we're not necessarily inherently aware of the CCG's state of urgency. Take the lead and ask.

[billwatson]

oh, and pay us?

Make and announcement - run a contest, do something to invite authors and researchers to submit something for publication... am I missing something?

Yah. Speaking on behalf of all those who make their living with the written word, whenever anyone makes money off words, it is good manners to make sure the writer sees some of it. It is, professionally, also the way a publication finds its feet and moves them in a specific direction: When you pay money for articles, you tend to be a bit more precise about what articles should be about, what they need to include to get your mission accomplished, what the underpinnings and foundations should be, etc.

It's one of the ways for a publication to dignify itself as something other than a shopper. That's especially the case for a publication that has lost an esteemed member of the living history community as its editor -- someone for whom people would generate quality articles without fee. The new fellow is, I believe, widely known in Tennessee journalism and history circles, with somewhat of a name among the general Tennessee population as a writer and pro-history kind of guy. But he is virtually unknown outside that geography. So, while quite a few folks had a really good idea what Nicky Hughes would expect to see in an article, they probably have no idea what Ed Hooper wants, and until they do, it's a waste of time to generate anything on speculation.

[Kevin O'Beirne]

Re: IMHO: What's wrong with the CCG

I'm befuddled why the editors of these magazines don't approach us individually or corporately and simply ask for contributions. I'm furthermore befuddled why none of them participate here on the AC or for that matter, ANY of the CW-related forums.

Paul,

You make an excellent point and one that I was, frankly, somewhat hesitant to bring up. You're absolutely correct that a drowning man often cries out, "Help! Toss me a life preserver!" and yet it seems that CCG has not done that.

With Mr. Hooper being, as I presume, not a reenactor, one might think he'd start hanging around - at least on the Internet - with some reenactor/writers. Like Phil McBride, I'm listed in CCG as a "regular contributor" and my e-mail exchanges with Mr. Hooper have all been brief (on his end) and initiated by me. I was left with the feeling that he didn't really feel like "talking" to me, but I tried to write that off to "new guy on the block and boy he must be busy". I was trying to think happy thoughts about it, I guess. Nicky returned e-mails quickly and was conversational about things; another reason I wrote for Nicky was that I knew him personally and consider him a pard in camp and a good fellow and a friend. Ed Hooper, on the other hand, is a total stranger to me, and so far he remains that way.

Yes, it's true. CCG can and should be reaching out for that life preserver. In the mean time, though, it doesn't hurt some of us to offer the thing before the moron who fell overboard drowns. So I see it, at least.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: IMHO: What's wrong with the CCG

Hallo Herr Kevin!

Herr Devil's Advocate here (I really should drop this German thing some day and keep the Scots or Irish...).

I think you are doing a good job in this discussion.

As the saying goes, "Sometimes one has to crack a few eggs to make an omelette."
Which goes back to my comment about "Build it and they will come."

As Tommy Smothers once sang: "I yelled 'FIRE' when I fell into the vat of chocolate!"

IMHO, we (myself included) are doing the "Parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant" here by looking at CGC from our own personal Mental Pictures as well as "levels, interests, applications, views, and segment of the CW Community.
As I previously said, the problem with CGC lies not in CGC, but in me- as I have "moved on" on my own Personal Journey to a point where CGC was/is no longer speaking to me.
However, I am attracted to the notion or concept of "mentoring" and "helping" others who have chosen to follow a similar Path and "ask." (Not that my "Path" is superior or better, or that their's is inferior or bad. Just that mine is different [People do what works for them).

In my Bias, I value my time as a diminishing resource. IF I were to be asked, individually or collectively, to "write" I would.
It is not necessarily about numbers. I recently posted remarkably detailed info on CW variations of the M1841 knowing full well a "rifle" is generally pooh-poohed in the "Hobby," and that (in my questimation) there might be just one or two lads here and on Szabo's who might just actually run with it.
Why didn't I think to "Write" it up as proper research article complete with photos, sketches, footnotes, citations, bibliography, etc., etc and submit it to CGC?
The short answer is that I doubt it would be printed in the first place. And I half doubt, as a jaded and burned-out cynic, that the one or two lads benefitting from it here on the Glowing Screen are HERE, and not a CGC subscriber.

This, obviously, does not hold water or make much sense. BUT, it does represent HOW I, (as no one special or gifted) view taking the time to write unsolicited articles for a publication that I perceive (correctly or incorrectly) to neither want them or publish them. (It may be from having five years worth of bi-monthly articles returned in a box from the publisher's broom closet...)

And to be of some small service, or help, to those dozens of lads who
e-mail me "off-forum," or actually ask "live" on-forum; as well as those who might benefit or enjoy what small thing I can share here on the AC Forum- I believe I am ALREADY talking to them here and not through the event schedules and vendor advertisers in CGC.
IMHO, CGC fills its "niche," and for each three lads who "outgrow" it and leave, there are two newcomer lads stepping up as new subscribers (and they are NOT P/H/Aers). [Sorry, I hold to a slightly different definition than most ladsa or the Hobby on the F/M/C/P/H/A Paradigm. I hold that "campaigning" is typically "mainstreaming" but without the modern camping and family elements. And that it is the "progressive" that moves from "campaigning mainstream" world to a "progressive campaigning" world.
But that is a topic for other posts and fora, and beaten to death over the years...)

I mention that to illustrate that we seem to be making assumptions and holding views about CGC without hearing it from the "horse's mouth." Granted, I feel all of the comments and views shared here are valid in their own way- but they are "not necessarily the views and opinions of CGC, its owners and publishers, or its sponsors.

I also mention that because, IMHO, we will not hear from the horse's mouth.

Connin O'Connell
The Devil's Advocate Formerly Known As Curt-Heinrich Schmidt Mess

[courier]

Re: IMHO: What's wrong with the CCG

Gentlemen,
One last thought before the mods wrap this up.How long has it taken most of us to develop the eye to see the minute details that drive us crazy or ecstatic-whichever?The analogy I like to use is one that compares the ability to tell an original Davinci from a well made copy.You can fool me but you won't fool the director of the Met(usually).
What I'm trying to say is that by picking an editor from outside the hobby,the learning curve will take a very long time! While the gentleman may be well versed in history and the CW,is he as well versed about the evolution of the company or batl? Does he know the depot that sent canteens out with jackchains?You get the point.A bad hat and coat hits the experienced reenactor like a poorly concieved copy of that Davinci.
Always give the new guy a chance,but if doesn't ask and does not have the advisors,we'll have a dull rag.
And yes,I'll step up to the plate and write an article on authentic cav reenacting that I have been kicking around. Regards,Rick Harris

[courier]

Re: IMHO: What's wrong with the CCG

Why don't my paragraphs come out in the submitted version?
Rick Harris

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: IMHO: What's wrong with the CCG

Hallo Kamerad!

I am not smart enough to know or speak to the wonders of the PC mechanics of the AC Forum, but it appears to "left justify" paragraphs automatically (I always "indent" only to see it vanish...)

To spare the eyes and vision of AC Forums on my long and meandering posts, I try to "space down" a space to separate "long running" paragraphs.

I am sure a PC Savy lad will rescue me here..

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt
Luddite Mess

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: IMHO: What's wrong with the CCG

How many authentic vendors pay for CCG advertising in comparison to "Billy Joe Bob's Sutlery and Polyester Emporium"?
...
Billy Joe Bob isn't going to support a magazine that is showing how horribly wrong his stuff is made, and "Authenticity Limited, LLC", isn't giving any advertising money anyway.

Nah... I don't think that's the case. CCG advertisers include such folks as:
Lodgewood, Zimmerman, Quartermaster Woolens (Abe Thomas Blanky), Civil War Seamstress, Filthy William, Wooded Hamlet, and some others.

No, the advertisers are not a comprehensive list of "Who's Who" among authentic vendors, but I've never yet found an all-encompassing list.

I hear what you're saying, but I don't think it is the case.