Another point is that some state they do not take free trips. As I recall, Mr. Boddington himself said that he paid for all his trips.

This is not to say I dislike Craig Boddington, I have only met him once or twice, and he seems a nice guy. I enjoy his writings and have paid for several of his books, and will continue to buy the ones that interest me.

My comment to the industry as a whole is to start cutting out the free hunts/gear for writers and give the rest of us a break on the price, even if it is only 1-2%. If journalism on these topics is needed or wanted, then the market will pay for it.

I also think that full disclosure should be mandatory. To put it bluntly, I should not have to pay for someone to subject me to their advertising.

Craig Boddington has paid for all of his hunting trips out of his own pocket?? Hmmmm....

Do any of you REALLY believe that??

I read it somewhere that CB has been on over 100 African Safaris. Lets give him the benefit of the doubt that many of those Safari's have been budget hunts to Namibia or RSA. As we have read in his articals, books, video, etc, that he has also hunted extensively in big dollar countries like Tanzania, Ethiopia, Zambia, CAR, etc, etc.
Let's use a ROUGH average for all of those hunts combined ($180,000 for Tanzania to $15,000 for RSA?) so let's say that the average Safari is $30,000. Multiply that $30,000 x 100. Unless my calculator is broken, that comes out to 3 Million Dollars!!! Keep in mind that 3 Million is just Africa. Add the dozens of hunts he has been on elsewhere in the world ($30,000 for one Marco Polo Sheep?)and I'm sure the number is much higher than 3 Mil.

Let's be logical now....unless CB is making a SHITLOAD of money from writing, he is either NOT paying for his hunts, not paying full price, or someone else is paying his bill...hence the whole bankruptcy debacle.

With that said, however, my hat is off to you Craig Boddington..... however you did it, you "Made It Happen." You are still living a hunting lifestyle that only the Mega-Wealthy could afford.

Good for you!

Heavily discounted -'Token Fee' hunts Id say....just to have CBs face & his hunt report giving the hunting services company a high profile.

Nice work if you can get it.. (if one enjoys hunting that much).
personally I can think of other equally interesting things to do than just hunting and writing about it all the time.(yawn)

quote:

Why hunt reports positive and negative have far more value for me. Would reports on Andrew/fairgame have more value or a fluff article written about him ?

Why thank you Mike.

If I recall correctly, the FTC passed a regulation that the media must disclose any free of benefits from writing about/reviewing commercial items being reviewed. I can't recall much more than a statement of "xyz manufacturer sent this abc item to test."

I still enjoy the gun rags, but base more of my opinions on forums these days. The articles are a primer to learn more from common folk. I'm sure the manufacturers send the cream of the crop to the writers. Case in point, I really liked the Remington R51 as a carry gun, but learned it was with many flaws with the public.

As far as Boddington, he has always been cordial and has taught me a lot about the Africa I never thought I'd see. He may have made bad financial deals. I feel for his creditors. I'd be better off with collecting fees from my dead beat clients, but that's my fault.

I agree with DCS about the media/gun/hunting industry. Where is the critical review of new products? I haven't read a negative review of a new product in decades, and I've been reading this stuff since junior high in 1968!

Although I am tired of watching/reading about the same guys going on hunts I've dreamed of and hawking the equipment and outfitters who paid for it. I don't think it is fair to blame CB for this situation though. It is how the industry works and we do benefit from it; if they don't sell products they don't last long!

CB wrote a long time ago that early in his career he decided that he would not write negative reviews about products or outfitters. If he couldn't write something good he would not write anything at all. As a result he has been in high demand for sponsored hunts that lead to published articles. I have to believe that most of his hunts have been paid for by sponsors. In CB's first buffalo video he carried a Dakota .375 and a Rigby .470 and his leopard video he had a Dakota .30-06. Then Ruger took over and he used it's products. If he had demanded Dakota guns there wouldn't have been Tracks Across Africa.

In contrast, Terry Wieland is a former reporter. He does criticize substandard products. He prefers Holland & Holland double rifles to others; who wouldn't? His book "Dangerous Game Rifles" is, in my opinion, the best ever written on that subject. In it, he argues that one should carry the best weapon one can afford when going after game that can kill you. John Taylor wrote the same thing 70 years ago. But Wieland doesn't get sponsored hunts like CB. A different approach with a different result.

Regarding Chapter 7, I am an attorney and have represented many people forced to file Chapter 7. It is a humiliating, embarrassing experience. Not one of my clients wanted to file; they were forced into it by a convergence of negative factors, usually hospital bills, unemployment, etc. Fortune 500 companies run by professional managers have sought shelter in bankruptcy after market forces and/or poor decision-making resulted in substantial losses. CB is a one-man cottage industry. It is not hard to see how his business could suffer a quick reversal.
When I need the straight info on anything hunting, firearms, etc., I come here. AR is the best place to get real info from people who actually do what I do, or want to do. Thanks Saeed.

Come on guys. Do you think someone can make a living writing for gun rags if they had to pay for everything themselves? can you imagine the price of a magazine if they had to pay CB the prize of a buff hunt for his article? All profesions prostitute themselves to some extent. Do you think your doctor would use certain knee replacement component if the reps hasn't take him to Monte Carlo to see the device demonstrated at the XX institute? or prescribe a medicine after the pharm rep invited him on a nice golf outing to Vegas? and then pay him to go Maui to give a talk about how wonderfully the medicine works on his patients?

I rarely post on AR as I rarely feel I have much to contribute - especially to these types of threads, but I had some thoughts that I think apply here...

The discussion about whether or not a writer actually pays for the hunt brings to mind what Chuck Adams wrote in his book "Life at Full Draw" - when he was pursuing the Grand Slam, he often borrowed money to pay for a trip, his banker and he viewed the load as a business investment: The ROI was future business opportunities based on Chuck completing Grand Slam. Really not much different that a contractor borrowing money for a new excavator so that he could pursue larger construction jobs..

If I was CB and made my living as he does, I might pursue financial backing from many sources in order to pay for a hunting trip that, hopefully, would result in sufficient revenue to payback my investors and provide income for me to live on and grow my business. For numerous possible reasons, it may only take one trip that failed to pay off to put a writer in a huge hole - after all, the money would not be used to purchase capital assets that have residual value - meaning if the project tanked, there would be no assets to sell to try and recoup at least some of the loss. Kinda scary but understanding the risk / reward and having the courage to take the leap is often what builds businesses..

If an individual backed up a project with there personal assets, their risk is even greater. It was not that many years ago that I had to use my assets as collateral to make payroll when things were tough - bankruptcy could have resulted for me if things had not picked up.

Ruark relied on commitments and advances from his publishers - he could not write about his experiences if he did not have the experiences and he could not pay for the experiences without the income of writing about the experiences... The Catch 22....

Just some thoughts...

Guys,

Lets have a little class on Economics 101. First lesson, if you buy an item for .50 cents and sell it for a quarter, you have lost a quarter. That loss cannot be made up by large volume sales. That was a lesson my father taught me about 65 years ago. It is as true today as it was back then. Producing and publishing a magazine is an expensive proposition. Writer payments are peanuts compared to the other costs involved. Subscriptions and magazine stand sales usually don't even pay for the postage costs. Were it not for advertising revenues, a single copy of a popular magazine would have to sell for around $15 bucks or more, just to break even. Taking these facts into consideration, magazine publishers tread very lightly around advertisers and even potential advertisers. They dare not offend them. Publishers around advertisers follow the lead of Hollywood starlets around casting directors and producers, and keep both their knees and mouths closed. There are two chances for a negative review of a product seeing print in a magazine today, slim and none! I've been at this business for more than four decades now, and while the situation was somewhat different when I started, the publisher bias against negativity in print has always been there. And, I'll add, it was there long before my time. I recall a piece that Jack O'Connor wrote in his wonderful book, "The Last Book," describing an incident where Warren Page, who had just recently joined Field & Stream magazine, was taken to the woodshed by Eltinge Warner, the publisher of the magazine, for offending an advertiser. That would have taken place in the early 1940s. It would be infinitely preferable for writers to have the freedom to "tell it like it is," knowing that the editor and publisher will run it in their magazine. However, realistically, that simply isn't going to happen. Writers can write all they want, objectively and truthfully, but if that results in negativity, it will never be printed. End of story.For me, as a writer, I won't waste my time writing material that I know has no chance of seeing the light of day. I inform the manufacturer of my observations and move on to something else.

As far as writers paying for their hunts, rifles, scopes, etc, etc, it is a mixed bag. I don't do much in the way of product testing pieces anymore, but I did a bunch early in my career. If I wanted to do a piece on a new rifle, I would contact the PR/Media rep for the manufacturer and request a sample rifle on loan. They would usually comply and send me a rifle (or shotgun, or handgun) on consignment for 60 to 90 days. At the end of the consignment period or before, I would pack it up, trundle it off to the Post Office (or UPS, or FEDEX) and return it, most often on my nickel. On rare to very rare occasions, the manufacturer would tell me to just keep it. That did not happen often. Reloading components, ammo and other expendable items were usually sent gratis. Scope manufacturers would sometimes tell me to keep them, but as often as not, I returned them upon completion of the consignment period. If I had been forced to buy everything that I wrote about over the years, I would have been bankrupt very early on in my career.

As far as hunting goes, I have been comped on many of my hunts over the years, I have paid full price for others, and many if not most of my hunts, I've paid for, but at a discounted price. In most cases even with comped hunts, I was responsible to get to the location of the hunt on my dime, and pay for all licenses and tags myself. That's fine if I really wanted to go on the hunt in the first place. It's a bear to do so when I didn't really want to go but did so for political reasons.

Finally, on the subject of Craig Boddington. I know nothing of Craig's finances, have no reason to know about them, and don't want to know. I have known Craig for around 35 years now. Way back when he was the editor of Petersen's Hunting magazine, I even wrote a few stories for him. Craig was a Marine, and I was a career Army guy, so we had a friendly verbal competition as a result from time to time, but all in fun. During the time that I was a consultant for Heym in the US market, I consigned Craig whatever he wanted to play with that we produced. He returned them punctually when he was finished. I know of nothing derogatory about Craig. With me he has aways been a warm friend. I agree totally with Bill Quimby that Craig is the hardest working writer that I know or have ever known for that matter. No writer alive, or most likely, that ever lived, has the depth of hunting experience that Craig has, not O'Connor, not Keith, not Page, not Askins. Unless something totally unexpected is revealed that changes my mind, which is highly unlikely, I will continue to call him my friend.

I have to stand up for the doctors here. Texas Long Horn, that may have been a thing of the long distant past for junkets to increase prescribing etc. There is now something called AVAMED that strictly controls anything that a company representative can do. A rep can not even buy me a subway sandwich unless an educational program was involved and documented. The knee replacements I put in my patients are the ones that I feel I can get the patient the best result with. I don't get a kick back, royalty, dinner or any other financial perk. I am only trying to inform with this response.

Good Riddance, exactly what does Die Ou jagter stands for something comes to mind but I do not want to go to that level to cite it.

quote:

Originally posted by Die Ou Jagter:
GOOD BYE!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Tsquare2:
.... Writer payments are peanuts compared to the other costs involved. Subscriptions and magazine stand sales usually don't even pay for the postage costs. Were it not for advertising revenues, a single copy of a popular magazine would have to sell for around $15 bucks or more, just to break even. Taking these facts into consideration, magazine publishers tread very lightly around advertisers and even potential advertisers. They dare not offend them. Publishers around advertisers follow the lead of Hollywood starlets around casting directors and producers, and keep both their knees and mouths closed. There are two chances for a negative review of a product seeing print in a magazine today, slim and none!

Absolutely true, Tom, but there also is another factor that plays an even greater role, in my opinion. After a half century in one facet or another of the publishing business, I was named in a lawsuit only once. Fortunately for me, I had advised our CEO against publishing what eventually took our publication to court. (We lost.)

Editors and publishers (I have been both) want no part of lawsuits, and although writers are allowed under the law to voice their own opinions, the most certain way for a publication to eventually be served is to allow them to do so.

As for FTC rules on disclosure, that falls under truth in advertising regulations and giving gifts to writers is considered public relations, not advertising.

I'm not a lawyer, but best as I can tell, authors and publishers not directly associated with a product or service are not required to tell their readers anything.

Bill Quimby

Bill and Tom, so what you are both saying is that anyone dumb enough to subscribe to Guns and Ammo, Shooting Times, Rifle Shooter, Field and Stream, American Hunter, etc. is basically getting a magazine that is largely a series of written infomercials . . . I really wonder if there are readers that seriously believed otherwise.

so in other words, never expect an unbiased opinion from a gun rag writer. negative opinions will never see the light of day. that's good to know

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Bill and Tom, so what you are both saying is that anyone dumb enough to subscribe to Guns and Ammo, Shooting Times, Rifle Shooter, Field and Stream, American Hunter, etc. is basically getting a magazine that is largely a series of written infomercials . . . I really wonder if there are readers that seriously believed otherwise.

+1

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Bill and Tom, so what you are both saying is that anyone dumb enough to subscribe to Guns and Ammo, Shooting Times, Rifle Shooter, Field and Stream, American Hunter, etc. is basically getting a magazine that is largely a series of written infomercials . . . I really wonder if there are readers that seriously believed otherwise.

Mike:

I didn't say that. Read the magazines and enjoy the articles. Few actually are infomercials, and it doesn't take a genius to spot those that are. Magazine articles will give you the author's opinion on the good things about a product or service, and what is happening in the industry, and there is value in that.

Bill Quimby

I will acknowledge that the articles can be useful for informing the public of the existence of new products but that seems to be about it. A number of years ago I recall that there was a publication, limited distribution and never a newsstand item, that purported to critically and objectively review guns and ammo. Obviously trying to fill a niche that the traditional gun magazines had vacated. Cannot recall the name of the publication. To my knowledge it is no longer around.

A startup magazine having to defend itself against a single libel claim could send it into obscurity.

Bill Quimby

Mike,

I did not mean to imply that the magazines are worthless. The lack of negativity is by far most noticeable in product test type stories. Most writers, if they have been around for awhile, will only write about things that performed, at a minimum, satisfactorily or better. If an item didn't make the grade, then they write nothing. Hopefully, they will contact the manufacturer and let them know what the problems were. So, if you see an article that praises a product for performing as the hype suggests, it's a pretty safe bet that it did well in the eyes of the author.
If a new product comes out promoted by the normal advertising hype, and nothing shows up in print, it is a pretty safe bet that there are problems somewhere.

Bill, I never thought much about the legal ramifications. I frankly never worried all that much about it, but, perhaps I should have. The truth is an absolute defense in a court of law, and since I alway wrote what I experienced, I didn't think twice about it. However, one can be absolutely right, writing nothing but the truth, and still go bankrupt defending yourself. I suppose I should have worried more.

It was not a magazine. It was generally not that long maybe 30 pages or so and it was printed on plain paper as opposed to glossy stock. Wish I could remember the name of it . . . maybe someone else recalls it . . . or maybe it is just a scotch-adled fantasy. Probably been 15-20 years since I remember seeing it.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
It was not a magazine. It was generally not that long maybe 30 pages or so and it was printed on plain paper as opposed to glossy stock. Wish I could remember the name of it . . . maybe someone else recalls it . . . or maybe it is just a scotch-adled fantasy. Probably been 15-20 years since I remember seeing it.

Sounds like a newsletter, Mike. They come and go, usually because most are launched by people long on knowledge of a subject, but short on knowing what it takes to publish profitably. Ignoring the cost of defending the "truth" you've published can be costly.

Bill Quimby

Would anyone really buy a product because some outdoor writer wrote about it, perhaps even endorsed it? I know I would not. On the other hand, if it was a product that filled a need I had and the article was the first I heard of it, I might buy it.

May have been Gun Tests. They have been around awhile and I believe they accept no advertising and rely solely on subscriptions.

Boy, I've seen some ADD threads but this one...wow

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
Would anyone really buy a product because some outdoor writer wrote about it, perhaps even endorsed it? I know I would not.

Larry,
There are people out there who would follow CB as their commander into battle, just because they met & spoke to him at a gun show,
so why would they not blindly believe in any products he endorses?

Do you doubt that SureFire boosted sales when CB publicised his encounter with African lions,
implying that the SF flashlight saved his bacon?

His idolisers would simply choose to ignore the conflict of interest of CB being director of SureFIres outdoor marketing department..

In case you missed it, Craig and Donna were at SCI. The line in front around around one side of their booth was always long, and sales seemed brisk. Lots of folks waited to get a book, have it autographed/inscribed; and have their picture taken with him.

Seemed alive and well...

Spoke to Craig at his booth while getting it organized before start of DSC. Spoke to him about one of my AR friends who hunted with him in Mozambique this past season.

Mike

Well Good to see CB is doing well at SCI,
but Im not into such herd mentality hero worship, so would not waste my time waiting in line to get a signatured book or photo.

I wonder how many people we wouldn't like today but we love their stories and books from days gone buy?
Probably many and I think we could tell the way they wrote about other people and the way they said things
It's not about worship, it's about good books and good stories and I have to say, he is good at that in my book

What is wrong with having a hero or wanting to be like someone ?

Multiple divorces,bankruptcy,illegal military citations,association with dodgy gun companies,
do not reflect a hero or a life I admire....CB is just human and a born sinner like the rest of us.
But if someone wants to emulate their chosen hero like Boddington or M.Sullivan,... be my guest.

I guess this all kind of confirms my feeling.

Mayhaps the industry would be better off not giving out freebies and letting the rest of us have a little lower price.

Seems to be similar to one of the gripes about SCI (enforced donations) that so many here are upset about, and somehow I think that the outfitters sell a lot more hunts from a booth at SCI or DSC than they do from any one writer or TV show...

quote:

What is wrong with having a hero or wanting to be like someone ?

Sounds typical of someone shouldering an inferiority complex.

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
What is wrong with having a hero or wanting to be like someone ?

How Pathetic...

He just launched his own Clothing Line. Nice looking vest.

https://www.facebook.com/schnees.montana

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
I guess this all kind of confirms my feeling.

Mayhaps the industry would be better off not giving out freebies and letting the rest of us have a little lower price.

Seems to be similar to one of the gripes about SCI (enforced donations) that so many here are upset about, and somehow I think that the outfitters sell a lot more hunts from a booth at SCI or DSC than they do from any one writer or TV show...

I do not regard them as comparable at all, and I suspect you don't either.

The freebies are for marketing and that is an essential part of business. Sales need a kick start, and low prices are only one component and I suspect not the most important or even the second. That's how the world works. And there are a lot more folks reading mags that traveling to Dallas or Las Vegas.

SCI's enforced donations, with which I am unfamiliar, again, is only one part of the equation. There are a lot of other big issues with SCI. I myself dropped out after only one year since did not like the setup. Maybe I'll give it another try, since I do think such organizations "can" be useful.

But then, that's just my opinion.

Had a nice visit with Craig and Donna at an after show lounge with some other friends. No hero worship here just a decent guy as far as I can tell. I have to borrow money for hunts too, and if it was my business I would have to examine every angle of financing to get on trips and get stories to write about. Being somewhat new to SCI and the like and high dollar hunts in far off countries it is expensive. I am way out of my league as a regular working guy at the auctions and other events at conventions like SCI etc. When you see the people getting the awards for lifelong hunting and the such there is a common thread: Money. I wish I had a lot more. This is a big money hobby/career/pastime whatever. The average Joe doesn't get to play. Obviously CB worked his ass off and made a career and a name for himself in the hunting industry. I am jealous, maybe others are too. The fact someone has had financial problem doesn't surprise me especially in the last decade. In my Career I have been laid off twice. I know the feeling. I also figured out long ago how magazines, sponsorships and "celebrities" work. No surprises here

Wow! Massive posts from people with penis envy here. Still the same crowd of "never done nothing, or been anywhere..." though, trying to reduce someone who has climbed the mountain to their basement dweller status. Most of you can't afford an out of state whitetail hunt, let alone Africa.

If you think anybody in the US is claiming "illegal citations..." you should notify Stolen Valor. They are an organization that hunts down such people and exposes them.

you all are pretty disgusting...

Hey Rich, you're taking it too far ...

That's a bad visual but gets the point across....I think