I flipped through the last issue of Adventure (before I knew of its demise) and noticed a really old, obviously recycled, image of a ski mountaineer heading one of their articles.
I thought it was odd the Nat Geo would use an old image….’can’t they buy recent content?”

I found out the answer the next day, ‘no, they’re out of business’.

PS. I would have to speculate The National Enquirer Steve…

Sure it’s a very low standard and this is a reflection of mass market sensibilities. Low-brow is big business!

Just look at TV sit-com plots, humor and characterizations and you’ll see basically the same phenomenon at work.

Who sells more papers, the New York Times or the National Enquirer?

Remember the David Carson era of surf magazines? Those were exciting times. You’d pick up his magazine and be challenged, visually, (in a good way).

During the late 80′s and all through the 90′s I spent between $300 to $600 a month on magazines. It was my crack. I now only buy magazines when I fly (still a lot…) and I grab Outside, Vanity Fair, GQ and occasionally Esquire. Great writing and photography and I usually read them cover to cover. I now get most of my pop culture fix online and spend my money on books.

Petersen Publishing did special-interest books. Guns & Ammo, Hot Rod, Motorcyclist, Photographic, Teen and many more. General interest titles may do better.

If you had to pick the best outdoor/adventure (or any single sport) mag. on the stand today…what would it be? Is there anything on the horizon that sets a new standard?

If you could build your own model what would that be.

I believe I understand the problem with content becoming furniture.

What steps need to be taken to elevate magazine design to a new level
and will quality reporting/images pay the bills?

While laughable, it’s virtually inevitable given how tightly boxed in many special-interest magazines are in terms of subject matter. As others have said, exactly what is new and novel about situps this year as opposed to last, or the year before that? These are titles dedicated to a niche of advertisers, not a niche of readers. The only real surprise is that we think they would do any better than they do.

If statistics were available, I imagine they’d show the typical length of a subscriber is 2-3 years, as people take up a new interest (e.g., skiing), read up on it, and move on to something else (e.g., kite-boarding).

Compare that approach to the better general-interest magazines, which can mix it up across a wide range of topics. We all know people who have collections of National Geographic going back a half century or more, but how many people have a long collection of Muscle&Fitness?

I’m amazed catalogs still keep coming… smaller than ten years ago but still trucking along. Who fills out order forms anymore?