Where is PCLive?

weird_science

jmcc wrote:

But the syndicated copy is still cheaper than paying tjs to write copy.

Regards...jmcc

True, but I wouldn't describe it as filler. It serves a purpose, and obviously there are people interested in it, otherwise it wouldn't be in the magazine's interests to use it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the mag, I have no reason to, they can fight their own battles.

Though in saying that, we haven't heard anything back from their editor regarding the the ABC figures

rsynnott

It may well just be filler. No-one wants to buy a 10page magazine.

Paddy20

PCDead would be a more appropriate title IMO . It never really became Live at any time. Just bury it.

P.

segadreamcast

I haven't bought this magazine in three years (good lord, that long...). For me, the final nail in the coffin was when the price drop came - a substantial drop in quality seemed to accompany it and, consequently, they lost my business. I haven't bought a PC magazine since and I think I'm all the better for it.

Frankly (S. Cawley isn't going to like this), the rot seemed to set in about six months after his appointment.

jmcc

NoelRock wrote:

Frankly (S. Cawley isn't going to like this), the rot seemed to set in about six months after his appointment.

It wouldn't be quite right to blame the editor for the management of the magazine. Normally when a magazine is at the bottom of a market, (competing against a pile of UK and US magazines and the web), the budget just isn't there to get quality copy and gaining advertising is a more pressing concern for the management. Many of the editors of these publications are not techies and are arts graduate floaters who tend to last in the job for a few months or a year or best before drifting off into PR or back to mainstream journalism. Very few of these people have the techie editorial instincts necessary to build a good technical publication (and despite being aimed at the consumer, these magazines are essentially technical publications).

Regards...jmcc

weird_science

Maybe the staff change had something to do with it?

Noticed a few regular names don't appear too much, both staff and regular contributors.

lukin

Seeing as everyone else is doing a bit of PC Live-bashing, I want get my own spoke in:
Why the hell do they seem to assume that everyone that reads it lives in Dublin? If they do a review of a cybercafe for instance, they will review ten, and eight of them will be in Dublin. Same thing if they review broadband service providers;they only ask people in Dublin.

weird_science

Convenience.

Or laziness.

whatever way you want to look at it.

odie

Decided to have a look at this months PCLive after Stephen cawleys reply, to see if there were any changes, and it holds true you get what you pay for, 2 yoyo's.

Jam full of ads, plageurised (syndicated) content. Badly written reviews of equipment that is not even available yet, (Wonder where they get the hardware, mostly cameras). I reckon someone there has a camera fetish.

A comment earlier on in this thread mentioned it was run by arty types, and that seems to be the case. Very few computer writers on there.

Thats the last time I purchase that piece of junk.

Linoge

A month off and the content is still thin. Hasn't changed a bit.

Linoge wrote:

And finally, a page or 2 dedicated to an Ireland Offline rant would be interesting. Most people posting here would probably want to see it in there as well.

Apparently in next months edition this will be included. Coincidence? Maybe. I still think he should have posted a thank you!

You're right about the reviews. If I see another digital camera reviewed I'll crack up.

Gonna give it one more chance next month. Then from then on I'm gonna spend the 3 minutes it takes to read it in Easons.

weird_science

scawley wrote:

Finally, I think we are still doing something right as our latest ABC audit figure shows that we have 10,550 paying readers.

Well PC Live has finally got its ABC figures on the site.

But I'm a little confused, I have to be honest. According to that you have 9,165 total average net circulation, which falls more than a thousand short of what you just claimed -- unless circulation has dropped since you posted maybe?

And out of that 9k+ readers, only 6,249 copies are actively purchased per issue - the rest are "controlled free circulation".

So really, you only have 6,249 paying readers.

mneylon

weird_science wrote:

So really, you only have 6,249 paying readers.

Paid-for copies is not the same as actual readers, as every copy would be read by X number of people.

weird_science

blacknight wrote:

Paid-for copies is not the same as actual readers, as every copy would be read by X number of people.

Yes, I'm aware of that. However, I'm pointing out that Scawley specifically mentioned having 10,550 paying readers -- when their figures show that they don't, they have just over 6k.

Just wondering if he was referring to the same audit figures or if another has been done since.

ETA: Scawley also specifically said their latest ABC audited figures showed 10550 paying readers -- the figures quoted on ABC's site are from 01-Jul-2004 to 31-Dec-2004