|
Since the magazine is the only real benefit many members
get, the Pub. Com. has been concerned with matching the
article’s content mix with the member’s interests. In
the early 1990s the NMLRA started sending a short
questionnaire to members who did not renew their
membership.
Many responded that Muzzle Blasts was a
problem for them. Too many articles on this or that, and
too few on this or that. What we learned from these
questionnaires was that the readership/membership had
extremely diverse interests and nearly all felt that
theirs were being short changed. Of course we realized
that the sample was biased by being limited to those who
had already decided not to renew.
In 1994 Jon Uithol sent out a five page “Member Survey”
to random sample of 10% of the 25000 members. He got
about 1200 responses. Two of the five pages were
specifically about the magazine. The main questions
asked were: 1. Which of the existing departments
(sections) were always, usually, occasionally, rarely or
never read. 2. A list of which article subjects were
always, usually, occasionally, rarely or never read were
likewise rated. Then we asked the members to tell us
their 1st, 2nd, & 3rd choice of subjects they would like
to see more of and their 1st, 2nd, & 3rd choice of
subjects they would like to see less of.
The top ranked “see more of” were: how to articles on
gunsmithing, historical accounts from the colonial
period, historical accounts from the fur trade era, and
how to articles on offhand rifle shooting. The two
lowest in “see more of” were: stories about people in
the shooting sports and reports on the results of
national or local shoots.
The subjects getting the most “see less of” votes were:
how to articles on bench shooting, results of national
or local shoots, and how to articles on military
re-enacting.
We also asked about other publications. 470 of the 1200
who replied reported that they also always read
Muzzleloader magazine but only 100 always read
Blackpowder Hunting. (Over 500 respondents had not
read any of the NMLRA Journal of Historical
Armsmaking Technology volumes.)
The advice the Publication Committee took from this
survey was to try and get more how to gunsmithing
articles and more historical accounts from the colonial
and fur trade eras. We also voted to drop the shoot
results from the magazine and to distribute them only to
registered shooters and others who requested them. The
Board voted down the latter decision.
For 1995 the editor proposed an experiment of focusing
each one of the twelve monthly issues on a particular
theme. January (Historical Features), February (Gun
Makers and Gun Building), March (Big Game Hunting),
April (Shotguns), etc. That idea never worked because it
was felt that every issues should contain a mix of
articles.
And that is were the editors are today. They have to
try and make every issue have something that will
interest everybody. One heck of a challenge considering
that the supply of articles is very hit or miss and the
low tolerance many readers appear to have for the
interests of the other members.
A new readership survey is being considered to see if
the current membership has the same mix of interests as
folks did 12 years ago. The magazine has evolved quit a
bit in the last decade with more articles on antique
rifles in feature articles by Gusler and Whisker.
(top) |
