'Arizona Highways' fallen on hard times

My experience with them reflects what Guy has said, especially #2, it's a club. Elitism, arrogance and cronyism are not good for any business.

Could be, too, lots more competition from other travel mags. Easily four or five times the number than when I first ran across AZ Hwys years ago

I will second what Guy has said in my experience with them in the early 90's.

 

I think it is funny though that on good ol photo.nut the premise of film versus digital

submissions would grace the initial paragraphs.

 

When a photo editor looks at a 4x5 or 120 landscape, there is generally no guessing if it

was faked out in photoshop or not.I like that and while I would like to see most things

change, I think I would like this film only rule to stay..

 

And I shoot plenty of digital by the way...

"Isn't it more likely that the 4x5 film thing is keeping circulation *up* rather than pushing it down?"

 

Unlikely. Management problems -- including restricting for parochial reasons the types of photographs and photographers who get in the magazine -- have hurt the magazine and its ability to keep and gain readers.

There is no easy answer to this, unfortunately, but Jacob makes an important point: restricting things to film and formats larger than 35mm undoubtedly eliminates many of the newer generation of incredible photographers who are more apt also to shoot more adventurous stuff--which the magazine needs to return to some semblence of life.

 

However, many tourists view the magazine and then go to those spots to see what they've seen. If they go to Red Rock Crossing and see no trees where there were trees before or vice versa....well, that just doesn't work. To a large extent, film eliminates these types of situations and lends to accurate portrayals. And this is vital to a travel magazine.

 

Which is going to be? I think to survive the current staff will have to be tossed and replaced with younger and less connected editors and that digital submissions must be allowed--in order to get the on-the-edge stuff they need. But with a stern warning to photographers that no manipulation such as removing subject matter etc may be done--and that if it is, they will never be published there again.

PS: And new editorial blood will also help ensure that exellence of work will be judged--instead of who brought the biggest steak to the barbecue......

All traditional publications are in dire financial straits, for a variety of reasons. As a longtime

journalist, I agree with those who note that editorial restrictions on contributors (film

formats, etc.) have little enough impact on a publication's viability. Likewise, opening up the

editorial guidelines won't save a doomed balance sheet. Production costs for all publications

have soared astronomically over the last 20 years; and the recent publication postal rate

changes, brutally rammed through Congress by the Time-Warner megalopoly (which stands

to benefit from those changes), will mean that ALL niche publications will see their costs

jump up well past their ability to sustain themselves. Mr Ayleshire's estimate of five to seven

years may be too generous.

It's absurd to blame the magazine's historically high photographic standards for its demise.

 

If you want to see hideous digital flash, look at the current Sierra Magazine, or Sunset. Those were once beautiful magazines, worthy of a coffee table. Now they're visual crap. Sierra in particular features whacked-out Photoshop lies, just like a cheap travel guide might.

 

Magazines fail due to lack of sufficiently expensive advertisers. That's Arizona Highway's main problem. The secondary problem is the state's central position in the immigration wars (Klan-stoked racial fears on the one hand, blind unconcern on the other). Tourism's down in AZ, substantially for that reason. As well, Navajo people have gotten tired of being used as tourist bait by businesses that actually hate them.

 

One of the most beautiful places in the US has been Organ Pipe National Monument. Now it's described most commonly as a trashed immigration war zone.

"It's absurd to blame the magazine's historically high photographic standards for its demise."

 

It is perfectly reasonable to blame poor management decisions, including the foolish prejudice against digital photography, as additive factors.

you gotta be kidding me. how many tourists go to Organ Pipe? And how many go to the Grand Canyon? Big immigrant problem in GCNP, is there?

Andy, I think I understand why, "no one goes there anymore because it is too crowded."

John, I am surprised to find out that tourism is down. Maybe it is because everyone moved

there, so they don't need to visit. Arizona's population is now over 6 million, an increase

of over a million since 2000. I remember as a kid (I lived there) seeing the suburbs

virtually rolling across the farm lands.

 

I also remember seeing copies of Arizona Highways as a kid and thinking the the photos

were wonderful. I picked up a copy a couple of years ago and I was disappointed with the

images. I wonder if the quality changed or did my expectations change. I don't know.

By Donna Hogan, Tribune

East Valley Tribune

Updated: 11:35 a.m. MT July 12, 2007

 

An impressive 33.7 million travelers spent at least one night in Arizona hotels in 2006, nearly 9 percent more than in 2005, said Margie Emmermann, executive director of Arizona Office of Tourism. And they left $18.6 billion behind, $2.6 billion of it in state and local tax coffers, a 6 percent boost from the previous year.

 

That's according to the annual state of the state's tourism report that Emmermann released today during the Governor's Conference on Tourism, a two-day get-together of industry leaders at the Arizona Biltmore Resort in Phoenix.

 

Most 2006 tourists to Arizona - 31.7 million - were from the United States. International tourists came both to Arizona and the rest of the country at about the same rate as the year before, Emmermann said.

 

Except for Canadians. Swayed by a favorable exchange rate, more air travel options and aggressive ad campaigns, U.S. northern neighbors boosted overnight stays in Arizona hotels by more than 17 percent last year, she said.

 

Nearly 500,000 Canadians visited Arizona in 2006 - and that doesn't include winter visitors who settle in for several months - and they spent more than $473 million.

 

But the largest increase in 2006 travel to and through the state was among Arizona residents, according to the report. Local folks spent 22.3 percent more nights in Arizona hotels than they did the year before.

 

"We are our own biggest market," said AnnDee Johnson, Arizona Office of Tourism research and strategic planning director.

 

More good news: Visitors to Arizona have higher household incomes than the typical U.S. traveler, Johnson said. For 2006, 26 percent of the Arizona visitors annually earned $100,000 or more, compared with 20 percent for the national average reporting higher income levels.

 

And they are getting younger, Emmermann said. That's key to keeping new generations enamored with the state, and has been a key promotion initiative, she said.

 

The average age for Arizona non-resident visitors - 47 - is down a year from 2005, but still higher than the national average of 45.

 

Despite sagging consumer confidence and high fuel prices, Arizona's tourism industry is healthy and expected to stay that way for the foreseeable future, Emmermann said.

 

But she expects the soaring 9 percent growth rate to slow a little, as consumer confidence level catches up.

only 9 percent growth, must be the mexicans