UKC

The last Climbers' Club (CC) Gogarth Guide was published in 1990 and reprinted in 2003. A lot has happened at Gogarth since 1990 and guidebook technology has moved on. So what's happening? The CC Publication Committee recently said 2008 for publication but that is low priority for one of the most important climbing areas in the UK.

More in the news..... http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

I know people have said stories aren't newsworthy before, but this isn't even news, it's no news

Do you really know nothing Mick? Did you bother to search your own forums and find out who the editor is? Email John Cox and ask him what the score is if you really want to know and you're not just out to cause a stink.

If I were to take a guess I'd say the route checking hasn't been completed yet. This cannot restart until spring unless anyone is volunteering to climb Gogarth esoterica in winter. After the next season, the CC will have the 2007/8 winter to compile all the new information and complete the guidebook.

In reply to Paz:


Does it matter? I'm sick of people crying like babies about things they see on a free website and then bleating on about how "This is not news". It may not be in the strictest sense but it is topical, it is something that affects climbers and it is of interest to some.


It says clearly in the (non) news article that Andy Newton so not sure what you are getting at here.


Exactly, we're all guessing so if this brings some clarity to the discussion isn't that a good thing, or are you just out to cause a stink?


Not entirely true.


So how come you have the inside track on this then? Why not share if you know so much? Route checking has been going on for years and if you'd been writing this last year you'd have may well have written "the CC will have the 2006/7 winter to compile all the new information and complete the guidebook" so what information do you have that you are not sharing?

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

What's with the link by Niall's name?

Am I missing something obvious?

Craig

In reply to Tyler:

I really don't understand how I wind you up so easily.

I'm sick of people crying like babies too but this takes the piss! Nothing's happened. And that's news is it? Backed up by every modern journalists new favourite excuse for background research - quoting out of date websites! They need never phone anyone up to ask them anything in person ever again. Mick must be bored.

I cunningly did not said that Coxy is the ed', but he definitely had something to do with it. I only know that because I read it on here.

I'm flattered that you found my guesswork so convincing that you thought I had inside knowledge. I assure you I have none.

In reply to Paz:


You don't. It's just that for once there is a topic of interest to climbers on this site (as against some nefarious, hypothetical debate about ethics or grades without reference to routes) and the first and only response is someone whinging!


OK, it's not news but it opens the debate, it has some information that I wasn't aware of.


If JCM does have something of interest to say about this he's kept it close to his chest so I don't see what "searching other threads" would do.


It must be true.


I didn't.


That much is obvious, empty vessels and all that.

In reply to Tyler:

Is this guidebook hotly anticipated then? I didn't really have any expectations for it to come out soon, as it's not like the peak where you could check 100 routes a day. And I've not had the old one for very long and am happy to get some more value from that.

If you say it's of interest to climbers then I'll believe you, but to me it looks like the standard Rockfax giving a lecture on profitable prompt guidebook production to the Climber's Club, disguised as a news item.

I wish my hypothetical grades and ethics debates referred to routes, just like I wish people talked about actual routes. But I think people get scared off, and dismiss that sort of thing as elitist and egotistical.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Spoke to Andy this week. Lots of people are working hard on it, most scripts returned, still some to do. There has been slippage, unavoidable when it's a voluntary effort. Hopefully a near final script will be knocking around this winter. CC looking to publish in 2007.

I wonder how many of us have done all the routes in the current guide!!

Mike Raine

In reply to Veronica: 'I wonder how many of us have done all the routes in the current guide!!'

I heard that Twid had climbed all of the routes on the main cliff.

EErrr..probably Neil Foster....

In reply to Paz:
looked like that to me too.

The Ent

In reply to Paz:

Mick is not Rockfax, I am, and this news item is nothing to do with me.

Alan

In reply to Enty:

Looks are very deceptive.

My news items are indepedent of anybody. This guide is 16 years old, this is one of the most important climbing areas in the UK after Stanage. And look at the links and credit to Ground Up a competitor to Rockfax.

Mick

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

14 minutes! wahey.

The Ent

In reply to Enty:

Just finished my tea Ents. Formatting an article on Welsh Slate and Bouldering in Ogawayama....and the odd dip into here.

M

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

notice how I said tea and not dinner....those freakin Brits are controling my mind again...

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Whens the Slate article finished?
Can I read it?

The Ent

In reply to Veronica:

Just short of 100 !

In reply to Veronica:

I wonder how many people don't have the current guide, on the basis that the new one is 'imminent' and it's a lot of money to spend on something that's about to be superceded. If they'd said 3 years ago that it wouldn't be out until 2007 then I'd have bought a copy.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:
Think the reprint costs a tenner - hardly a lot of money - but still extortionate for probably the worst guidebook currently in publication.

I suppose it's too much to hope that the CC will have dragged their format into the 21st century.....

In reply to Chris the Tall:

No, but a lot if the new edition appeared 6 months later (as per the Roaches guide IIRC).

In reply to Chris the Tall:


It is a bit quirky and guidebooks have moved on since 1990 so it may look a bit dated but when you think of the information it covers and the difficulty of the areas described it does a pretty good job.

My main gripes are:

Start descriptions of a main cliff routes between Rat Race and the Camel

Weird pitch and route lengths, I think there must have been some confusion over how big a meter is compared to a foot!

Some pitches are "over described"

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Check Martin Corcker's Forest of Dean guide for an idea of the new format.

In reply to Tyler:
<this is off the top of my head, errors and problems found on one trip>
1) Not enough maps and diagrams
2) Map shows crags listed A-G, but this bears no relation to how they appear in the guide
3) Crag Diagrams usually in the opposite order to the appearence in the guide. Descriptions can be 20 pages away from diagram, occasionally in another section altogether (e.g. Britomartis).
4) Approach information is all over the place, sometimes in as many as 3 locations within the guide.
5) Too often the descriptions assume knowledge of other lines
6) The Uhuhru ab for Dream - the most popular route in the area - is not shown on any diagram.
7) Major errors in descriptions for both Pentathol and Britomartis - 50% of the routes attempted.

This guidebook isn't quirky, it's completely illogical. It may be OK for someone who knows the place, but to a first-time visitor in stressful conditions it's appalling. I had to restrain my mate from throwing it into the sea!

In reply to Chris the Tall: Recent CC guides have varied in format from the excellent and innovative (Cloggy) to the uninspired and lacking in effort (Llanberis). One hears that the forthcoming Portland CC guide will be in Rockfax photoguide format. One waits with trepidation to see what the new Gogarth and Pembroke guides will look like.

I have to say, it does not strike me as consistent behaviour for some (by no means all) of the CC publications sub committee to lambast the Rockfax guidebook team on the one hand while promoting copies of the Rockfax photoguide format on the other hand.

In reply to John2:

I think that the way hard-working volunteers like Steve Taylor have been treated over the CC Portland guide reveals a huge and often overlooked flaw in the whole volunteer guidebook production system. It frequently seems to be the case that the volunteers who put in the most effort end up utterly frustrated by the length of time it takes to get the guidebook into print. I believe Steve had nearly finished his work early last year yet the book is still only registering as "forthcoming", which, let's face it, is a euphemism for "we haven't got a clue".

Another example would be the people who produced finished sections for the BMC Froggatt guide up to 2001 (Chris and I kept bumping into them, and even exchanging notes on certain routes, when we were producing Peak Grit East). That guide has still not appeared and now looks to have been usurped once again by a new BMC Stanage guide.

By the time the CC Portland guide and the BMC Froggatt guide actually get into print, much of the information that has been available for years will probably have to be reassessed introducing another delay in the system. Probably a more important knock-on effect is that the volunteers who did this work will not want to do it again.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - UKC: I couldn't agree more. The situation with the CC is, however, nowhere near as bad as the situation became with the BMC - reportedly paying a substantial sum to a lawyer to see if Rockfax could be sued for breach of copyright and reprinting an outdated Staffs guide in an attempt to take sales away from Western Grit.

The new BMC regime recruited Grimer as guidebook coordinator, and this policy has so far proved to be a triumphant success (Froggat guide excepted). One can only hope that the CC will turn themselves around as successfully.

In reply to John2:

Triumphant in that it has produced two superb guidebooks, however this has only been achieved by allowing costs to run away to the point where I am certain that the BMC can no longer afford to produce any guidebook to a less popular area without pilfering non-guidebook funds.

Printing costs work out at around £3/book for an average print run. Hence 5000 books will cost around £15K to print. The current rate of production of 1 new book every 18 months means that each new guide costs around £35K in salary. For a 5000 print run this will give a total production costs of £50K. For a cover price of £20 around 50% goes to the publisher = 5000 x £10 = £50K!

Hence a 5000 print run is only just covering its production costs if every copy is sold, which in business terms isn't remotely close to breaking even.

The only areas in the Peak which will support print runs of more than 5000 books are Stanage, Burbage etc., Froggatt and Staffordshire (coincidentally the main ones printed or under consideration for printing at present) and even then print runs of 8000 would be pushing it. Chew Valley, Kinder and any limestone area are unviable unless the books can be produced at a significantly faster rate, or unless fund are forthcoming from somewhere else. It is not likely that the more popular books will create any surplus for cross-subsidy and if they did then it would be years away.

The obvious way around this would be to get rid of the guidebook coordinator on a salary basis, and re-employ on a commission basis since then at least you only pay out what you have got in. That's how we do it at Rockfax and there is no way I could afford to employ on a full-time basis.

Alan

In reply to John2:


Differant arguments really, and I'll be pleased if the CC does move with the times and raises it product to match the competition. Hopefully though they will stick to the same smaller size - so much easier for use on sea-cliffs

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

In my view, the CC should employ someone full-time as their designer/typesetter/editor.

With the Portland and Lulworth guide, I (and Ben/Jim who have written the bouldering sections) have been continually frustrated by the fact that the editor and designer have full-time jobs and can only devote a very small amount of time to "the cause". Hence the long delays in getting to publication.

I have no idea if this would prove commercially viable, but based on Alan's figures above, there is no reason why it shouldn't be. A couple of names come immediately to mind as to who could take on this job...

In reply to steve taylor:

Oh dear. My figures above were meant to illustrate the point that full-time guidebook editors are not a good idea and actually make most guidebooks unviable.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - UKC: Interesting figures. The combination of your posts and Steve's make this the most informative thread on guidebook production that I can recall.

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

With volunteer authors and a full time editor-type person, they should be able to churn out far more than one guide every 18 months - I guess I should have added that point...

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

So when do the costly delays start to kick in then? You mention the Chew guide above. As far as I know this one is currently being delayed by people(volunteers) pulling out of writing particular sections or delaying their submission. But unless Martin K is on the BMC pay roll for that particular job (and he may well be, are you?) and assuming that Niall Grimes has other fish to fry, that's only time wasted rather than money spent sitting around as far as the BMC accountants are concerned. huh?
Assuming there is a constant flow of work coming through there is always something to do for various on-going guidebook the role of guidebook coordinator seems justified. I imagine Grimmer is not wating for one guidebook to be sent to the publisher before getting to work on the next one.


A.-

In reply to ArnaudG and Steve:

The speed of production is the key as you both point out, however the evidence is that the BMC can only produce guidebooks under their current system at a rate of 1 every 18 months. Even if this time was to half the system would still be severely lacking in funds.

The bigger problem, for which Rockfax can take some of the credit/blame, is that modern guidebooks with photo-topos and full colour printing, take specialist skills that few volunteers have. They also take massively longer to put together which means that the bottle-neck in the production system is likely to be the full-time employee and no matter how many willing volunteers you throw at the system, you still won't get the books out any faster.

A full set of volunteer-written scripts for a guidebook to somewhere like the Chew Valley is still probably 12 months away from publication I would expect, especially if the volunteers aren't getting the crag shots. You suggest that Grimer is not sat there waiting for one guidebook to go to the printers before he starts on the next; well I bet he is! That tends to be the way these things go. You can sometimes dip into the early stages of production while working on something else but the all-consuming push towards a finished product precludes virtually all work on other projects.

It is only in the last two years that we have managed to get Rockfax producing more than a book or so per year. From 2000 to 2004 we managed 7 books, in the last 2 years we have done 8. This has been done by farming my work back to the authors and paying them more commission. Before this, I was always the bottle-neck in the system hence 1.5 books per year maximum.

Additionally, on a salary-based system, I would never have been able to afford to produce many of the books we have done over the last two years - Clwyd, Rjukan, Lakes Bouldering and Mallorca would have been non-starters.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

So what's the rationale for re-doing Stanage so soon?

To produce a guide using the same format as Burbage and the Roaches, with more (all the) bouldering added?

In reply to John Gillott:

Hopefully the old on ei selling out so it is time for a new one. It also came in for a lot of (unjustified?) crticism so maybe the BMC wants its flagship guide to be as good as the rest.

In reply to John Gillott:

I suspect it is because the cashflow situation has reach a crisis point and Stanage is the country's best-selling crag. The current BMC guidebook just isn't good enough when compared to ours so they probably thought it better to produce something more competitive. Once the cashflow has been stimulated with the big selling crags, the plan is probably then to devote some time to the smaller areas.

I think re-doing Stanage may appear a good idea from their point of view, but at the expense of Froggatt makes it a bad idea, in my opinion. However, I can see the reasoning.

Alan

In reply to Tyler:

I would be extremely surprised if it had actually sold out.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

More likely failed to sell I'd have thought. I hardly ever see anyone with a copy at the crag, I've seen more people with the new Eastern Grit. I rather like it (the BMC Stanage guide that is), but fully understand why most people don't.

Maybe they thought it was time to write it off and come out with something that might actually compete with the Rockfax tome.

Of course, I will buy it I just hope the photo topos will be better quality than the other recent books.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:



oooooohhh - provocative! You'll be getting your wrist slapped

Chris

In reply to various people:

I was the editor for a period of eighteen months about three years ago. Andy Newton has never been the editor; he is the head of the guidebook team. I have not been involved for some years; I am still on the Publications Sub-Committee, but I am not that active and I'm afraid I don't know the current status. I believe the present editor is actually Ian Smith.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

>>I believe the present editor is actually Ian Smith

In which case the guide will look great!

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

You seem to know a lot about how to solve the problems with BMC guidebook planing and finances and Grimer's workload, maybe you should do some consultancy work for them.

PS you forgot the Gary Gibson guide.

In reply to Offwidth:

See Alan's posts above Offwidth.

Mick

In reply to Offwidth:

I am happy to offer advice and wouldn't dream of charging for it.

What I do know is how to publish a profitable guidebook to any crag in this country. I can also recognise an organisation that doesn't seem to be able to do this.


Handed to them on a plate. Yes I am sure the BMC could turn out lots of these but finished guidebooks like that don't arrive very often.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

I wonder what would happen to your profits with a big BMC like interlocking committees structure behind you. The reality is that mistakes have been and I'm sure will continue to be made mainly because of this but thats part of the pain that goes along with democratic organisations. However, alongside the mistakes are quite a few successes, namely the three new guides(and Bamff must have been nice).

I'm not sure what the exact status of Stanage is but when lots of BMC members say the content is good but the presentation is poor the natural response to me would be reformat...its almost another of those 'on a plate' guides. Being a direct competitor in a small market where the best selling crag is Stanage some of your posts could come over as sour grapes even if that was not intended. The good news for climbers would be a great selective and a great definitive guide to choose from. On your buisness approach line, anyone sitting on IP which is valuable but not selling in the current format should partially write off stock and repackage.

In reply to Offwidth: 'The reality is that mistakes have been and I'm sure will continue to be made mainly because of this but thats part of the pain that goes along with democratic organisations'

I think that taking their eye off the ball of producing guidebooks and spending substantial sums of money attempting to sabotage the work of Rockfax was more than the sort of mistake that goes along with democratic organisations. More the sort of policy associated with a paranoid tyrant.

And I really can't see why you think Alan's attitude to be redolent of sour grapes. He seems to me to be remarkably forbearing in the circumstances.

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

I look forward to seeing your guide to Whitestonecliffe

In reply to Simon Caldwell:


Well I wasn't planning to put it in North of England - but never say never!


Chris

In reply to Chris Craggs:


Don't think the recent additions to the Rockfax database have gone unnoticed Some interesting choices of crags...

In reply to John2:

The BMC made the decisions it made with the committees elected at that time. Many members didnt like this but many did. The balance in the future depends on people taking part in the process. Back on Business models one man's sabotage is another's protection of IP.

The key to me is not business and profits, it is to get on with producing good accurate guides for climbers. I'd be glad to see a new BMC Stanage guide that does the place justice in the eyes of most climbers (rather than just spods like me) like I was glad to see Rockfax and its broad public acceptance in the first place.

In reply to Offwidth:

I think that the financial situation with BMC guidebooks has reached a fairly critical point hence action is needed. There is a meeting tonight and another one at the weekend. My comments are only intended to point out the flaws in the system and suggest some ways to correct them. You can offer excuses as to why they exist, but that doesn't help cure the problem.


Let me assure you that the current Stanage guide is not even close to being 'on a plate'. A full set of photo-topos is needed for example. The text needs turning round, every page needs laying out. That's a lot of work, even if the text is finished.


I have no real problem with the BMC doing the Stanage guide, that isn't the issue. The issue as far as I am concerned is all the other guides which I can't see them ever being able to justify. At present I can't see the BMC ever producing a Southern Limestone guide, for example. That has ramifications for me as the only other person likely to cover the area. Yet it isn't competitive in the normal business sense for two reasons: 1) the BMC doesn't work like a business so the same rules don't apply; 2) I don't want to expand my workload any more than it is already.

My reasoning for thinking that printing the Stanage guide may be a mistake is that I would have thought that the old stock of Stanage, combined with a new BMandB-format Froggatt guide, would be more profitable for them.

This goes back to the 2001 debate and the 1995 Pembroke debate. During those two debates the old cliche that the BMC and the CC need the 'big guides to fund the little guides' was frequently trotted out to sustain the argument as to why I shouldn't publish a Stanage or a Pembroke. It was nonsense since the system, as it stood then, produced guides cheaply (owing to low contributor costs) which virtually always covered their costs and sold out - no need for cross-subsidy.

Now what has happened is the BMC have created a system which depends so much on cross-subsidy that it isn't even obvious which the big guides are any more since it is quite possible that none of them will make enough money in the long run.


Alan

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Seeing as we are now way off-topic, I've started a new thread - http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=215025

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

I doubt the debate will go very far tonight but I guess this is a useful starter.

I only used the 'on a plate' description as the Gibson Guide used the new format. I'm aware of the hard work required in layout which is why I think someone like Grimer is needed. In a similar way you can't afford not to employ that part of yourself; the BMC volume editors are much like your author consultants except they are volunteers (expenses only).

"The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there...." 'n'all. Those halcyon days of easy profits on peak guides have gone and if the BMC are to keep producing definitive guides they need to match their competitors and profit margins as such will reduce. This is one of the great problems with the business model: profits are tight and 'quality' is matched to market needs. Although the BMC doesn't act strictly like a business this doesnt subtract from a necessary buisness awareness or a requirement to make the books balance.

Your view on running out old Stanage stock seems naive to me. It ignores the imformation remit of the BMC guidebook committee (they get lots of complaints which includes the definitive stuff you dont cover) and their need to think of the future guidebook planning and finanacing. (eg the run in time and a requirement to get the new guide in place before old stock runs out (the Roaches problem).

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Sorry Chris posted this before I saw your post. Maybe you could summarise our views? (or cut and paste)

In reply to Offwidth:
OK, just post your views on the Stanage vs Froggatt thing - I'm quite shocked by it

In reply to Offwidth:

On other thread.

Let's try and keep this one to Gogarth from now (says the person who dragged it off course)!

Alan

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

Mick obviously founded Vertical Brain which became Rockfax, and I'd be surprised if this was the last time someone got the distinction between you all and UKC/ Rockfax confused. This did lead to the same affect - rockfax posting on guidebook production, but it was interesting.