Sons' sorrow

[TheFarPost]

9 hours ago, Boghead ranter said:

'Cos it's not the 70s?  Hardly anyone buys papers any more.

That's a widely held but mistaken view. While paid print circulation of regional and local newspapers (monitored by the Audit Bureau of Circulation) has certainly declined in recent years, online readership of them has increased and more people still get local news from their local media than from other sources. (The decline in nationals has been much sharper. But social media is more fragmented and limited at a local level than many think.) 

Also, papers like the Lennox Herald and the Reporter, themselves part of larger groups, are definitely read by people who take and influence decisions locally. So if you want your voice heard, they matter. That's why the trust has been diligent in both responding to and setting the news agenda on the stadium issue and the future of DFC. If the media get a strong response to such stories they will continue to report and investigate. If not, they will likely lose interest.

[TheFarPost]

7 hours ago, Boghead ranter said:

Yup, so also writing in seems a pretty superfluous activity. Better saving the effort for elsewhere.

It's not an 'either-or'. It takes no more time to write letter to your local papers than it does to post here and it will reach many more, including people involved in these decisions. Our local papers have (unusually, given the state of much local reporting) put a good deal of commendable effort into reporting and investigating around the stadium proposals in the last few weeks, and we've made sure that the voice of fans through the trust has been central. But there hasn't been much of a response in terms of reader comment, and that kind of thing gets noticed. Lack of reaction is taken as lack of concern or consent. So I would urge people who have something to say to say it. 

Incidentally, the Herald didn't follow up their offshore ownership story involving DFC among others (a national one) because of lack of response. I was told that by a senior reporter. One of the reasons I co-founded the Scottish Football Supporters Association 18-months ago (we're up to 64k members, but need more, and it's free: http://scottishfsa.org) was that we need to turn a culture of grumbling about the game into one of more concerted action. It's also why we want to grow the Sonstrust and make it more effective and influential. As Sons fans we can have a significant say in how things go, but only if we get stuck in!

Simon

Edited December 4, 2016 by TheFarPost

[Howlin' Wilf]

16 minutes ago, TheFarPost said:

It's not an 'either-or'. It takes no more time to write letter to your local papers than it does to post here and it will reach thousands more, including people involved in these decisions. Our local papers have (unusually, given the state of much local reporting)) put a good deal of commendable effort into reporting and investigating around the stadium proposals in the last few weeks, and we've made sure that the voice of fans through the trust has been central. But there hasn't been much of a response in terms of reader comment, and that kind of thing gets noticed. Lack of reaction is taken as lack of concern or consent. So I would urge people who have something to say to say it. 

Incidentally, the Herald didn't follow up their offshore ownership story involving DFC among others (a national one) because of lack of response. I was told that by a senior reporter. One of the reasons I co-founded the Scottish Football Supporters Association 18-months ago (we're up to 64k members, but need more, and it's free: http://scottishfsa.org) was that we need to turn a culture of grumbling about the game into one of more concerted action. It's also why we want to grow the Sonstrust and make it more effective and influential. As Sons fans we can have a significant say in how things go, but only if we get stuck in!

Simon

I think Pie and Bovril and other social media are gradually replacing print media as a forum for discussing football. The problem with that, is that discussion remains amongst the committed (or 'should be committed') and isn't widened to the merely interested.

[TheFarPost]

50 minutes ago, Howlin' Wilf said:

I think Pie and Bovril and other social media are gradually replacing print media as a forum for discussing football. The problem with that, is that discussion remains amongst the committed (or 'should be committed') and isn't widened to the merely interested.

That second comment is crucial, Wilf. As someone with a longstanding professional engagement with the media, I'm also constantly struck by the gap between claims and actual, measurable evidence in this area. Yes, there's a significant increase in committed fans using social media and a relative decline in print media. And yes, the threats to the newspaper industry remain huge in the absence of credibly spreadable alternative economic  models.  But, at present, readership of local print media is still much higher than most realise, and there's a great segmentation of the discussions and sites involved on the social media side. They are effectively 'gated communities'. PnB is the largest forum of its kind in Scotland. So how many, do you suppose, follow DFC on-field and off-field issues on Sons' Sorrow?  It's the same with Twitter. DFC has 7,400+ followers. But the number who read tweets is a tiny fraction of that. It's easy to get an inflated view of social media use through loose metrics and anecdotal assumptions. On the other hand, analytics indicate reasonably reliably that online local paper stories about the club and its stadium recently have attracted several thousand readers and will be far more influential on debate among politicians, WDC officials and others, because that's what they're mostly reading. As I said, and as what has happened with print books and digital books recently also confirms, it's still 'both/and' not 'either/or' right now. We can either recognise that and respond accordingly, or ignore it and fail to communicate our concerns as effectively. 

OK, I'll shut up about this now!  

Edited December 4, 2016 by TheFarPost

[Howlin' Wilf]

It's quite difficult to quote your post and reply on an iPad Simon, so I'll reply without the quotes. It's funny but a friend and I were recently speculating how many Sons fans read and contribute to P &B.it is probably a very small number - around 30 or so when you factor in double/treble IDs. As for local print media, widely read yes but I'll bet that you'd be lucky to get double figures on the number of fans likely to write letters in.

[Boghead ranter]

Plus, you never see a keeper debate on the letters page of the Lennox or the Reporter.

[DumbartonTheSons]

Plus, you never see a keeper debate on the letters page of the Lennox or the Reporter.

More's the pity. Such a serious subject needs column inches.

[TheFarPost]

18 minutes ago, Howlin' Wilf said:

[A] friend and I were recently speculating how many Sons fans read and contribute to P &B.it is probably a very small number - around 30 or so when you factor in double/treble IDs. As for local print media, widely read yes but I'll bet that you'd be lucky to get double figures on the number of fans likely to write letters in.

I'd guess about that number, too. But thousands upon thousands of posts. So it shouldn't be *that* hard to get people to write a few letters in to the local papers to show that fans care, should it? 

[O'Kelly Isley III]

There is one crucial difference in writing a letter to a newspaper and posting comment on here or similar social media; only on the latter are you guaranteed to be published !

[TheFarPost]

21 minutes ago, O'Kelly Isley III said:

There is one crucial difference in writing a letter to a newspaper and posting comment on here or similar social media; only on the latter are you guaranteed to be published !

The hit-rate for letters to the paper being published is high if they're short, crisp and interesting. The issue is whether we want to make an impact, or just look for reasons not to be bothered.  There are always plenty of those, of course... #monehsonsfans

Edited December 4, 2016 by TheFarPost

[Jan Vojáček]

Anyone care to guess the excuses this time?

Trying to think of a worse result in recent years.

[sarti pooh]

Woeful.

[The Moonster]

5 minutes ago, Sonsteam of 08 said:

Trying to think of a worse result in recent years.

I'll save you some time...there isn't one.

[Jan Vojáček]

I'll save you some time...there isn't one.

Smashing. Where does this rank in our history? I can't remember us playing many non league clubs never mind losing to them.

[Bring Back Paddy Flannery]

Lets see Wilson put his money where his mouth is.

[George Parr]

No matter what Aitken goes onto achieve, he'll always be the first manager to lead a Championship side to Scottish Cup defeat against junior opposition.

[Yoda8]

Where will I find the defenders of Aitken from last week, this thread or the cup one? 

[die hard doonhamer]

Could be worse guys. I wish we were in a position to find your struggle amusing.

[Yoda8]

1 minute ago, Consolidate said:

No matter what Aitken goes onto achieve, he'll always be the first manager to lead a Championship side to Scottish Cup defeat against junior opposition.

He'll not achieve anything mate 

[BallochSonsFan]

Its difficult to defend Aitken tonight. The 3 points on Saturday were much needed and we're in a fair league position. That said, the margins at the bottom are tight and 3 points now means nothing if we can't find consistency.

Bonnyrigg should have won the first game. Fair play to them for winning the 2nd attempt. Tonight's result takes all the positivity away from Saturday's unexpected win. There can be no excuses. This is the team and the squad Aitken built and it wasn't good enough to get past a junior side at 2 attempts. If we were short benched and tired then its down to the small squad and inability to rotate in any meaningful way. A huge part of that is down to who Aitken signed and how he built his squad.

His position must be very difficult tonight.