eHam.net - Amateur Radio (Ham Radio) Community

Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net


Reviews Categories | Amateur Radio Periodicals | CQ Magazine Help


Reviews Summary for CQ Magazine
CQ Magazine Reviews: 305 Average rating: 2.8/5 MSRP: $27.95
Description: The Radio Amateur's Journal
Product is in production.
More info: http://www.cq-amateur-radio.com/
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to this review.

Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help

You can write your own review of the CQ Magazine.

<— Page 2 of 31 —>

VR2AX Rating: 5/5 Jun 15, 2014 06:50 Send this review to a friend
CQ Magazine  Time owned: more than 12 months
A rating of 2.8 makes you wonder what these reviews are really worth. My first experience was when I came to Hong Kong 30 years ago, CQ was sold by the shop beside the Star Ferry In Central. I was able to buy a new mag that was so different from the RSBG Bulletin/Radio Communication of old. So fresh and interesting. A bit like the 1960s version of Short Wave Magazine.

On and off I have subscribed, usually to the sea mail versions, so a day or two late delivery has not been an issue (sic). Concur with the comparative comment below regarding scolding. Had a few problems a couple of years ago with missing editions. Now to my recent experience.

In February I subscribed for the digital edition. This is not from empathy nut just to save the problem of postal problems. It worked great. My first edition was the February one which was the first inclusive of the CQ Plus. Overall I think it is too much of a read for one month.

I continue to receive my, what is now called, RadCom. It has its place and I can't really compare and am not entitled to do so. Suffice to say that I shall continue to subscribe for the digital edition of CQ for as long as I want to read a fresh and open ham radio read. Each to his or her own.

Very best,
VR2AX
 
AF6WL Rating: 4/5 Jun 14, 2014 15:35 Send this review to a friend
iPad edition great  Time owned: more than 12 months
I've never been a print subscriber, but am enjoying reading it , without delivery problems, on the iPad via Zinio.
I find it a better read than QST.
I hope the magazine pulls through.


 
GM4UBJ Rating: 0/5 Jun 14, 2014 08:43 Send this review to a friend
Sad end to a good mag  Time owned: more than 12 months
Alas its seems CQ mag are going under, in the last year I have not received about 70 % of the mags and certainly nothing since January, even then I only received it because I emailed another complaint, now I do not even bother. My subscription length has been increased but what's the point if they cant deliver, at least if they had offered an online subscription it would have been some recompense. I was feeling sorry for the mag but now I just feel ripped -off, when the subscription renewal arrives I will not be throwing good money after bad
 
KF5WFL Rating: 2/5 May 31, 2014 12:20 Send this review to a friend
Day late and several dollars short.  Time owned: 3 to 6 months
I enjoy the content and like the add ons in the Zinio version. BUT... we need to get it on time. I still don't have the June Zinio version, and we should be getting the hard copy before the end of the month previous, not late in the current month. I'm beginning to think I wasted my money on the three year print and digital subscription I bought in January. The only reason I gave a two is that I do like the content. Service has sucked.
 
SM3LGO Rating: 0/5 May 26, 2014 21:45 Send this review to a friend
Serious problems  Time owned: more than 12 months
In January, I renewed CQ for three years. Bad idea... Almost 6 months later, I have not received a single issue after December 2013. In March I got an email response saying there was distribution problems and my subscription would be extended by two issues. It's of very little help to extend when I still don't get any magazine. There is now no response at all to my emails.
 
WA2DTW Rating: 5/5 Apr 24, 2014 05:21 Send this review to a friend
Excellent new issue  Time owned: more than 12 months
The new combined March/April issue is great. And the new electronic edition looks promising, and will likely have something for everyone.
 
W0CKI Rating: 0/5 Apr 23, 2014 19:23 Send this review to a friend
Total trash mag  Time owned: 0 to 3 months
About the only saving grace is the contest portion, otherwise absolute junk. Let it die, no one will miss it after a few months, but then again, some will be waiting for the late last issue.
 
N5DRM Rating: 1/5 Apr 23, 2014 18:22 Send this review to a friend
Pretty much the same.  Time owned: more than 12 months
I read the comments from W3ULS and agree about the business side. As other subscribers have voiced, print editions have been late with little effort being shown by CQ staff to answer questions directly. I let my print subscription expire two months ago and the digital one will expire in four months and I'll not resubscribe. I keep getting email offers for special pricing from CQ and sense that revenues are down and getting lower. Mr. Ross, if you read this post, have enough common respect for the subscriber base to be forthcoming with the issues you are facing and not hide from the very people that keep you in business.
 
K4IA Rating: 5/5 Apr 23, 2014 18:13 Send this review to a friend
What difference does it make?  Time owned: more than 12 months
I like the magazine. I like the articles. It is readable, fun and informative. The "other" ham magazine can be stuffy, dogmatic and scolding. I read them both.

Who cares what date is on the cover?
 
W3ULS Rating: 2/5 Apr 23, 2014 15:01 Send this review to a friend
Subscribers not treated well  Time owned: more than 12 months
This review should be in two parts: (1) editorial content and (2) subscriber fulfillment.

For (1), I'd rank CQ between a "3" and a "4." (The fewer photos per issue of "Gordo" the higher the rating, if you share my lack of enthusiasm for this particular ham.)

For (2), a "2" rating is generous. Obviously, there have been serious production problems requiring a major reorganization of CQ's overall publishing operations.

Usually, in the publishing business, the person designated to deal with the business side and explain matters to subscribers is not the editor, but the publisher. In the case of CQ, the publisher is a man named Ross. Never heard from him. Instead, all I know is what I read in a brief sidebar for the "March/April" edition received in the mail recently. This sidebar was written by the editor. So far, the publisher has been AWOL.

To see what a competent organization does, simply look at any issue of QST. There's the editor, and then there's the publisher. The latter, Harold Kramer, has a regular column in which he explains the goings on at ARRL not related to the editorial content, which is the domain of Steve Ford. Subscribers are not left in the dark.

Why CQ's business side, on the other hand, should be so cavalier toward subscribers is a mystery.
 
<— Page 2 of 31 —>


If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions about Reviews, please email your Reviews Manager.