Two years on, how do you feel about Maclean's?
Next week will mark two years (!) since the new look and feel of Maclean's was launched. How do you like it so far? [Simply click on the word "comments" below and let us know.]
posted by D. B. Scott at
8:35 am
13 Comments:
I don't like it. I let my subscription lapse, and when they called to find out why, I told them it was ugly and I was dismayed at the new politics. The woman on the phone said she had been hearing a lot of that.
Clare in Kitchener
I still haven't read it.
Hmm. I never read it before (except at the doctor's office). Now I subscribe. It's more balanced than the newspapers here on the west coast (but don't worry, I take everything I read with a grain of salt--no matter what the pub). I sure wish they'd hire a proofreader, though. The typos are distracting.
I picked it up a couple times but I have never been a loyal reader. A couple of the pieces I read referenced news stories that were more than a month old. So, reading it is like humouring that last guest who just wont leave after the party.
However, I have to say that I will always love Scott Feschuck. I love him so much and so much. I will stand around the Great Canadian News reading his work but I wont buy it.
Although, I don't think my behaviour is at all representative of it's success on the newsstand.
I like it. I like its new edge and the controversy that is often stirred as a result of it.
i don't care for it, really, but it's more penetrable than walrus when i'm waiting to see the doctor
the design feels dated
Roger's continues to reno their publications thru the eyes of their ad-sale departments, and ignore their editors. the magazines are now staffed by younger inexperienced non-experts for the sake of submission and lower salaries. Roger's has no respect for the content of their publications, it's all about the sales departments... that's who drives the vehicles, editorial has no voice.
that's why Maclean's has forsaken content for lifestyle... that's what ad reps demand.
but why kick a dead horse, let Maclean's stumble on its way to the glue factory.
I love it. Though, I'm also younger and think I'm in the demographic they were targeting.
I love the edgier stories (I bought my subscription after the imfamous skanks cover) and most of the reporting is a pretty damn good. Most, that is...as with any publication, there are still issues.
I find it irresponsible yet compelling.
I'm surprised by all the negative comments. I love the new Maclean's.
When I first saw the redesign, I hated the look. (Really hated it.) But I got a subscription because my daughter's school was doing the usual QSP fundraiser and I thought I should give it a chance. I'm still not particularly keen on the design, but it has grown on me. And the design is SOOOO much better than Time (the other newsmagazine I subscribe to).
And I love the articles. I love the combination of long features and short (3 to a page) stories. I love the at the back sections and think they are giving good coverage to national, world, business, and other news. Certainly better balance than Time. And I also love Scott Feschuck. I also love their author interviews.
And I'm not sure I agree with the timeliness complaint from Debbie. They certainly seem more on the ball than Time.
I can't respect a magazine that would publish any writing by Rebecca Eckler.
I really like the new Maclean's - I am subscriber and have found it greatly improved.
you can tell which issues kw actually had a hand in. bush/saddam and lawyers are rats have to be his doing, but why so many pregnancy stories?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home