Clinging to the ice floe
Shelley Ambrose, the co-publisher of The Walrus magazine and executive director of the Walrus Foundation, has put out a video appeal for donations. Its essence is that the Walrus, which has always received (and as a charity is only allowed to carry) limited advertising and now, with the recession, even that limited revenue stream has taken a major hit, with ad revenue down 50%. As she puts it bluntly, this has left the magazine "clinging to the ice floe". Here's the video.
posted by D. B. Scott at
1:42 pm
16 Comments:
I believe she says "literally clinging to an ice floe." Go ahead and scold me for being a nitpicker, but a magazine for "smart people" shouldn't allow its publisher to make such a simple mistake. Unless of course they moved their offices *very* far north.
Yes, I'm a nitpicker. But I'm not literally picking nits.
Maybe that's what they do on those Arctic tours they have from time to time.
You never know...
Anonymous 2.
Oh, come on, first anonymous.
1. Publishers don't write the copy that goes in a magazine. And no editorial staff I've met could tell a publisher what to say and how to say it outside the magazine's pages.
2. Surely everyone knows by now that "literally" rarely means "literally"!
-third anonymous
Anonymous 2 again.
But "literally" should mean "literally." Otherwise we would use "figuratively,""metaphorically," "so to speak," or heck, just let the reader/listener figure it out.
Thanks for not publishing my comment DB...I guess when you are connected to the publication in some way you have to protect it. Although my comment wasn't very rude in any way. All I wrote was that I thought it was lame, and that maybe if they didn't waste thousands and thousands of dollars on awards entries they wouldn't be in this situation.
It is literally time for them to give up.
-Anonymous, er, 4 I think.
To the Anonymous who says I didn't publish his/her comment: I don't know what you're talking about; I did not reject anything. I will say, unequivocally, that I have had no connection with The Walrus in some way, or any way, other than as a reader.
To make things a little easier for all of us who follow this blog and the comments it generates, could posters please adopt a "handle" other than Anonymous. Keeping track of Anon #1, #2, etc., hurts my head.
Cheers.
Well, since I started this I guess I should chime back in.
If Ms. Ambrose had been giving an off the cuff comment, then I wouldn't have noted her gaffe.
But this was a video created as part of their fundraising campaign. It represents the magazine and they should have taken care to present an image that fits with a smart literary magazine.
So I guess I'm saying that it undercuts their brand to make such a simple mistake and not take the time and care to fix/edit it.
I don't think it will have a negative effect on their fundraising, but why not get it right?
I hope to see my fellow anonymice at the family reunion/MagNet.
This video is a nice take on some other successful donation drives that came out of the States last year.
Here's one for Bitch magazine: http://bitchmagazine.org/post/bitchs-fate-is-in-your-hands
I don't know where to go to confirm this number, but I was told that Bitch tripled their original fundraising goal based on the success of this video campaign.
Putting aside any commenter's opinion of the web site I am about to mention, look no further than Wikipedia (and Jimmy Wales) for grassroots, personable fundraising done right. No video, of course; and the text was probably written by committee and proofread six ways to Sunday.
ON the other hand, the Walrus video gaffe is eminently human, and in fact could work to Shelley's advantage at street level.
Tangentially, I find myself remembering the intentional comedy of SCTV/Bobby Bittman for the PSA, "Support your local lieberry," Bittman mugging in the middle of the stacks with a lit cigar in his hand...
As a rather precise friend of mine pointed out yesterday, this is an interesting discussion in some respects, especially the seventh comment and DB Scott's statement: "I will say, unequivocally, that I have had no connection with The Walrus in some way, or any way, other than as a reader."
"Didn't DB Scott work as a consultant for The Walrus before it launched?" my friend asked.
"Indeed he did," I replied. "He was paid $20,000 for services rendered, including the preparation of a draft budget with the following line item: 'Executive Editor DB Scott $75,000'."
Cheers,
Ken Alexander
What a difference one word makes. Had I not mistakenly put the word "had" in the comment to which Ken Alexander refers, it would have been absolutely correct that I have no relationship with the Walrus, and it was what I intended. I was involved in the planning of the Walrus as a paid advisor and, indeed, contemplated more of an involvement. I believed that the magazine could succeed. And did more than a dozen drafts of a business plan that would have contributed to it. However, Alexander was unprepared to take my (or anyone's) advice and I left the project 6 months before the magazine was published, more than five years ago. Since then, I have had nothing to do with it professionally or otherwise, except as a reader.
A pity that you didn't post my last comment DB. "What is one to make of such elisions," my precise friend wonders. "Could this site be not what it purports to be?"
"Perhaps it just went missing, like truth itself so often does," I offered her as a salve.
Ken Alexander
PS. I would be happy to send it again, DB, if indeed it did go awol, or if your editor's knife is now less a cleaver.
Ken Alexander: Every response you've sent has been posted here. So I have no idea what your latest, clever analogy to a cleaver signifies.
Hi again DB,
Good to know that it just went missing somehow -- below, my response to the thirteenth comment (your second):
Indeed, in journalism (and fact checking) one word can make all the difference in the world. ("Anonymous" comes to mind; as does "memory";
and, pace testimony [under cross examination] from the likes of Bill Clinton and Brian Mulroney, the copula verb "to be.") On the topic of advice, I do recall accepting mountains of it -- words of wisdom that ultimately led to charitable status for The Walrus Foundation and, according to the judges of the "Utne Reader" Independent Press Awards (last week), not a bad magazine. As they put it:
"It is, once again, the year of the Walrus. Since launching in 2003, the Canadian general-interest magazine “with an international outlook” has nabbed three Utne Independent Press Award nominations, taking the prize in 2004 for best new publication. Five years later and counting, it’s been consistently delightful to read—and last year the magazine outdid itself, its sparkling articles and fluid essays orbiting high above the rest of us earthbound publications."
Something to consider, I suppose, if Mr. Scott is still smarting about his advice not resonating quite so (or not getting his desired job).
Must run now, there's work to be done. Final word, as always, the gift bestowed upon the media controller (in this instance, the publisher of
this website). Thank you though, it's been fun.
Cheers,
Ken Alexander
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home