Heavy hitters contribute to The Walrus promotional video
The Walrus Foundation, publishers of The Walrus magazine, are getting a little help from its better-known friends, as award-winning authors, actors, musicians and designers have come together to create a video that promotes the independent magazine and explains why it matters.
“We Need The Walrus,” a video that quickly explains why the magazine matters, and encouraging Canadians to read, subscribe, and donate to The Walrus. The video is available now at walrusmagazine.com/weneedthewalrus, according to release.
“We Need The Walrus,” a video that quickly explains why the magazine matters, and encouraging Canadians to read, subscribe, and donate to The Walrus. The video is available now at walrusmagazine.com/weneedthewalrus, according to release.
Participants in the video include award‐winning authors and Walrus contributors Margaret Atwood and Camilla Gibb, as well as filmmakers Atom Egoyan and Bruce MacDonald, musicians Geddy Lee of Rush and Brendan Canning and Lisa Lobsinger of Broken Social Scene, fashion designer Jeremy Laing, actors Albert Schultz and Sonja Smits, and MTV Canada host Jessi Cruickshank. The video was shot in Toronto over two days using donated studio time and equipment. It was directed by Lewis through Suneeva Films and produced by CJ Hervey. It was edited by Alison Gordon at Relish Editing, coloured by Elaine Ford at Notch and features post effects by Dan Margules at 567vfx and sound design by Grayson Matthews.
Published by the charitable, non‐profit Walrus Foundation as part of its mandate to promote conversation about issues that matter to Canadians, The Walrus is a general interest magazine. Winner of more domestic and international awards than any other Canadian magazine in the last five years, it has a paid circulation of 60,000, is published ten times annually, and is available on newsstands across Canada. Like Harper’s and other magazines in the United States, it relies on donations to the foundation that publishes it, as well as on revenue from advertising and circulation.
posted by D. B. Scott at
12:53 pm
11 Comments:
We need The Walrus? Really? Canada needs yet another charity case magazine that almost no one reads and that doesn't pay it's contributors in anything even remotely resembling a timely manner (if at all)? Really? We need that?
Some would argue that The Walrus at least has the courage of its convictions, goes out and gets some name people to step up on its behalf and asks for the money. If it works, will it not have deserved the help because it asked for it?
Payment of writers is another matter; but nobody is forced to write for The Walrus. Slow paying isn't a capital crime.
Also: where are you getting "almost no one reads" from? 60,000 people is no one?
Apparently, there was a vote at the Walrus a few weeks ago to decide whether or not to continue with the fundraising effort in good conscience (because, in the end, it may not be enough to keep the ship afloat anyway). I guess they've decided to proceed with both the campaign and the magazine.
Also, the 60,000 circ figure has been thrown around for quite some time, but those in the know at the Walrus say the number is currently a lot lower than that.
If the Walrus wanted to change things up and print interesting, non-snobby and unpretentious writers, actual readers and advertisers would support the magazine.
As things stand, it's just a place for failed intellectuals to hear themselves talk.
I dunno, seems to me that The Walrus has actually been quite a good read lately. The venom seems misplaced.
We don't "need" the Walrus, but as a contributor and subscriber, I'd LIKE to keep it around.
They are woefully slow to pay. They actually tell you this upfront. I take a risk contributing to the Walrus, almost assuming that I may never get paid: the Walrus is the ONLY client I would ever consider doing that for. But I consider it a form of "giving" to a magazine that actually gives artists artistic freedom.
(for the record, they have always paid me... eventually. But their fees are quite a bit lower than standard and what they once paid)
What does the Walrus pay these days? Just curious, because as a subscriber and a writer who contributed to the mag a few years ago, I find the constant requests for donations a bit off-putting and guilt-inducing. I mean how can I pitch a story to and invoice a mag that begs for money each month?
Still, it's a great mag and I'd hate to see it fail.
I've written for them, too. I hope they stick around, since they're one of the few mags left in Canada that still invests in long form.
As for payment, yes, they are ridiculously slow to pay -- and no, I was not informed of this when I took on the gig. (As of a few months ago, their rate was slightly higher than the industry's usual $1 per word pittance.)
Would I work for them again? Yes. Would I make sure my expenses, at least, were paid upfront before I incurred anything out-of-pocket? You bet.
There seems to be some misunderstanding about the financial model of The Walrus.
From day one, it was clear that such a publication would need three streams of revenue: circulation (subs and single copies); advertising; and subsidy (several varieties). That is as true today as it was when it started, regardless of its circulation. In its first few years, most of the subsidy came from a private family foundation. Now it has to come from readers and supporters. What they pay writers or how slowly they pay them has really nothing to do with it.
The reason the magazine continually searches for money from readers and supporters is that, without it, the magazine cannot continue. It will NEVER pay its whole way by subscriptions, newsstand and advertising, nor did it ever expect to. It can never compete for advertising with mainstream publications (in fact, is forbidden to by its charitable status). In fact, it might be argued that The Walrus could be ahead of the curve that leads back to publications that are wholly supported by their readers and supporters rather than advertisers, in one way or another.
Seen in that light, it is something to be applauded. Of course if you don't like the content, you can sit on your hands. But support it if you value it and know that every dime goes into its continuing existence.
DB Wrote:
"What they pay writers or how slowly they pay them has really nothing to do with it. "
Unless you're writing for them, as I have. In which case, it's hardly academic.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home