Quote, unquote: Nonplussing a donor
"So I send them a donation, and the next thing I find is that they are printing four different covers of the next issue. What's up with that?"
-- Overheard at a British Columbia Association of Magazine Publishers (BCAMP) conference, commenting on the current (March) issue of The Walrus that is being distributed with four cover versions illustrating Vancouver in all of its variety, for a cover story by Gary Stephen Ross about the Olympics host city's place in the world.
Labels: quote
posted by D. B. Scott at
6:02 pm
14 Comments:
Hmmm. You'd think they'd use the money to give a stipend to their hard-working interns.
(And, no, I'm not an intern at The Walrus.)
It's appalling. They need to get a grip and realize they are not swimming in cash. They are notorious for paying their writers months beyond what is expected, and they indulge in this crap. Get a grip, or you can kiss my subscription goodbye. I appreciate the written word, not some fatuous stroke-job to satisfy the egos of the likes of Shelly Ambrose et al.
Circulation Director at The Walrus here. Just to clarify, doing four separate covers for our March issue actually cost nothing at all. We had already commissioned all of the photographs as part of a series for the cover story, and when they were delivered decided that a good number of them would work well as covers. We then spoke to our printer and they arranged to facilitate printing the four covers at no extra cost. In fact, the entire decision to run a four cover series was rooted in the fact that it was a fantastic newsstand opportunity that cost nothing to facilitate. It goes without saying that every donation is valuable to to The Walrus, and we always strive to make innovative, cost-effective marketing and circulation decisions that benefit the magazine with that in mind.
Like many magazines, our covers are printed 4-up, meaning that each press sheet has four covers on it. This means that to print four different covers all we need to do is put four different images on that sheet. It costs us nothing, it doesn't even represent a plate change. Grant Harder's assignment from us was to produce a body of photography for Gary Ross' story, rather than one or two carefully-selected shots. As it turned out, Grant produced a cornucopia of gorgeous shots for us, to the point where it was difficult to edit them down.
The logic behind these covers was one of marketing and promotion. We conceived of a way to get attention, and hopefully more readers for our magazine. What it appears that we are being faulted for is leveraging an already-commissioned body of excellent images and the simple production fact noted above to get publicity for our magazine.
Perception often outweighs reality. Not the best decision in hindsight, eh?
Anon 1
Good for the Walrus
But save your breath when it comes educating the critics
Perhaps the blogger, the donor and others commenting should get a grip on the economics of magazine publishing: balancing hard costs with good, tried and true, attention getting, reader attracting, advertiser influencing projects
Wow. "Perception often outweighs reality" = a brilliant attempt to transfer blame for one's own ignorance.
Wow. "Perception often outweighs reality" = a brilliant attempt to transfer blame for one's own ignorance.
--not at all. There are likely more people thinking of the perceived financial waste than there are readers of this particular thread on this particular blog discussing the details of this particular decision.
Then again, who knows how many people are even aware of the multiple covers? As a Walrus subscriber, I saw just the one cover and wouldn't have known of the others if it weren't for this blog.
So maybe it all evens out it the end. Maybe the Walrus commenters can give us an update on how it all works out for them.
How does one understand the reasoning of Anonymous #2? As a subscriber and a donor, I'm happy The Walrus is using my money (or not even using it, as SMF said) on more photography, more newsstand exposure, and other things that will benefit my reading pleasure now and in the future. And if there is a massive ego involved in allowing The Walrus to do more with less, so much the better, I say.
I never tire of seeing how fast readers of this blog (ie. members of the magazine publishing community) are to jump on board with any criticism of the Walrus - "let's all bash anyone who tries anything new and innovative and then when it fails, let's all bemoan the dying of our industry and wonder why." Such petty small-mindedness always strikes me as inherently Canadian, to our perpetual loss.
Yes, there's much to criticize at the Walrus, but not more so than any other pub in this country. But somehow there's always this sense that everyone is just waiting for the magazine to fail just to be able to say I told you so, and then scurry back to our little corners and feel better about our own mediocrity.
I think Anon #2 wrote that before realizing that the extra cover photos didn't cost any extra. But I'm sure there are a lot of people thinking the same thing as Anon #2 who still don't know that the extra covers didn't cost.
Anon #1
"How about looking more like a magazine having financial problems? What a great idea, everyone will want to buy that!"
I tried a subscription to Wally's World but was critical of it's depth because I couldn't find the time to read it It sat for months until I had some free time and now I buy and read it regularly from the newstand. When at the BC Association of Magazine Publisher's meeting in Parksville some clever presenter mentioned the four covers and the next week my wife and I were in the magazine section of Shopper's Drug Mart reflecting on which cover was most Vancouver to us (we were both raised there). It was a great idea I might like to "borrow" sometime myself for Just Business People Canada. Thanks DB.
@Dave Allen "CEO"
So... you were critical of the depth of The Walrus because you couldn't find the time to read it?
When I read that, I almost passed coffee through my nose. Thanks for the laugh.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home