Message from participants in magazine conferences: kiss and make up
[NOTE: This post has been updated.] We promised to report on the results of the online questionnaire, asking readers to give their views about the two magazine conferences that took place this past month -- Magazines University and MagNet: Canada's Magazine Conference.
According to the latest information available, the attendance at the two conferences was:
This is more of a straw poll; a self-selecting sample and shouldn't be considered representative in any way of the wider industry or even those in attendance at the conferences.
Still, the responses and comments are interesting and may be useful in any post mortems by both organizing teams and in assessing what happens next.
Copies of the survey's summary results were sent to both Magazines Canada and to Masthead (through whom it was shared with the Canadian Business Press) and these representatives of both conferences declined to comment directly about the questionnaire.
[UPDATE] Mark Jamison, the President of Magazines Canada said: ""We appreciate any feedback and will review it in the context of all the member and sponsor consultations we are beginning now as we prepare for MagNet 2008 June 4-6". And on behalf of Masthead and the Canadian Business Press Masthead Publisher Doug Bennet said: "We are not ready to comment on the survey at this time. We have a post-mortem meeting scheduled for July 11 with all the Mags U partners (including the audit boards) at which we will confirm the final numbers and formally evaluate this year's show."[END UPDATE]
[Fair disclosure: I write a column for Masthead and have given seminars in the past for Magazines University. I also do consulting work for Magazines Canada, sit on their professional development committee and was a moderator at three panels presented this year at MagNet.]
Survey summary
According to the latest information available, the attendance at the two conferences was:
- Magazines University (according to the Mastheadonline website):
- 1,348 unique registrants
- 2,611 registrations for seminars and events
- MagNet (according to a bulletin from Magazines Canada, which said the details had been approved by its board of directors):
- 692 unique registrants
- 2,518 registrations for seminars and events
This is more of a straw poll; a self-selecting sample and shouldn't be considered representative in any way of the wider industry or even those in attendance at the conferences.
Still, the responses and comments are interesting and may be useful in any post mortems by both organizing teams and in assessing what happens next.
Copies of the survey's summary results were sent to both Magazines Canada and to Masthead (through whom it was shared with the Canadian Business Press) and these representatives of both conferences declined to comment directly about the questionnaire.
[UPDATE] Mark Jamison, the President of Magazines Canada said: ""We appreciate any feedback and will review it in the context of all the member and sponsor consultations we are beginning now as we prepare for MagNet 2008 June 4-6". And on behalf of Masthead and the Canadian Business Press Masthead Publisher Doug Bennet said: "We are not ready to comment on the survey at this time. We have a post-mortem meeting scheduled for July 11 with all the Mags U partners (including the audit boards) at which we will confirm the final numbers and formally evaluate this year's show."[END UPDATE]
[Fair disclosure: I write a column for Masthead and have given seminars in the past for Magazines University. I also do consulting work for Magazines Canada, sit on their professional development committee and was a moderator at three panels presented this year at MagNet.]
Survey summary
- There were 59 surveys completed.
- Of the 52 respondents who gave their postal codes, 73% were from the greater Toronto area, 17% from southern Ontario, 4% from Montreal, 2% from Ottawa, 2% from Manitoba and 2% from Alberta.
- 41% worked in editorial, 36% in management, 20% in circulation, 9% in advertising, 2% in production
- 32% worked at a consumer magazine, 9% at a trade magazine, 5% were custom publishers
- 13% were suppliers, 11% were conference sponsors
- Of those, 19% attended Mags U, 43% MagNet, 30% attended both and 8% attended neither.
- 74% who attended Mags U and 65% who attended MagNet said overall experience of the conferences was Excellent or Very good
- Location (Excellent or Very good): Mags U, 87%; MagNet, 80%
- Price of events (Excellent or Very Good): Mags U, 88%; MagNet, 93%
- Quality of presentation (Excellent or Very Good): Mags U, 89%; MagNet, 80%
- Opportunity for networking (Excellent or Very Good): Mags U, 89%; MagNet, 69%
- Asked to select statements that most closely represented their views about the two conferences, the answers were as follows:
- I cannot afford the TIME to attend two different conferences: 72%
- This industry is too small to sustain two conferences: 53%
- I cannot afford the COST of attending two different conferences: 53%
- It seems to me to be confusing to have two conferences: 44%
- There should be only one conference and it should be MagNet: 26%
- There should be only one conference and it should be Mags U: 18%
- I appreciate having a choice of conferences: 14%
Open-ended comments - As I'm based in Toronto, it isn't a problem for me, but I can see how people from the rest of the country would appreciate having one conference as they are pretty much forced into picking only one.
- There are some things at Mags U that I would have liked to attend but couldn't possibly go to both conferences. It seems to me to be the height of absurdity to have two conferences. Surely there must be a way to solve whatever the conflict is and return to one conference.
- Perhaps if one was immediately after the other, there'd be more opportunity for folks from out of town to still attend both.
- The length of courses at MagNet is far too short (75 minutes) and only offers a glossing over [of] the course curriculum.
- It is too obvious that these conferences are competing with each other. More cooperation please.
- I would much rather one conference that ran longer, perhaps for a full week. I don't mind that there are two, but it makes sense to me that by combining efforts there would be opportunity to offer a broader variety of sessions as well as increased discounts for attendees.
- The downtown location of MagNet puts it on the top of my list.
- I have to come in from Montreal. Unless all the events -- including the NMAs-- are held in the same week, I cant really afford to attend. A Magazine Week that leads up to the NMAs is the most reasonable solution. Now, can we get folks to work together?
- Kiss and make up!
- It would be nice if they weren't so close together. I think a coordinated effort to support a Spring and a Fall conference would ensure a viable plan for all entities involved. We sent an employee to one session at MagsU because they couldn't attend MagNet and they enjoyed it.
- A larger, combined conference should have the financial resources to bring in top quality speakers who will benefit both the trade and consumer sides.
- MagNet brings together the consumer magazine press in Canada. Looking at who was at the Thursday lunch, virtually anyone who is anyone in the business was there. Hard to discount that.
- The pre-conference email newsletter became VERY annoying after awhile. Getting 2-3 emails from each conference each week was a bit excessive. It made me want to dump both events.
- Business and consumer magazines have different needs. Why not hold them in the same location, during one week, with half the time devoted to business mag concerns and half devoted to consumer.
- Only one.
- To be of true service, the parties behind MagNet and Mags U should kiss, make up and focus on putting together the best conference they can -- content, content, content.
- If there must be two, then don't schedule them to run so close together.
Labels: Magazines Canada, Magazines University, MagNet, Masthead
11 Comments:
I see that MagNet has already announced their plans to move their date back to the same week as Mags U.
It will be interesting to see if NMAF, which claims to be non-partisan, will now also move their date back, in lock-step.
And if they do change their date again, will it be to coordinate with MagNet's dates, or to work with Mags U? Friday before Mags U or Friday following MagNet?
Perhaps to demonstate their non-partisanship, and in the spirit of fair play, NMAF will align its date to Mags U in 2008, since MagsNet benefitted this year?
People do not seem to realize the difference between the 2 conference audiences.
Mags U is put on by CBP, therefore for B2B, MagNet is put on by Magazines Canada and is for consumer magzine audiences.
I think anyone looking at the Mags U lineup this year will see that its seminars were designed to appeal to both consumer and B2B. And, of course, in all previous years, MagsU was a combined consumer and trade event. People are entitled to remember this history.
I really liked one respondent's recommendation who commented if there must be two then they should be separated on the calendar. Perhaps Mags U could keep June, and MagNet could move to February.
Also, I hope the conference organizers heeded the complaint of too much direct mail! Mags U certainly stepped up their DM over past years. Add to it the competing MagNet DM and it just became an annoyance rather than a service.
Mags U was, and I suspect, will remain, dedicated to both consumer and trade publishers. Of course, some publishers operate it both spheres.
Based on the counts, Mags U attracted 1,398 unique people while MagNet attracted 692 unique people...a difference of 656 individuals.
Stated another way, that's a 95% variance.
Perhaps the difference is Trade people? But maybe not. There were lots of Consumer folks on hand. Perhaps those numbers will be made public.
Either way, based on the head count, NMAF will have to think seriously about their choice.
I'm sure the NMAF board will look closely at the numbers.
While the February idea is a good one, it appears that MagNet has already decided on their dates.
I agree that NMAF should alternate their "support" between both Mags U and MagNet.
That seems fair and reasonable. Besides, the numbers seem to support that too.
As a publisher of both trade and consumer magazines from Alberta, here's hoping the NMAF thinks about folks like us from the West.
Perhaps the NMAF should consider re-branding. We already have the Western Magazine Awards, so why not just admit what everybody already knows and call it the Ontario Magazine Awards.
wow this thread sure has become a place for nmaf axe grinding. i'll have to tell all those western people i know who got nominated and or won that they apparently don't exist. same with the quebeckers and down easterners (sorry Neville Gilfoy, man of the night). howzabout you guys stop pouting and get back to the original issue of the two workshops? from where i sit the nmaf can't do dick about the split anyway as they arent involved with putting on either event. if you got complaints about the nmaf itself go tell them and quit moaning in anonymity and detracting from the real issue here.
I totally agree with the post above.
Let's get to the real question at hand. Which conference had the better lookin' babes?
Actually, even the blog here has cited the scarcity of Western (and Quebec) representation (both in nominees and winners) at the NMA this year. C'est la vie, but it does then make me very glad for the Western Magazine Awards (which then raises the question of whether that is one of the reasons the WMA was created in the first place ...?).
Anyway, I would disagree that is a completely irrelevant point with respect to the other issues at hand here re: the conferences. I would love to see both the National awards or at least Mags University move to different parts of the country each year -- as someone with a very small magazine, a trip to Toronto is a huge expense. I would also suggest that this is likely one of the reasons that WMA, SFU, and the Manitoba Magazine Publishing Association have became so necessary to us in the West -- both for the awards and the geographical accessibiliy of workshops, presentations, etc. If these truly are national events then I see no reason not to work with other publishing organizations in order to relocate them annually.
maybe the conferences should arrange their dates around the mag awards. after all, the mag awards have been around decades longer…and maybe all you people with such great ideas about how to run things differently should volunteer your services. I bet all the poor schlepps doing everything now could use some relief…
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home