So it seems that according to an expert editor, the Bulletin redesign is terrible and this is what is causing members to not renew their membership, which in turn means fewer members and less dues money for Local Groups, which means poorer service to their members who do stay. And it's all my fault!
Geesh... does anyone not notice the personal vendetta in that woman's posts?
9 comments:
You're twisting what her post is, Robin. What she actually said is that the Bulletin affects the lapse rate. And, to SOME extent (damned if I could quantify how MUCH of an extent, though), it's likely undeniable.
Undisputably, the vast majority of our members are completely inactive, merely receiving only their local group newsletter and the Bulletin. For SOME of these inactive people (again, I would have no idea how many), while having the membership card and bragging rights might be nice, they may want a bit more than "just" that "validation." Having two publication subscriptions, if those publications meet whatever criteria they have in mind, just might do it. So, the better the Bulletin and the respective local group newsletter are, the more likely these such members will feel they are getting sufficient value to continue their membership, if for nothing else than to read these two publications.
INAAY, Robin. Sometimes one needs to put one's own ego down and re-read something to recognize the factual content that reading through ego-tinted glasses will filter out.
She didn't stop at saying the Bulletin affects the lapse rate. I have no doubt that some members, do, indeed, fail to renew because they are displeased with the national or local publications.
What makes me roll my eyes is that she went on to argue that members lapsing because they don't like the Bulletin relates directly to decreases in funding to and thus services from Local Groups.
With fewer members, LGs have fewer costs... they have fewer newsletters to print and send; fewer bags of Dorritos to serve at gatherings. The greatness or suckitude of the Bulletin does not impact how well Local Groups serve their members.
To lead an audience to the conclusion that it does takes great creative leaps of reasoning. And when that "logic" comes from someone who is well known to take jump at any opportunity to swipe at me, her conclusions are rather hard to consider with any respect.
If anybody says the Bulletin redesign causes them to not renew -- I say baloney.
If people say the Bulletin redesign sucks, I say "do you have a better idea or at least CONSTRUCTIVE ideas on how to improve it?" Sure, some things I like and some I don't, but I don't have any better ideas on how to do things.
Face it, no one Bulletin (or local newsletter) layout/design is going to satisfy everybody.
It's clear TJ doesn't like you. Can you, the Comm's Officer, separate that sentiment from the actual criticism of the design? If so, many of the comments are valid.
You want some constructive criticism? OK, but do you have the power or the inclination to act on any of the following:
On the cover, the heading is MENSA I BULLETIN, or so it seems. The vertical red bar is an unnecessary distraction, although it does fine at the bottom of the front cover. The line underneath, "The Magazine of American Mensa", is either too small or too scrawny. Under-statement is often good, but not *there.*
The insistence on putting all the copy in standard Times New Roman is laudable for consistency, but it doesn't work that well when reversed out, or when contrasted with colored backgrounds. In those places, a non-serif type works better, or there are ways to fatten the type slightly so it's more readable.
Using a two page graphic (Punch Drunk)in a 48 page magazine isn't the most cost-effective way to go, especially as the article isn't the signature piece for this issue. A single page graphic would have been more than adequate.
Page 20 is a disaster. Black on red is a no-no. People even mildly color blind (8% of Caucasians, the main target audience) most likely can't read it. The other 92% will likely have great difficulty. Readability is key, not art for art's sake.
The Art of War, all five pages, the feature article, is almost equally difficult to read. Small black serif type on the dark mottled background, or the dark plain backgrounds on the last page, is a poor choice. The only things that work well are the larger pull quotes, the type for which is outlined in white. Maybe the whole thing might have worked if all the type were reversed out and put in a sans serif, or if a white outline was used throughout, as with the slightly bolder bullet-pointed copy in the ad at the bottom of page 12.(It's a great ad. Even the last line, in about 6 point type, is perfectly legible.)
The War article's paragraph intro type,in English 157 script, is bad. That type style is great for wedding invitations, but totally inappropriate for a piece about war. If there had to be a script for contrast, bold & aggressive Brush Script would have worked. Or it could been done as well in a square type like Eurostile or Rockwell.
The heading on page 45, Services Offered, is broken up. Nothing constructive need be offered. It should have been caught in the proof-reading.
Brian
I have no issue with getting design feedback. Bring it on. Some will agree with you. Some will not. And yes, the editor listens.
What I am rolling my eyes about is the logical fallacy that the quality of the Bulletin impacts Local Groups' ability to serve their members well.
I haven't even read what TJ wrote, but I don't see how that's a logical fallacy. The majority of the local group funding that goes to the local groups comes from members who never show up to a local meeting. If the number of locally-active members remains constant, but the Bulletin-reading-only membership declines, then there is less money coming into the group from local group funding, and therefore less money to spend on the locally-active members and their activities. The days of all the money going to fund the local newsletter are over in the groups that have electronic subscriptions.
Ok, that is a more valid argument. However, membership has increased steadily for what, a decade? And the same people have been bitching about the Bulletin for.. um.. about that long.
I guess we'll have to see if this April's drop is greater than in previous years, and then do some calling of lapsed members to find out if they quit because of the changes in the Bulletin.
Your comment that "the days of all money going to fund the LG newsletter are over" is not something I have any recent data to support or refute. When I did the LG Funding project a couple years ago, it was absolutely the case that for most groups, all funding from AML was consumed by the newsletter. Has that been turned around enough to make a significant difference in a significant number of LGs? I dunno. My gut says no, in which case it's a wash-- LG's costs decreases by the same amount as the funding they'd have otherwise gotten for members who quit because they don't like the Bulletin.
But I admit I do not have recent data about how much groups spend on their newsletters. Do you?
I don't have any specific figures, only common sense, some ability to do math, and a knowledge of how these things work.
So let's do some analysis. There is nearly always a fixed cost to printing, but nowadays with it all being computerized, I think even that has gone way down. Therefore, the bulk of the cost of each issue of a newsletter is variable cost, in terms of both printing and postage, and each subscription does not have to make much of a contribution to the fixed cost.
Let's use some round numbers and see what happens. If in the past a group of 1,000 members was spending $8,000 on its newsletter per year (that's pretty close to the full amount of LG funding, isn't it?), that would be about 66 cents per issue per member each month, and a printer bill of $670 per month (it seems to come out to 666, but let's not go there :-) ). From what I recall, the fixed portion was probably the $70, but it could be $100, so the rest is variable cost. For the sake of easier math, let's say the printer mails the newsletter, and the cost cited includes the postage; in reality a group would pay both the printer and the post office, but it's still variable in the same way.
So, each member who now takes an electronic subscription saves their group 57 cents each month ($670 less $100 fixed cost is $570, or 57 cents per copy printed), or $6.84 per year, assuming monthly printing.
If 10% of the membership who is not locally active or simply doesn't like paper does this, the group now has $684.00 more per year to spend on things other than the newsletter. I suppose they could spend it on making the newsletter nicer for those still getting it, and I'm sure some of that happens, too, but it's likelier they will do other things with it that are more likely to benefit those who are locally active.
If the people who are not locally active now never see their local newsletter on paper, but they still see their Mensa Bulletin on paper, their perceptions may be swayed more by what's physically in front of them. If they don't like what they see, and they leave Mensa, then that extra money the group had from local group funding is now gone.
Please note that I am saying nothing about the redesign whatsoever. What I am saying is that any member lost is less money for the local group because the dues of every member contributes towards their group. If a member who is not active views Mensa as nothing more than another magazine subscription, then he or she will stay or go based on whether he/she likes the publication. And if they go, that will affect the local group.
I’m not completely following your description of printing and postage pricing, but I crafted a bit of a longer reply and used it as a regular blog post.
Post a Comment