[ SHOWGSD-L ] Some thoughts on Review, Roster, club finances

  • From: BJBuie@xxxxxxx
  • To: showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 15:23:14 EDT

I sent this a couple of days ago to the officers and directors.  I  
received a response from one director who said that the label was moving to the 
 
back cover and that nexdt year we could pay $5 extra to resume having our 
Review  sent in the poly bag.  None of the other issues received comment.  A  
trusted friend suggested I send to the lists for others to think about, so 
after  sleeping on it, am doing.  I'm not pointing fingers, Dania works hard 
and  the concerns I mentioned about the cost and useability and privacy 
concerns  about the roster being in the Review are not meant for any reason 
other 
than to  be thought about for next time.
 
I've been staying away from all the lists to avoid so much controversy, but 
 sometimes I just can't stop myself from pitching an idea.  I am going back 
 into my cave now.  Hopefully some of my thoughts wil be of benefit.
 
Betty Johnson -- Tintagel
 
 
9/19/2010
   
Hi Susan -- I want the Review to return to using the plastic bag.   More 
than 1 reason.  1. of course it arrives in better shape without  corner's bent 
and/or torn, grease or something similar on, 2.  label on  front cover mars 
the otherwise always beautiful front cover photo.
 
If we have to pay $5 per year in addition to have this, then I will, but  
all my "nicer" magazines like the ones I get from England, and American  
magazines like Art and Architecture are mailed in the plastic wrappers without  
an additional charge, or at least if there is one, it is silently included 
in  the subscription rate.  Maybe it is time to raise the cost of a  
subscription by a modest $5 per year to cover cost of plastic mailer and other  
costs.
 
I have no problem with the recent changes in paper and coating.  The  
magazine is still beautiful and I always thought it was a bit overboard and 
knew  
there were less expensive ways to produce it without lowering the quality 
to an  unacceptable level.
 
While a Review presence on the internet would be a nice addition, I would  
strongly resist any move to publish only an electronic form.  Websites  
change, go down, don 't get renewed, get moved, information is changed and  
updated and can not be counted on to be a permanently available resource.   For 
those, too few perhaps, students of the breed, nothing is a more important  
research tool than a archive filled with as many years past Reviews as  
possible.  I personally have a complete set from 1951 to date and am always  on 
the lookout to pick up even earlier issues.  Most who know me know that  
they can call and I can research a photo, a pedigree, long past show winners,  
club news for regional club anniversary celebrations and the like.  I also  
have every Redbook published as well as other books on the breed, including  
those now somewhat rare brown binders, A Breeder's Guide To The German  
Shepherd".  If articles and ads are run on a website, they risk the same  fate 
as the websites breeders use which disappear when the breeder loses  
interest or takes down old photos to replace with new.
 
What the Review needs are more articles and if there are more articles  
which will increase the value of the Review which should increase  
advertisements.  I realize this may be a never ending circle of "we can't  
publish more 
pages until there are more ads and people won't buy ads because the  skinny 
Reviews don't instill faith that anyone will really read the Review and  pay 
attention to the ads.  Interesting, though that the issue before the  
National continues to draw more advertisements than other issues, so there must 
 
be a perception that the Review is read with more attention just before the  
National.  Now, if we could give people a reason to take their Review with  
them to read in Doctor waiting rooms, such as I did today, on road trips 
for  entertainment, etc. before other shows during the year.  Maybe the club  
needs to bite the bullet on increasing articles for a year and see if faith 
in  the quality will pick up and more people will advertise.  I know 
articles  have been offered and/or suggested, but in addition, the editor and 
rest 
of the  Review management committee needs to beat the bushes a little to ask 
people for  articles.  The interviews are an excellent idea, but boo to 
only publishing  part of the interview in the Review and more of the interview 
on the  website.  Why have the information split so one has to go two 
separate  places to read.  Publish all in the Review and if the club wants to 
put 
on  the website, then fine.  Maybe, put part on the website and encourage  
people to subscribe to the Review to get the rest of the article.
 
I know there are money issues with the club right now, but a handle must be 
 quickly applied to sorting out the issues,m no matter how ugly the matter 
turns  out to be, and then tighter controls need to be implemented and money 
put into a  benefit for members and the public.  A separate subject is the 
cost of  Board of Directors' expenses, but we really need to rethink the 
number of board  members needed, reduce the size of the board, thereby reducing 
the expenses and  put that money into education, for which the Review would 
be a perfect  vehicle.  I have said for years that I did not understand why 
The Shepherd  Quarterly should be publishing interviews with prominent GS 
people and the  Review not.  What a shame to have to subscribe to that 
publication to  obtain information that should be a given in the "official" GSD 
 
publication.
 
 
Oh, one other thing.  The cost to print the membership directory in  the 
June issue of the Review could have been lessened had the roster been  printed 
on more "normal" paper stock rather than the expensive glossy magazine  
stock and should have been inckuded as a separate document sharing the wrapper  
with the Review, not actually being published as a permanent part of the  
Review.  Not only was the expense more than it would have been, but I also  
have to wonder if a separate edition of the Review not containing the roster 
was  printed for mailing to those who are not members, but only subscribers. 
 I  doubt that a separate edition was published.  Therefore, our membership 
 roster should not have been placed in the hands of non-members.
 
Just my 2 cents.  I'll go back into my cave now.
 
Betty Johnson
 


============================================================================
POST is Copyrighted 2010.  All material remains the property of the original 
author and of GSD Communication, Inc. NO REPRODUCTIONS or FORWARDS of any kind 
are permitted without prior permission of the original author AND of the 
Showgsd-l Management. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 

Each Author is responsible for the content of his/her post.  This group and its 
administrators are not responsible for the comments or opinions expressed in 
any post.

ALL PERSONS ARE ON NOTICE THAT THE FORWARDING, REPRODUCTION OR USE IN ANY 
MANNER OF ANY MATERIAL WHICH APPEARS ON SHOWGSD-L WITHOUT THE EXPRESS 
PERMISSION OF ALL PARTIES TO THE POST AND THE LIST MANAGEMENT IS EXPRESSLY 
FORBIDDEN, AND IS A VIOLATION OF LAW. VIOLATORS OF THIS PROHIBITION WILL BE 
PROSECUTED. 

For assistance, please contact the List Management at admin@xxxxxxxxxxx

VISIT OUR WEBSITE - http://showgsd.org
NATIONAL BLOG - http://gsdnational.blogspot.com/
============================================================================

Other related posts: