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/ ============================================================================