To Missing - I can only hope your sarcasm is intentional. I'd hate to think anyone is able to misunderstand as much as you claim to have. I don't know about bars and alcohol, but I do know publishing. I know it enough to wonder why our supposed association is paying to produce a magazine which seems to pretty much be sent to ourselves, literally preaching to the choir. As for profit. We love profit. The question is not one of profit, but who is making the profit. You mentioned not being employed to work on this? Does it not seem wrong to you that an association such as this, did not go the standard route of sending out an RFP?

To Missing? -- that's a weak and silly analogy. You're "Missing?" the point.

Let me see if I have this straight. People within the magazine industry are very upset because a company that produces magazines has published a magazine (about magazines). Wow! What news! This opens up a whole host of protest possibilities, including being angry at bars that serve alcohol, shops that sell goods, and venues that sell show tickets. And -- get your placards ready -- some of these folks are even making a profit. YES! Profit!! (Ooooh, damn them!) Personally, when I see a new magazine, I am happy, even if it dared not employ me to work on it. The reason is because this is a near-dead business and there are few people left trying to resuscitate it.

What really amazes me is NO ONE at Canadian Magazines has responed to defend their actions.

Amazing that people are still going on about this frivolous little fluffjob. Must be a slow news week.

Said it before and I will say it again - zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Surely any "profit" here is going to SpaFax - who produced the publication as contract publishers?

Why this profit (small though it may have been) could not go to a publisher of "real" (i.e. consumer-driven) magazines is the real mystery.

to James H. First off, may I suggest that you reduce the attitude a bit. Holy smokes! Talk about anger! Now, as for breaking even with 20 ad pages, with a small circulation like it has, even at a rate of $2k per page, it is well into profitability, even before the donated services etc. My only 2 questions remain unanswered. No I did not mention any Cayman Island account. I simply want to know who is making this profit. I respect your opinion on the product. Too bad you don't seem to believe the others are allowed the same courtesy.

Y'all need to chill. Send your questions to the publisher direct. Then post your findings. 30+ comments is amazing but truly sad if it reflects the minds of this industry. No argument with what is being said...but how it is said is very unfortunate.

@Anonymous 32: You're right - the CMC is the Circulation Management Association of Canada - for the record, the Circulation Management Association is NOT the publisher of this magazine. The CMC being referred to by James H. is the acronym for Canadian Magazines Canadiens (name of publication), which is published by Magazines Canada.

Clear as mud?

Anyone remember Brill's Content? Now that was a magazine that covered the media industry - magazines, newspapers, TV. They did excellent profiles on editors, publishers and the challenges they faced in doing their jobs. They also ripped media that were crap. They would have ripped this magazine.

Anonymous #29 here: I'm confused. Isn't the CMC the Circulation Management Association of Canada? Isn't Magazines Canada the publisher of the promo piece in question? James H. also asks, "Is it helpful? Probably - but only time will tell." Oh really? How? How do you measure the ROI on this sort of effort? You can't. And, James, care to address my point (which was made without vitriol and was quite reasonable): how do you justify sending 54% of the 3,000 copies to...ourselves? How does that make sense?

One more time.... Magazines Canada, PLEASE just answer the questions.
1. Who is making the profit, and how is it being used?
2. Why was there no RFP put out to the industry?
Your sudden silence is deafening.

What a fascinating gallery of petty-minded high school level vitriol. And now that I've got my actual copy in hand I can join in:
#24, you complain that with so many magazines going "non glossy", it felt very outdated. Well, the copy I've got here is actually printed on matte non-glossy stock so I guess that you, like most experts in this panel, didn't actually pick up the magazine.
And as far as "fluff" goes - I guess if stories on digital publishing, B2B, tablets, retailing etc. (by the likes of DB Scott no less) aren't useful to you, that might explain why the industry in Canada is in the lamentable "state" you all claim it's in.
And really - do any of you "expert magazine professionals" really truly think the CMC is breaking even off the back of 20 pages ads even IF sold at ratecard - and on their first issue? What's their secret? Cause all I hear is that it's impossible for magazines to make any money at all in this country!
So in summary:
- Is it The Walrus? No - but it doesn't need to be. - Is it going to change the world. No.
- Is it helpful? Probably - but only time will tell
- Is it a covert operation to funnel huge profits to secret accounts on the Cayman Islands? If so, it'd be the first magazine in this country to do so - so bravo!
- Is it a step in the right direction for the CMC? Yes.

A few of the 28 commentators have touched on the most glaring goof-up of this whole boondoggle: the circ model (3,000 copies, 54% of which are going to Canadian "publishing professionals") is kissing a mirror. Why send the damn thing to ourselves? Why not send it to every single media buyer and marketing VP in the country? That's the real idiocy about this thing. The product itself is a great idea. Must say, though, the fact that SOMEONE, ANYONE from MagsCan hasn't chipped in their .02 to his thread (surely the largest in MastheadOnline's history?) is...telling. Rest assured, when the feds come to review the chunks of change they throw at MagsCan, this will not prove to be the association's finest hour. As for the no-RFP, remember, Spafax was mighty angry when enRoute was deemed ineligible for the NMAs a few years ago because it is a marketing company, not a publisher. Maybe this project was MagsCan's way of saying, "Dude, forgive me."

Many publishing associations produce trade magazines--FIPP for one (Magazine World). I wouldn't call that hard-hitting journalism either, but it does serve to market the industry. And while the magazine *is* being sent to people who work in the magazine industry, it says above it's also being sent to MPs--a little extra marketing there might be useful considering a chunk of funding for magazines is once again on the block at Heritage.

To the No. 17 commenter: Did you read it? It's absolute fluff and marketing for magazines in Canada. It's not journalism. And can someone tell me why we need to promote magazines to people who work in the magazine industry?

If you're having trouble making a living in this industry, by all means, find other work or even better, create your own. What a bunch of whiners. How about this: get together and produce a masterpiece of your own. Then you won't be bored or hurt or upset by the non-gloss and the dullest cover in the universe. You'll be broke, but oh boy, you'll have plenty of Pulitzer to read!

@Anonymous. Don't like what you're seeing? I suggest you put it down (like you would anything else you don't like). Ask the answer to your burning questions in person instead of writing pissy remarks on this forum.

All other issues aside, I flipped through a copy yesterday and there was not a single article I actually wanted to read. To top it all, I was left with a very disgusting feel on my fingers... like I'd just flipped through a magazine full of perfume samples. With so many magazines going non-glossy, this felt very outdated.

I hoped it would fill the hole left when Masthead crashed (sorry website, you're not the same at all), but it just seems very tacky and useless.

@Not Impressed... I did the math before. Honestly, I don't see this project generating much of a surplus. Yes, donations offset a lot of costs, but the magazine is far from a sellout on paid advertising. I also doubt CMPA got full rate-card rates. No one does.

If there's a bit of money leftover, I'm pretty sure it will go towards publishing the next issue. Even with donations, there are still costs. Moreover, who's to say there will be as many donors next time out?

In any event, if you really want answers to your questions, I suggest you call the CMPA and ask them directly.

Tsk, tsk! Profits? It's the grant money we want to know about. How much does MC keep? How much did Ms. Zatyko get paid to be publisher?

Thank you 20. But I'm quite relaxed. However, I continue to ask, why will someone not simply answer the 2 basic questions, which are:
1. Why was there no RFP, when that is standard practice in our business.
2, Where does the profit for this magazine go?
I find the lack of response confusing.

@Not Impressed...I did a small job for them and in return received an ad in the publication. I think many others did so as well. Therefore the profit that you speak of might not be as much as you think. Just relax a little.

To Cooper # 15 - Do the math. 20 ad pages, minimal costs due to reductions by suppliers hoping to win approval or "show their stuff", means a profit. The "not for profit" organization has made a profit, and most likely a good profit. My question which continues to be ignored by the suddenly quiet publisher is WHERE ARE THE PROFITS GOING? We as magazine publishers are entitled to know. Why has the publisher suddenly gone quiet, and not anwswering a very simply question? Is it possible, they aren't too proud of the arrangement? I continue to feel that something smells here ! Right up front, NO RFP? That's wrong on many levels. Is it possible someone received preferential treatment? C'mon Zatyko, you had plenty to say earlier. Simply answer the question. We are your members. We deserve to know.

If you really want to see a boring, unimaginative, lifeless cover, check out Reader's Digest's Feb 2011 issue. The check out March. And they are still supposed to be a magazine (or so Grandma tells me).

People who have yet to read the magazine (and see the printed cover with rotating wheel) don't deserve to comment on this. Wouldn't it make sense to read it, ask questions, THEN form an opinion?

Shucks, I had an idea for a bilingual magazine for a few years and now one exists...As someone who loves reading in French and English, I am very excited though!

Re Profit: I don't have any special information, but last time I checked, the CMPA was a not-for-profit organization. One would assume that if this project generated a surplus, the money would go into further efforts to promote/support Canadian magazines, no?

In any event, count the number of ads that aren't from suppliers who donated services. Then think about the magazine's circulation and audience. Doesn't add up to a rich page rate, IMO.

Having flipped through the electronic version, I can see this thing dying a swift death. After all, Masthead couldn't make a go of it, and it was an interesting read. The boring front cover is the least of this issue's problems.

Going back to sleep now.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Still no response to who profits from this issue? Low cost due to suppliers kicking in their time and services, only increased the profit. Why is there no response to NOT IMPRESSED when asking where the profits went?

If by turning heads you mean, turning my head away from Canadian Magazine, magazine. Bravo! mission accomplished!

I am truly astonished by the sheer level of maleficence at the hands of the Canadian Publishing industry. We can do as most Canadians do, complain and go on as usual, or take apart the system. Things must change.

As an under-employed magazine designer I would have responded to an RFP for the design.

What Spafax considers nominal would have paid for a lot of Kraft Dinner and put some gas in my car's tank and kept my portfolio current.

But I guess Spafax really, really, really needed the work because they are running low on cat litter and diapers too.

At first I was a bit concerned about what seemed to be a back room deal, somewhat like friends taking care of friends. Now my radar is going off loud! NEVER is an RFP not applicable in matters like this. It's not the publisher's call to decide the rate could not be matched or improved on, without at least investigating. So, if I understand it, suppliers, "many of who either waived all of their fees, or provided their services at such a nominal rate", would this not simply increase the profit of the magazine? And that brings me back the my initial question. WHO BENEFITS FROM THE PROFIT? WHO RECEIVES THE PROFIT? Is it Magazines Canada or Spafax. More now than ever, I firmly believe someone's behaviour should be checked into. Maybe Mr.Ford could deal with this after flushing out the Toronto Housing Comission. My gut tells me the same ego driven "we are above it all, and can do as we wish" attitude is driving this bus.

Here is a comment from Canadian Magazines Canadiens publisher Barbara Zatyko:
"CANADIAN MAGAZINES CANADIENS was produced with the support of the suppliers you’ll find in the pages of the magazine, many of whom either waived all of their fees or provided their services at such a nominal rate that an RFP process would not have been applicable. As mentioned before, the evolution of this magazine was actually initiated by suppliers who came to Magazines Canada looking for a vehicle to “show their stuff” and celebrate the print magazine industry in Canada."

This needs to be investigated. Sounds like someone has some explaining to do.

I get it. It's not a magazine. It's a promotional piece for the magazine industry pretending it's a magazine. Why didn't Masthead just refer to it as that: a big piece of marketing. Duh!

"Canadian Magazines Canadiens�s 3,000 copy press run will be distributed to Magazines Canada members, regional association members, MP�s across Canada, and leading publishers and national magazine associations around the world" -- so, in other words, a magazine promoting an industry to itself? Isn't that like preaching to the choir?

I have to admit, I can't get this news out of my mind. This supposed magazine for the industry needs to be investigated. C'mon Masthead, how about speaking with those who made this decision. Let's get some facts about this. Who made this decsion? Why Spafax? Was there a RFP sent out? Something smells!

Okay, so Magazines Canada hired Spafax, a custom publisher, to produce a magazine for the magazine industry. Couldn't they hire journalists? What's next...Redwood gets the contract to do Maclean's?

Without a doubt, this is one of the most unimaginative boring, over the top, politically correct, yet BORING covers I've ever had the misfortune to see. If this is the voice of our industry, no wonder we're in trouble. I can only hope the advertisers are going to ask for an explanation. I sure would !

3,000 copies? That's it? 3,000 copies to help an industry on it's knees? And a circulation greatly made up of the very people who knocked us to our knees, coupled with many who stood by with their hands in their pockets while it happened? Wow!! Someone still doesn't get it. 3,000 copies with 20 ad pages. Well done Spafax, a true cash grab. And the beautiful part is who you grabbed the cash from. Where does this profit go? Does any of it assist the industry, or is it just a smoke and mirrors scam in the name of the industry? As for doing this twice a year, how does that old saying go, fool me once, shame on you....