Journal Issues/The New Journal Format

[Schmitz]

10 hours ago, ghodges said:

Regardless of the idea of trying to be "new", or "modern", or "improved"; If only ONE KIND of model is featured on the Journal cover as shown here, then it will appear as if it is for THAT genre only instead of trying to appeal to ALL genres as much as possible.

Since no one buys the Journal off a store shelf, that probably doesn't matter - but maybe that was something else that didn't get done in time (and why there was so much whitespace on the cover). Something to send to the feedback email address.

[Highlander]

On 8/22/2024 at 5:21 PM, Ron Bell said:

The IUJ thing is reminiscent of "New Coke". 

 

When will folks learn to leave well enough alone?

BTW, this jingle always reminded me of the new utopian Marxist world order.  Everyone is different and everyone is the same.

Edited August 25, 2024 by Highlander

[ghodges]

I'd be a bit more receptive to this "change" IF our membership numbers had been dwindling and there'd been complaints about the Journal. 

Our membership has been growing slowly but steadily the last few years to where we're closer to 5000 than the 4000 we hovered above and below for decades, so it seems those joining liked what they were getting and perhaps more people also renewed than in the past due to being more satisfied, thus maintaining the growth.

The only complaints I was aware of about the Journal were it's tardiness (which did/does need to be rectified); people saying "there isn't an article I'M interested in" (which in a volunteer society magazine that caters to ALL genres is almost unavoidable); and the dislike when there were politics injected into the editor's or President's column (which has been VERY rare over the last decade or more). 

The fact the Journal had switched to almost 100% color with glossy pages for everything had boosted it to a magazine on par with most others at a glance and I feel it was the BEST model mag for the money if you just looked at it from a pure subscription point of view.

THAT is why I want to know the reasoning and thought process behind this move to recreate the Journal in a "new" fashion when it seems so unnecessary. What are the facts I'm not aware of that led the Eboard to embrace this change and feel they needed to "fix" what didn't seem to be broken?

Telling us to "embrace change" without also backing up the reasons for it is dismissive and leaves me questioning the wisdom of the Eboard on the whole.

 

Gil 

Edited August 25, 2024 by ghodges

[Highlander]

2 hours ago, ghodges said:

...the Journal had switched to almost 100% color with glossy pages for everything had boosted it to a magazine on par with most others at a glance and I feel it was the BEST model mag for the money ...

...

...Eboard ... embrace this change and feel they needed to "fix" what didn't seem to be broken? ... Telling us to "embrace change" ...

To your points above.

I agree that the Journal was roughly equivalent to the commercial modeling magazines, was on a par in terms of their quality, and, dollar for dollar, was the best option available.  Our now departed editor did a superlative job, month after month, with occasional lateness lapses.  And, for a small hobby organization (5,000 is small) we received way more than we paid for.

The hard, cold fact is that we elected the EBoard (EB) to run IPMS and make decisions on a pretty much real-time basis.  We have seen a lot of breakage lately, some caused by recent EBs themselves, but, however one evaluates cause and effect, the current EB is the EB that has to deal with it.  I agree with the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" and "don't let the inmates run the asylum" maxims, especially with the IU and J, but it is water under the bridge now.  The current EB can direct change as they see fit and we can accept it or move on.  I embraced the change in the IU and J by having my wastebasket embrace it.  Others will differ.

The current EB met the annual acid test via a successful Nats.  The next test comes next year.  So, the beat goes on.

Edited August 25, 2024 by Highlander

[Schmitz]

2 hours ago, ghodges said:

Our membership has been growing slowly but steadily the last few years to where we're closer to 5000 than the 4000 we hovered above and below for decades, so it seems those joining liked what they were getting and perhaps more people also renewed than in the past due to being more satisfied, thus maintaining the growth.

 

By the same reasoning, membership also declined from nearly 5000 to around 4000 during the years Chris was publishing the Journal; should we hold him responsible for that too?  I think there were bigger factors than the Journal driving membership up and down.

2 hours ago, ghodges said:

THAT is why I want to know the reasoning and thought process behind this move to recreate the Journal in a "new" fashion when it seems so unnecessary.

I may be reading too much into the tea leaves, but I think John Heck deciding to retire as art director meant someone had to replace him. Whether his leaving was due to politics, or he just got tired after 18 years, we have to guess. John's goodbye letter in his last Journal acknowledged that his replacements would bring their own ideas and style. 

I remember a similar outrage when Chris took over the publication and changed the title on the cover (the picture of the Journal I have in my mind's eye still has a big script "Journal" title across the top).  A lot of commercial magazines I've subscribed to over the years have had similar "facelifts", sometimes for no apparent reason - it is the way the industry works.
 

Edited August 25, 2024 by Schmitz

[Eric Aitala]

33 minutes ago, Schmitz said:

I remember a similar outrage when Chris took over the publication and changed the title on the cover (the picture of the Journal I have in my mind's eye still has a big script "Journal" title across the top).  A lot of commercial magazines I've subscribed to over the years have had similar "facelifts", sometimes for no apparent reason - it is the way the industry works.
 

From this -> https://ipmsusa.org/journal_issue/volume_18-issue_3 to https://ipmsusa.org/journal_issue/volume_18-issue_4

E

[Ron Bell]

5 hours ago, Highlander said:

 

"The current EB met the annual acid test via a successful Nats.  The next test comes next year.  So, the beat goes on."

If that test means that if the nats go south you blame the EBoard and if not they get laurels, I think you may need to re-think this. From some experience in dealing with nationals and the Eboard believe me, the Eboard has very little to do with the success of a national convention. That is up to the local hosts, the convenience of the location for drive in and local attendance, the weather, the economy and a whole host of other factors, none of which the Eboard has any influence over. I've seen nationals succeed despite incompetent Eboards and visa-versa. Just because a national convention is a success doesn't really reflect much on the Eboard.  

[Highlander]

I hold that the IPMS big picture is all about the Nats.  Local clubs who have five IPMS members, renew their registration, and obtain IPMS insurance are pretty autonomous.  Regions are more administrative oblasts than agents in conducting modeling activities; Regional contests aren't planned and conducted by the Region, but by a club or clubs in a Region.  Regions are really just a guy who monitors annual renewals and hopefully negotiates an annual contest.

The main event each year for IPMS is the Nats.  The EB selects the club(s) that conduct it and is involved in the finances.  Most importantly, the EB directly provides the focal event of each Nats -- the Contest.  The contest structure and judging apparatus are provided through the NCC.  The EB has complete control over the contest ... however wisely or unwisely they exercise that  control.  The EB provides the umbrella under which the Nats happens.  Most members only "see" IPMS in the form of the Nats (and the Journal thing).

Yes, lots of things influence the success of a Nats.  Most of those things, with the exception of the contest, are conducted by a host chapter.  Which was, in theory, vetted, selected, and monitored by the EB - a specific VP, as I recall.  Fairly or not, each EB winds up responsible for Nats that were approved by a previous EB -- but it is still the EB.  Also, fairly or not, the EB has had to face a dearth of willingness to host a Nats and has had to recruit candidates and, sometimes, take whatever they can get.

Given that I currently hold these beliefs, I also believe that the EB can't do a Pontius Pilate, wash their hands, and walk away from a Nats disaster.  I've never seen a contest that was a disaster, but I've seen contest room, registration, and awards presentation disasters -- at least in my opinion.

So, if the Nats tube; I hold the continuing entity called the EB to be significantly responsible.  And if they soar (as I hear Madison did), then the EB deserves considerable credit.

BTW, this discussion begs the question on what is a successful and what is an unsuccessful Nats.

[Highlander]

There is a post by Mike Oberholtzer on the Question Resulting from Reading 2023 Financial Statement thread addressing the involvement of an IPMS technical consultant in the Nats ... The IPMS's (read "EB's") involvement over time and in depth through the technical consultant is more than I had imagined.  To be fair, it is also recent.

[BWScholten]

I liked the new look overall.

The light print has been addressed ad nausium, and I am not convined IUJ is a great headliner.  I'll give them another issue or two before I wail and moan.

[Bert]

Somehow, I seemed to have missed it. What is "IUJ"?

[ghodges]

"IUJ" (at least for the latest Journal issue) is the BOLD TITLE on the cover,  and it says IPMS USA Journal under that in smaller font.

 

Gil 

[Bert]

But, what does the acronym mean?

[Eric Aitala]

I PMS

U SA 

J ournal

[SkyKing]

4 hours ago, Bert said:

But, what does the acronym mean?

There’s already an “IUJ;” as reported elsewhere, it’s the International Urogynecology Journal.

[Ron Bell]

I may be wrong here, but isn't a logo supposed to represent/present your organization to the public? If that logo causes more confusion than providing information, I think it may not be serving its purpose.  I think it needs a bit of tweaking yet. 

[Bert]

I'm sorry, but that's just freaking weird.

[Highlander]

8 hours ago, SkyKing said:

... it’s the International Urogynecology Journal.

Can you tell me where to get a copy?  It is bound to be better than the IPMS one.

[Circuitrider]

5 hours ago, Ron Bell said:

I may be wrong here, but isn't a logo supposed to represent/present your organization to the public? If that logo causes more confusion than providing information, I think it may not be serving its purpose.  I think it needs a bit of tweaking yet. 

Ron,

To which logo are you referring? The Journal, as far as I am aware, is a publication limited in distribution to the paying members of the the IPMS only. I feel that the official logo of the IPMS, which is generally the most publicly visible and is also visible on the cover of the most recent journal, does an excellent job of representing the organization. Tweaking is needed as stated, ad nauseum, by those who control such things as is their open and frequent solicitation of input for tweaks for the journal at a widely published email address reserved specifically for that purpose.

For those latching on to the "IUJ" moniker:

Googling IPMS reveals the following - Integrated Physicians Management Services; Iowa Podiatric Medical Society; Integrated Personnel Management Systems; Integrated Platform Management Systems; International Property Measurement Standards...I could go on...

Similarly, our brothers and sisters over at AMPS deal with the same issue. Google "AMPS" and see how many different things pop up. As this world gets smaller the more we will come to realize that the book of Ecclesiastes is correct when it says, "...there is nothing new under the sun."

[Circuitrider]

10 hours ago, SkyKing said:

There’s already an “IUJ;” as reported elsewhere, it’s the International Urogynecology Journal.

There are also other entities, phenomena, ailments, etc. named: IPMS, PMS, AMPS, CA, PVA, PS,...and on and on...

Not berating or being argumentative for the sake being argumentative...I guess I just don't understand your point.

[Bert]

3 hours ago, Circuitrider said:

There are also other entities, phenomena, ailments, etc. named: IPMS, PMS, AMPS, CA, PVA, PS,...and on and on...

Not berating or being argumentative for the sake being argumentative...I guess I just don't understand your point.

Respectively, neither do I.

[SkyKing]

1 hour ago, Bert said:

Respectively, neither do I.

The point, gentlemen, is that our official publication could have and SHOULD have a much better name.

[Bert]

28 minutes ago, SkyKing said:

The point, gentlemen, is that our official publication could have and SHOULD have a much better name.

IMHO, and FWIW, it missed the mark and was hardly accomplished.

Edited August 27, 2024 by Bert

[PeteJ]

Total fail as far as I am concerned.  My old eyes just can't read the damn thing.  Looked at the pictures, tried reading a little, couldn't! Tossed it in the trash.  Not an auspicious start.

[ghodges]

Being a continuous IPMS member for almost 50yrs I've seen plenty of revisions for the IPMS publications, going from the Update/Quarterly series to the single Journal, and then watching the Journal evolve over the decades.

However, there is ONE thing in all those years that strikes me as different this time. This is the first time I've seen people say that they "threw it in the trash". In the past there's been criticisms and dislikes of what was done, but I cannot recall anyone in the past discarding the Journal out of hand after just trying to read it.

I'm also STILL waiting for Ro Annis or Phil Peterson or SOME Eboard member to come here to explain why they wanted to make changes to the Journal in the first place.

To QUOTE the CODE OF ETHICS AGREEMENT that the Eboard has supposedly all signed in the recent Journal (pg.58): "Ethical conduct means taking responsibility for one's actions and explaining one's decisions". UNQUOTE

As I said in a previous post... they may or may not have good reasons... BUT with climbing membership and the only true problem of the Journal being its tardiness, why are they suddenly trying to reinvent the wheel and fix what wasn't broken; and a consequence of which was the resignation of the senior editor?

How about simply following your own ethics agreement and explaining the answer to THAT single question?

 

Gil