Hi,
I read this months magazine and I have to say I liked what I read. I really did. The stories, articles and tit bits were clearly aimed at me. But I am in my 30's, married but totally self sufficient and with enough disposable income to buy some of the items that you promote.
I too, like your editor, worry about the buy now, throw away immediately and then buy something the month after to replace it, world we live in.
But I was dismayed to read that you claimed a charity shop - was it Oxfam ? - had refused donations. Dismayed.
So I have written to them as well as yourselves,for clarification on this point.
I understand that they only want us to donate goods that they can re-sell otherwise the extra waste they are left with, adds to their own costs. And thats fair enough. But I have always been welcomed gratefully with my bags of goods at all the charity shops I have donated to. Also, the charity shops have sales, and 2 for 1, to help clear their stock.
On a slightly different note, please can you tell me why nearly 45% of your magazine is adverts?? Thats a lot of wasted paper. A huge amount of trees. Once I had pulled all the adverts out, your magazine was sooooo much more appealing. The articles were informative and helpful.
Obviously all the adverts went in the paper bin to be recycled.
I await your response with anticipation.
Yours
Daisy Green
PS can I publish your response in my blog please?
3 comments:
I suspect in order for that magazine your reading to ever reach your hands in the first place a printing enterprise must be established. An enterprise with overheads, salaries; rent; bank fees; printing costs and other contingencies. The revenue from selling magazines alone i can safely say will not cover all these outgoings and therefore relies on a secondary affiliate income - advertising.
No advertising means no magazine because its the advertisers who advertise who pay for your magazine full of adverts. badaboom
...
now ive been told off for being a nerd
Lush!!
You are my first comment!! Wow. Am thrilled you bothered to comment. I think that I will get the ankle biters to repeat that tongue twister on the end there...."Right children.. advertisers who advertise.....!"
Keep them coming!!
I have to agree, in order for publishers to produce their magazines they need advertisers to cover their costs. So you're not going to get rid of advertisers anytime soon. In fact, about 80-90% of everything in magazines is paid for, including recommendations from the editor, celebrities etc. So if you get rid of advertising completely you're losing most of your magazine and left with features only (which have probably been sold in by a PR company to support a product...). Do I sound cynical? Sorry!
There was an article in one of last week's papers (sadly I can't find the link!), on charity shops. They are having to refuse more and more donations because of 'fast fashion'. More often than not, donations are cheap items which have been purchased to follow quick trends - these are poorly made items which it's difficult to re-sell (like your dotty shoes!). So, they are taken away (often flown - bad environmentally!!) and re-made into blankets to be used overseas. The blankets are often poor quality and expensive to distribute though.
Wow, what a rant! Sorry about that. Basically - we need to commit to buying good quality that lasts long and will still be in good nick when we come to donate!
:o)
Post a Comment