Junior Olympics, Memphis

[edew]

Turkey? A pun crime most fowl.

[Triton]

Didn't mean to ruffle your feathers. I'm just saying this thread has been in a swan dive for the last few pages.

[Inquartata]

It doesn't seem to be in duckline to me...

[Capt. Slo-mo]

If we stayed with waterfowl, we wood duck further criticism, unless we can point to the turkey interlopers and make them our scaup-goats.

[Timacheff]

Photo galleries from JOs are now posted, and accessible from the FencingPhotos.com home page.

Thanks again to Chris Germano for being there when we got snowbound and sick.

Please note that we do NOT have photos from Monday, February 15.

Enjoy and congrats to all.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Couldn't you have least said: "Photo galleries from JOs are now posted, take a gander!"

C'mon, Serge, honk with us here...

[Timacheff]

So I got a goose instead of a gander?

[pillow]

So I got a goose instead of a gander?

Editor-in-Chief of AF Magazine? I guess I missed this one--how long has Cindy been gone?

[Timacheff]

Editor-in-Chief of AF Magazine? I guess I missed this one--how long has Cindy been gone?

Cindy is still very much at American Fencing as "editor," which is a board-appointed position. There was an update in the most recent issue which announced the changes at the magazine, and what we're doing with it overall.

We set out to create a publication that was better managed and operated, and to support Cindy's tireless efforts in areas that allow her to manage the day-to-day editorial needs of the publication more effectively.

I'm working as editor-in-chief, which is intended to help guide the magazine strategically and to help build its image and value to our constituency. I am also working extensively with Robert Weekes, the U.S. Fencing director of marketing, who has been named the magazine's publisher, to increase our advertising and sponsorships. We are also working on integrating information as well as business development between the magazine and the U.S. Fencing Web site and also in our various venues and other brand "touchpoint" opportunities. This is tied, to a degree, to our current efforts to manage and develop the U.S. Fencing brand identity.

We have a number of new editorial ideas that are underway and being rolled-out throughout the year. You will also see new advertisers in the upcoming issue and beyond; for the first time, the next issues of the magazine will be achieving at the very least a break-even status, if not actually becoming a positive line-item in the U.S. Fencing budget.

Rob has worked on the publishing side to create a well-managed advertising program, as well as finding significantly more cost-effective printing and distribution solutions.

So that's the brief update, for the record.

Serge

[oso97]

Cindy is still very much at American Fencing as "editor," which is a board-appointed position.

Actually, its a position that is appointed by >Congress< not the Board. I heartily recommend knowing what you're replacing when you actually go and replace it. Although, why do you put her position in quotation marks?

There was an update in the most recent issue which announced the changes at the magazine, and what we're doing with it overall.

We set out to create a publication that was better managed and operated, and to support Cindy's tireless efforts in areas that allow her to manage the day-to-day editorial needs of the publication more effectively.

I'm working as editor-in-chief, which is intended to help guide the magazine strategically and to help build its image and value to our constituency. I am also working extensively with Robert Weekes, the U.S. Fencing director of marketing, who has been named the magazine's publisher, to increase our advertising and sponsorships. We are also working on integrating information as well as business development between the magazine and the U.S. Fencing Web site and also in our various venues and other brand "touchpoint" opportunities. This is tied, to a degree, to our current efforts to manage and develop the U.S. Fencing brand identity.

We have a number of new editorial ideas that are underway and being rolled-out throughout the year. You will also see new advertisers in the upcoming issue and beyond; for the first time, the next issues of the magazine will be achieving at the very least a break-even status, if not actually becoming a positive line-item in the U.S. Fencing budget.

Rob has worked on the publishing side to create a well-managed advertising program, as well as finding significantly more cost-effective printing and distribution solutions.

Who doesn't love "marketing-speak?" Almost qualifies for its own dialect!

[Timacheff]

Yes, thank you for the clarification, it's the congress who appoints the editor.

Neither she nor her position are being replaced; we are expanding the editorial and publishing team and she is in the same role as before.

The quotations were used to distinguish her title from others (e.g., editor-in-chief).

In marketing and business writing, there are often fine distinctions between terms that seem very similar. So "marketing-speak" definitely has a valid purpose in keeping those involved in our current branding process and overall marketing efforts consistent when it comes to terminology. That said, as a career writer/journalist and marketing/branding person, I do understand that certain terms (e.g., "solution") are very overused and I can't say I don't fall prey to the cliche on occasion ... especially when I'm writing a quick response on a forum (!)

Thanks for your input.

[pillow]

Yes, thank you for the clarification, it's the congress who appoints the editor.

Neither she nor her position are being replaced; we are expanding the editorial and publishing team and she is in the same role as before.

The quotations were used to distinguish her title from others (e.g., editor-in-chief).

In marketing and business writing, there are often fine distinctions between terms that seem very similar. So "marketing-speak" definitely has a valid purpose in keeping those involved in our current branding process and overall marketing efforts consistent when it comes to terminology. That said, as a career writer/journalist and marketing/branding person, I do understand that certain terms (e.g., "solution") are very overused and I can't say I don't fall prey to the cliche on occasion ... especially when I'm writing a quick response on a forum (!)

Thanks for your input.

This is most likely the worst time in the history of print media for survival in the magazine industry. Conde Nast and Time Warner have had recent disasters, so you will have a challenge.

Obviously, your strategy will be different than mass market media in that you will focus on the extreme niche market that AF caters to. I feel you are correct in the use of AF to "expand the brand," but as for showing a profit--who knows?

It is most likely that AF will simply remain as the "house organ" of the USFA, basically as a remnant of the days before the Internet, and will just break even.

An alternative would be to discontinue AF altogether, and put the resources going to AF now into an expanded, frequently updated fencing website that is linked to, but not part of the USFA site. Just as we no longer have outdated NAC results published in AF, why would one look for a vendor in an old copy of AF, when you can simply go to a website?

I would prefer to see all the columnists in AF published more frequently than is possible with AF, as their articles are informative and entertaining. This can be done much more efficiently on the web. Same is true for photos.

[Timacheff]

You're dead-on. We want to use any surplus we receive (based on beating the budget) to build--and compensate--our writing staff as is appropriate. We also want to create a "webzine" that complements the magazine, and to accomplish exactly what you suggest.

One thing to note: American Fencing as a print publication and house organ, it has an incredible "shelf life." I see many-years-old issues still on coffee tables in fencing clubs.

Want to help?

[oso97]

In marketing and business writing, there are often fine distinctions between terms that seem very similar. So "marketing-speak" definitely has a valid purpose in keeping those involved in our current branding process and overall marketing efforts consistent when it comes to terminology. That said, as a career writer/journalist and marketing/branding person, I do understand that certain terms (e.g., "solution") are very overused and I can't say I don't fall prey to the cliche on occasion ... especially when I'm writing a quick response on a forum (!)

As someone whose training was that of a professional scientist, I appreciate the need for distinctions between similar terms. However, in my experience as a science educator I realize that jargon that would be clarifying to a professional often serves a countervailing purpose to the uninitiated. Additionally, experienced professionals often overestimate the amount of knowledge of their specialties in others. When I give lectures or hold discussion groups with my students, I strive as much as possible to give definitions that don't utilize other jargon, unless my audience has displayed a clear understanding of that jargon.

For example (and realize that I'm not picking on you, or attempting to trash anyone's efforts, but rather attempting to demonstrate a point) you use a number of terms that aren't well defined for your audience. Lets just explore one: "Branding efforts."

Now, I realize that this term is one that could engender a full blown master's thesis, but can it be defined without resorting to jargon? More relevant to the matter under discussion, can be summarized what are "branding efforts" are being undertaken/perused/attempted/considered/developed/etc by USFA staff, without resorting to jargon, and how do they affect the membership of the organization?

And, as a non-inclusive list, here is some jargon to avoid:
team
manage
direct
program
solution
integration
touchpoint
stakeholder

I also realize that this may or may not be the appropriate venue for such discussion (although, I challenge anyone to come up with a BETTER one), and you're not required to do so.

Back to the matter at hand: naming of an "editor-in-chief" and "publisher" for American Fencing. Here is the point that I was trying to make. The "editor" of American Fencing is named by Congress, as is specified in the USFA Bylaws. While this may not be specifically spelled out in that document, I would argue that the intent of that bylaw provision is to make it such that the person who retains ultimate, overall authority over the magazine is the person named by the Congress. I'll also point out that the provision does NOT specify it has to be a volunteer. But, where do these new positions of "editor-in-chief" and "publisher" fit into the hierarchy? Who retains ultimate authority?

Note also, I'm not saying that the changes might not be necessary and needed. But, they also might contradict our own organizational documents, unless one is prepared to take position that the bylaw provision of the Congress naming the Editor of American Fencing is >not< the person with ultimate authority for the magazine. If so, then that needs to be spelled out and stated >clearly.<

[pillow]

You're dead-on. We want to use any surplus we receive (based on beating the budget) to build--and compensate--our writing staff as is appropriate. We also want to create a "webzine" that complements the magazine, and to accomplish exactly what you suggest.

One thing to note: American Fencing as a print publication and house organ, it has an incredible "shelf life." I see many-years-old issues still on coffee tables in fencing clubs.

Want to help?

I knew I should have kept my mouth shut.

[Timacheff]

Back to the matter at hand: naming of an "editor-in-chief" and "publisher" for American Fencing. Here is the point that I was trying to make. The "editor" of American Fencing is named by Congress, as is specified in the USFA Bylaws. While this may not be specifically spelled out in that document, I would argue that the intent of that bylaw provision is to make it such that the person who retains ultimate, overall authority over the magazine is the person named by the Congress. I'll also point out that the provision does NOT specify it has to be a volunteer. But, where do these new positions of "editor-in-chief" and "publisher" fit into the hierarchy? Who retains ultimate authority?

Note also, I'm not saying that the changes might not be necessary and needed. But, they also might contradict our own organizational documents, unless one is prepared to take position that the bylaw provision of the Congress naming the Editor of American Fencing is >not< the person with ultimate authority for the magazine. If so, then that needs to be spelled out and stated >clearly.<

Your point is well-taken: Jargon is more suited to those involved than the uninitiated, as it is reasonable and especially when the meanings of the terms aren't obvious.

The publisher and editor-in-chief positions are USFA staff positions (one full-time, one part-time/contract); we also have an editorial review board (the same as it has been before this development) that includes, among others, the elected president. Added to that are the writers and a designer (on contract). As for ultimate authority, the review board's guidance and support (or not) of issues as they arise, combined with AF staff opinions and recommendations, are what result in decisions.

It was clear that Cindy needed the support of a USA Fencing-based staff, and that she was doing an overwhelming amount of work without much support or help. To a lesser degree, we basically had these positions before -- it's just that they weren't identified directly and were part of the marketing agency, and costing us substantially more. In particular, the "business" of the magazine wasn't being managed effectively and these new positions address that (printing, production, design, business development, advertising, administration, finance, etc.).

We want the magazine to grow, to constantly be improved, and to do everything possible to serve the members with current and important information. This is especially true given we are in a sport that has limited information available. Unlike cycling, skiing, or other sports, fencers don't have a variety of magazines, publications, and Webzines available filled with news, tips & tricks, reviews, editorials, features, etc. So we have to do whatever we can to provide this as the house organ of USA Fencing.

The branding and marketing efforts underway, which were implied and briefly broached by Cindy and Kurt in their columns in Issue 3 (the most recent one), have been ongoing since last year and discussed at board meetings. There has been a USA Fencing group of people addressing this, including the resource development committee (chaired by Kathryn Schifferle) and several others who have been involved either for part or all of the work. The entire endeavor is quite detailed and involved, and will be presented comprehensively to the membership later this year. I'm not trying to be cryptic; it's just that there's enough detail that this isn't the forum to appropriately and comprehensively address the issue. As I'm able in terms of my schedule, I'm happy to talk about this in general with anyone who wants to call or write, and so is Rob Weekes. We'll both be at the Dallas NAC, as well.