The Reliant

[The Reliant]

We've now distributed all the copies of The Reliant around town. What do you think about it? All feedback is greatly appreciated!

To see more info and an online version of the magazine, go to www.thereliant.com

Thanks!

[The Reliant]

If you haven't heard of us, The Reliant is a brand new bi-monthly free arts and community magazine for Camberwell, Dulwich and Peckham.

[Annette Curtain]

OK

Nice font/typeface and layout/set.

Not sure about the choppy photography on the cover.

Will look out for it in Camberwell on Saturday

NETTE(tu)

[Huguenot]

Whilst everyone else is going digital, the Camberwell Arts Community is still in 1956...

If it's free, who's paying? The advertisers or a taxpayer grant?

[Thomas Micklewright]

I love it, thanks for the feature of dulwich vegans! Meat free day coming to a place near you!

[maxxi]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Whilst everyone else is going digital, the

> Camberwell Arts Community is still in 1956...

>

> If it's free, who's paying? The advertisers or a

> taxpayer grant?

(trans.) "Humbug!"

[Huguenot]

I didn't intend humbug in the sense that I envy them their happiness, but I do think that a special interest group receiving a grant to publish a free community magazine is something better off 30 years ago.

Particularly if it's filling its pages with rubbish about Thomas Mickelwright's vegan monocraze. That's not art, that's OCD from a particularly jumped up sector of the community (whose self-regard exceeds their wit by a considerable margin).

Almost everything that could have been written in the 'objectives' column of this magazine business plan would have been better delivered online - especially that word 'community'.

The concept is tired, joyless and uninspired. About the only thing it delivers is a fleeting moment of physical gratification for the publishers and the contributors.

[Annette Curtain]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I didn't intend humbug in the sense that I envy

> them their happiness, but I do think that a

> special interest group receiving a grant to

> publish a free community magazine is something

> better off 30 years ago.

>

> Particularly if it's filling its pages with

> rubbish about Thomas Mickelwright's vegan

> monocraze. That's not art, that's OCD from a

> particularly jumped up sector of the community

> (whose self-regard exceeds their wit by a

> considerable margin).

>

> Almost everything that could have been written in

> the 'objectives' column of this magazine business

> plan would have been better delivered online -

> especially that word 'community'.

>

> The concept is tired, joyless and uninspired.

> About the only thing it delivers is a fleeting

> moment of physical gratification for the

> publishers and the contributors.

So, basically a w*nk mag.

:-S

[northlondoner]

Tired, joyless uninspired. A lot of us will feel that reading your negativity here, Hugs. Jeez!

[StraferJack]

I've been speechless since I read Hugunot's responses on this thread

I picked up the Reliant last week and had a flick through. Sure, I wish there was more to read but hopefully as they start to become more visible they will attract more contributers

I genuinely enjoyed the Chener books interview, and it's nice to know what Vegan Tom looks like should i end up in conversation with the guy

I'm as digitally connected as anyone but when I find myself in a bar/coffee shop wherever I am, be it South London, Sheffield or New York, it's nice to pick up a local freebie newspaper and skim through

It's NICE not to be "plugged in" all the time.

[Bellenden Belle]

I couldn' see any evidence of this being the product of a grant - where did that come from Huguenot? In fact it was rather advertisment- heavy which actually suggests a significant amount of work has been put into raising production funds.

[Huguenot]

Sure, my views were predicated on how the money was sourced. I don't know whether it's grant or not, although typically such worthy projects received some sort of grant.

They're of course entirely welcome to do what they want with it.

I have no truck with the content about valuble and interesting local resources like Chener, I'm sure it's great. I'm not so impressed by puff pieces about self-appointed, manipulative food nazis.

However print and distribution are extremely expensive and resource intensive ways of getting information out, they're also severely limited in their communications flexibility and creative opportunity.

Print businesses are simply going bust, that's the lesson.

Is it wise to launch a new one in that kind of environment?

No.

[RosieH]

What about the likes of Stylist and Shortlist (and there's a new London mag launching in the next couple of weeks whose name I can't remember)? They're doing very well indeed.

I for one prefer my reading not off a screen. I'm seeing article after article at the moment about how our inability to switch off is making us anxious and unhappy. I think you may be an example of what they were all writing about Hughie.

[Huguenot]

I haven't seen their figures - but 'doing very well' should only be calculated one way for commercial publishers: making a profit. It's no use having a 420,000 circulation if it loses more money on every issue sold.

My understanding is that Shortlist Media was launched in 2007 with ?4m of private backing, and still hasn't turned a profit...

Mike Soutar actually complains that he can't grow the business because he can't borrow the money - not such a surprise if he's 4 years in and several million down?

[the-e-dealer]

How does someone in SE22 get hold of a copy?

[El Pibe]

There were a few copies floating around Hoopers yesterday.

[Undisputedtruth]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I haven't seen their figures - but 'doing very

> well' should only be calculated one way for

> commercial publishers: making a profit. It's no

> use having a 420,000 circulation if it loses more

> money on every issue sold.

Shortlist Media are doing very well. ?15 million in turnover this year with expansion of their business to Russia. Not bad considering they've only had an investent ?4m and shuld be shortly turning a profit shortly. Thankfully they didn't have to rely Huguenot's business skills.

Nearly forgot, they have cirulation figures of 950,000 for their two magazines Shortlist and Stylist alone.

[Huguenot]

Well UDT, The Reliant will be thankful that you have chosen to turn your exceptional and much vaunted commerical media skills to them in their hour of need. I suspect that Murdoch will be thanking his lucky stars that you left it so late in life. However, the other press barons will no doubt be quaking.

The worlds of professional footballing, high finance and high fidelity will be the less for your change of focus.

I love the plaintive wheedle of 'should be turning a profit shortly'. That's what so many poorly run media vanity projects say through their tears to the bank manager.

I hope the Reliant chaps have got several million on hand that they're prepared to lose, because if you can't make a profit with a circulation of 950,000 free copies, goodness knows how they're going to do it with a free arts magazine in Camberwell and ED.

[catjmd]

Well, I for one thoroughly enjoyed browsing The Reliant and wish it every success!

@ the-e-dealer; Loads of copies around the place, and definitely a pile in Hoopers so maybe you could pick one up from there? Message Hoopers Pete and I'm sure he'd save you a copy.

[The Reliant]

Hi guys, this conversation seems to be going off in all sorts of tangents so I thought I'd clarify a few things.

We aren't currently receiving any sort of grant or hand out, all of the money has been raised through hard earned advertising. There are three of us producing the magazine with a circulation of 3000 and so I don't expect us lose a few million unless we end up doing something drastically wrong.

I also don't think the piece on the vegan society was forcing any point down anyone's necks, we were just showing the viewpoints of a section of the public. The mag also had another vox pop on the best place to get a sunday roast and an advert for a butchers.

As for online content, we are planning on expanding our website to feature regular updates in time when we get more contributors. I think now is the time for smaller more focussed publications, rather than nationwide giants. We wouldn't have as many people interested if we just created a website, which says a lot for the value of tangible objects - because everything is now online, it has ironically made the printed word more desirable.

The magazine isn't intended to make millions or change the shape of publishing, it is intended to celebrate Camberwell, Dulwich and Peckham. We have had many emails from readers thanking us for making the mag, and for those comments we are grateful.

[Huguenot]

Most people will say thanks for a freebie - the real judgement only arises when they have to open their wallet.

I'm sure the content is great, but I think a discussion of its feasability is perfectly valid.

The 'contributor' element is interesting; unless you can generate the free content you're going to have to pay someone to create it, and that's where small mags often become dysfunctional. It costs the same to write a 3,000 word article for a local mag as it does for a national.

However, a contributor based publication brings its own problems regarding the consistency, quality, relevance and editing. Nobody ever does anything for nothing, and that applies to contributors too. They may be doing it out of vanity, in which case editing is a nightmare, or they're doing it to push an agenda which you may not be aware of.

Finally, contributor base content always bites you on the arse:

"Arianna Huffington, her website and AOL were on the receiving end of a $105m (?64.5m) lawsuit by a group of angry bloggers unhappy that she sold the Huffington Post for $315m without them being paid a penny.

"The class action is led by Jonathan Tasini, a writer and trade unionist, who wrote more than 250 posts for Huffington Post on an unpaid basis until he dropped out shortly after the news and comment site was sold to AOL earlier this year.

"Tasini complained that "Huffington bloggers have essentially been turned into modern day slaves on Arianna Huffington's plantation" and said he was bringing the action because "people who create content ... have to be compensated" for their efforts."

[????]

However, a contributor based publication brings its own problems regarding the consistency, quality, relevance and editing. Nobody ever does anything for nothing, and that applies to contributors too. They may be doing it out of vanity, in which case editing is a nightmare, or they're doing it to push an agenda which you may not be aware of.

Finally, contributor base content always bites you on the arse:

,,,and in a nutshell the EDF

[david_carnell]

There are publications where non-paid contributor journalism works very well and produces high quality copy.

Fire and Knives for example.

[Jeremy]

I really don't see the problem with voluntary/non-paid writing. As hobbies go, it's far from the worst one I can think of. The suggestion that they are motivated by vanity or propaganda has to be one of the most cynical things I've ever read on this forum!

[maxxi]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I really don't see the problem with

> voluntary/non-paid writing. As hobbies go, it's

> far from the worst one I can think of. The

> suggestion that they are motivated by vanity or

> propaganda has to be one of the most cynical

> things I've ever read on this forum!

(Sponsored by LOCOG)