| |
Very cool. I'm looking forward to subscribing. A few questions:
1. What will be the attitude of the magazine towards clone
brands--completely ignore them? mention them only disparagingly? equally
review other brand sets?
2. How will you be finding MOCs to feature? Will people submit them or
will the editors be skimming through Brickshelf, other websites, and
conventions for models to feature? What sort of resolution is needed on photos?
3. Will there be ties and if so how close to some of the major AFOL
groupings and websites (LUGs, LTC's, Lugnet, 1000steine.de, etc.)?
4. Will TLC have any sort of creative control?
5. What will be the attitude of the magazine towards leaked
information--more towards the Lugnet "anything goes" or the FBTB "no
discussion of leaked info"?
Bruce
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Bruce Hietbrink writes:
> Very cool. I'm looking forward to subscribing. A few questions:
>
> 1. What will be the attitude of the magazine towards clone
> brands--completely ignore them? mention them only disparagingly? equally
> review other brand sets?
>
> 2. How will you be finding MOCs to feature? Will people submit them or
> will the editors be skimming through Brickshelf, other websites, and
> conventions for models to feature? What sort of resolution is needed on photos?
>
> 3. Will there be ties and if so how close to some of the major AFOL
> groupings and websites (LUGs, LTC's, Lugnet, 1000steine.de, etc.)?
>
> 4. Will TLC have any sort of creative control?
>
> 5. What will be the attitude of the magazine towards leaked
> information--more towards the Lugnet "anything goes" or the FBTB "no
> discussion of leaked info"?
What? You don't want to know my shoe size and mother's maiden name too?
Seriously, you're asking questions I can't answer right now.
Let me respond like this:
As a company and a publication, we are not affiliated with the LEGO Group of
companies unless otherwise noted.
Since we are a fan community based company, one of our main goals is
community building, which we hope to achieve through partnerships,
sponsorships and the like.
Also, as we are a publication devoted to the entire fan experience, don't
count clones out (but don't expect extensive coverage either).
As a print publication we could never hope to keep up with the speed of the
Internet when it comes to leaks and such.
Submission guidelines can be found at www.bricksmagazine.com.
Matt
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Matthew Gerber writes:
> In lugnet.publish, Bruce Hietbrink writes:
> > Very cool. I'm looking forward to subscribing. A few questions:
> >
> > 1. What will be the attitude of the magazine towards clone
> > brands--completely ignore them? mention them only disparagingly? equally
> > review other brand sets?
>
> Also, as we are a publication devoted to the entire fan experience, don't
> count clones out (but don't expect extensive coverage either).
Matt, just a suggestion, but perhaps you might consider including clone
brands a little more. Maybe something like a "Clone Corner", a one page
column in every issue on clone brand issues. Personally, I have never
bought any clone brands, nor would I ever, but I suggest it as a way to make
the magazine more well rounded. Other hobbyist mags that I have seen are
usually more broad than just one manufacturer. Also, if you needed to
supplement funds and make it into a commercial magazine (i.e. if you plan to
sell advertisement space), then an an occasional half-page or full-page add
from a clone brand might be reasonable (presuming a similar amount of space
is offered to TLC also). (And naturally, some ad space might be sold to
owners of Bricklink stores and the like too.) (For one-time sellers, you
might offer a classified section in the back...)
Again, just suggesting things at this point. I haven't seen the preview
yet, so maybe you've already considered such.
Looking forward to the outcome of all this,
-Hendo
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, John P. Henderson writes:
> Matt, just a suggestion, but perhaps you might consider including clone
> brands a little more. Maybe something like a "Clone Corner", a one page
> column in every issue on clone brand issues. Personally, I have never
> bought any clone brands, nor would I ever, but I suggest it as a way to make
> the magazine more well rounded.
I'm curious-- how would the inclusion of non-LEGO items help round off a *LEGO*
fan magazine?
> Other hobbyist mags that I have seen are
> usually more broad than just one manufacturer.
I think we would have to agree that our situation is rather unique-- why try
and force it into something it is not?
> Also, if you needed to
> supplement funds and make it into a commercial magazine (i.e. if you plan to
> sell advertisement space), then an an occasional half-page or full-page add
> from a clone brand might be reasonable (presuming a similar amount of space
> is offered to TLC also). (And naturally, some ad space might be sold to
> owners of Bricklink stores and the like too.) (For one-time sellers, you
> might offer a classified section in the back...)
>
> Again, just suggesting things at this point. I haven't seen the preview
> yet, so maybe you've already considered such.
>
> Looking forward to the outcome of all this,
> -Hendo
Personally, I would consider any clone info in my LEGO fan magazine noisey and
annoying. I couldn't care less about clones and wouldn't want them cluttering
up the mag-- it would be reason enough for me to unsubscribe-- once I've
already subscribed, that is:-)
Stay pure, Matt!
.02,
JOHN
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, John Neal writes:
> I'm curious-- how would the inclusion of non-LEGO items help round off a >*LEGO* fan magazine?
Well, it was just a thought. I guess the question is how wide a circulation
the mag is aiming for. Is it exclusively for AFOLs or is it a more general
brick-toy-hobbyist material? In the case of the former, which is fine, I
guess you have a valid point.
> > Other hobbyist mags that I have seen are
> > usually more broad than just one manufacturer.
>
> I think we would have to agree that our situation is rather unique-- why try
> and force it into something it is not?
Not my intention.
> Personally, I would consider any clone info in my LEGO fan magazine noisey and
> annoying. I couldn't care less about clones and wouldn't want them cluttering
> up the mag-- it would be reason enough for me to unsubscribe-- once I've
> already subscribed, that is:-)
>
> Stay pure, Matt!
Well I wouldn't want you unsubscribing for something I myself admittedly
would not be sold on. Just voicing an idea 'tis all.
Cheers,
-Hendo
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, John P. Henderson writes:
> In lugnet.publish, John Neal writes:
> > I'm curious-- how would the inclusion of non-LEGO items help round off a >*LEGO* fan magazine?
>
> Well, it was just a thought. I guess the question is how wide a circulation
> the mag is aiming for. Is it exclusively for AFOLs or is it a more general
> brick-toy-hobbyist material? In the case of the former, which is fine, I
> guess you have a valid point.
>
> > > Other hobbyist mags that I have seen are
> > > usually more broad than just one manufacturer.
> >
> > I think we would have to agree that our situation is rather unique-- why try
> > and force it into something it is not?
>
> Not my intention.
>
> > Personally, I would consider any clone info in my LEGO fan magazine noisey and
> > annoying. I couldn't care less about clones and wouldn't want them cluttering
> > up the mag-- it would be reason enough for me to unsubscribe-- once I've
> > already subscribed, that is:-)
> >
> > Stay pure, Matt!
>
> Well I wouldn't want you unsubscribing for something I myself admittedly
> would not be sold on. Just voicing an idea 'tis all.
Hey now...both opinions are valid, so no need for either side to feel put off.
As I've already stated, don't count clones out. We are independent of the
LEGO Company for a reason.
However, this magazine caters to the LEGO fan...as we know, clones and
competitors are living off of the brilliant design concepts (and in some
cases, making molds directly from) of existing LEGO product, and as is
proven right here at LUGNET, clones are a very small sub-set of the fan
experience. MacAddict doesn't feature Windows machines...Bricks doesn't
necessarily need to mention clones.
Also keep in mind that we are striving for an all ages access publication.
Some of our issues regarding clones won't or don't matter to many kids.
Anyway, I certainly hope that we wouldn't loose subscribers based on the
occasional reference to something someone doesn't like personally, or
vice-versa. Does every publication you read cater 100% to just you? Of
course not. You skip articles, you move on, you understand that one
publication has to meed the needs of as many readers as possible.
HTH,
Matt
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Matthew Gerber writes:
> In lugnet.publish, John P. Henderson writes:
> > > Personally, I would consider any clone info in my LEGO fan magazine noisey
> > > and annoying. I couldn't care less about clones and wouldn't want them
> > > cluttering up the mag-- it would be reason enough for me to unsubscribe--
> > > once I've already subscribed, that is:-)
> As I've already stated, don't count clones out. We are independent of the
> LEGO Company for a reason.
>
> However, this magazine caters to the LEGO fan...as we know, clones and
> competitors are living off of the brilliant design concepts (and in some
> cases, making molds directly from) of existing LEGO product, and as is
> proven right here at LUGNET, clones are a very small sub-set of the fan
> experience. MacAddict doesn't feature Windows machines...Bricks doesn't
> necessarily need to mention clones.
As one of the leading pro-clone loudmouths around here, I feel smugly
qualified to comment directly on this issue. As far as I'm concerned, I
absolutely don't think there's any reason to include clone brand info in an
"official" (which is not to say "licensed" or "endorsed" fan magazine), just
as I maintain that there's no reason to include clone.dats in official LDraw
libraries. Other clone-fans may disagree, but I am content with the
off-topic.clone-brands forum we already enjoy by the good graces of Todd and
Suz; it would simply be presumptuous to demand that another LEGO forum
accommodate us as well.
> Also keep in mind that we are striving for an all ages access publication.
> Some of our issues regarding clones won't or don't matter to many kids.
Well, if they do, let them pester us clone-fans for a magazine. Until
then, a LEGO-only fanmag is fine with me.
> Anyway, I certainly hope that we wouldn't loose subscribers based on the
> occasional reference to something someone doesn't like personally, or
> vice-versa. Does every publication you read cater 100% to just you? Of
> course not.
True. But if I'm reading, say, The Wall Street journal and it becomes
hopelessly cluttered with recipes for apple fritters, then I'll likely
reconsider my subscription the next time it comes due.
Dave!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Dave Schuler writes:
>
> As one of the leading pro-clone loudmouths around here, I feel smugly
> qualified to comment directly on this issue. As far as I'm concerned, I
> absolutely don't think there's any reason to include clone brand info in an
> "official" (which is not to say "licensed" or "endorsed" fan magazine), just
> as I maintain that there's no reason to include clone.dats in official LDraw
> libraries. Other clone-fans may disagree, but I am content with the
> off-topic.clone-brands forum we already enjoy by the good graces of Todd and
> Suz; it would simply be presumptuous to demand that another LEGO forum
> accommodate us as well.
But, conversely, would the occasional mention of something un-LEGO cause you
to not subscribe? Would the entire publication be ruined for you...soiled as
it were? That was my point...
> True. But if I'm reading, say, The Wall Street journal and it becomes
> hopelessly cluttered with recipes for apple fritters, then I'll likely
> reconsider my subscription the next time it comes due.
Hmmm, there's an idea...Alan Greenspan's Old-Fashioned, Down-Home, Apple
Fritters...one of those would hit the spot right about now.
8?D
Matt
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Matthew Gerber writes:
> But, conversely, would the occasional mention of something un-LEGO cause you
> to not subscribe? Would the entire publication be ruined for you...soiled as
> it were? That was my point...
Only if they were mentioned in disparaging terms;-) All seriousness aside, of
course I wouldn't care if clones were mentioned *in passing*. What I wouldn't
want to see is a catering to clones-- set reviews, etc.
Being an AFOL is a very unique experience-- if TLC didn't exist, I doubt I'd be
playing with any of the clone brands out there. Being an AFOL is being in a
state of total immersion in *LEGO*.
Of course I could add clones to my collection, but I don't. Why? What if they
were even on par with LEGO? I would still hesitate. Maybe some of this
branding TLC is so concerned about is rubbing off on me! Perhaps I can consult
Dave! for a little deprogramming session, since it appears that he is
impervious to the marketing effects of TLC:-)
JOHN
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, John Neal writes:
> In lugnet.publish, Matthew Gerber writes:
>
> > But, conversely, would the occasional mention of something un-LEGO cause you
> > to not subscribe? Would the entire publication be ruined for you...soiled as
> > it were? That was my point...
>
> Only if they were mentioned in disparaging terms;-) All seriousness aside, of
> course I wouldn't care if clones were mentioned *in passing*. What I wouldn't
> want to see is a catering to clones-- set reviews, etc.
And that's definitely NOT in the concept.
> Being an AFOL is a very unique experience-- if TLC didn't exist, I doubt I'd be
> playing with any of the clone brands out there.
That's what I was saying.
> Being an AFOL is being in a state of total immersion in *LEGO*.
OUCH...doesn't that hurt?
> Of course I could add clones to my collection, but I don't. Why? What if they
> were even on par with LEGO? I would still hesitate. Maybe some of this
> branding TLC is so concerned about is rubbing off on me! Perhaps I can consult
> Dave! for a little deprogramming session, since it appears that he is
> impervious to the marketing effects of TLC:-)
Would you play with Mega Bloks for a flying bicycle?
8?D
Matt
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Matthew Gerber writes:
> In lugnet.publish, John Neal writes:
> > In lugnet.publish, Matthew Gerber writes:
> >
> > > But, conversely, would the occasional mention of something un-LEGO cause you
> > > to not subscribe? Would the entire publication be ruined for you...soiled as
> > > it were? That was my point...
> > Only if they were mentioned in disparaging terms;-) All seriousness aside,
> > of course I wouldn't care if clones were mentioned *in passing*. What I
> > wouldn't want to see is a catering to clones-- set reviews, etc.
> And that's definitely NOT in the concept.
Good:-)
> > Being an AFOL is a very unique experience-- if TLC didn't exist, I doubt I'd
> > be playing with any of the clone brands out there.
> That's what I was saying.
Good.
> > Being an AFOL is being in a state of total immersion in *LEGO*.
> OUCH...doesn't that hurt?
Hurts so good;-)
> > Of course I could add clones to my collection, but I don't.
<snip>
> Would you play with Mega Bloks for a flying bicycle?
Maybe for a Segway...
JOHN
|
|
|
