|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Former Member Account writes: |
Do it Don! |
Back to the Homepage
1,811 hits since 1 Nov 2004
©1994-2012 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?
If you were a member of this website, you could participate in website polls. Would you like a free membership?
| VOTING RESULTS | |||
| Answer | Votes | % | Chart |
yes (reader) | 71 | 23% |  |
|---|---|---|---|
yes (non-reader) | 71 | 23% | |
no (reader) | 61 | 20% | |
no (non-reader) | 13 | 4% | |
no opinion | 49 | 16% | |
never heard of MWAN before | 38 | 13% | |
| POLL IS CLOSED |
| POLL DESCRIPTION | |
In MWAN Magazine #131, Don Perrin mentions that he is considering a change of format - from the current 6" x 9" digest format, to 8 ½" by 11" glossy: Many retail locations that we'd like to get into have a problem with the size of the magazine. It doesn't fit in the magazine racks, and it's not as picture pretty as other magazines that the same venue might carry. The standard letter-sized magazine is the norm in our society. Everyone knows how to handle, sell and distribute such a sized magazine. I'm afraid we're finding that distribution is hampered when we don't conform. He goes on to point out that improved distribution will improve income and keep the magazine healthy, and also get the word out about the hobby to a larger audience. 
Should MWAN change format? | |
yes (reader) | I read MWAN regularly, and I think it should change format. |
|---|---|
yes (non-reader) | I don't read MWAN regularly, but I think it should change format. |
no (reader) | I read MWAN regularly, and I think it should not change format. |
no (non-reader) | I don't read MWAN regularly, but I think it should not change format. |
no opinion | I have no opinion or am undecided. |
never heard of MWAN before | What's MWAN? |
