"I like it. It used to look like a newspaper produced by a little group of weird people." So says a female member from Arizona. A Mensa local group newsletter editor counters, "This isn't a fashion magazine — the content is the reason for existence."
Those who care are critiquing the U.S. Mensa magazine. We're also told that most members really don't care. So, what is going on?
Let's start at the beginning! Description of the Bulletin's full-color cover art is inside the front cover. Once you're inside, if you want to read more, the "Contents" page is right there to grab you and guide you. On the other hand, if the Bulletin is a coffee-table showpiece, the front cover does a superb job.
So, what do the people who read everything want, and are we giving it to them? The most striking change from the 1990s is the increase in color photography and graphics. These tie to the better paper now used. (Color photos on cheap paper are awful. Check your Sunday newspaper's advertising inserts to confirm this.) "But full color and fine paper cost more. We're wasting money" is the standard plaint. Not this time. We switched printers not long ago to one whose machines fit our requirements better. We're getting color for less money than for previous issues with black-and-white inside pages. Does the flood of color fit Mensa's image? TIME ® and US News are also rich with color and less formal than they used to be. These respected publications use paper similar to ours. They're not seen as fun 'zines. Perception of the Bulletin shouldn't be any different.
Some members earning their living in writing and design carp that emphasis on the Bulletin's appearance comes at the expense of content. The disaffected use snappy phrases like "form over substance" and "more sizzle than steak."
An example of where the steak has been downsized is the "Letters" section. It's a great place for members to vent, if their contributions are published. Unfortunately, many letters aren't. Five years ago, we had six or seven pages of letters. Now there are just four. Here's a place where an editorial rethink would be a good idea. A column of "conditions" and the new large heading also limit space for letters.
Ah, the large heading . . . the Bulletin has plenty of those. "I would eliminate the 1/4 page at the top and the 1/3 page on the side heading bars," says one of our senior newsletter editors. Casually written in an informal e-mail, the meaning is unambiguous. Another newsletter editor says, "I don't like the vertical heads. They take up a lot of page real estate and are so saturated with color that they're hard to read." Nobody wants to revive 1998's Brush Script headers, even if they were only an inch tall, but the size of the current headers and their impact grate on those with professional graphics experience. Compromises exist: Reduce the height of the page-top headers to increase content space; brighten the color of the "reversed" type to increase legibility. However, narrowing the avant-garde vertical headers creates other problems; we could just dump them. Part of $7,500 worth of advice from a design firm about three years ago, the new headers eat up about four and a half pages out of 40 or 44. Is this bad? Well, using large headers leaves less content space, so some articles have to "jump" to another page to finish. All newspapers and magazines use "jumps." Our problem is in how many we have and how they're handled. The last three issues averaged about seven jumps. Worse, the October 2002 issue had several very short pieces carried over to another, distant page. Such poor execution needs prompt attention. Firmer editing with fractional changes in kerning (letter spacing) and type sizes would have eliminated the problem. Reducing the jumps to three or four large ones makes for an easier read.
The Bulletin also needs to revamp the reprint from the International Journal. The Bulletin's version of the IJ is cobbled together in a variety of sizes and typestyles that look amateurish — bits and pieces spread over two pages, all competing for the reader's attention. It all needs to be reset and presented in a cohesive, easy-to-read form.
Is the Bulletin's appearance in accord with "who we are"? Our new members are mostly young people, raised using two-button mice, not crayons, their computer games filled with color and action. The Bulletin must cater to them, too, or we risk losing them as members. Other big names like Reader's Digest, TIME and AARP have also revamped design to a more open style, using unusual typestyles, cutting but simultaneously enlarging text, using large blocks of "white space" to achieve a contemporary look.
"But," I hear, "we're Mensa, the smart people. Our magazine should reflect that!" So . . . ? Intelligence doesn't equate to "nerds" or boring. We shouldn't follow The Economist, the best periodical of its type, still produced on newsprint paper, filled with small type, short on color and pictures — and selling in millions. Au contraire, we should revel in the fact that we're bright and embrace the humor and wackiness included in our IQ package. Cartoons about intelligence belong in a Mensa magazine, even (or especially) on the same page as a serious treatise on the evolution of our universe (see Nov./Dec. 2002 Bulletin). A little zaniness in design is acceptable.
Keep in mind that the editor has only been on board for 10 months. She hasn't established dominance over what goes into the Bulletin or how it looks. That still comes from the AMC, the members' leadership. It is they who must be persuaded to hear that the consultants they hired didn't give them the Ten Commandments, merely an opinion on our magazine. We who paid for that opinion should have the right to influence its effects and discard what doesn't work.
Nevertheless, radical overhaul of the Bulletin's appearance or content isn't necessary. Our readers deserve a technically superior publication. It's not yet in the top 2%, but it's improving. Katie Hooten's personal mission statement includes the words "serve the members." Her efforts to produce an excellent magazine catering to our extraordinary array of interests should be commended and supported.
|
Is that
it? A coffee-table trophy for about 40,000 non-active members? Not exactly.
Some people only go to RGs or AGs. These events are concisely listed
in the Bulletin. Others just like puzzles or the science pages
or Don Million's serious questions. Overall design of the magazine doesn't
concern these folk.