>JK, Ed, George, et al..
>
>Since we are on this topic, below is the text of a plan I drew up for Advisor Media. When they approached me, they were allegedly serious about change. I was asked for my thoughts about how to improve the magazine. Below is the first draft of a plan I sent to Advisor last January....
>

It's certainly different than what I understand to be in place now, and I do agree that it might well have avoided this problem if the item had been reviewed and tested more rigorously. As a reader, I think a stronger structure would be a good thing, but I don't know if the proposed structure would be workable for the magazine from the standpoint of the production schedule, work requirements, staffing costs and the like - I've been involved in the publishing and distribution industries for long enough to know that staffing costs money, putting out a gloosy fomat magazine is expensive and very reliant on advertising income, and that given the size of the niche market available to them, the magazine has to cover the needs of several groups of consumers with limited space and a broad range of very different products. FPA can't really do justice to FPD/FPW, VFP-centric desktop apps and the n-tier environments in the limited space alloted now, and needs to change how it manages its production, too. I'm certainly not in a position to do more than reveal that as things stand now, I'll not renew my subscription.