Associations Now

So I read my first ever issue of Associations Now last night. I know, I know, I should have started sooner - I have about a year's worth of back copies, in order, on my shelf, but just have not had time until now. I promised several people I would actually find the time to read this one, though, and read them all from now on.

There's a great article by the babelicious jnott on "Who's in Charge?" - I won't review it, specifically, (with a staff of three, you pretty much know who's in charge in my office - whoever's buying lunch on any given day. Hahaha....) but it's a really good read. There's a fabulous insert on social media, with some great quotes by our very own bmart; there's lots of other good stuff.

I will admit I could not bring myself to read the anti-Web 2.0 article by Andrew Keen. I like to tell people that I don't want to be a critic - critics criticise. That's not my job - I'm the anti-critic, the enthusiast, the evangelist. If I don't really think much of something, I prefer to say nothing about it. And usually, others will also say nothing about it, and better stuff will rise to the top. But regardless, I'm not in a place where I can read the negativity in Keen's article and pull anything meaningful out of it. Instead, it will just piss me off. So I'll wait to read that later. However, I remembered an important lesson from Jackie Huba - people who complain (who take the time and effort to do that) are those who can be turned into evangelists and we need to pay attention to them. So, Mr Keen, you just hold tight. We'll change your mind, eventually.

Now - having just said that I'm not a critic, I did have one comment about Associations Now (given, remember, that this is my first issue). I found the imagery extremely aggressive, particularly compared to a "quiet" kind of font, and it made it difficult to read, for me. Of course, the other reason it might have been difficult to read is that I was trying to read propped up in my bed, and my two kids were playing a weird game of "under the covers Marco Polo", which was just slightly distracting. But in all seriousness, I wanted to mention something about the look of the magazine, only because I am currently thinking about this sort of thing at work. We're about to produce our bi-annual newsletter IN COLOR for the first time since 1930. (I think they had a newsletter from day one). Ooh - we're pushing the envelope there! It sounds silly, but it's a big deal. Just think when black and white TV went to color, how weird that must have been to people. : ) Anyway. I am, with the newsletter, trying to be sensitive to history and "the way it was" while moving a step closer to the 21st century. Next step, e-newsletter (obviously). But I have to not rush the process. So anyway, that's my comment.