# absoluTTe magazine production



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

*Editor's comments regarding absoluTTe magazine production*

There has been a redesigned issue of absoluTTe magazine (issue 34) sent out to members which has bypassed myself as editor and the usual magazine production process involving the proof readers and editorial checks. These functions have presumably been performed by others on the committee. This new look issue ("spring") has been timed to reach members just before re-election of the committee.

I've not seen this issue of the magazine so I will not comment on how the "design" looks but instead add just some technical points about production highlighted by reading the comments and from which members can draw their own conclusions.

I have also added below some "visuals" of intended re-design ideas from of our long standing designer Richard, which were not used.

*Printing:*

This issue would appear to be a "digital print" whereby an inkjet printer is used which tends to be why the paper appears matte and not glossy and you can also tell by smudging the ink with a wet finger. It does not require set up costs so is cheaper initially but becomes less cost effective for higher print volumes. Digital printing lends itself to one off or short print runs where quality is less important.

Previous additions of absoluTTe were produced on a full lithographic offset printing process where separate colour plates are made. This is a more expensive process to set up but rapidly becomes cheaper for larger print volumes. We had previously tried to keep absoluTTe printed using a lithographic process for quality reasons and have a good relationship with a printing company who are willing to do short print runs at a consistently lower price than other companies, so achieving the best of both worlds.

The printing process is not "design" and can of course be changed.

*Confusion of roles:*

There seems to be some confusion regarding the roles of editor and designer in particular and also proof reading and checking.

*Editor:*

It's the editor's job to gather articles together and decide content and balance of the magazine. It's also the editors job to "edit" initial changes to articles (e.g. cutting, initial corrections or additions etc) and then co-ordinate and distribute the articles to the proof reating team. Once the articles are proof read and returned it is then the editor's job to read through each return, chose which corrections to use and produce a "final copy" version for the designer. At this point the number of words in each article is fixed as once the designer lays out the page changes in copy length can force a redesign of the page. Photographs are also passed to the the designer for consideration with additional notes to highlight any that are important with reference to the article. The editor caries legal responsibility for content with regards to copyright infringement and libel.

*Designer:*

It's the designer's roll to layout the "look" of the page - the editor has little to do with this and it is entirely left to the designer. The designer decides style, usually refreshed every three years or so following industry trends. The designer chooses pictures and allows the text fit into the layout. The designer will produce a "proof" version for the editor to see where some changes may get made following discussion.

*Checking:*

This is usually down to the editor who has to read through the entire "proof" of the magazine and spot any errors and make corrections. An eye also has to be kept on things like dates becoming past tense in view of slipping publishing dates etc. Others may or may not get involved with checking but the responsibility lies with the editor. Hopefully, errors and changes should be minimal at this stage as further mistakes are more likely to be made making large changes and word length must be mailntained to avoid re-design.

*Designer Richard from A14 to A33:*

Autometrix were the original legal publisher of absoluTTe which gave us legal cover and they provided us with a time served car magazine designer and sub editor, Richard, back in 2007. We cut Autometrix out of the loop to save money when the club was struggling financially and took the risk ourselves because we had their designer willing to work direct whose experience and advice could keep us safe over copyright and libel. Richard also played a useful "sub editing" role in proof reading the "final copy" and his automotive industry knowledge has proved invaluable here. Richard also diligently checked everyone's name spelling and forum aka.

Richard was working on a re-design as is normal and yes it would have looked modern and fresh with plenty of white space etc because that's the current industry fashion. He spoke with me about this early in the year but unfortunately the chance was taken away from him amidst all the trouble when I had my access denied to my editing job and Richard was abandoned without any communication from the club.

*Here are Richard's first off "visuals" sent to me early in the year of which he was to follow up with a few varients. Rather than comparing the new look magazine with the three year old design, members should compare with Richard's up to date design ideas of which this is just one:*


----------



## phope (Mar 26, 2006)

Out of interest John (seeing as this the first time any of us have seen these design options)

Were they prepared prior to the 21st February 2013 or afterwards?

It had been minuted in a committee discussion in November 2012 to seek some alternative design proposals to consider but Richard had indicated that as at 21st February that he'd received no requests from anyone to come up with alternative design options - viewtopic.php?f=1&t=318242&p=2507986#p2507986


----------



## jamman (May 6, 2002)

Im slightly puzzled why this question isn't being answered on
either forum ?


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

I don't know when exactly Richard created them. I know he had been talking about a redesign months before. Does it matter? You can see I told you then he was working on a redesign. If Richard had been left to his own devices he would have presented his ideas in the normal way but with all the shenanigans going on since August last year and into this, with accusations and plotting and the staging of illegal votes to remove me from my job, strangely enough I found myself somewhat distracted.

So a magazine redesign was unsurprisingly not my number one priority and with what seemed like an underlying intention for Nick to channel paid design work to his friend Dan there was not much hope for Richard either. I of course was disconnected when A33 came out as we all know. So it was then up to you to contact Richard.

Please don't try to make out that normal and balanced committee function was happening - it wasn't. I challenge you to publish the committee forum discussions to show what was really being said from that time so members can see for themselves and not refer people to the one sided minutes. Where in the minutes does it discuss such an important step of dropping our long standing designer, what was the reason? Why was he not contacted by the committee for his input. Where were the costs of design discussed? You say elsewhere that the magazine production costs for A34 where much the same as A33 but also that the print run was cheaper. That would seem to indicate that Dan was being paid more. If true how was this justified and approved? Can we see a breakdown of costs please?

If you had genuinely been interested in Richard's redesign you would have contacted him yourself. Mark Davies suggested to Nick that Richard should be used for A34 as a safer option but he was unilaterally ignored and Dan was brought in by Nick regardless - again no committee function or agreement. There was never any intention to use Richard and as I say, not even a courtesy phone call or email to him since.


----------

