Posted by Kevin Matthews on March 01, 2002 at 11:58:08:In Reply to: Re: PS: Architectural Journalism posted by Paul Malo on March 01, 2002 at 06:42:40:
I'm very in line with these suggestions, Paul. We would love to be able to do more investigative pro-active work -- and resources are the issue. I've been thinking in an early way about grant possibilities for the magazine, and your similar thought is encouraging!
Also now that ArchWeek is demonstrably the leading architecture magazine online from a visitors/subscribers/Web traffic perspective (and perhaps in more qualitative dimensions as well?) there will be a strong basis for proposals we might make. (Want to help?)
I'm very happy with the growth of our contributor network so far - we can do some pro-active work already in many places - but to support people to really do in-depth stories does take extra resources.
At least, compared with the established trade glossies, we are willing, interested and able to print deeper pieces (as you can find in our archives) and if/when we have discretionary resources, instead of divvied out into a big company's profit margins, the resources go back into the journal, showing up in short order on our weekly pages.
As an enhancement to our existing system for receiving contributions of support, I wonder how our readers might respond to the option of contributing into ear-marked funds -- like an investigative reporting fund...
|
ArchitectureWeek
Search
Buildings
Architects
Types
Places
Pix
Free 3D Models
Store
Library
|