I don't subscribe for the cover. If it saves money, just go with the newsstand edition.

Not all subscribers will see this.
Given the format of this blog, there is no guarantee that subscribers who visit here will even see this.
All subscribers deserve the opportunity to have their say.
I suggest that you send out this info with the next issue pointing subscribers to an area where they can vote.

I'd go for logo only. You couldn't loose the ads for pensions featuring smug well off famous people on the back by any chance .

I'd be unlikely to pick it up with the PSBs on the cover at all. (Someone had to say it.)
In general though, I'd go with 1 or 3.

If it means I can go via Tesco on the way to the pub for a beer and a read and not risk being accused of shoplifting.

Even as a subscriber, I prefer the newsstand version, to be honest. Flagging what's in each issue doesn't just help people who are browsing decide whether they might want to buy it; it also helps people looking for a certain feature in a back issue to find it quickly without having to open the mag to flick through to the contents page. The other day, I was looking for last year's piece on the Fleet Foxes. I eventually found it - after much irked cursing - buried away in the September issue. If I'd bought the edition for plebs rather than patricians, I'd have seen FLEET FOXES in nice big white letters right under Lemmy's grubby thumbnail on the cover.

[Deep breath] And anyway, what's supposed to be so great about these covers? They're only run-of-the-mill (and often out-of-focus) promo-esque snaps of mostly middle-aged minor pop stars. I mean, get real - printing a few words over their foreheads isn't sullying any great work of art. And if you want a pinup of Kate Bush, buy Jackie.

[Even deeper breath] And re-anyway, why should subscribers be treated differently? Subscribing is no more than a mutually convenient system that allows publishers to get some operating capital upfront and crow to advertisers about how many captive readers they can promise, while subscribers can relax, knowing that it'll plop on the doormat every month without any further effort required on their part - and saving a few quid in the long run as well.

In other words, we're not special; we're just lazy and cheap.

… as someone who works in magazines, I believe coverlines are all-important. If I wasn't a regular Word reader, I'd be looking to be enticed by the range of features inside (especially if, say, I wasn't a Pet Shop Boys fan). People reading this blog are presumably, for the most part, people who'd buy the mag anyway. The opinions you really need to canvas are the 'floating voters'…

definitely.

Expecially if we can have a repeat of the Kate Bush cover :-)

I'm sure the PSB snapper will be delighted to read thart his portraits in the new issue are run-of-the-mill promo snaps. Quite rightly, it's a very rare last resort for an actual promo pic to make it on to a magazine cover.

keep it simple with lots of lovely white space.

But am not sufficiently bothered either way - it has absolutely no bearing on my decision to buy/subscribe/ignore.

As others have suggested, if there is an additional cost involved in producing a separate cover for subscribers, I'd save the money and give everyone the same.

would make me want to subscribe

3

i am sure many subscribers are like me in having subscribed to maximise the money going to the word rather than newsstands so I can't see why you would add to production and distribution complexity and inevitably cost by having different versions .

The alternate version may become more collectable but probably not.

tony

Number three. Logo only. Simple. Beautiful. Classic.

where chris Lowe takes his sun gebs off? Talk about working a look!

I agree with quite a few of the comments here which point out that it's all increasing your workload and production costs, and also that it's easier to find stuff if you're looking for it. I'd rather you put your energies into the content. Even though I'm a designer, it doesn't bother me too much, and I know the real work goes into arriving at the newsstand cover, which I admit I'm slightly disappointed not to have when I see it in Smiths!
But a great mag - that's the main thing.

I realise how little I know my fellows in this world in which we collide. I would have put my shirt on there being an outpouring for the arty minimalism of option three.
It is clean, uncluttered, simple and very effective.

So I vote for number one.

Kidding! Number three for this boy.

Sorry, but I'm not going to renew my subscription. Know why? Because of those sodding 'Special Edition' front covers, that's why. A front cover - even on a subscriber's copy - should be more than a moody pic and a stand-alone shout line. To my mind a good cover is a dynamic agglomeration of pictures, promises and references, that have a function over and above catching the eye of short-attention-span news-stand purchasers.
For a start, the front cover is the first point of engagement for the subscriber and it should generate interest and excitement as the envelope is ripped open. Which it's not going to do for anyone who is less than enthusiastic about the featured artist. A trick is being missed if the first reaction to the fresh new issue is indifference rather than pleasurable anticipation. Pet Shop Boys? Not for me thanks. But The Decemberists? Dylan? Now you're talking.
But more importantly - assuming, quite reasonably I suspect, that most readers hang onto back issues of The Word - the front cover is an important reference source; a summary of all the main stuff in that issue. Let's say, for instance, that in a six months time I want to refer back to that feature on Ramblin' Jack Elliott. No good looking at the covers, I'm going to have to trawl through all the contents pages to find it.
Always assuming it's actually on the contents page - which is another thing, while I'm at it! Your contents page is...how might I put it?....crap. Assuming, that is, you intend it to be a device for navigating the magazine. An example: April Issue, Marianne Faithfull, 3 page feature - not a mention on the contents page. Same issue: Bette Midler, 2 page feature, prime mention in the contents. Another example: I love 'In Box', and it would be the first thing I turn to every month....if I could find it in the contents.
So there we are. I'm back to being a single-copy purchaser of The Word, leaving me vulnerable to the on-shelf blandishments of Uncut, Q and Mojo. Right now they haven't got a chance....but who knows, eh?

No. 3: A picture of the Pet Shops Boys with the Word logo on it.

No. 2: A picture of the Pet Shops Boys with the Word logo on it, plus a strapline that tells you what you might have shrewdly guessed: that the magazine has an interview with the Pet Shop Boys in it.

No. 1: a proper magazine cover, i.e. a piece of commercial packaging designed to advertise the full range of goodies that the product has to offer (or as much as is possible without it being too cluttered - that’s where the skill lies).

Tell the paste-up lad he’s not in art school anymore.

(And don’t get me started on how magazines fail to use “page three” as a sort of second cover to bark up the show and hook the casual browser. It only takes ten minutes observing customers in WH Smiths to know that that’s how purchasing decisions are made.)

The Word covers are usually very powerful images and look great without any accompanying text.

I will now withdraw and shut up for a while, but I'm a little stunned by these views and the strength of feeling. Failure to renew a subscription because of a lack of empathy with one cover is a new one to me.

{Goes off in search of lunch, muttering and musing}

3, but I don't envy you working out this lot.

A) It doesn't influence my subscribing habits at all, but
B) since you ask, I prefer 3, or
C) even better, version 3 and reduce the WORD logo down to matchbox size and put it in the corner for that really minimalist/classic effect.

It really isn't that important to me. I like the special subscriber edition and I guess I'd like the number 3 version even more. Like others, I keep my copies for a few months before I get around to/get nagged into throwing them away. But this is not because of the covers.

How about the cover is something abstract and not related to the lead article in the magazine? A woodland landscape, perhaps, or Mark Ellen in a blue shirt?

One advantage of being a subscriber this month is that I did not have to approach a shop checkout with a picture of Lee and Lance from the Harry Enfield show.

I like the subscriber cover, I don't really need all the info on the front when I'm buying it anyway. I can see why it might be handy for some people as a glossary, but more often than not I tend to pick up an old issue for a flick through again rather than because I'm looking for something specific.

So I'd prefer to keep the Subscriber cover, but I don't mind too much if it's version 2 or 3. However, if you're removing text for a clear photograph, 3 might make more sense.

It's good that you've asked, I think that really says something about the magazine.

but would go for three if pushed.

I prefer version 3.
As to Archie's point, why not create an on-line index? It could be useful for everyone, subscriber and non subscriber and in these straitened economic times the initial indexing task could create a short term job for someone.

stimpification, please.

If I had a beard it would be singed.

we will go back to mainly discussing the content. Having just read the latest issue I came to a weird conclusion. I realised, just as with this cover nonsense, that the content of the magazine is not what sets it apart from the competition. As usual, the content was fine, but little of earth shattering import. Much of the cosy and expected familiarity of articles still remains, even without the missed Word of Mouth. The CD remains, well, good in parts but less in others. I can get more information from Unshod and Slomo, but I still like them less, in the same way I prefer my old and trusty tweed to the latest cutting edge fashion fabric. Discord to the ears of the demography-buffers, seeking to find a sharp blade of incisive journalese to shred the competition, but it is the reliability of trusted names and faces that appeals to me.
Re the cover: surely it's cheaper to have but one cover, whatever Fraser says. I think I prefer the one likely to be printed in greater bulk, which will be the news stand one. I am sure that Neil Tennant prefers the one that hides most glimpsed pate, shining thru' from behind, strangely, his "luxurious" fringe, but I guess that wasn't asked, but I bet he subscribes.

3

and I prefer the newsstand version - tells me what's in it. If they were special editions (like #3) I would end up keeping them and I can't take any more (broke that habit years ago, and it was tough.........)

for me....

as Lucas has admirably pointed out...simple, classic....

Smell the Glove is here!

Dobly?

Turn it up to three, but don't touch it, don't even look at it.

.

The more type the merrier as far as I’m concerned if it covers up Neil Tennant’s ghastly jacket. And only the Spanish football team can pull off red, yellow and blue as a colour scheme.

Thanks.

but 3 is marginally preferable

...er, that would be THREE then, thanks for asking.

Obviously.

The only practical point (as above) is maybe that the cover text is useful as a quick reference while leafing through back issues. I didn't renew my subscription simply because the latest issue was almost always available in the shops before my special subscriber edition hit the doormat. Cover not relevant.

3 please

For much the same reasons as Archie. The photos are nothing special and I'd rather be able to check the contents without looking inside. Also agree with Bingo that the contents page could be better.

Am I bovvered?....no!

I don't feel like I'm getting a special service because the cover is different.

Rather it is that the convenience and the detached CD that I appreciate.

But I am in the "whatever's best for The Word's bottom line and ongoing financial viability" camp. Honestly, I don't even consciously read the text on the cover -- the photo is what I go by: "This is the one with Neil Tennant's baldy pate, just like mine but I think mine is more aerodynamic." or "This is the one with the beardy guy what's he hiding in there." If a picture paints a thousand words, the extra added text just results in a buffer overflow and I forget to... something something.

Were it my choice, I'd go newsstand. I appreciate the effort of the cleaned-up version – and some of the most powerful magazine covers ever have been stripped-down affairs, as per http://arcagility.wordpress.com/2007/09/30/top-20-magazine-covers/ – but let's face it, few Word cover stars are on there for their looks. Quite right, too.

(PS I know from industry experience that it does cost a bit to "change plates" for a different cover. But it's literally about £40, or was last time we asked.)

Hasn't anybody pointed out the humour of having no Words on the cover?

The Less writing the better

option 3. And I'm looking forward to the PSB article!

It does look nicer

I subscribe; I don't need the cover text to make me buy; frankly I rarely look at the cover. Save money and send me the same copy that's on the newsagents' shelves. Oh, and thank you for the PSB cover and article; yes, they're pop, but they're intelligent, interesting and still relevant.

But if it just came sans The Word logo - I'd be a very happy man.

By the way, doesn't Chris Lowe look like Dave Spikey?

I prefer the newsstand one as when I want to go back to something from an old copy its easier to find with the handy clues on the front. As a subscriber can you send me a newsstand one instead of the blank one cheers

Bet you wish you'd never asked...!

... #3 (the imaginary one).

But, as a subscriber, I'm not that hung up on what ye decide.

But how do you know if I subscibe ?

the one with Kate Bush on every month please?

Thought not.

And what's Neil Tennant got on? He doesn't go out like that does he? Shirt, tie and a Primark-second coat.

He looks a proper clip.

And why not put a copy of the newstand version on page 3, just so that us subscribers can see what the rest of the world get to see? It would solve a number of the quick reference comments raised here and elsewhere.

a plain white cover with the issue number written very large as it has been about three years since i have had an eye test .

It's a shame you've done the mock up with this edition as it's such a boring cover. If you'd done it with a more striking image - such as the Bjork/bear pic from a very early edition - it might have a bigger impact (and influence votes for my preference!)

Number 1 - I can't be bothered with all that "special edition" bollocks.

Well, you asked...

the Dido cover........I'll get my coat.

the last time PSB were on the cover of The Word,(http://www.wordmagazine.co.uk/files/covers/mediumCover38.jpg) the cover image featured in an exhibition about PSB at The National Portrait Gallery. So, that was OFFICIALLY art.

My choice: number 3. I like the uncluttered look, and appreciate that my subscriber edition looks 'special'!

I read my subscription copy on a packed train and I am happy to display to all what they are missing in this great magazine of ours.

I think that option 2 is a nice balance.

Go for the one on the right.

In fact, how about plain white (front and back) with a small gold Word logo in the corner? Do that and you've definitely got my year's subscription!

Yep, it looks good to these eyes.

Even as one who studiously avoids fashion and anything related to it, I can't help looking at Neil Tennant's jacket and wondering, to invoke that old cliche, if he was wearing it for a bet. It's hideous!

but then again I like most imaginary things. like an orchestra of otters cooking me spaghetti for lunch. or something.

Imaginary please!

Imaginary please!

I'm another subscriber who prefers the newsstand covers. I experienced a tinge of jealousy recently when I saw the newsstand version in a dentist's waiting room. It looked so much more appealing than my "Special Edition" with nowt more than a big photo of Lemmy's dial.

The coverlines are nicely designed, and the whole thing just seems to work better. And you can find what you're looking for in back issues much easier.

I reckon the PSB photo works OK on the newsstand edition, but looks pretty dull on its own.

So please, do us loyal subscribers a favour and give us the newsstand editions!

I like the subscriber covers which have the simplicity of "We have a major article, this is what we're going to build the issue around, now let's find space for all this other shit" but by the looks of things I suspect I remain in the minor of minorities. Does it get sent out any earlier if you *just* have the photo on the cover? If so, skip all the typeface and just have a scribbled message from Mark Ellen on the front. Or a lipstick facsimile from Andrew Harrison.

Actually, could I have the pre-subbed version? Sort of like it's the rough mix?

Seriously. If you're going with the 'subscribers get something special' angle, which surely is the point of the different cover, then make it blunt and chic, FFS. Otherwise what's the point? May as well buy it off the news-stand.

Minimalistic please Fraser!

I suscribe and like others, don't realy care about the cover but what is great about The Word is that you care enough to ask.

Perhaps we could get a special edition which is the minimalis version but with scratch off beards.

I suscribe and like others, don't realy care about the cover but what is great about The Word is that you care enough to ask.

Perhaps we could get a special edition which is the minimalist version but with scratch off beards.

Add me to the subscribers-who-prefer-the-newsstand-edition-camp!

Please

and, after much soul searching, have decided to go for....

No. 1.

My reason? Although the Special Edition was a nice novelty, and made me feel a bit superior to the common newsagent purchaser, I do like to see what's featured inside, in the time-honoured fashion, before I start browsing through.

I'd go with the 'imaginary subs edition', because it looks more classic; I read the whole thing anyway so don't really need all the stuff on the front, and I use the contents page if I really want to find something. Beauty over utility any day.

for me without a doubt.

I'm another subscriber who'd rather have the text - a quick summary of majoer content when the mag arrives, and a shortcut to finding stuff when it's become a reference work.

Plain white cover, no picture or text, please. It'll be a bit like owning a white label vinyl copy of an album.

I really don't mind, but if all 3 were sitting on the same table I'd pick up no. 1 first.

2 - 3 - 1. In that order.

Can we also have a colour poster in the centre pages, like Sounds used to have when it first started. They always looked, er, groovy on my bedroom wall when I were a lad.

Especially the Keith Emerson one.

If the subscriber's cover depicted David Hepworth shaking hands with the act on the cover and his subscriber's letter in a speech bubble above his head, this would kill two birds with one stone and probably save a whole tree's worth of paper.

If, when the photo was being taken, he could actually be saying the letter out loud to, say, the Pet Shop Boys, that would be even better. It might add a splash of verité!

It'll take big ideas to be Music Magazine Of The Year three years running and you can have this one for free.

I only noticed that my subscriber copy was different when it was mentioned in passing on the podcast a few months ago.

I subscribe to save money/because I like getting it in my mailbox/I know it helps magazines to have a subscriber base, not because of a different cover.

So I don't think I'm qualified to answer, except I'll say go for the cheapest method.

I can never wait long enough to read the front and I love having to flick through old copies to find things. Having said that, I'm all for cost cutting. So wouldn't mind any of them and would definitely NOT stop my subscription on account of the cover.

I like the idea of doing something a bit different for subscribers so stick with it!

I also like the idea of an online index. Even the newsstand edition cover doesn't announce every single little article, some of which you find yourself wanting to re-read years later. Might even help with sales of back numbers?