Not happy with the new CK

[PocketfulOfPaper]

I always enjoy looking at scrapbooking magazines, but have been disappointed lately in the # of pages. I had magazines from back in 2004 and their average # of pages was 220 or more, they are lucky to get half the # of pages now. That is my biggest gripe, otherwise I still enjoy the magazine, and I will always love Jennifer Maguire's column.

[Lilymama]

I too am hoping CK is not offended by our comments but will look at it as ways to improve and "keep the customer coming back for more".

I haven't seen the new issue yet, but I have noticed some changes lately. I wanted to point out that CK has made some obvious changes based on all our feedback. You no longer see a full page picture of Ali E leading into her article - in fact lots of the big "lifestyle" shots that used to be in there are gone. So are a few articles like "Organize it" and "Easy Patterns" - based on our replies to Erin's question here on the MB.

Funny thing is that I now find it harder to read - one page/article just blends in with the next - and I totally agree with you about not being able to read the journalling. I understand if there's a ton of tiny journalling that I can't read on one or two LOs, but when I can hardly read ANYTHING, that's a problem.

I say keep the suggestions coming - they are obviously listening and want our feedback/support.

[ali_bl]

Here´s my .02
there are things I like about the new CK (the inspiration colum, I LOVE "paper or digital", for me the best of the new stuff) so overall I´d say the new mag is OK, but I feel like the magazine has take a new direction by showing more altered art, and honestly, I´m not feeling that, I subscribe to a scrapbook magazine, I want my scrapbook pages. I love alterations but I think it takes precious magazine space that should be devoted to LO´s, even the cover of february was a altered box!

Which leads to my other complaint, I don´t want people or projects on the cover, scrapbook pages it´s all I want to see and the first enjoyment when you receive the magazine in the mail.

I´ve also noticed (and this is the same for the old and the new mag) that the cover can be quite misleading towards the content, case in point: january´s TUNE UP YOUR CAMERA, which turned out to be just a tiny box at the end of another article and not an article itself. I´m not saying it happens in every issue, but it does happen now and then.

Last but not least, do we really need TWO whole pages devoted to histories about how readers met their spouses? or how they started scrapping? those pages should be used to portray the work of all the amazing talent of the HOFers and SOY and SOY finalists.

So, for me, it all boils down to not enough LO´s and way to much space devoted to less interesting content. I also disagree with the policy towards the selection of LO´s for the reader column gallery, but that is a whole different subject.

I don´t feel bad saying what I dislike about the mag because it is up to us (hardcore fans of the magazine) to tell what can be improved, what we are not quite happy about and what we love so that it is better each month.

Alina

[4guysandagirl]

I've also not been as inspired with the new issues. I love Candice's article and I love when they do a digital page and also show you how to do it traditionally, but I am not saving many pages for future reference. There's alot of reading where I'd rather see more LO's. As far as the product guide, it says special issue and that's what I'm taking it for. I'm expecting to see my Mar. CK any day now. Hope I'm not dissappointed.

[croppindiva]

What I have noticed is that is a lot of "filler" that I could really kind of do without. I dont buy the mag so that I can read long articles. I do enjoy a short little inspiration piece, but bigger scrap pages and less words would really improve CK's new style in my opinion.

[pinkprincess]

I have been enjoying the new format, but this Product Guide issue was such a disappointment. Like a mag full of ads. There were so few prices listed, which I think is crucial if you're reviewing or "guiding" us thru making product decisions. And there was nothing I hadn't seen or heard of before. Seemed more like an introduction to products for beginners.

An entire month down the train as far as inspiration. So sad!!!

Please don't subject us to this again next year, CK!

[hoping to scrap]

I agree with most of what's been said here. I've been a long time CK subscriber (I started with their 3 magazine!) and it has been frustrating the last 2 years with the magazine.

What I DO like about the magazine: the LOs that are selected are good choices -very creative with some twists; I like the product challenge, Becky's sketches and the Jennifer McGuire's column. I also like the mini-album ideas

What I DON'T like about the magazine: LOs are so tiny - can't read journaling (even when the article is about journaling!); very skimpy magazine now - it only takes me a couple of hours to get thru; many of the articles point you to CK's web-site to read journaling or find out how they did a tecnique-why can't they make the magazine stand alone. I don't want to keep going from magazine to web-site - ugh!; the December issue did not have reader comments - why? no room?

the the latest product guide. I was never so mad when I finally settled down to look thru it expecting some great LOs and found out it was advertising! The same day I got it, it went in the recycle bin.

oh well, my subscription doesn't run out for another year so I'm willing to be patient and see what else CK has to offer! I hate being so negative, but there it is.....

Hope

[Eddie.n.Harley]

Why would a product guide feature layouts? Do you mean to highlight what the products can do? I rather got the point of the issue to be about the stuff you use to create the layouts, not the layouts.

That said, I just cannot visually process the new flow of the CK magazines. That probably doesn't make sense, but with most mags I can flip through the pages and get a rough sense of where things start and end, but it all runs together in the new CK for me.

[ORcropper]

Throwing in my 2 cent...........

I've always liked CK. Have always found interesting things inside. My take on the problem is this. I went thru my back issues and find the following facts:

Feb. 2003 issue had 250 pages
Feb. 2007 issue had 178 pages
Feb. 2008 issue had 130 pages

I think when 48 to 120 pages are eliminated from the magazine - readers are going to feel like something is missing!!
That has been my take on the most recent issues, they seem rather thin.

I am hoping this is an exception rather than a new trend. I think the more content in the magazine, the more there is to find of interest. With the really varied tastes of individual scrapbookers I think you need a lot of content - so that there is something for everyone.

I just re-subscribed for another 2 years so I'll get to find out!

Lisa

[pinkthumb]

Ok, I can see what you said about not having layouts, if it is a product guide...however, if you ARE going to include layouts, don't you think they should be on ONE page and not split onto the other page so you see part of the layout with the other part in the margin!?!

I hope that makes sense. I just could not believe that the two layouts that I did see were spread across the margin of the pages instead of standing on their own page. Terrible, terrible format IMHO.