As fun and rewarding as it may be, the role of a magazine editor is by no means a walk in the park—at least not one without hidden obstacles behind every bush. Don’t get me wrong, as I’ve said before and will attest to here again, I feel blessed to get paid to do something I truly love. Along with its numerous perks, the job also has a few drawbacks that, try as I might, are impossible to overcome. Number one: pleasing everyone … all the time.
No matter what you do, there’s always somebody who won’t agree with you. As an editor, what you “do” is scrutinized by a mass population of “somebodies”, and in order to keep as many in agreement as possible on a monthly basis, it’s important to understand the people you’re trying to please. Of course personal tastes and sentiments will often interject into what you produce on a monthly basis, but it’s very important to maintain an even keel so as not to venture too far into any particular direction. All of that’s very easy to say—not always so easy to do.
Early on in my career, I worked for a magazine that literally had three times as many pages as R&C currently does. From a workload standpoint that’s scary for me to even think about now. However, it did afford the ability to provide not only a good quantity of stories overall, but a real good variety. No matter your tastes, if you couldn’t find something you liked in each issue, you were flipping the pages too fast. Obviously that didn’t mean the magazine pleased everyone all the time, but it seemed to please quite a bit, at least at the time. That was back in the day when the newsstands had more like titles to choose from (back when owning an independent newsstand was a profitable gig!). Nowadays, despite the competition being extremely narrowed down, the actual size of the magazines in general has also been extremely narrowed down, yet readers continually want more out of the publications they buy or subscribe to. And rightfully so—if you haven’t paid much attention to cover price lately, that’s one thing that definitely hasn’t been reduced!
With Rod & Custom I’m finding it ever more difficult to “please” lately based on the feedback I’ve been receiving. “Too much tech.” “Not enough features.” “Too many ads.” “Not enough pages.” And the exact opposite. It goes deeper than that on occasion, as evidenced by the recent petitioning of the anti-lowrider coalition, in that particular subject matter is inappropriate. While by no means has the censure been anywhere near a general consensus, there has been a measurable amount—enough that I felt necessitated formally addressing it. After all, everyone’s opinion counts, not just mine, and as hard to believe as it may be for some, I listen to what readers have to say, taking suggestions into serious consideration and criticism very constructively! (One thing I’ve acquired over the years is quite thick skin.)
Given a brochure rather than a catalog’s volume in which to devote to features, tech stories, event coverage, etc., makes the physical job of producing the magazine easier, but it makes it much, much more difficult to provide a content format everyone is comfortable with—hell, I’m not even comfortable with the current format. While increasing the physical size of R&C is not in the foreseeable near future, re-tailoring the content to some degree is.
Taking inventory and looking at the big picture, I see how R&C’s readership has become more diversified; many older readers aren’t as interested with how-to articles as they are with car features, but a good portion of the younger audience is just the opposite. Well, as of late, the scales have tipped heavily toward tech stories overall. While the technical content has always been a factor of the magazine’s makeup, it’s not the foundation R&C stands for. But simply reducing the amount of tech and increasing the number of features won’t make everyone happy—though hopefully it will have a positive effect.
Ultimately, it’s the particular subject matter that appeals to readers, and that’s where striving to achieve mass “pleasing” is virtually impossible—but it doesn’t mean there aren’t changes that could (and maybe should) be made. I’ve come to believe that a magazine’s success is measured by its editor’s ability to effectively communicate with readers as a whole—unbiased. The bottom line is, my number one goal is creating a successful R&C. That will never happen without your continued input.
While increasing the physical size of R&C is not in the foreseeable near future, re-tailoring the content to some degree is.