Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/12/01
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> Look at the last issue of Modern: the story is there. > > Keppler's move had nothing to do with it. Modern's circulation INCREASED > throughout the '80's and (of course) jumped after Keppler left, as their > Truth Quotient went up, dramatically, and their Bullshit Quotient declined, > again dramatically. > > The owners of Pop found out the owners of Modern were in a bind, fiscally, > and made them An Offer They Couldn't Refuse to sell out. So they did. One > honest thing done was that the owners of Modern insisted Schneider be made > part of the deal. He and a couple of others were protected. > > Spare me from Keppler. The hero of 'who's advertising this issue?'! > > Marc Most of the time I find myself completely agreeing with Marc. But not this time. From a consumer standpoint, I am very familiar with Modern since I have virtually all the issues, from the first to the last. They are all computer indexed covering the articles or even the ads I found interesting. I find Modern far superior to any other source in covering photographic equipment made from the early 50's to its demise. I like and enjoy Kepper's comments, and value them. Modern only lasted a short time after Keppler left. You can gauge the loss of advertisers as you see the thinner issues after he was gone. The last Modern's were unintentionally the funniest and saddest of all. The guy who replaced Keppler somehow thought that HE was what the magazine was about, not cameras. He had himself placed as a news event as he attended anything, as if he was important. Totally delusional visions of grandeur. God it was funny. As far as the story in Modern's last issue about the buy out, I seriously question how much is the truth. If you had just destroyed a great magazine, would you want to admit it? To me, today's Popular isn't 1/10th as useful as the old Modern because it doesn't have the depth or the serious focus. Damn, I love that pun. On top of that, the few excellent articles are few and far between, instead of having a lot of them in each issue as the old Modern often did. My guess is that Popular's decline is a sign of our times---as the photographic audience becomes simpler and the conglomerate insists upon the lowest operating costs with the highest profits. hmm. that reminds me of a little company that once made the highest quality hand made cameras in a small German town. Stephen Gandy