::laughing unsympathetically::

WOW...is that for real? I'd be pissed.

ana | March 15, 2007 10:28 AM

Huh...

Disregard my comment above. I've just finished reading all the comments left over there. One comment(er) sorta made me change my mind. That person who goes by the name Lihtox and qualifies as a possible neutral opinioner. This person makes some sense.

ana | March 15, 2007 10:37 AM

I read through all the comments, too, but none of them changed my mind.

When McSweeney's offered those lifetime subscriptions, they set up a contract with the takers. I don't know whether the original intention was to establish a subscription base or to raise some quick cash. Clearly, whomever came up with the idea didn't think very far into the future, but it was still a business decision. Now that McSweeney's has become one of the more successful literary magazines, it was a bad decision. The lifers, who took a chance with their hard-earned hundred bucks, helped create that success.

Right now, an annual subscription costs $55, so McSweeney's has already lost and will continue to lose money on lifers. There's nothing wrong with trying to renegotiate the terms of the contract. However, I am absolutely amazed at their complete lack of thinking and business sense both then and now. When they came up with the $100 idea, did anyone make projections (cost of honoring lifetime subscriptions, potential subscriber numbers, viability of the magazine, etc.)? When they came up with this new proposal, did anyone stop and think about what such a move could do to consumer confidence in their brand?

Trying to buy off the lifers with a certificate, a card game, and an autographed copy of Eggers's crappy book is smarmy, bad business.

marydell | March 16, 2007 9:23 AM

Ah you're right. once you mentioned the part about "bad business," you have a good point. In that sense, I agree. Business is business and sometimes "artists" forget that art is a business just as well and you have to carry on with all transactions and contracts. Unfortunately for McSweeney's, business is based on whims.

I see your point. I thinking that tahlox's comment was in defense of the artist perhaps?

Does that make sense?

Anywho, All this Eggers stuff has really discouraged me from picking up a McSweeney's. Someone recommended last year that I take a look at one or to even subscribe to it because it would be nice. I never got around to it. I was excited at first, but ever since What is the What, the excitement has blown over.

The funny thing is that I picked up a book from the University's book store from the clearance pile. I got it for like...$5 or something. It's called The Pharmacist's mate and it looks like a short novel. It's written in a diary format and so now I'm wary about reading it. I happened to noticed that it's published by McSweeney's. Hmmm...

ana | March 16, 2007 3:28 PM

Geez, ever since I read his memoir, I was skeptical about Eggers. He just seemed so....supercilious. The tone of the entire book really turned me off.

enygma | March 16, 2007 10:35 PM

Ana, you are so right about how McSweeney's runs its business based on whims. With it being a literary magazine, a lot of people do tend to elevate such a forum to the level of art, which it is in certain ways. But, as you say, art is also a business. Good art is generally neither free or cheap.

Since you already bought that McSweeney's book, you should still read it. Maybe it will be good enough to restore our faith in the company. I'd like to know what you think of it.

Enygma, I think it's safe to say that Eggers runs his business like he writes his books. The tone of all of it also turns me off.

marydell | March 17, 2007 9:06 AM