I absolutely wasn't involved in the drama, but heard complaints from many people about it. If your friends don't condone the behavior, then why are all the "volunteers" that caused the issues still on staff?

Anonymous wrote:11:41 -- TL;DR

Didn't you say you had writing experience...?

And +1 to PP, why exactly should we care who you knew in college? It's clear the editors are behind this post and you are all trying to sell it as a "professional journal." Please.

I am both a writer and a former teacher. Doesn't matter to me whether you believe it or not. But I am NOT one of the editors, nor am I any sort of staff. I'm through with this thread now, though. Enjoy your cattiness and personal bias. I'm sure that sort of negativity in no way means that you are a bitter, jealous, pathetic person who needed more hugs in her childhood.

Anonymous wrote:I'm sure the associate editors appreciate being labeled "assistant" by someone who isn't associated by the magazine at all.

Should we be impressed you knew the editors in college? That's adorable.

If you don't understand that "associate editor" is the same as "associate producer" in that it is a glorified way of saying "low paid assistant," you know nothing of working in media and that's your issue. I'm not insulting them, I'm stating a fact.

As for whether knowing one editor from college should be "impressive," are you illiterate or merely hostile? I wrote that in the interest of full disclosure, as I've already clarified.

11:41 -- TL;DR

Didn't you say you had writing experience...?

And +1 to PP, why exactly should we care who you knew in college? It's clear the editors are behind this post and you are all trying to sell it as a "professional journal." Please.

I'm sure the associate editors appreciate being labeled "assistant" by someone who isn't associated by the magazine at all.

Should we be impressed you knew the editors in college? That's adorable.

As a former teacher, yes, we tell the kids to be polite. But if two or three kids are acting up, does that mean that all of the teachers, the principal, and the superintendent are unprofessional, immature, naive, or have no idea what they are doing? This goes back to what I said before about painting all with the same brush based on the actions of a few. And like a teacher would with his/her students, I'm sure the editors dealt with the issues (assuming they were causing "drama") and their associates privately after-the-fact. As I said previously, that means their mistake (again, assuming you're correct) was trusting someone they should not have. Given your position, I assume you've never misplaced your trust in an employee, coworker, babysitter, significant other, or friend? Kudos to you, then. Personally, I don't know what it's like to walk on water.

BYW, I am NOT associated with the magazine, but I know one of the editors from college, as I already stated, so no need to write "you" when you mean "they." I was sent this link by a mutual friend who thought it was sad that her friend's magazine and character were being picked apart by anonymous haters who couldn't possibly know what they're talking about in regards to the magazine itself, since it had not come out yet, and clearly had something personal against some of the writers or editors.

Doubting it will do well - normal. Fine.
Concerns - also normal.
Not wanting to pay - I'm with you. I hate spending money on things before I've seen them. This is why I rarely shop online for clothes or home decor. Understandable.
Thinking it's a bad idea - everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion.
Knowing magazines are struggling I. General - you're right, that's a fact. You can tear them down or root for them based on that, it's up to you.
But acting as if you KNOW the content that has not been seen by anyone, or pretending to KNOW the magazine industry (Especially in regards to cost), or attacking the professionalism or knowledge or character of the editors (again, this refers only to TWO people, as "associate editor" is a nice way of saying "assistant," just as it is in the world of producing and any othe facet of the arts) is wrong, and reeks or bitterness based on personal bias.

My guess is that at least some of the online "haters" (not just here, but in general) are actually rejected authors. Jealousy is an ugly thing.

If you (the editors of the magazine) are going to select volunteers to represent you at an important professional conference, and those volunteers behave in a disrespectful way, that is on YOU.

They are representing you and your magazine which, I assume, you've put a lot of work into. Even though the editors were not there, they were still partially responsible for the actions of the volunteers that were representing them.

What do teachers always tell students when they are on field trips? "Remember, you are representing the school. Behave and be polite."

Wrong. They were not "the editors." There are two editors. Their names are Jennifer and Whitney. They were NOT there.

Their website also lists two associate editors and an intern (who possibly get paid, but are almost certainly not on salary, thus they are either per diem workers or volunteers. and if they were not paid a salary to be there, which I doubt, they must have been doing it for free, or as volunteers).

If you think "associate" and "THE EDITORS" are interchangeable, you know nothing of magazines or newspapers. I've made a career of writing for both. I even did some editing for a couple of huge name magazines a few years back - I certainly wouldn't go around calling myself "the editor." If I did and they heard of it, I'd never write for them again.

And the women Nanny Magazine trusted to represent then were certainly not the only cause of drama there. The way you are writing with such "authority," I can only assume you were also there causing drama and acting like a tween.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What happened at nannypallooza??

I don't know exactly, just heard rumours that there was too much drinking going on. But whatever happened, since the editors were not there, I don't see how they can be called immature for their actions there. If the volunteers made the mag look bad, as the previous poster claimed, the mistake the editors made was trusting them.

False. Some of the "editors" were there. They may not be the two girls who created the magazine but they are editors for the magazine and they are immature and extremely unprofessional. Some drama went down at nannypalooza including some of the girls involved with Nanny Magazine.

This is correct. There were not only volunteers there. There were girls who are on staff at Nanny Magazine. There was excessive drinking and lots of drama. I'm all for a good time, but this was over the top.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What happened at nannypallooza??

I don't know exactly, just heard rumours that there was too much drinking going on. But whatever happened, since the editors were not there, I don't see how they can be called immature for their actions there. If the volunteers made the mag look bad, as the previous poster claimed, the mistake the editors made was trusting them.

False. Some of the "editors" were there. They may not be the two girls who created the magazine but they are editors for the magazine and they are immature and extremely unprofessional. Some drama went down at nannypalooza including some of the girls involved with Nanny Magazine.

Anonymous wrote:What happened at nannypallooza??

I don't know exactly, just heard rumours that there was too much drinking going on. But whatever happened, since the editors were not there, I don't see how they can be called immature for their actions there. If the volunteers made the mag look bad, as the previous poster claimed, the mistake the editors made was trusting them.

What happened at nannypallooza??

Anonymous wrote:

I agree 100%! I always thought the girls involved in this magazine were a little naive and immature, but it was very apparent at Nannypalooza. I wanted to support them, but after that debacle will not be giving them any of my money.

In the interest of disclosure, a friend of mine sent me this because we know one of the editors from college. But as someone who knows a little more of the story, I feel it's important to point out that they were NOT at Nannypalooza. They made the mistake of trusting volunteers to represent them there and apparently issues arose during it(?). It is unfortunate that they couldn't trust (some of) those adults to act like adults, but to judge the entire magazine and its editors on the actions of a couple of volunteers is like judging all of Christianity based solely on the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church members (meaning: don't judge all on the actions of a few).

Anyone who thinks publishing and printing magazines is cheap clearly has NO IDEA what he or she is talking about. They will likely LOSE money on the print issues. You realize that the $4.99 magazines you buy at the grocery store include page after page of advertising by huge companies that pay a fortune to get their ads out there, right? And that six issues at $5 each equals $30, which is only $9 less than they are charging, even though it's unlikely they will have a hundred paid ads to print in each issue in the first year?

As for posting content online for free, I assume that they will offer different content in the subscription version of the magazine than they do online for free -- like all other magazines do.

If color printing (or any printing) was cheap, picture books wouldn't cost $15.99 each. Yearbooks wouldn't cost over $50 each. And big name magazines with large subscription bases wouldn't still need to rely on ads and 'product placement.'

Whether or not they will be successful remains to be seen, but anyone who thinks they are price gouging or getting rich off of this is incredibly ignorant.

Anonymous wrote:I refuse to subscribe to the magazine for a few reasons. The people involved in the magazine are immature and it was obvious at nannypalooza that they have no idea what they are doing. $39 for 6 magazines is outrageous and why even consider buying the online edition when they keep posting their articles on their Facebook page for free. No thanks. I'm sure whoever started this thread is somehow involved in the magazine.

I agree 100%! I always thought the girls involved in this magazine were a little naive and immature, but it was very apparent at Nannypalooza. I wanted to support them, but after that debacle will not be giving them any of my money.