I am the news source. I work at a library, and part of my job is to keep track of our subscriptions. We have not received the Swimsuit Edition of Sports Illustrated. Normally, this wouldn't be that big of a deal, because issues get lost in the mail all the time. So, normal procedure is to "claim" the issue with the publisher, and usually they'll send a replacement if you claim it in time. Well, I claimed it with our vendor (someone who handles our subscriptions), and the publisher told them that Time, Inc. had made the decision to not send the issue to any libraries. I'm also on a listserv with people who have jobs similar to mine all over the country. When I saw that they were discussing not receiving the issue and were getting a lot of different answers from the publisher, I chimed in with the response I got.
Different ones of us have been told many stories. One librarian was told that "someone" at the university had requested that they not receive the issue; another was told that because of the complaints from doctor's offices and similar places, they had decided not to send the issue to any public institutions; others were told that they were simply out of the issue, and then offered to extend their subscriptions by 2 issues; another was told that it was now policy not to send the issue to any institution that used a vendor to handle their subscriptions; and, as I said, I was told that it was their policy not to send the issue to libraries.
(By the way, having a complete run of the issues of a magazine or journal is important to libraries. Having a missed issue is a problem that we try to avoid, although sometimes it is unavoidable. The publisher deciding to steal our money and not send the issue is NOT unavoidable. So, extending our subscription, apart from messing up bookkeeping dates, is not acceptable. A refund is also not acceptable, since we paid for the complete run, but if they continue to refuse to send the issue, then a refund is absolutely necessary.)
The content of the issue is completely irrelevant here. We paid for the subscription, and they are not honoring our subscription. I don't buy their censorship argument, but even if it is true, it is not acceptable. Libraries, as well as doctor's offices, may each individually choose not to display the issue--that has nothing to do with Time, Inc.
And when I say "we" paid for the subscription, I mean the STATE that I work for. This is public money, and I don't think our auditors (or the taxpayers) would like this situation very much. Individually, the issue costs us about 3 dollars. Not much by itself, but when you consider that there are hundreds, if not more, libraries that they're doing this to, that adds up to a LOT of money.
Personally, I think they wanted to up the individual sales of the issue as much as possible, and thought the presence of the issue in libraries were affecting their sales. They, no doubt, also diverted copies to newsstands rather than to libraries.
That doesn't matter either. We paid for the issue, we're entitled to it. They should simply print another run.
Anyway, our vendor is working on settling the problem. They have a lot of unhappy customers, and, for now, are acting in our behalf to resolve the problem.
So, I thought I would share this with Hatrack. Several people have leaked this to the news, but I have my doubts about whether or not it will be picked up. The ALA (American Library Association) has been informed as well.
What do YOU think?
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you paid for it, therefore you're entitled to it. (My feelings on the issue completely aside.)
If they had given you a choice to not send that issue and instead charge a lower rate or extend the subscription by two months - at the time the library bought the subscription - that would be an entirely different matter altogether. But they didn't provide you with that option, therefore it isn't up to them to make that decision on your behalf.
They have not held up their end of the contract.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
How silly. I would guess that Time did this because it wants to avoid any bad publicity that would come from someone complaining about the swimsuit issue being on display in a library, though it would seem to me that they could simply say that they are not responsible for what a subscriber does with his or her magazines. Maybe they've found the public to be too stupid to understand that.
So are they going to extend the subscription or pay you back? In any case, I assume you can just buy the issue for archival purposes?
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But why should they have to pay for the issue again? They already paid for it. And why should they have to consume an employee's salary and expenses to buy an issue they already paid for?
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another thought. Can you purchase the issue on a newsstand and bill Time for the cost?
Seriously, though, if enough libraries told Time that they were cancelling every subscription to every magazine run by that company unless they all got copies of this issue, I'm sure they'd cave.
Posts: 300 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Time were really concerned about bad publicity from their swimsuit edition of Sports Illustrated, they could stop publishing it.
quidscribis is exactly right. We already paid for it once. We're not about to pay for it again.
And it's not practical to cancel all of our Time subscriptions. They make some pretty well-known news magazines. But that decision isn't up to me, anyway.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since this is public money, then try to get someone from the state Attorney General (or the Inspector General for the library department) office to contact Time as part of an official investigation into fraudulent use of public funds. That will get them moving.
Edit: the problem with publicity is you'll invariably get someone to start a rally against use of public funds for the Swimsuit edition, and politicians might listen to them.
Legally you could probably recover the cost of a newstand copy, but it would almost certainly not be worth the time and effort.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's most likely not fraud, of course. But governments don't like not getting what they've paid for.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
The quote at the end is from the listserv that I'm on. But the person quoted isn't me. (Which is a shame, because I think I was quite eloquent. )
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, it's not solved. They told Library Journal that we could get the issue, but that's NOT what they've been telling us when we've been asking for it.
We'll see if we actually receive it.
I wonder how suddenly it's available, considering they told numerous people yesterday that they were out of the issue.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
True, it's not over until you have the issue. But with the quote, you should be able to get the person on the phone to cave immediately.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
She called the number, and we should be receiving it in 7-10 days. I'll let you know if that actually happens.
Hopefully SI and Time have seen the error of their ways and will not repeat the same actions again. This doesn't excuse their actions and their multiple stories, but if they actually make it right and send all of the libraries the issues, then the matter is settled in my mind.
I have no doubt that if we hadn't made such a fuss, nothing would have been done.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have no doubt that if we hadn't made such a fuss, nothing would have been done.
I'm sure you're right. I'm surprised they got in front of it this fast -usually corporations founder a lot longer when they screw up in such a big way.
They seem to lack internal communications - they didn't know this was a big deal until it was published. They should have been able to tell from the number of calls on the subject, but no one put it all together.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As much as I don't want to see the swimsuit issue in my local library ... this is wrong. That decision should be made by the local library or the local people, not the magazine. It's paid for, let them get it and decide what to do with it.
quote:I have no doubt that if we hadn't made such a fuss, nothing would have been done.
I'm sure you're right. I'm surprised they got in front of it this fast -usually corporations founder a lot longer when they screw up in such a big way.
They seem to lack internal communications - they didn't know this was a big deal until it was published. They should have been able to tell from the number of calls on the subject, but no one put it all together.
Yeah, and they still haven't spread the word through the company. Someone on the listserv just today got told that her vendor (same as ours) ordered with the wrong code, which indicated they didn't want to receive the issue. This has never been the case before, and I don't believe it is true, especially since this is the first anybody has heard of it, and it certainly doesn't jive with the rest of the accounts.
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: As much as I don't want to see the swimsuit issue in my local library ... this is wrong. That decision should be made by the local library or the local people, not the magazine. It's paid for, let them get it and decide what to do with it.
posted
I can't get too worked up about SI not sending their softporn issue to libraries...
They prolly thought they were doing a good thing given all the hysterical internet-porn-in-libraries bills being proposed (and passing?) all over the place. But it's definately violating their contract.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I blame all the people who probably called TIME magazine complaining the swimsuit issue is displayed in the library/public institutions where minors/children can see it, which led to TIME magazine being hesitant about sending them out at all.
Posts: 155 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jh: I blame all the people who probably called TIME magazine complaining the swimsuit issue is displayed in the library/public institutions where minors/children can see it, which led to TIME magazine being hesitant about sending them out at all.
That's just it ... it should be the libraries who police this, not the magazines who sold them a subscription.
Now, if they wanted to change their soft porn issue for EVERYBODY, that'd be different, and not a bad thing in my opinion.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't blame the people who complain. People complaining (absent some legal cause of action) is not adequate motivation to break your word to other people.
Time chooses to publish this as a regular issue of SI. They base their entire marketing campaign for the magazine on this issue - I've never seen an SI add that didn't mention the swimsuit issue. They're the ones who indelibly tied "swimsuits" and "sports magazines" in the minds of the public.
They have to accept the good and the bad of that association.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eros: Oh! You're right. Guys are buying it to check out the hot new swimsuit fashions next year! That's why it's their hottest selling issue! Guys LOVE buying women's bathing suits.
Face it, dear, it's a whack-mag
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Oh, maybe you should write a letter to the editor so they can include that in the magazine, as I don't think a lot of guys know that (I sure didn't). Sure, you're looking at attractive people, but that doesn't mean physical satisfaction need necessarily follow. When you look at a picture and think, "Man, she's hot" it doesn't mean you're looking at porn and are about to "whack" it, it just means you're looking at a picture and thinking that the person it hot.
Are Orlando Bloom calendars soft porn?
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
pH: The Victoria's Secret catalog is used to sell clothes. It is sometimes used as porn however. I have known more than one guy who uses it as such.
"Hey, ummm, <name withheld> Why do you have the victoria's secret catalog by your bed?"
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to many people, yes the Victoria's Secret catalogs and website are soft core porn. As is the swimsuit issue of SI.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the other hand, my roommate showed me some of the body painting photos that SI had online. Sure, it's soft-core porn, but it's also some rather impressive art. It reminds me of the sidewalk paintings that look like they have depth--many of the body paintings could easily pass for (very tight, granted) clothing.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by breyerchic04: According to many people, yes the Victoria's Secret catalogs and website are soft core porn. As is the swimsuit issue of SI.
And eros, there is more than one kind of porn - there's the graphic porn, movies and pictures that actually show people having sex - and there's soft-core porn (which we now call "advertising" ). It's selling sex. It's pictures that are put there solely for the purpose of having you fantasize about erotic things with the person in the magazine. I know they're not entirely naked; but the difference between Playboy and SI swimsuit issue is really not much more than a couple of triangles of cloth. The intent is the same ... they're just trying to sell the magazine, to people who use it for the purpose of getting turned on.
That's my definition of soft-core porn.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The issue is used by several departments at universities, usually related to areas like pop-culture, marketing, journalism, photography, art, gender, women's studies, fashion, fashion-design, history, psychology and other human-studies sorts of areas.
In fact, an older female coworker of mine looks at the issue every year when it arrives because she likes to see the types of swimsuits the girls are wearing.
I also think that most guys who are old enough and interested will buy or download much more explicit material and not rely on the SI Swimsuit issue for visual stimulation.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's pictures that are put there solely for the purpose of having you fantasize about erotic things with the person in the magazine. ... they're just trying to sell the magazine, to people who use it for the purpose of getting turned on.
I'm not sure that those two sentences mean the same thing. Which is probably why I don't know if I would classify the SI Swimsuit issue as softcore porn.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
And eros, there is more than one kind of porn - there's the graphic porn, movies and pictures that actually show people having sex - and there's soft-core porn (which we now call "advertising" ). It's selling sex. It's pictures that are put there solely for the purpose of having you fantasize about erotic things with the person in the magazine. I know they're not entirely naked; but the difference between Playboy and SI swimsuit issue is really not much more than a couple of triangles of cloth. The intent is the same ... they're just trying to sell the magazine, to people who use it for the purpose of getting turned on.
That's my definition of soft-core porn.
Which means that the Victoria's Secret website/catalogue aren't softcore porn, since I use them to decide if I want to buy underwear or swimsuits.
quote:Originally posted by breyerchic04: What do you consider to be soft core porn?
You're not asking me, but I'll give my answer anyway. My definition: any media showing female nipple and/or genitalia or non-aroused male genitalia that does not depict an explicit sex act. In other words, nudity without sex. Body painting is a gray line in between nude and non-nude that I haven't figured out yet. Also, for me, the word 'porn' doesn't have a negative connotation, nor an intent behind it, so I have no problem including famous artwork such as Michael in with my definition of soft core porn.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by vonk: My definition: any media showing female nipple and/or genitalia or non-aroused male genitalia that does not depict an explicit sex act. In other words, nudity without sex.
Whereas I can look at pictures of people in which those body parts are shown, and not feel that it's pornography - such as National Geographic, or a how-to-breastfeed video. OTOH, I can look at pictures that have those areas covered and yet are obviously intended to arouse sexual feelings and feel that they are soft-core pornography.
Some of it is all in the viewer, though ... some people do get turned on by National Geographic, and some people can see Victoria's Secret as nothing more than selling underwear. Which is why the line is fuzzy, I guess.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MidnightBlue: You mean David?
Yeah, my bad. Mixed up the artist and the art.
And I agree Jenna, that's why the line is fuzzy and the gov't has such a hard time making laws about it. Nobody can really agree on the many different definition, but that doesn't make any of the definitions wrong, per se.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am most happy with a very broad definition of what counts as porn for those very reasons. I'm happy to call lots of stuff "porn."
What follows is that if there is something objectionable about a particular item, it can probably be better expressed (and thus better argued against) by using the most specific terminology possible. Not "porn" -- that means so many different things to so many different people, that it doesn't really mean anything as a demarcator. It generally just sort of indicates disapproval.
(I don't disapprove of porn, by the way, given the standard consenting-adults-only caveat.)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: - and there's soft-core porn (which we now call "advertising" ). It's selling sex.
Nope. It's using sex to sell other things.
I'd argue that the advertiser is selling consumers/viewers to the company that purchased the advertising. I think that's the basic driving force and one of the more useful ways to view the transaction.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
