Jan 2015 Supplement ?? 1ST

[Philip Riviere]

Corner collectors,

The posted supplement  for the Jan 2015 issue was not perforated but kept the same theme as the new issue. The Jan magazine shows the FIRST of different things (Americans, Artists, Year of Life, City of Africa , and the Hidden Cosmos).

The new supplement shows the first times for different things and events in history. The reverse shows 1st's by a company called Cargill (The sponsor for the supplement) Is this a Supplement or just a big add for Cargill or is it both like the October 2013 Canon Ad ?

Phil

[George Thomas Wilson]

Phil,

I haven't got my issue yet.  There is one thing you can check for: a copyright.  If there is one (probably small print) it is definitely a supplement.  Not perforated huh?

Tom

[Philip Riviere]

Tom,

No copyright but in the lower right hand corner of the first issue side  (in tiny print)   is "Kelsey Nowakowski, NGM Staff, Graphic: Alvaro Valino"

Phil

[Philip Riviere]

On the front cover of the Jan 2015 magazine  is the words: "The Firsts Issue" The same words are also on the left top of the main page of the supplement. 

Phil

[Scott T. Shier]

Why am I not surprised --

...ahem, this is called "sponsored content", with actual input and design work from both parties. This "sponsored content" is something of which I have wanted to get into for quite some time actually. There's been a fair amount of it this past chunk of years in NGM....

....this is a way that they cost-share the expense of producing content, and the other party (this time, Cargill), has say in what the content is. On NGM's side, it's easy to see how they will be 'eager' to please their sponsor. 

Think about the H2O loose supplement map/info sheet that was back in 2007. That was not an NGM supplement proper, but was produced with-and-by NG staff, with Dow. 

The benefit to NGM?   >>>>.cost sharing.

>>>>>> benefit to Cargill and Dow and others? The "prestige" factor of working with, appearing in, NGM. They can say to everyone now (think consumers) "We support Nat Geo, we support your Magazine. We share your concerns, goals, hopes, fears. Trust Us. Buy from Us."


     - Scott  S. 

[George Thomas Wilson]

Phil,

I finally got it and looked it over. IMHO it is not a supplement.  This is due to the fact that it lacks perforations and is not meant for removal.  The front side of this foldout is definitely NGS material with the back being advertisement.  The NGS side doesn't need a copyright due to the fact that it is part of the magazine.

Compare it to these four examples:

1) June 2002 Everest supplement map, front (NGS) side copyrighted with back being a Ford advertisement

2) June 2007 non-supplement maps, Both sides an advertisement for Dow Chemical (no copyright)

3) September 2008 non-supplement maps (w/sleeve), Both sided an advertisement for Dow Chemical (no copyright)

4) October 2013 125-Years supplement poster, front (NGS) side copyrighted with logo placement, back being a Canon ad

I think these are some of the item Scott wants to discuss.  Again, IMHO the first and last are supplements while the middle two are just advertisements.

Tom

[Philip Riviere]

Tom,

I kind of thought it wasn't a supplement. That's why I posted the question here so we all could discuss these  "sponsored content" objects that are becoming more prevalent in the last five years.

Phil

[Scott T. Shier]

In point of fact, we actually have to go all the way back to 2011 for when an NGM "map" was so called on the Cover, and simultaneously RED-spined. 

When was the last time our beloved supplements achieved the triple crown (red spine, titled "map supplement" on cover-or-Contents, AND was actually a physical supplement as we knew them) ?

         ...October and November 2010!!!  (Gulf Oil Spill, Animal Migrations, respectively). 

*note that Nov. 2011's Great Rift Valley/Africa didn't quite make all 3 ---> it was a supplement, was red-spined, but was called poster on Contents -- though billed "map" on Cover !?

[Scott T. Shier]

Oh my gosh Tom, I just realized I have not had this June 2002 insert/supplement all this time! I have no idea why I didn't still have it from the original mailing of that issue but...

I just rectified that ~ just bought one from Mike Oliphant. I was confused; I was visualizing the 2003 Everest map and was like, 'there's no Ford ad on reverse side...!' I thought I was going crazy. I couldn't find any other 2002 Everest supp. in my map files, just got done looking. Then I eBay-searched it and ta-da. I don't even remember it, no bells rung when I saw it. Oh well. 

Thus we can indeed add that as a non-supplement, supplement to the list, joy! It's definitely an NGS production, but with Ford paying for it like ad space, and to convey their message about their new Explorer/Expedition vehicles. Obviously they had the upcoming 50th of Hilary in mind.

    - Scott

[Scott T. Shier]

Phil, Tom (and anyone else),

We may be able to lump the Oct. 2013 perforated thing as part of any accurate/comprehensive list of supplements, but it is on thin ice w/ me to truly be a supplement in the historical NGM sense. 

Here's a thought I want to throw out there for everyone:

Consider when one of these perforated 'posters' does not really stand on its own 2 feet when separated from the magazine ...not just separated from the issue, but from the particular immediately adjacent pages. 

The 125 years/Canon thing makes no sense all by itself on a table; further, removing it disrupts and "robs" the particular pages spread from which it was removed. Pages 31 + 32 don't really make sense w/o said poster staying IN there (I'm not sure why they even manufactured the perforation for this one in the 1st place).

Also, notice on the Contents page, there's nothing to indicate a 'special supplement', 'special poster', or 'tear out', as usually NGM's do. 

In this same vein, I would say Oct. 2013's is a soul sister to that Sept. 2011 poster/pull-out. The section (pgs. 20-21) is titled "VISIONS/photo journal". Does the poster by itself make any sense? Where's the context? Do pages 20/21 stand better with or without the poster staying IN? 

In both the 2011 and 2013 examples above, it's like the pages are incomplete if lacking the [perforated] pages. Note here too there's nothing on the Sept. 2011 Contents page to call-out any poster/tear-out/supplement, etc. 

There's soooo many and's/if's/but's this past several years, that we simply cannot rely on any one official indicator to establish with 'authority'    --nay, consistency--   the distinctions between these perforated thingy's of late. 

To wit: NGM has red spine tagged a few of the (perforated) items, but not others; NGM has called what were always actual map supplements as "posters" post-2000's, and also termed some 'posters' as "supplements". Meanwhile, they ID a few on Contents pages in red/yellow ink to indicate there's a "supplement", but not all of them. Also, it's odd that not all of them even indicate what month/year of NGM they come from. 

To me, you don't leave such info. off a removable supplement if it is indeed intended to be a stand-alone item. For almost always, an NGM supplement makes sense on its own -- you don't have to have the article to "get it" ; and vice-versa. Yet they are complimentary. Well, not now, eh what!

As with Sep. 2011: the December 2010 Barcelona cathedral is perforated, but ---> is not indicated as existing on the Contents page, the Cover, or the spine ...also, itself bears no month/date.

More fun stuff:

Here in 2012 we have December's Sequoia not indicated on spine or Contents, but is billed "poster" on cover. However, October 2009's Redwood is not ID'd anywhere at all .... yet both are perforated. Both are obviously posters in any common-sense rationale.

ALSO in 2012,

• what were effectively & actually classic map supplements (Sept's Oceans and May's Civil War) were both supplements, shown on spine as such, BUT... were billed as 'special poster' on Contents pages ;
• April's Titanic poster was billed as poster on Contents, but no red spine or Cover ID, and no NGM dating on poster.

Next up, 2014, yay! 

• Feb. - Florence's Il Duomo cathedral is RED on spine, states poster on Contents page ; April's Universe is RED on spine, billed as poster in Contents (**note universe one is not by NGM either --> "Moonrunner Design" ???) ;
• now, October - nothing red on spine, yet cover & Contents state "poster"  [e.g., Cali's drought] ;
• ALL 3 are perforated; 2 are NGM, 1 is outsourced ; the outsource + 1 NGM poster are in RED-spine, but for some reason the other NGM poster is not red-spined. 

Interesting stuff. There's so many inconsistencies, etc. I have not a clue. The Tea Leaves are not helping us here!

    ~ Scott

[George Thomas Wilson]

Scott,

You really seam to have it out for the 125 Years poster.  My opinion is that it does stand fine by itself, being about (almost) 125 years of photography in the NGM.  You are correct, however that the adjacent pages are diminished.  I personally leave all of these perforated posters attached to the magazine.  Also, I think it was kind of cheesy that there was product placement (in this case logo placement) on the poster itself and not just the ad on the back.  One last thing, it does have red lettering on the spine.

For me, personally, it is another perforated poster that just does fit with the rest.  September 2011 Visions | Photo Journal.  This is a regular section in this magazine and not from an article in the issue.  It just doesn't feel right.

As for the many ways these posters are documented or not (where is the consistency?), it is the red lettering on the spine that grabs me.  Back in the day, every time I saw it, I knew I was getting a map.  When they first started these posters, they were still issuing maps albeit fewer and fewer.  Once they knew the maps were gone, the started red lettering for these posters.  That was a great disappointment for me expecting  map.  Now they have stopped doing that.  Whether from complains, oversight or (wishful thinking) that they are resuming maps, who can say.

Tom

[Scott T. Shier]

Hey Tom,

Yes, it was cheesy to put the Canon logo on the "front" side of the 125 Years poster ... if anything, the red spine text should have been referring to the real 125th anniv, poster/supplement that does exist, but that they opted not to include in the member's mailed copies -- for some infernal reason!!!

 . . . (yet it was included not merely once, but thrice in the NGM for the newsstands, Grrr.). They included this poster in some August 2013's, October, and again in for December 2013.

The Sept. Visions item goes verily with Dec. 2010's cathedral, surely in the nuanced aspect you've just mentioned as well: both were not even posters related to/within an article proper, but in the front Departments.

I know we disagree on the 125 Years, but I have not been convinced that they even meant the red to denote an 'insert', rather than to just amplify the impact of it being the NGM 125th Anniv. issue, like a colorful exclamation point. All during 2013 they had not red-spined any other posters, nor red-spined any "posters" prior to 2013. It was only 2 (of 3) of our 2014's where they did.

I too earnestly share yours and Phil's hope that their reverting and not red-spinning this October's poster means they know there's actual maps in the works!

Oh, it strikes me that the 125 Years poster is not even any kind of a "map" in any sense. At least some of these other posters from 2002-2014 actually have what can be termed maps/diagrams, as if they are the short-cut versions of a full map supplement.

The thing that (still) bugs me the most is the Anniversary supplement last year (Aug, Oct, Dec) that they included in store copies but not to members! I know you and a couple people chatted about that last year. Why would they go to the trouble and expense of putting loose poster in copies that go to casual, inconsistent NGM readers, rather than the remaining 3 million+ members who in-theory at least, are more invested in NGS, and would "care" more about the poster and the history behind it -- i.e., the back side was a reprint of the first World map from Dec. 1922; front was the NGM covers montage.

So bizarre. I wanted to send them a very disgruntled letter about it, but was rather bogged down in a protracted legal dispute through the Alabama State Bar against and attorney & Medicaid, so ..... didn't.

Tom, if only they had put that covers/Dec. '22 map in October's issue, then we'd be happy and it would "solve" our gentleman's non-concurrence on the poster, right?  :  )

    ~ Scott

[George Thomas Wilson]

If only, Scott, if only.

As for it not being a map, I have no problem with this.  It was the Photography issue after all.  Also many older supplements were photos or paintings.

We can agree to disagree on this one point but we do agree on many, many topics here at the 'Corner.

Yours in collecting,

Tom