When the Mystery Writers of America announced their revised criteria for active membership and publisher-approval, there were some people stomping their feet and declaring that the organization would see a huge drop in membership.
Well, I am pleased and not at all surprised to say that the exact OPPOSITE has occurred. We have seen a huge DECREASE in non-renewals…from 300 this time last year to 200 this year. We also have INCREASED our membership by nearly 100 members.
These numbers show our organization has actually been strengthened by the new rules. New members have joined and more existing members have renewed. This should tell you a lot about exactly who was decrying our tighter regulations and what their agendas were….
6 thoughts on “When All Is Said and Done”
Agendas? Like, say, Sarah Weinman’s?
Everyone who questions the MWA rules doesn’t have an “agenda”, Lee.
So when Parade Magazine generates more subscribers because of a flawed administrative approach, it’s time for the Kool-Aid Man to canter over and fill paper cups? It MUST be based on that administrative approach! Because there couldn’t POSSIBLY be OTHER reasons why these subscribes signed on, could there?
What organization in the arts is among the hardest to get into? And yet the one people ache to join? The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, where membership is by invitation. MWA is on the right track.
Hey, Ed, Parade doesn’t have subscribers, it’s given away free. Beyond that, what the fuck are you talking about?
I have to disagree. I think most of the people who were screaming and yelling about our rules excluding POD “publishers” from our approved list…and the fact that some mystery conventions adopted those same criteria…certainly had an agenda, one that was obviously not shared by the vast majority of MWA members. The naysayers were wrong: the statistics prove that the MWA hasn’t suffered for tightening its requirements. On the contrary, it has thrived.
What do Sarah’s concerns about the Ardai situation have to do with that? I don’t see how the two subjects are related.
Your original post implied that anyone–not just POD authors–who questioned the rules as they currently stand, had some sort of “agenda.” I find that offensive, since I’ve questioned them, as have some very respected people in the community, such as Sarah, Jon Jordan, and Charles Ardai. You may not have intended to lump all of those people together, but that was the effect of your original post.