And The Winner Is....

[Mom23boys]

Well, it was a tie (they said) between pets and "allergies". "Allerglies" had 56% of the popular vote.

The pets are getting their own publication and goodies. The "allergies" are going to be stuck in sections of 3 preexisting publications.

Whoever said it was rigged was right!! I'm not paying for THREE mags where I have to throw out 95% of it.

[Lisa]

A TIE MY A$$......I knew it, I knew it, I knew it. It's all about the bucks. (Grrrr, I better stop now)

[hayley3]

Why in the heck did she even ask us to vote when she picked the pet idea!

I just lost a lot of respect for Martha and I will never buy her magazine again!!

I really am amazed at how she weaseled out of it. :angry: :angry:

[jayhawkmom]

56% tie - huh??

Unless I'm really stupid, if both got 56%, that would be 112% and that would mean that none of the others got ANY votes. That's just ridiculous, pure crap.

[confused]

Omg does she just think we are stupid. I knew it wasnt going to matter. I am going to email her when i calm down some and tell her how i feel about her bogos tie. Im sure her dtr had a say in all this to.

paula

[modiddly16]

It makes me mad that they even asked us for votes and asked what we want when Allergies got the popular vote but "everybody has pets" so she'll sell more...I think it's ridiculous....I won't be buying all of Martha's magazines just to see when they decide they want to put a special recipie or article in there. This goes to show that Martha doesn't really care about what her fans want she cares about making more money...as if she needs more..

[hayley3]

The thing that kills me, is she said that the Allergy magazine won the popular vote but the pet magazine and the allergy magazine tied. So I want to know who was voting if it wasn't by the popular vote. Now we know why they took down the percentages. I really am shocked that she would do this. If she didn't want us to vote, then why did she.

And I still think that it is a bad business decision, if you are going against the popular vote. Unless she did market research and it told her otherwise, but then again, why did she even bother to have a popular vote at all.

[angel-jd1]

I guess we had our hopes up for nothing. I agree with everyone else, I am NOT buying 3 magazines so I can get 1 or two recipes (which I probably would not even use). Pbbbbtttttt on Martha!!!

-Jessica

[jerseyangel]

No way on God's green earth could that have been a tie. I knew this was going to happen when they took the results off the screen.

[kenlove]

Yep, my thoughts too when the results were gone -- maybe we all need to send more comments and express our disappointment. If only I could find the pictures I took of Martha in the 70s when she operated the Swifts Turkey Hotline!

  jerseyangel said:

No way on God's green earth could that have been a tie. I knew this was going to happen when they took the results off the screen.

[Lisa]

As much as this angers me, we have to take a business like approach. An angry e-mail will just further harden our goal.

My husband always says that "you catch more flies with honey". If anyone plans to contact the "Stewart Machine" I would recommend that it be done rationally, logically and approach this issue in a business-like manner.

Our numbers and statistics should be used and they speak for themselves. Numbers and money talk.

[jerseyangel]

  kenlove said:

If only I could find the pictures I took of Martha in the 70s when she operated the Swifts Turkey Hotline!

[Mango04]

Don't forget there's a chance that the multiple votes per day ended up not counting.

[Phyllis28]

  jayhawkmom said:

56% tie - huh??

Unless I'm really stupid, if both got 56%, that would be 112% and that would mean that none of the others got ANY votes. That's just ridiculous, pure crap.

Martha must have failed her math class.

[cruelshoes]

I don

[jerseyangel]

Colleen--I think you make a lot of good, valid points.

I'm still disappointed, though

[blueeyedmanda]

I always hated Martha Stewart. I just was not going to broadcast it, now I can! No way would I buy that magazine!

[confused]

  blueeyedmanda said:

I always hated Martha Stewart. I just was not going to broadcast it, now I can! No way would I buy that magazine!

Ditto, i was just hoping she would of done the right thing here and then maybe i would have at least tolerated that lady lol.

colleen,

I can see your point but i dont think there was there many of us that were voting from more then one puter, so i dotn think it would have made that big of a difference in the popular votes.

paula

[dandelionmom]

I'm very disappointed. I have to say that I think she's making a mistake. There are already so many good pet magazines out there (I subscribe to one that is very much in the Martha Stewart style already!). And it could only help her to have the gluten-free group hooked on her label. It seems like we're all very brand-loyal!

[blueeyedmanda]

  confused said:

Ditto, i was just hoping she would of done the right thing here and then maybe i would have at least tolerated that lady lol.

my thoughts exactly, maybe she would be tolerable but I guess not.

What boggles my mind is why do we need another pet magazine, go to the Pet Store there are a ton of them. I have a cat and I love him, spoil him, you name it. I just think an allergy magazine would be a benefit to so many. Martha is a twit!

[hayley3]

Computer programmers are too smart to let people vote multiple times, at least at big websites like Martha's. I don't think that's what happened. She said the Allergy magazine got 57% of the vote, period. I think she selected from the two most popular. She doesn't have allergies, so she picked the animal one. I think that's a bad business decision myself. But she can afford to have a loss on this if it doesn't go over.

I was always a Martha fan, but I think that if she was going to do the picking, then she should have said so upfront. We'll never know what happened really, but it was a real letdown.

I will never trust her again. Sorry. :(

[kenlove]

Maybe we all need to think about an alternative to her publishing a magazine. There is obviously a need for a mass market consumer magazine that deals with food allergy issues. We would all buy it <G>!

So how do we go about convincing someone to publish one? Do we back Scott, our fourm founder who already publishes the newsletter and updates we get? Do we as a group approach Time-Warner publishing, Amex publishing or another major publisher?

Online petition to Martha?

There are 19,000+ members here as well as other celiac groups which should make an impact on someone?

A paid circulation of 10,000 members would make a lot of magazines happy!

How can we mobilize to get something like this accomplished?

We have numbers and we have strength as a group here. We just need to put it together.

Ken

[Mom23boys]

  kenlove said:

Maybe we all need to think about an alternative to her publishing a magazine. There is obviously a need for a mass market consumer magazine that deals with food allergy issues. We would all buy it <G>!

What are some competitors magazines?? Let them know how she dropped the ball. (I'm still kind of miffed about how she kind of snubbed Alexis (??) this morning for the pampered pup lady). We can back this person and make a #1 mag. We have style, class and shouldn't have to hide in the corner like the dark ages.

[blueeyedmanda]

  Mom23boys said:

What are some competitors magazines?? Let them know how she dropped the ball. (I'm still kind of miffed about how she kind of snubbed Alexis (??) this morning for the pampered pup lady). We can back this person and make a #1 mag. We have style, class and shouldn't have to hide in the corner like the dark ages.

great idea!

[Lisa]

"Living Well, Living Without", is considered the #1 magazine for living gluten free.

Living Without

Post Office Box 2126

Northbrook, IL 60065

www.LivingWithout.com

I have never seen this magazine, but I understand that others have subscribed.