View Single Post
Old
05-24-2007, 05:40 PM
  #9
SML
Registered User
 
SML's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 3,747
vCash: 500
Maybe I oversold their "apology" but they did respond...
My letter:
I just read your draft preview issue, as I have every year for the last twenty years, and I must say that I am very dissappointed. What a bunch of fluff! You didn't even bother to list any statistics for players ranked outside the top 50! I have read your issue cover to cover and have come away with no more information than I had before I wasted five dollars on your work. You would think that, with the internet basically making your weekly articles all but irrelevant, you at The Hockey News would step it up. Instead, you have taken a backseat. I get more out of reading free blurbs on the redline report and hockey's future than I did just now. I have bought every single issue of the draft preview you have ever published, but this year's effort has me seriously doubting that will continue to be the case. Thank you very much for wasting my time this year and using page space for advertising instead of the actual information I bought your publication for.

Their response:Hi Scott,

Thanks for the feedback. We appreciate your thoughts and will take them into consideration when planning next yearís Draft Preview. We donít disagree that more space could be devoted to the prospects, but unfortunately, logistics worked against us this year. We may have to rearrange the puzzle next year (perhaps less space devoted to the NHL team needs) in order to provide more detail on prospects.

Thanks again for taking the time to write.


---
JASON KAY | EDITOR
416.227.8238 | jkay@thehockeynews.com
25 SHEPPARD AVE. W., SUITE 100, TORONTO, ON M2N 6S7



I guess it's not an apology per se, but they didn't really seem as though they disagreed with the opinions we have shared on this board. I would think more "feedback" might spur some of these guys to get their act together for next year.

SML is offline   Reply With Quote