What made it different and, in my opinion so successful, was that while all other medical magazines concentrated their editorial on medical subjects, Diversions didn't have a single article about medicines, medical procedures, research or anything like that, but was simply filled from cover to cover with lifestyle content - mostly travel related - and humour.
Its marketing strategy was based on the fact that, like most people, doctors valued their leisure time and did actually want to read about the fun things in life and not just about the latest cures for haemorrhoids and what was new in heart valves.
It also meant that patients had something to read in waiting rooms and this proved to be a wonderful added-value in terms of reach.
Diversions prospered under founding editor, Sue McGuiness, and raked in the advertising revenue. Then it was sold and it fell off my radar screen until a day or so ago when I received a copy in the mail and was surprised to see on the cover; "Volume 1, Number 1." I thought it was a printing cockup of note but was delighted to see that it was in fact a complete re-launch of the magazine from a brand new publisher.
The original concept is the same and new publishers, In House Publications, have done a creditable job on this first issue.
Old stalwart, James Clarke, continues to edit and contribute to the "Humerus" humour section - a great drawcard of the original Diversions, while publisher and managing editor Andrew Thomas, along with editor Angela Bell, have pulled in an impressive array of writing talent including 702's Jenny Crwys-Williams, former Sawubona editor Bridget Hilton-Barber, Caroline Hurry, Colin Bryden and the ever popular David Bullard, among many others.
For a first issue, it's not bad although it saddens me to see them making the mistake of running editorial for lifestyle destinations opposite paid-for ads for those same destinations. It smacks of pandering to advertisers rather than readers and isn't a good marketing strategy at all because it immediately brings into question editorial integrity.
Hopefully however, someone will point out to the new publishers the folly of so overtly pandering to advertisers and that in future they will at least have the good grace to separate ads and editorial by a few pages.
But, that's the only criticism I have. Content is extremely readable and layout clean and uncluttered.
It's a wonderful concept, this whole notion of writing for a specific group of professionals without alluding to their day by day pursuits but rather capturing their attention with their leisure time dreams.
There was time when I thought Diversions had disappeared. It's good to see such a good idea going strong again.
