On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 06:26:44 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message



Or you could say that they split their subscription base into two
segments to account for changing markets.

The alleged split happened in 1994, given that the current issue is volume
10, number 1.

Why use the word "alleged"?

The alleged split didn't keep Stereophile Magazine from increasing its
circulation for the next 7 years.

1994: 71,040
1995: 79,332
1996: 85,808
1997: 87,219
1998: 83,921
1999: 85,224
2000: 91,384
2001: 84,987
2002: 82,932
2003: 81,668

So, the percentage of Home Theater sales hasn't been increasing while
traditional sales haven't been so explosive? I note that you don't
wonder how the HT side has done. You traditionally ignore what you
want to ignore, so this is hardly surprising.

Additionally, we haven't been in a recession for the past 3 years,
which happens to exactly coincide with a decrease in Stereophile's
figures? I wonder how other magazines would track during the same
period. I also STILL wonder how much the HT magazine's sales "make up"
for any downturn in Stereophile's figures. It's quite possible that
total revenues have almost *doubled* through the division of two
magazines, *if* the HT side hasn't cannibalized circulation (and if
it's only taken 10 - 20,000 subscribers from the fold while adding far
more, then there's no real cannibalization). And it's the return to
the stockholders of the parent company that's the only important
thing.

Wanna try again?

I guess in your world, 81,668 is 71,040.

s******