On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 20:34:30 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


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

Tell me if I'm wrong, but don't these figures say that the magazine's
circulation is shrinking?

Where's the beef? It seems to me that the facts are well known and say that
the magazine's circulation has been shrinking significantly for a number of
years.

Can't we all just agree on a perfectly obvious fact?


I think this is one of those issues that depends on presentation. If
you plot circulation figures versus time, and start the vertical axis
at zero, you get a graph that looks fairly stable, with some mild
peaks and dips.

Plot the same data with the vertical axis starting at 70,000, a la
"USA Today", and it looks like Mr. Toad's wild ride.

I see a circulatoin history with some pretty typical dips and peaks.
The lowest number is only about 20% lower than the highest number, and
the current circulation is only about 10% off of the peak circulation.

Also, since you have an increase for the first three years, then a
decrease for the next year, followed by an increase for the next two
years, followed by a decrease for the next three, it seems pretty
premature to predict any future numbers. While it's true that the
numbers *have been* shrinking for the last three years, that doesn't
offer any real predictive value. Considering the relatively small
sizes of the variations, I don't think you can infer *anything* from
those numbers.

Scott Gardner