"ScottW" wrote in message
news:YWtJb.45990$m83.5645@fed1read01...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

I'd be more interested in comments to this post on audioasylum.

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/gen...es/298159.html

Is Stereophile now largely fund by advertising rather than
subscibers?
I see 12 months subscriptions for less than $1 per issue.

If this guys post is true, Stereophile subsciption revenue has
gone
from
almost $2.4M to less than $100K.

ScottW



You are making quite an unreasonable extrapolation
based upon one case, even if it were true. Don't let
your hatreds interfere with your common sense.

No you sound like Sanders. I don't "hate" Stereophile.
I do hate people telling me I hate things I don't hate.
You should understand that unless you really hate
homosexuals.

Now explain what is unreasonable. I've seen a couple
of post indicate Stereophile subscription rates were
$35 a year and now are about $12.
3 years subscriptions are much less and have to be less than
the cost of delivering the magazine.
What is the unreasonable extrapolation?

ScottW



They were never a 'solid' $35 per year. Introductory rates
were always between $12 and $15 per year since I first subscribed in
1988. The first renewal offer you would get would be $35. If you would
hold out, you would eventually get an offer for $15, but would have to
miss
an issue. Point is, you need to 'average' the subscription price
to get the right ratio between first timers and reups.
And calculate in
those
that might buy a single issue for about $6 at the local stereo salon.

My discussion was "subscription revenue". Your assertion is that
Stereophile never had substantial subscription revenues. I find
that difficult to believe as I understant did not have any advertising
revenue.

I figured you knew this, and were ignoring it to make a point.

I think the point is valid, Stereophiles subscription revenue
has declined though perhaps not as dramatically as I said.
Which is worse? To decline subscription revenue by ~$2.3M
or having never made the $2.3M?
Anyway, they changed their business model to rely
on advertising revenue.

If you didn't know this, you have my apologies.

No problem, hope you get some snow .


Only the naive paid the $35 reup. Likely it was a small
percentage of overall subscriptions. This is similar to subscription
policies for many other magazines. A low intro, and a more
expensive reup, which can readily be circumvented.

Your 12:1 ratio for loss of subscription ratioincome does not stand.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---