Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
The subject of Stereophile's circulation arose on r.a.o. and r.a.t. today, the
context being how a mainly 2-channel audio magazine can survive in today's complicated media market. Rusty Boudreaux had said (in message ) that he had "noticed the drop on [Stereophile]'s gov't filing page for circulation," while Arny Krueger had stated (in message ) that he thought "there is plenty of evidence that Stereophile's magazine sales are shrinking at a rate that should and probably does greatly concern [John] Atkinson." However, it is fair to point out that Mr. Krueger offered _no_ such "evidence," nor does he have any. Mr. Krueger also wrote that he'd "heard that Atkinson admits it [ie, that "Stereophile's magazine sales are shrinking"] privately." However, I don't know Mr. Krueger personally, I have not had _any_ conversations with him, nor have I discussed changes in Stereophile's circulation statistics with anyone who knows Mr. Krueger. His statement that he has "heard that..." etc. is thus at best a figment of Mr. Krueger's imagination and at worst a deliberate dissemination of a falsehood to damage a magazine edited by someone Mr. Krueger regards as a personal enemy. I did promise Mr. Goudreaux that I would supply Stereophile's circulation statistics. Here, then, are the paid circulation figures for Stereophile during the past 10 years. These are the figures submitted each year by the magazine's publisher with its second-class mailing statement to the Post Office, and are the average of the 12 issues preceding the month of filing (which is generally November): 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 Please note that there are many factors which contribute to a magazine's paid circulation, and that to draw any general conclusion concerning any specific factor will almost certainly be incorrect. For example, if you wish, as Mr. Boudreaux did, to correlate the magzine's circulation with the health of the high-end audio industry, our circulation in 2000, when the industry was having a hard time, was higher than in 1996 and 1997 when the audio industry was at its peak. Regardless, I hope that this puts the matter of Stereophile's purported circulation problems to rest. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om Arny Krueger had stated (in message ) that he thought "there is plenty of evidence that Stereophile's magazine sales are shrinking at a rate that should and probably does greatly concern [John] Atkinson." However, it is fair to point out that Mr. Krueger offered _no_ such "evidence," nor does he have any. Sure I do, its right below. Mr. Krueger also wrote that he'd "heard that Atkinson admits it [ie, that "Stereophile's magazine sales are shrinking"] privately." However, I don't know Mr. Krueger personally, I have not had _any_ conversations with him, nor have I discussed changes in Stereophile's circulation statistics with anyone who knows Mr. Krueger. His statement that he has "heard that..." etc. is thus at best a figment of Mr. Krueger's imagination and at worst a deliberate dissemination of a falsehood to damage a magazine edited by someone Mr. Krueger regards as a personal enemy. Atkinson, how is it damaging to say that you told someone the truth? How is it damaging to suggest that the editor of a magazine is concerned about the fact that his magazine's circulation is shrinking? It would appear to me that it would be more damaging to your reputation if I said that you don't care or are proud of it. Here, then, are the paid circulation figures for Stereophile during the past 10 years. These are the figures submitted each year by the magazine's publisher with its second-class mailing statement to the Post Office, and are the average of the 12 issues preceding the month of filing (which is generally November): 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? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om Arny Krueger had stated (in message ) that he thought "there is plenty of evidence that Stereophile's magazine sales are shrinking at a rate that should and probably does greatly concern [John] Atkinson." However, it is fair to point out that Mr. Krueger offered _no_ such "evidence," nor does he have any. Sure I do, its right below. Mr. Krueger also wrote that he'd "heard that Atkinson admits it [ie, that "Stereophile's magazine sales are shrinking"] privately." However, I don't know Mr. Krueger personally, I have not had _any_ conversations with him, nor have I discussed changes in Stereophile's circulation statistics with anyone who knows Mr. Krueger. His statement that he has "heard that..." etc. is thus at best a figment of Mr. Krueger's imagination and at worst a deliberate dissemination of a falsehood to damage a magazine edited by someone Mr. Krueger regards as a personal enemy. Atkinson, how is it damaging to say that you told someone the truth? How is it damaging to suggest that the editor of a magazine is concerned about the fact that his magazine's circulation is shrinking? It would appear to me that it would be more damaging to your reputation if I said that you don't care or are proud of it. Here, then, are the paid circulation figures for Stereophile during the past 10 years. These are the figures submitted each year by the magazine's publisher with its second-class mailing statement to the Post Office, and are the average of the 12 issues preceding the month of filing (which is generally November): 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? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om Arny Krueger had stated (in message ) that he thought "there is plenty of evidence that Stereophile's magazine sales are shrinking at a rate that should and probably does greatly concern [John] Atkinson." However, it is fair to point out that Mr. Krueger offered _no_ such "evidence," nor does he have any. Sure I do, its right below. Mr. Krueger also wrote that he'd "heard that Atkinson admits it [ie, that "Stereophile's magazine sales are shrinking"] privately." However, I don't know Mr. Krueger personally, I have not had _any_ conversations with him, nor have I discussed changes in Stereophile's circulation statistics with anyone who knows Mr. Krueger. His statement that he has "heard that..." etc. is thus at best a figment of Mr. Krueger's imagination and at worst a deliberate dissemination of a falsehood to damage a magazine edited by someone Mr. Krueger regards as a personal enemy. Atkinson, how is it damaging to say that you told someone the truth? How is it damaging to suggest that the editor of a magazine is concerned about the fact that his magazine's circulation is shrinking? It would appear to me that it would be more damaging to your reputation if I said that you don't care or are proud of it. Here, then, are the paid circulation figures for Stereophile during the past 10 years. These are the figures submitted each year by the magazine's publisher with its second-class mailing statement to the Post Office, and are the average of the 12 issues preceding the month of filing (which is generally November): 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? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "John Atkinson" wrote in message om Arny Krueger had stated (in message ) that he thought "there is plenty of evidence that Stereophile's magazine sales are shrinking at a rate that should and probably does greatly concern [John] Atkinson." However, it is fair to point out that Mr. Krueger offered _no_ such "evidence," nor does he have any. Sure I do, its right below. Considering that the circulation is above 1994 levels, when the high end was booming, the trend is not clear. The past few years have seen a decline in consumer confidence, which may have impacted circulation. If the slight decline continues while the job market improves, then there might be cause for concern. The numbers are less significant than with other magazines, because in contrast with other magazines, that are faced with the "winner take all" advertising revenues scenario. Stereophile has no real competitor. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "John Atkinson" wrote in message om Arny Krueger had stated (in message ) that he thought "there is plenty of evidence that Stereophile's magazine sales are shrinking at a rate that should and probably does greatly concern [John] Atkinson." However, it is fair to point out that Mr. Krueger offered _no_ such "evidence," nor does he have any. Sure I do, its right below. Considering that the circulation is above 1994 levels, when the high end was booming, the trend is not clear. The past few years have seen a decline in consumer confidence, which may have impacted circulation. If the slight decline continues while the job market improves, then there might be cause for concern. The numbers are less significant than with other magazines, because in contrast with other magazines, that are faced with the "winner take all" advertising revenues scenario. Stereophile has no real competitor. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "John Atkinson" wrote in message om Arny Krueger had stated (in message ) that he thought "there is plenty of evidence that Stereophile's magazine sales are shrinking at a rate that should and probably does greatly concern [John] Atkinson." However, it is fair to point out that Mr. Krueger offered _no_ such "evidence," nor does he have any. Sure I do, its right below. Considering that the circulation is above 1994 levels, when the high end was booming, the trend is not clear. The past few years have seen a decline in consumer confidence, which may have impacted circulation. If the slight decline continues while the job market improves, then there might be cause for concern. The numbers are less significant than with other magazines, because in contrast with other magazines, that are faced with the "winner take all" advertising revenues scenario. Stereophile has no real competitor. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"John Atkinson" wrote in
message om... statistics. Here, then, are the paid circulation figures for Stereophile during the past 10 years. These are the figures submitted each year by the magazine's publisher with its second-class mailing statement to the Post Office, and are the average of the 12 issues preceding the month of filing (which is generally November): 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 Please note that there are many factors which contribute to a magazine's paid circulation, and that to draw any general conclusion concerning any specific factor will almost certainly be incorrect. For example, if you wish, as Mr. Boudreaux did, to correlate the magzine's circulation with the health of the high-end audio industry, our circulation in 2000, when the industry was having a hard time, was higher than in 1996 and 1997 when the audio industry was at its peak. Regardless, I hope that this puts the matter of Stereophile's purported circulation problems to rest. That may be true but raw numbers can mask trends due to population growth. Raw circulation is down 10% from 2000 to 2003. However, a quick trip to census.gov shows that's 15% per capita decrease over the same time period. If we restrict population data to males between the ages of 20 to 50 years then circulation is down nearly 25% per capita. I'm not drawing any conclusions about Stereophile in particular. However, circulation has decreased to it's lowest absolute level since 1995 and lowest per capital since 1994. Four continuous years of decline in raw numbers and 5-6 years depending on parsing of population data. Maybe it's just the economy but it would be interesting to see HT or S&V numbers during the same time period. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"John Atkinson" wrote in
message om... statistics. Here, then, are the paid circulation figures for Stereophile during the past 10 years. These are the figures submitted each year by the magazine's publisher with its second-class mailing statement to the Post Office, and are the average of the 12 issues preceding the month of filing (which is generally November): 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 Please note that there are many factors which contribute to a magazine's paid circulation, and that to draw any general conclusion concerning any specific factor will almost certainly be incorrect. For example, if you wish, as Mr. Boudreaux did, to correlate the magzine's circulation with the health of the high-end audio industry, our circulation in 2000, when the industry was having a hard time, was higher than in 1996 and 1997 when the audio industry was at its peak. Regardless, I hope that this puts the matter of Stereophile's purported circulation problems to rest. That may be true but raw numbers can mask trends due to population growth. Raw circulation is down 10% from 2000 to 2003. However, a quick trip to census.gov shows that's 15% per capita decrease over the same time period. If we restrict population data to males between the ages of 20 to 50 years then circulation is down nearly 25% per capita. I'm not drawing any conclusions about Stereophile in particular. However, circulation has decreased to it's lowest absolute level since 1995 and lowest per capital since 1994. Four continuous years of decline in raw numbers and 5-6 years depending on parsing of population data. Maybe it's just the economy but it would be interesting to see HT or S&V numbers during the same time period. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"John Atkinson" wrote in
message om... statistics. Here, then, are the paid circulation figures for Stereophile during the past 10 years. These are the figures submitted each year by the magazine's publisher with its second-class mailing statement to the Post Office, and are the average of the 12 issues preceding the month of filing (which is generally November): 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 Please note that there are many factors which contribute to a magazine's paid circulation, and that to draw any general conclusion concerning any specific factor will almost certainly be incorrect. For example, if you wish, as Mr. Boudreaux did, to correlate the magzine's circulation with the health of the high-end audio industry, our circulation in 2000, when the industry was having a hard time, was higher than in 1996 and 1997 when the audio industry was at its peak. Regardless, I hope that this puts the matter of Stereophile's purported circulation problems to rest. That may be true but raw numbers can mask trends due to population growth. Raw circulation is down 10% from 2000 to 2003. However, a quick trip to census.gov shows that's 15% per capita decrease over the same time period. If we restrict population data to males between the ages of 20 to 50 years then circulation is down nearly 25% per capita. I'm not drawing any conclusions about Stereophile in particular. However, circulation has decreased to it's lowest absolute level since 1995 and lowest per capital since 1994. Four continuous years of decline in raw numbers and 5-6 years depending on parsing of population data. Maybe it's just the economy but it would be interesting to see HT or S&V numbers during the same time period. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message ... "John Atkinson" wrote in message om... statistics. Here, then, are the paid circulation figures for Stereophile during the past 10 years. These are the figures submitted each year by the magazine's publisher with its second-class mailing statement to the Post Office, and are the average of the 12 issues preceding the month of filing (which is generally November): 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 Please note that there are many factors which contribute to a magazine's paid circulation, and that to draw any general conclusion concerning any specific factor will almost certainly be incorrect. For example, if you wish, as Mr. Boudreaux did, to correlate the magzine's circulation with the health of the high-end audio industry, our circulation in 2000, when the industry was having a hard time, was higher than in 1996 and 1997 when the audio industry was at its peak. Regardless, I hope that this puts the matter of Stereophile's purported circulation problems to rest. That may be true but raw numbers can mask trends due to population growth. Raw circulation is down 10% from 2000 to 2003. However, a quick trip to census.gov shows that's 15% per capita decrease over the same time period. If we restrict population data to males between the ages of 20 to 50 years then circulation is down nearly 25% per capita. I'm not drawing any conclusions about Stereophile in particular. However, circulation has decreased to it's lowest absolute level since 1995 and lowest per capital since 1994. Four continuous years of decline in raw numbers and 5-6 years depending on parsing of population data. Maybe it's just the economy but it would be interesting to see HT or S&V numbers during the same time period. you could say it went down over 10% between 2000 and 2003, or you could say it reamined stable between 1998 and 2001 or say it remained relatively stable between 2001 and 2003. It depends on how you want to spin the stats. ----== 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 =--- |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message ... "John Atkinson" wrote in message om... statistics. Here, then, are the paid circulation figures for Stereophile during the past 10 years. These are the figures submitted each year by the magazine's publisher with its second-class mailing statement to the Post Office, and are the average of the 12 issues preceding the month of filing (which is generally November): 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 Please note that there are many factors which contribute to a magazine's paid circulation, and that to draw any general conclusion concerning any specific factor will almost certainly be incorrect. For example, if you wish, as Mr. Boudreaux did, to correlate the magzine's circulation with the health of the high-end audio industry, our circulation in 2000, when the industry was having a hard time, was higher than in 1996 and 1997 when the audio industry was at its peak. Regardless, I hope that this puts the matter of Stereophile's purported circulation problems to rest. That may be true but raw numbers can mask trends due to population growth. Raw circulation is down 10% from 2000 to 2003. However, a quick trip to census.gov shows that's 15% per capita decrease over the same time period. If we restrict population data to males between the ages of 20 to 50 years then circulation is down nearly 25% per capita. I'm not drawing any conclusions about Stereophile in particular. However, circulation has decreased to it's lowest absolute level since 1995 and lowest per capital since 1994. Four continuous years of decline in raw numbers and 5-6 years depending on parsing of population data. Maybe it's just the economy but it would be interesting to see HT or S&V numbers during the same time period. you could say it went down over 10% between 2000 and 2003, or you could say it reamined stable between 1998 and 2001 or say it remained relatively stable between 2001 and 2003. It depends on how you want to spin the stats. ----== 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 =--- |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message ... "John Atkinson" wrote in message om... statistics. Here, then, are the paid circulation figures for Stereophile during the past 10 years. These are the figures submitted each year by the magazine's publisher with its second-class mailing statement to the Post Office, and are the average of the 12 issues preceding the month of filing (which is generally November): 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 Please note that there are many factors which contribute to a magazine's paid circulation, and that to draw any general conclusion concerning any specific factor will almost certainly be incorrect. For example, if you wish, as Mr. Boudreaux did, to correlate the magzine's circulation with the health of the high-end audio industry, our circulation in 2000, when the industry was having a hard time, was higher than in 1996 and 1997 when the audio industry was at its peak. Regardless, I hope that this puts the matter of Stereophile's purported circulation problems to rest. That may be true but raw numbers can mask trends due to population growth. Raw circulation is down 10% from 2000 to 2003. However, a quick trip to census.gov shows that's 15% per capita decrease over the same time period. If we restrict population data to males between the ages of 20 to 50 years then circulation is down nearly 25% per capita. I'm not drawing any conclusions about Stereophile in particular. However, circulation has decreased to it's lowest absolute level since 1995 and lowest per capital since 1994. Four continuous years of decline in raw numbers and 5-6 years depending on parsing of population data. Maybe it's just the economy but it would be interesting to see HT or S&V numbers during the same time period. you could say it went down over 10% between 2000 and 2003, or you could say it reamined stable between 1998 and 2001 or say it remained relatively stable between 2001 and 2003. It depends on how you want to spin the stats. ----== 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 =--- |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"John Atkinson" wrote in message om... The subject of Stereophile's circulation arose on r.a.o. and r.a.t. today, the context being how a mainly 2-channel audio magazine can survive in today's complicated media market. Rusty Boudreaux had said (in message ) that he had "noticed the drop on [Stereophile]'s gov't filing page for circulation," while Arny Krueger had stated (in message ) that he thought "there is plenty of evidence that Stereophile's magazine sales are shrinking at a rate that should and probably does greatly concern [John] Atkinson." However, it is fair to point out that Mr. Krueger offered _no_ such "evidence," nor does he have any. Mr. Krueger also wrote that he'd "heard that Atkinson admits it [ie, that "Stereophile's magazine sales are shrinking"] privately." However, I don't know Mr. Krueger personally, I have not had _any_ conversations with him, nor have I discussed changes in Stereophile's circulation statistics with anyone who knows Mr. Krueger. His statement that he has "heard that..." etc. is thus at best a figment of Mr. Krueger's imagination and at worst a deliberate dissemination of a falsehood to damage a magazine edited by someone Mr. Krueger regards as a personal enemy. I did promise Mr. Goudreaux that I would supply Stereophile's circulation statistics. Here, then, are the paid circulation figures for Stereophile during the past 10 years. These are the figures submitted each year by the magazine's publisher with its second-class mailing statement to the Post Office, and are the average of the 12 issues preceding the month of filing (which is generally November): 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 Please note that there are many factors which contribute to a magazine's paid circulation, and that to draw any general conclusion concerning any specific factor will almost certainly be incorrect. For example, if you wish, as Mr. Boudreaux did, to correlate the magzine's circulation with the health of the high-end audio industry, our circulation in 2000, when the industry was having a hard time, was higher than in 1996 and 1997 when the audio industry was at its peak. Regardless, I hope that this puts the matter of Stereophile's purported circulation problems to rest. 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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"John Atkinson" wrote in message om... The subject of Stereophile's circulation arose on r.a.o. and r.a.t. today, the context being how a mainly 2-channel audio magazine can survive in today's complicated media market. Rusty Boudreaux had said (in message ) that he had "noticed the drop on [Stereophile]'s gov't filing page for circulation," while Arny Krueger had stated (in message ) that he thought "there is plenty of evidence that Stereophile's magazine sales are shrinking at a rate that should and probably does greatly concern [John] Atkinson." However, it is fair to point out that Mr. Krueger offered _no_ such "evidence," nor does he have any. Mr. Krueger also wrote that he'd "heard that Atkinson admits it [ie, that "Stereophile's magazine sales are shrinking"] privately." However, I don't know Mr. Krueger personally, I have not had _any_ conversations with him, nor have I discussed changes in Stereophile's circulation statistics with anyone who knows Mr. Krueger. His statement that he has "heard that..." etc. is thus at best a figment of Mr. Krueger's imagination and at worst a deliberate dissemination of a falsehood to damage a magazine edited by someone Mr. Krueger regards as a personal enemy. I did promise Mr. Goudreaux that I would supply Stereophile's circulation statistics. Here, then, are the paid circulation figures for Stereophile during the past 10 years. These are the figures submitted each year by the magazine's publisher with its second-class mailing statement to the Post Office, and are the average of the 12 issues preceding the month of filing (which is generally November): 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 Please note that there are many factors which contribute to a magazine's paid circulation, and that to draw any general conclusion concerning any specific factor will almost certainly be incorrect. For example, if you wish, as Mr. Boudreaux did, to correlate the magzine's circulation with the health of the high-end audio industry, our circulation in 2000, when the industry was having a hard time, was higher than in 1996 and 1997 when the audio industry was at its peak. Regardless, I hope that this puts the matter of Stereophile's purported circulation problems to rest. 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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"John Atkinson" wrote in message om... The subject of Stereophile's circulation arose on r.a.o. and r.a.t. today, the context being how a mainly 2-channel audio magazine can survive in today's complicated media market. Rusty Boudreaux had said (in message ) that he had "noticed the drop on [Stereophile]'s gov't filing page for circulation," while Arny Krueger had stated (in message ) that he thought "there is plenty of evidence that Stereophile's magazine sales are shrinking at a rate that should and probably does greatly concern [John] Atkinson." However, it is fair to point out that Mr. Krueger offered _no_ such "evidence," nor does he have any. Mr. Krueger also wrote that he'd "heard that Atkinson admits it [ie, that "Stereophile's magazine sales are shrinking"] privately." However, I don't know Mr. Krueger personally, I have not had _any_ conversations with him, nor have I discussed changes in Stereophile's circulation statistics with anyone who knows Mr. Krueger. His statement that he has "heard that..." etc. is thus at best a figment of Mr. Krueger's imagination and at worst a deliberate dissemination of a falsehood to damage a magazine edited by someone Mr. Krueger regards as a personal enemy. I did promise Mr. Goudreaux that I would supply Stereophile's circulation statistics. Here, then, are the paid circulation figures for Stereophile during the past 10 years. These are the figures submitted each year by the magazine's publisher with its second-class mailing statement to the Post Office, and are the average of the 12 issues preceding the month of filing (which is generally November): 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 Please note that there are many factors which contribute to a magazine's paid circulation, and that to draw any general conclusion concerning any specific factor will almost certainly be incorrect. For example, if you wish, as Mr. Boudreaux did, to correlate the magzine's circulation with the health of the high-end audio industry, our circulation in 2000, when the industry was having a hard time, was higher than in 1996 and 1997 when the audio industry was at its peak. Regardless, I hope that this puts the matter of Stereophile's purported circulation problems to rest. 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 $100K. ScottW |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"ScottW" wrote in message news:wSqJb.45880$m83.5386@fed1read01... "John Atkinson" wrote in message om... The subject of Stereophile's circulation arose on r.a.o. and r.a.t. today, the context being how a mainly 2-channel audio magazine can survive in today's complicated media market. Rusty Boudreaux had said (in message ) that he had "noticed the drop on [Stereophile]'s gov't filing page for circulation," while Arny Krueger had stated (in message ) that he thought "there is plenty of evidence that Stereophile's magazine sales are shrinking at a rate that should and probably does greatly concern [John] Atkinson." However, it is fair to point out that Mr. Krueger offered _no_ such "evidence," nor does he have any. Mr. Krueger also wrote that he'd "heard that Atkinson admits it [ie, that "Stereophile's magazine sales are shrinking"] privately." However, I don't know Mr. Krueger personally, I have not had _any_ conversations with him, nor have I discussed changes in Stereophile's circulation statistics with anyone who knows Mr. Krueger. His statement that he has "heard that..." etc. is thus at best a figment of Mr. Krueger's imagination and at worst a deliberate dissemination of a falsehood to damage a magazine edited by someone Mr. Krueger regards as a personal enemy. I did promise Mr. Goudreaux that I would supply Stereophile's circulation statistics. Here, then, are the paid circulation figures for Stereophile during the past 10 years. These are the figures submitted each year by the magazine's publisher with its second-class mailing statement to the Post Office, and are the average of the 12 issues preceding the month of filing (which is generally November): 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 Please note that there are many factors which contribute to a magazine's paid circulation, and that to draw any general conclusion concerning any specific factor will almost certainly be incorrect. For example, if you wish, as Mr. Boudreaux did, to correlate the magzine's circulation with the health of the high-end audio industry, our circulation in 2000, when the industry was having a hard time, was higher than in 1996 and 1997 when the audio industry was at its peak. Regardless, I hope that this puts the matter of Stereophile's purported circulation problems to rest. 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 $100K. ScottW You are making quite an unreasonable extrapolation based upon one case, even if it were true. Don't let your hatreds interfere with your common sense. ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"ScottW" wrote in message news:wSqJb.45880$m83.5386@fed1read01... "John Atkinson" wrote in message om... The subject of Stereophile's circulation arose on r.a.o. and r.a.t. today, the context being how a mainly 2-channel audio magazine can survive in today's complicated media market. Rusty Boudreaux had said (in message ) that he had "noticed the drop on [Stereophile]'s gov't filing page for circulation," while Arny Krueger had stated (in message ) that he thought "there is plenty of evidence that Stereophile's magazine sales are shrinking at a rate that should and probably does greatly concern [John] Atkinson." However, it is fair to point out that Mr. Krueger offered _no_ such "evidence," nor does he have any. Mr. Krueger also wrote that he'd "heard that Atkinson admits it [ie, that "Stereophile's magazine sales are shrinking"] privately." However, I don't know Mr. Krueger personally, I have not had _any_ conversations with him, nor have I discussed changes in Stereophile's circulation statistics with anyone who knows Mr. Krueger. His statement that he has "heard that..." etc. is thus at best a figment of Mr. Krueger's imagination and at worst a deliberate dissemination of a falsehood to damage a magazine edited by someone Mr. Krueger regards as a personal enemy. I did promise Mr. Goudreaux that I would supply Stereophile's circulation statistics. Here, then, are the paid circulation figures for Stereophile during the past 10 years. These are the figures submitted each year by the magazine's publisher with its second-class mailing statement to the Post Office, and are the average of the 12 issues preceding the month of filing (which is generally November): 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 Please note that there are many factors which contribute to a magazine's paid circulation, and that to draw any general conclusion concerning any specific factor will almost certainly be incorrect. For example, if you wish, as Mr. Boudreaux did, to correlate the magzine's circulation with the health of the high-end audio industry, our circulation in 2000, when the industry was having a hard time, was higher than in 1996 and 1997 when the audio industry was at its peak. Regardless, I hope that this puts the matter of Stereophile's purported circulation problems to rest. 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 $100K. ScottW You are making quite an unreasonable extrapolation based upon one case, even if it were true. Don't let your hatreds interfere with your common sense. ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"ScottW" wrote in message news:wSqJb.45880$m83.5386@fed1read01... "John Atkinson" wrote in message om... The subject of Stereophile's circulation arose on r.a.o. and r.a.t. today, the context being how a mainly 2-channel audio magazine can survive in today's complicated media market. Rusty Boudreaux had said (in message ) that he had "noticed the drop on [Stereophile]'s gov't filing page for circulation," while Arny Krueger had stated (in message ) that he thought "there is plenty of evidence that Stereophile's magazine sales are shrinking at a rate that should and probably does greatly concern [John] Atkinson." However, it is fair to point out that Mr. Krueger offered _no_ such "evidence," nor does he have any. Mr. Krueger also wrote that he'd "heard that Atkinson admits it [ie, that "Stereophile's magazine sales are shrinking"] privately." However, I don't know Mr. Krueger personally, I have not had _any_ conversations with him, nor have I discussed changes in Stereophile's circulation statistics with anyone who knows Mr. Krueger. His statement that he has "heard that..." etc. is thus at best a figment of Mr. Krueger's imagination and at worst a deliberate dissemination of a falsehood to damage a magazine edited by someone Mr. Krueger regards as a personal enemy. I did promise Mr. Goudreaux that I would supply Stereophile's circulation statistics. Here, then, are the paid circulation figures for Stereophile during the past 10 years. These are the figures submitted each year by the magazine's publisher with its second-class mailing statement to the Post Office, and are the average of the 12 issues preceding the month of filing (which is generally November): 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 Please note that there are many factors which contribute to a magazine's paid circulation, and that to draw any general conclusion concerning any specific factor will almost certainly be incorrect. For example, if you wish, as Mr. Boudreaux did, to correlate the magzine's circulation with the health of the high-end audio industry, our circulation in 2000, when the industry was having a hard time, was higher than in 1996 and 1997 when the audio industry was at its peak. Regardless, I hope that this puts the matter of Stereophile's purported circulation problems to rest. 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. ----== 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 =--- |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 20:58:30 -0600, "Rusty Boudreaux"
wrote: "John Atkinson" wrote in message om... statistics. Here, then, are the paid circulation figures for Stereophile during the past 10 years. These are the figures submitted each year by the magazine's publisher with its second-class mailing statement to the Post Office, and are the average of the 12 issues preceding the month of filing (which is generally November): 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 Please note that there are many factors which contribute to a magazine's paid circulation, and that to draw any general conclusion concerning any specific factor will almost certainly be incorrect. For example, if you wish, as Mr. Boudreaux did, to correlate the magzine's circulation with the health of the high-end audio industry, our circulation in 2000, when the industry was having a hard time, was higher than in 1996 and 1997 when the audio industry was at its peak. Regardless, I hope that this puts the matter of Stereophile's purported circulation problems to rest. That may be true but raw numbers can mask trends due to population growth. Raw circulation is down 10% from 2000 to 2003. However, a quick trip to census.gov shows that's 15% per capita decrease over the same time period. If we restrict population data to males between the ages of 20 to 50 years then circulation is down nearly 25% per capita. I'm not drawing any conclusions about Stereophile in particular. However, circulation has decreased to it's lowest absolute level since 1995 and lowest per capital since 1994. Four continuous years of decline in raw numbers and 5-6 years depending on parsing of population data. Maybe it's just the economy but it would be interesting to see HT or S&V numbers during the same time period. Or even to add in the figures for the Stereophile Guide to Home Theater issues. I'm guessing that they sell more than the 10,000 drop in subscriptions since 2000. Substantially more. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 20:58:30 -0600, "Rusty Boudreaux"
wrote: "John Atkinson" wrote in message om... statistics. Here, then, are the paid circulation figures for Stereophile during the past 10 years. These are the figures submitted each year by the magazine's publisher with its second-class mailing statement to the Post Office, and are the average of the 12 issues preceding the month of filing (which is generally November): 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 Please note that there are many factors which contribute to a magazine's paid circulation, and that to draw any general conclusion concerning any specific factor will almost certainly be incorrect. For example, if you wish, as Mr. Boudreaux did, to correlate the magzine's circulation with the health of the high-end audio industry, our circulation in 2000, when the industry was having a hard time, was higher than in 1996 and 1997 when the audio industry was at its peak. Regardless, I hope that this puts the matter of Stereophile's purported circulation problems to rest. That may be true but raw numbers can mask trends due to population growth. Raw circulation is down 10% from 2000 to 2003. However, a quick trip to census.gov shows that's 15% per capita decrease over the same time period. If we restrict population data to males between the ages of 20 to 50 years then circulation is down nearly 25% per capita. I'm not drawing any conclusions about Stereophile in particular. However, circulation has decreased to it's lowest absolute level since 1995 and lowest per capital since 1994. Four continuous years of decline in raw numbers and 5-6 years depending on parsing of population data. Maybe it's just the economy but it would be interesting to see HT or S&V numbers during the same time period. Or even to add in the figures for the Stereophile Guide to Home Theater issues. I'm guessing that they sell more than the 10,000 drop in subscriptions since 2000. Substantially more. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 20:58:30 -0600, "Rusty Boudreaux"
wrote: "John Atkinson" wrote in message om... statistics. Here, then, are the paid circulation figures for Stereophile during the past 10 years. These are the figures submitted each year by the magazine's publisher with its second-class mailing statement to the Post Office, and are the average of the 12 issues preceding the month of filing (which is generally November): 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 Please note that there are many factors which contribute to a magazine's paid circulation, and that to draw any general conclusion concerning any specific factor will almost certainly be incorrect. For example, if you wish, as Mr. Boudreaux did, to correlate the magzine's circulation with the health of the high-end audio industry, our circulation in 2000, when the industry was having a hard time, was higher than in 1996 and 1997 when the audio industry was at its peak. Regardless, I hope that this puts the matter of Stereophile's purported circulation problems to rest. That may be true but raw numbers can mask trends due to population growth. Raw circulation is down 10% from 2000 to 2003. However, a quick trip to census.gov shows that's 15% per capita decrease over the same time period. If we restrict population data to males between the ages of 20 to 50 years then circulation is down nearly 25% per capita. I'm not drawing any conclusions about Stereophile in particular. However, circulation has decreased to it's lowest absolute level since 1995 and lowest per capital since 1994. Four continuous years of decline in raw numbers and 5-6 years depending on parsing of population data. Maybe it's just the economy but it would be interesting to see HT or S&V numbers during the same time period. Or even to add in the figures for the Stereophile Guide to Home Theater issues. I'm guessing that they sell more than the 10,000 drop in subscriptions since 2000. Substantially more. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 22:24:42 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
wrote: Maybe it's just the economy but it would be interesting to see HT or S&V numbers during the same time period. you could say it went down over 10% between 2000 and 2003, or you could say it reamined stable between 1998 and 2001 or say it remained relatively stable between 2001 and 2003. It depends on how you want to spin the stats. Or you could say that they split their subscription base into two segments to account for changing markets. It would be interesting to see the subscription figures for the HT side of the business added to the Stereophile figures. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 22:24:42 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
wrote: Maybe it's just the economy but it would be interesting to see HT or S&V numbers during the same time period. you could say it went down over 10% between 2000 and 2003, or you could say it reamined stable between 1998 and 2001 or say it remained relatively stable between 2001 and 2003. It depends on how you want to spin the stats. Or you could say that they split their subscription base into two segments to account for changing markets. It would be interesting to see the subscription figures for the HT side of the business added to the Stereophile figures. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 22:24:42 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
wrote: Maybe it's just the economy but it would be interesting to see HT or S&V numbers during the same time period. you could say it went down over 10% between 2000 and 2003, or you could say it reamined stable between 1998 and 2001 or say it remained relatively stable between 2001 and 2003. It depends on how you want to spin the stats. Or you could say that they split their subscription base into two segments to account for changing markets. It would be interesting to see the subscription figures for the HT side of the business added to the Stereophile figures. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message ... "ScottW" wrote in message news:wSqJb.45880$m83.5386@fed1read01... "John Atkinson" wrote in message om... The subject of Stereophile's circulation arose on r.a.o. and r.a.t. today, the context being how a mainly 2-channel audio magazine can survive in today's complicated media market. Rusty Boudreaux had said (in message ) that he had "noticed the drop on [Stereophile]'s gov't filing page for circulation," while Arny Krueger had stated (in message ) that he thought "there is plenty of evidence that Stereophile's magazine sales are shrinking at a rate that should and probably does greatly concern [John] Atkinson." However, it is fair to point out that Mr. Krueger offered _no_ such "evidence," nor does he have any. Mr. Krueger also wrote that he'd "heard that Atkinson admits it [ie, that "Stereophile's magazine sales are shrinking"] privately." However, I don't know Mr. Krueger personally, I have not had _any_ conversations with him, nor have I discussed changes in Stereophile's circulation statistics with anyone who knows Mr. Krueger. His statement that he has "heard that..." etc. is thus at best a figment of Mr. Krueger's imagination and at worst a deliberate dissemination of a falsehood to damage a magazine edited by someone Mr. Krueger regards as a personal enemy. I did promise Mr. Goudreaux that I would supply Stereophile's circulation statistics. Here, then, are the paid circulation figures for Stereophile during the past 10 years. These are the figures submitted each year by the magazine's publisher with its second-class mailing statement to the Post Office, and are the average of the 12 issues preceding the month of filing (which is generally November): 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 Please note that there are many factors which contribute to a magazine's paid circulation, and that to draw any general conclusion concerning any specific factor will almost certainly be incorrect. For example, if you wish, as Mr. Boudreaux did, to correlate the magzine's circulation with the health of the high-end audio industry, our circulation in 2000, when the industry was having a hard time, was higher than in 1996 and 1997 when the audio industry was at its peak. Regardless, I hope that this puts the matter of Stereophile's purported circulation problems to rest. 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 $12. 3 years subscriptions are much less and have to be less than the cost of delivering the magazine. What is the unreasonable extrapolation? ScottW |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message ... "ScottW" wrote in message news:wSqJb.45880$m83.5386@fed1read01... "John Atkinson" wrote in message om... The subject of Stereophile's circulation arose on r.a.o. and r.a.t. today, the context being how a mainly 2-channel audio magazine can survive in today's complicated media market. Rusty Boudreaux had said (in message ) that he had "noticed the drop on [Stereophile]'s gov't filing page for circulation," while Arny Krueger had stated (in message ) that he thought "there is plenty of evidence that Stereophile's magazine sales are shrinking at a rate that should and probably does greatly concern [John] Atkinson." However, it is fair to point out that Mr. Krueger offered _no_ such "evidence," nor does he have any. Mr. Krueger also wrote that he'd "heard that Atkinson admits it [ie, that "Stereophile's magazine sales are shrinking"] privately." However, I don't know Mr. Krueger personally, I have not had _any_ conversations with him, nor have I discussed changes in Stereophile's circulation statistics with anyone who knows Mr. Krueger. His statement that he has "heard that..." etc. is thus at best a figment of Mr. Krueger's imagination and at worst a deliberate dissemination of a falsehood to damage a magazine edited by someone Mr. Krueger regards as a personal enemy. I did promise Mr. Goudreaux that I would supply Stereophile's circulation statistics. Here, then, are the paid circulation figures for Stereophile during the past 10 years. These are the figures submitted each year by the magazine's publisher with its second-class mailing statement to the Post Office, and are the average of the 12 issues preceding the month of filing (which is generally November): 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 Please note that there are many factors which contribute to a magazine's paid circulation, and that to draw any general conclusion concerning any specific factor will almost certainly be incorrect. For example, if you wish, as Mr. Boudreaux did, to correlate the magzine's circulation with the health of the high-end audio industry, our circulation in 2000, when the industry was having a hard time, was higher than in 1996 and 1997 when the audio industry was at its peak. Regardless, I hope that this puts the matter of Stereophile's purported circulation problems to rest. 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 $12. 3 years subscriptions are much less and have to be less than the cost of delivering the magazine. What is the unreasonable extrapolation? ScottW |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message ... "ScottW" wrote in message news:wSqJb.45880$m83.5386@fed1read01... "John Atkinson" wrote in message om... The subject of Stereophile's circulation arose on r.a.o. and r.a.t. today, the context being how a mainly 2-channel audio magazine can survive in today's complicated media market. Rusty Boudreaux had said (in message ) that he had "noticed the drop on [Stereophile]'s gov't filing page for circulation," while Arny Krueger had stated (in message ) that he thought "there is plenty of evidence that Stereophile's magazine sales are shrinking at a rate that should and probably does greatly concern [John] Atkinson." However, it is fair to point out that Mr. Krueger offered _no_ such "evidence," nor does he have any. Mr. Krueger also wrote that he'd "heard that Atkinson admits it [ie, that "Stereophile's magazine sales are shrinking"] privately." However, I don't know Mr. Krueger personally, I have not had _any_ conversations with him, nor have I discussed changes in Stereophile's circulation statistics with anyone who knows Mr. Krueger. His statement that he has "heard that..." etc. is thus at best a figment of Mr. Krueger's imagination and at worst a deliberate dissemination of a falsehood to damage a magazine edited by someone Mr. Krueger regards as a personal enemy. I did promise Mr. Goudreaux that I would supply Stereophile's circulation statistics. Here, then, are the paid circulation figures for Stereophile during the past 10 years. These are the figures submitted each year by the magazine's publisher with its second-class mailing statement to the Post Office, and are the average of the 12 issues preceding the month of filing (which is generally November): 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 Please note that there are many factors which contribute to a magazine's paid circulation, and that to draw any general conclusion concerning any specific factor will almost certainly be incorrect. For example, if you wish, as Mr. Boudreaux did, to correlate the magzine's circulation with the health of the high-end audio industry, our circulation in 2000, when the industry was having a hard time, was higher than in 1996 and 1997 when the audio industry was at its peak. Regardless, I hope that this puts the matter of Stereophile's purported circulation problems to rest. 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 $12. 3 years subscriptions are much less and have to be less than the cost of delivering the magazine. What is the unreasonable extrapolation? ScottW |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"ScottW" wrote in message news:m5rJb.45884$m83.25535@fed1read01... "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message ... "ScottW" wrote in message news:wSqJb.45880$m83.5386@fed1read01... "John Atkinson" wrote in message om... The subject of Stereophile's circulation arose on r.a.o. and r.a.t. today, the context being how a mainly 2-channel audio magazine can survive in today's complicated media market. Rusty Boudreaux had said (in message ) that he had "noticed the drop on [Stereophile]'s gov't filing page for circulation," while Arny Krueger had stated (in message ) that he thought "there is plenty of evidence that Stereophile's magazine sales are shrinking at a rate that should and probably does greatly concern [John] Atkinson." However, it is fair to point out that Mr. Krueger offered _no_ such "evidence," nor does he have any. Mr. Krueger also wrote that he'd "heard that Atkinson admits it [ie, that "Stereophile's magazine sales are shrinking"] privately." However, I don't know Mr. Krueger personally, I have not had _any_ conversations with him, nor have I discussed changes in Stereophile's circulation statistics with anyone who knows Mr. Krueger. His statement that he has "heard that..." etc. is thus at best a figment of Mr. Krueger's imagination and at worst a deliberate dissemination of a falsehood to damage a magazine edited by someone Mr. Krueger regards as a personal enemy. I did promise Mr. Goudreaux that I would supply Stereophile's circulation statistics. Here, then, are the paid circulation figures for Stereophile during the past 10 years. These are the figures submitted each year by the magazine's publisher with its second-class mailing statement to the Post Office, and are the average of the 12 issues preceding the month of filing (which is generally November): 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 Please note that there are many factors which contribute to a magazine's paid circulation, and that to draw any general conclusion concerning any specific factor will almost certainly be incorrect. For example, if you wish, as Mr. Boudreaux did, to correlate the magzine's circulation with the health of the high-end audio industry, our circulation in 2000, when the industry was having a hard time, was higher than in 1996 and 1997 when the audio industry was at its peak. Regardless, I hope that this puts the matter of Stereophile's purported circulation problems to rest. 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 $6 at the local stereo salon. I figured you knew this, and were ignoring it to make a point. If you didn't know this, you have my apologies. ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"ScottW" wrote in message news:m5rJb.45884$m83.25535@fed1read01... "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message ... "ScottW" wrote in message news:wSqJb.45880$m83.5386@fed1read01... "John Atkinson" wrote in message om... The subject of Stereophile's circulation arose on r.a.o. and r.a.t. today, the context being how a mainly 2-channel audio magazine can survive in today's complicated media market. Rusty Boudreaux had said (in message ) that he had "noticed the drop on [Stereophile]'s gov't filing page for circulation," while Arny Krueger had stated (in message ) that he thought "there is plenty of evidence that Stereophile's magazine sales are shrinking at a rate that should and probably does greatly concern [John] Atkinson." However, it is fair to point out that Mr. Krueger offered _no_ such "evidence," nor does he have any. Mr. Krueger also wrote that he'd "heard that Atkinson admits it [ie, that "Stereophile's magazine sales are shrinking"] privately." However, I don't know Mr. Krueger personally, I have not had _any_ conversations with him, nor have I discussed changes in Stereophile's circulation statistics with anyone who knows Mr. Krueger. His statement that he has "heard that..." etc. is thus at best a figment of Mr. Krueger's imagination and at worst a deliberate dissemination of a falsehood to damage a magazine edited by someone Mr. Krueger regards as a personal enemy. I did promise Mr. Goudreaux that I would supply Stereophile's circulation statistics. Here, then, are the paid circulation figures for Stereophile during the past 10 years. These are the figures submitted each year by the magazine's publisher with its second-class mailing statement to the Post Office, and are the average of the 12 issues preceding the month of filing (which is generally November): 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 Please note that there are many factors which contribute to a magazine's paid circulation, and that to draw any general conclusion concerning any specific factor will almost certainly be incorrect. For example, if you wish, as Mr. Boudreaux did, to correlate the magzine's circulation with the health of the high-end audio industry, our circulation in 2000, when the industry was having a hard time, was higher than in 1996 and 1997 when the audio industry was at its peak. Regardless, I hope that this puts the matter of Stereophile's purported circulation problems to rest. 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 $6 at the local stereo salon. I figured you knew this, and were ignoring it to make a point. If you didn't know this, you have my apologies. ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"ScottW" wrote in message news:m5rJb.45884$m83.25535@fed1read01... "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message ... "ScottW" wrote in message news:wSqJb.45880$m83.5386@fed1read01... "John Atkinson" wrote in message om... The subject of Stereophile's circulation arose on r.a.o. and r.a.t. today, the context being how a mainly 2-channel audio magazine can survive in today's complicated media market. Rusty Boudreaux had said (in message ) that he had "noticed the drop on [Stereophile]'s gov't filing page for circulation," while Arny Krueger had stated (in message ) that he thought "there is plenty of evidence that Stereophile's magazine sales are shrinking at a rate that should and probably does greatly concern [John] Atkinson." However, it is fair to point out that Mr. Krueger offered _no_ such "evidence," nor does he have any. Mr. Krueger also wrote that he'd "heard that Atkinson admits it [ie, that "Stereophile's magazine sales are shrinking"] privately." However, I don't know Mr. Krueger personally, I have not had _any_ conversations with him, nor have I discussed changes in Stereophile's circulation statistics with anyone who knows Mr. Krueger. His statement that he has "heard that..." etc. is thus at best a figment of Mr. Krueger's imagination and at worst a deliberate dissemination of a falsehood to damage a magazine edited by someone Mr. Krueger regards as a personal enemy. I did promise Mr. Goudreaux that I would supply Stereophile's circulation statistics. Here, then, are the paid circulation figures for Stereophile during the past 10 years. These are the figures submitted each year by the magazine's publisher with its second-class mailing statement to the Post Office, and are the average of the 12 issues preceding the month of filing (which is generally November): 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 Please note that there are many factors which contribute to a magazine's paid circulation, and that to draw any general conclusion concerning any specific factor will almost certainly be incorrect. For example, if you wish, as Mr. Boudreaux did, to correlate the magzine's circulation with the health of the high-end audio industry, our circulation in 2000, when the industry was having a hard time, was higher than in 1996 and 1997 when the audio industry was at its peak. Regardless, I hope that this puts the matter of Stereophile's purported circulation problems to rest. 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. I figured you knew this, and were ignoring it to make a point. If you didn't know this, you have my apologies. ----== 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 =--- |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"George M. Middius" wrote in message ... Socky said: If this guys post is true, Stereophile subsciption revenue has gone from almost $2.4M to less than $100K. 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. Too many strings being plucked here. My head is ringing. At least, though, you gave the Terrierborg's leash a good tug. "At least". ----== 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 =--- |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"George M. Middius" wrote in message ... Socky said: If this guys post is true, Stereophile subsciption revenue has gone from almost $2.4M to less than $100K. 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. Too many strings being plucked here. My head is ringing. At least, though, you gave the Terrierborg's leash a good tug. "At least". ----== 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 =--- |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"George M. Middius" wrote in message ... Socky said: If this guys post is true, Stereophile subsciption revenue has gone from almost $2.4M to less than $100K. 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. Too many strings being plucked here. My head is ringing. At least, though, you gave the Terrierborg's leash a good tug. "At least". ----== 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 =--- |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
Most magazines subscriptions are sold for the printing and distribution
cost. That is because they make their money on advertising. the higher the magazine sales, the higher the ad rates. In the final analysis, the health of the high end audio industry will control the fate of the magazine, since they are the ones that purchase the ads. Sales are based on subscriptions and store sales (book stores, audio stores, etc). The post office statistics are irrelevant. Magazine sales (subscriptions and store sales) are audited by an independent agency to protect advertisers. The audited statistics subtract out copies that are printed and not sold by stores (returns), or are extra copies printed for office use. Does anyone have a history the audited sales statistics for Stereophile? It should be printed in the magazine once per year. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
Most magazines subscriptions are sold for the printing and distribution
cost. That is because they make their money on advertising. the higher the magazine sales, the higher the ad rates. In the final analysis, the health of the high end audio industry will control the fate of the magazine, since they are the ones that purchase the ads. Sales are based on subscriptions and store sales (book stores, audio stores, etc). The post office statistics are irrelevant. Magazine sales (subscriptions and store sales) are audited by an independent agency to protect advertisers. The audited statistics subtract out copies that are printed and not sold by stores (returns), or are extra copies printed for office use. Does anyone have a history the audited sales statistics for Stereophile? It should be printed in the magazine once per year. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
Most magazines subscriptions are sold for the printing and distribution
cost. That is because they make their money on advertising. the higher the magazine sales, the higher the ad rates. In the final analysis, the health of the high end audio industry will control the fate of the magazine, since they are the ones that purchase the ads. Sales are based on subscriptions and store sales (book stores, audio stores, etc). The post office statistics are irrelevant. Magazine sales (subscriptions and store sales) are audited by an independent agency to protect advertisers. The audited statistics subtract out copies that are printed and not sold by stores (returns), or are extra copies printed for office use. Does anyone have a history the audited sales statistics for Stereophile? It should be printed in the magazine once per year. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
In article m5rJb.45884$m83.25535@fed1read01,
"ScottW" wrote: Now explain what is unreasonable. I've seen a couple of post indicate Stereophile subscription rates were $35 a year and now are about $12. 3 years subscriptions are much less and have to be less than the cost of delivering the magazine. What is the unreasonable extrapolation? Lowering subscriptions to attract more readers in order to raise advertising rates is a time-honored strategy for publishers. Another way to look at a magazine is the proportion of editorial content to advertising. More editorial pages (music reviews, blind tests, multichannel gear reviews) come at the expense of advertising pages. Too much advertising comes at the cost of alienating readers, generally speaking. Stephen |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
In article m5rJb.45884$m83.25535@fed1read01,
"ScottW" wrote: Now explain what is unreasonable. I've seen a couple of post indicate Stereophile subscription rates were $35 a year and now are about $12. 3 years subscriptions are much less and have to be less than the cost of delivering the magazine. What is the unreasonable extrapolation? Lowering subscriptions to attract more readers in order to raise advertising rates is a time-honored strategy for publishers. Another way to look at a magazine is the proportion of editorial content to advertising. More editorial pages (music reviews, blind tests, multichannel gear reviews) come at the expense of advertising pages. Too much advertising comes at the cost of alienating readers, generally speaking. Stephen |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
In article m5rJb.45884$m83.25535@fed1read01,
"ScottW" wrote: 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? Lowering subscriptions to attract more readers in order to raise advertising rates is a time-honored strategy for publishers. Another way to look at a magazine is the proportion of editorial content to advertising. More editorial pages (music reviews, blind tests, multichannel gear reviews) come at the expense of advertising pages. Too much advertising comes at the cost of alienating readers, generally speaking. Stephen |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Magazine Statitistics | Audio Opinions | |||
Saddam/Time Magazine | Pro Audio | |||
Remove magazine from Sony CDX-656 changer | Car Audio | |||
- TAS magazine Website Updated - | Audio Opinions | |||
FA: Matrix sound design magazine (this might interest some of you) | Pro Audio |