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

"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?

"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.

"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.

"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.

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

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

Those are not circulation numbers. Those are subscription numbers that do
not include in-store sales.

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 04:22:14 -0700, "Mark A"
wrote:

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

Those are not circulation numbers. Those are subscription numbers that do
not include in-store sales.


Sorry, my mistake. I think the rest of my post is still valid,
despite the error.

Scott Gardner

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 04:22:14 -0700, "Mark A"
wrote:

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

Those are not circulation numbers. Those are subscription numbers that do
not include in-store sales.


Sorry, my mistake. I think the rest of my post is still valid,
despite the error.

Scott Gardner

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 04:22:14 -0700, "Mark A"
wrote:

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

Those are not circulation numbers. Those are subscription numbers that do
not include in-store sales.


Sorry, my mistake. I think the rest of my post is still valid,
despite the error.

Scott Gardner

"Mark A" wrote in message
...
Those are not circulation numbers. Those are subscription numbers that
do not include in-store sales.

Hi Mark, please note that they _are_ circulation numbers. They are the
total paid sales from all sources, whether subs or newsstand, plus the
complimentary circ (writers and advertisers). They do not include returns,
unsold copies, and office copies.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"Mark A" wrote in message
...
Those are not circulation numbers. Those are subscription numbers that
do not include in-store sales.

Hi Mark, please note that they _are_ circulation numbers. They are the
total paid sales from all sources, whether subs or newsstand, plus the
complimentary circ (writers and advertisers). They do not include returns,
unsold copies, and office copies.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"Mark A" wrote in message
...
Those are not circulation numbers. Those are subscription numbers that
do not include in-store sales.

Hi Mark, please note that they _are_ circulation numbers. They are the
total paid sales from all sources, whether subs or newsstand, plus the
complimentary circ (writers and advertisers). They do not include returns,
unsold copies, and office copies.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

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

Those are not circulation numbers. Those are subscription numbers that do
not include in-store sales.

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

Those are not circulation numbers. Those are subscription numbers that do
not include in-store sales.

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

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

"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.

By which I assume Mr. Krueger is referring to these figures:
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?

By just 1250 over a 2-year period Mr. Krueger. Please don't now try
to pretend
you meant just "shrinking" when you wrote in message
) that you 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."

My "no evidence" comment referred to the entirety of your statement..
Mr.
Krueger. The relatively small drop 2002-2003 or even the larger one
2000-2003
do not concern me, "greatly" or otherwise, and you have no evidence
that it
does. The circulation we have guaranteed in this period (our so-called
"rate base")
is 80,000. As long as our actual circulation is greater than than,
there is no reason
for concern.

And as I have stated in another recent posting, over the same period
our
website, www.stereophile.com, has grown to 200,000 unique visitors per
month. So it could be argued that Stereophile's "mindshare." its
influence
if you wish, has grown significantly.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"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.

By which I assume Mr. Krueger is referring to these figures:
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?

By just 1250 over a 2-year period Mr. Krueger. Please don't now try
to pretend
you meant just "shrinking" when you wrote in message
) that you 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."

My "no evidence" comment referred to the entirety of your statement..
Mr.
Krueger. The relatively small drop 2002-2003 or even the larger one
2000-2003
do not concern me, "greatly" or otherwise, and you have no evidence
that it
does. The circulation we have guaranteed in this period (our so-called
"rate base")
is 80,000. As long as our actual circulation is greater than than,
there is no reason
for concern.

And as I have stated in another recent posting, over the same period
our
website, www.stereophile.com, has grown to 200,000 unique visitors per
month. So it could be argued that Stereophile's "mindshare." its
influence
if you wish, has grown significantly.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"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.

By which I assume Mr. Krueger is referring to these figures:
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?

By just 1250 over a 2-year period Mr. Krueger. Please don't now try
to pretend
you meant just "shrinking" when you wrote in message
) that you 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."

My "no evidence" comment referred to the entirety of your statement..
Mr.
Krueger. The relatively small drop 2002-2003 or even the larger one
2000-2003
do not concern me, "greatly" or otherwise, and you have no evidence
that it
does. The circulation we have guaranteed in this period (our so-called
"rate base")
is 80,000. As long as our actual circulation is greater than than,
there is no reason
for concern.

And as I have stated in another recent posting, over the same period
our
website, www.stereophile.com, has grown to 200,000 unique visitors per
month. So it could be argued that Stereophile's "mindshare." its
influence
if you wish, has grown significantly.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"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?

"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?

"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.

"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 =---

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.

"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.

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

Wanna try again?

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message


"dave weil" wrote in message


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

Correction:

The alleged split happened in 1995, given that the current issue is
volume 9 number 1.

The alleged split didn't keep Stereophile Magazine from increasing its
circulation for the next 6 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

Wanna try again?

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message


"dave weil" wrote in message


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

Correction:

The alleged split happened in 1995, given that the current issue is
volume 9 number 1.

The alleged split didn't keep Stereophile Magazine from increasing its
circulation for the next 6 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

Wanna try again?

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message


"dave weil" wrote in message


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

Correction:

The alleged split happened in 1995, given that the current issue is
volume 9 number 1.

The alleged split didn't keep Stereophile Magazine from increasing its
circulation for the next 6 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

Wanna try again?

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******

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******

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******

"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.

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

Wanna try again?

"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.

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

Wanna try again?

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.

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.

"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 =---

"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 =---

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.

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.