Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
Lionel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics

MINe 109 a écrit :

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.


When magazines are becoming manufacturers' catalogs. ;-)

  #42   Report Post  
Lionel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics

MINe 109 a écrit :

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.


When magazines are becoming manufacturers' catalogs. ;-)

  #43   Report Post  
Lionel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics

MINe 109 a écrit :

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.


When magazines are becoming manufacturers' catalogs. ;-)

  #44   Report Post  
ScottW
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics


"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

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

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

Is Stereophile now largely fund by advertising rather than

subscibers?
I see 12 months subscriptions for less than $1 per issue.

If this guys post is true, Stereophile subsciption revenue has gone

from
almost $2.4M to less than $100K.

ScottW



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


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

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

ScottW



They were never a 'solid' $35 per year. Introductory rates
were always between $12 and $15 per year since I first subscribed in
1988. The first renewal offer you would get would be $35. If you would
hold out, you would eventually get an offer for $15, but would have to

miss
an issue. Point is, you need to 'average' the subscription price
to get the right ratio between first timers and reups.
And calculate in
those
that might buy a single issue for about $6 at the local stereo salon.


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

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


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

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


No problem, hope you get some snow .

ScottW


  #45   Report Post  
ScottW
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics


"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

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

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

Is Stereophile now largely fund by advertising rather than

subscibers?
I see 12 months subscriptions for less than $1 per issue.

If this guys post is true, Stereophile subsciption revenue has gone

from
almost $2.4M to less than $100K.

ScottW



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


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

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

ScottW



They were never a 'solid' $35 per year. Introductory rates
were always between $12 and $15 per year since I first subscribed in
1988. The first renewal offer you would get would be $35. If you would
hold out, you would eventually get an offer for $15, but would have to

miss
an issue. Point is, you need to 'average' the subscription price
to get the right ratio between first timers and reups.
And calculate in
those
that might buy a single issue for about $6 at the local stereo salon.


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

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


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

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


No problem, hope you get some snow .

ScottW




  #46   Report Post  
ScottW
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics


"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

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

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

Is Stereophile now largely fund by advertising rather than

subscibers?
I see 12 months subscriptions for less than $1 per issue.

If this guys post is true, Stereophile subsciption revenue has gone

from
almost $2.4M to less than $100K.

ScottW



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


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

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

ScottW



They were never a 'solid' $35 per year. Introductory rates
were always between $12 and $15 per year since I first subscribed in
1988. The first renewal offer you would get would be $35. If you would
hold out, you would eventually get an offer for $15, but would have to

miss
an issue. Point is, you need to 'average' the subscription price
to get the right ratio between first timers and reups.
And calculate in
those
that might buy a single issue for about $6 at the local stereo salon.


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

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


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

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


No problem, hope you get some snow .

ScottW


  #47   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics

On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 19:58:07 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


No you sound like Sanders. I don't "hate" Stereophile.
I do hate people telling me I hate things I don't hate.


Now *that's* choice after you tried to tell me what *I* think.

Hypocrite.
  #48   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics

On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 19:58:07 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


No you sound like Sanders. I don't "hate" Stereophile.
I do hate people telling me I hate things I don't hate.


Now *that's* choice after you tried to tell me what *I* think.

Hypocrite.
  #49   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics

On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 19:58:07 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


No you sound like Sanders. I don't "hate" Stereophile.
I do hate people telling me I hate things I don't hate.


Now *that's* choice after you tried to tell me what *I* think.

Hypocrite.
  #50   Report Post  
Scott Gardner
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics

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


  #51   Report Post  
Scott Gardner
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics

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
  #52   Report Post  
Scott Gardner
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics

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
  #53   Report Post  
Mark A
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics

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.


  #54   Report Post  
Mark A
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics

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.


  #55   Report Post  
Mark A
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics

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.




  #56   Report Post  
Scott Gardner
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 06:10:24 +0100, Lionel
wrote:

MINe 109 a écrit :

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.


When magazines are becoming manufacturers' catalogs. ;-)

I haven't seen anything this heinous in stereo magazines, but there's
a motocycle accessories company called "Chapparel" (sp?) that takes up
the last dozen full pages in several magazines. It's almost like a
pull-out catalog. The only thing that keeps it from being more
annoying is that since they have the entire pages, you can easily skip
past it, knowing you haven't missed anything (other than twelve pages
that could have had real content in them).

Scott Gardner

  #57   Report Post  
Scott Gardner
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 06:10:24 +0100, Lionel
wrote:

MINe 109 a écrit :

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.


When magazines are becoming manufacturers' catalogs. ;-)

I haven't seen anything this heinous in stereo magazines, but there's
a motocycle accessories company called "Chapparel" (sp?) that takes up
the last dozen full pages in several magazines. It's almost like a
pull-out catalog. The only thing that keeps it from being more
annoying is that since they have the entire pages, you can easily skip
past it, knowing you haven't missed anything (other than twelve pages
that could have had real content in them).

Scott Gardner

  #58   Report Post  
Scott Gardner
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 06:10:24 +0100, Lionel
wrote:

MINe 109 a écrit :

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.


When magazines are becoming manufacturers' catalogs. ;-)

I haven't seen anything this heinous in stereo magazines, but there's
a motocycle accessories company called "Chapparel" (sp?) that takes up
the last dozen full pages in several magazines. It's almost like a
pull-out catalog. The only thing that keeps it from being more
annoying is that since they have the entire pages, you can easily skip
past it, knowing you haven't missed anything (other than twelve pages
that could have had real content in them).

Scott Gardner

  #59   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics

"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?




  #60   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics

"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?






  #61   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics

"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?




  #62   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics

"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?


  #63   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics

"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?


  #64   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics

"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?


  #65   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics

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******


  #66   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics

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******
  #67   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics

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******
  #68   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 06:28:03 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"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?


Sounds like it was *you* who had to "try again".

  #69   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 06:28:03 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"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?


Sounds like it was *you* who had to "try again".

  #70   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 06:28:03 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"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?


Sounds like it was *you* who had to "try again".



  #71   Report Post  
Scott Gardner
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics

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

  #72   Report Post  
Scott Gardner
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics

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

  #73   Report Post  
Scott Gardner
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics

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

  #74   Report Post  
Scott Gardner
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 05:59:33 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 06:28:03 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"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?


Sounds like it was *you* who had to "try again".

And I only see an increase for the next two years - from 1995 to 1996
and 1996 to 1997. Is there a second set of numbers that's been
posted?

Scott Gardner

  #75   Report Post  
Scott Gardner
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 05:59:33 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 06:28:03 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"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?


Sounds like it was *you* who had to "try again".

And I only see an increase for the next two years - from 1995 to 1996
and 1996 to 1997. Is there a second set of numbers that's been
posted?

Scott Gardner



  #76   Report Post  
Scott Gardner
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 05:59:33 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 06:28:03 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"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?


Sounds like it was *you* who had to "try again".

And I only see an increase for the next two years - from 1995 to 1996
and 1996 to 1997. Is there a second set of numbers that's been
posted?

Scott Gardner

  #77   Report Post  
John Atkinson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics

"Mark A" wrote in message
...
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.


This is correct.

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.


As the major proportion of any consumer magazine's revenue comes from
ads,
this is also true.

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.


These figures were not incvluded in the mailing stament figures I
quoted.
If you go the actual formas from which I extracted the information
(printed
in the December or Juanry issues of the magazine) you can see the raw
data.

Does anyone have a history the audited sales statistics for Stereophile?


Our circ figures are audited by the ABC. I can get hold of them, just
not immediately, which is why I quoted the publisher's statement data.

It should be printed in the magazine once per year.


That was the source of the data I quoted.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
  #78   Report Post  
John Atkinson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics

"Mark A" wrote in message
...
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.


This is correct.

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.


As the major proportion of any consumer magazine's revenue comes from
ads,
this is also true.

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.


These figures were not incvluded in the mailing stament figures I
quoted.
If you go the actual formas from which I extracted the information
(printed
in the December or Juanry issues of the magazine) you can see the raw
data.

Does anyone have a history the audited sales statistics for Stereophile?


Our circ figures are audited by the ABC. I can get hold of them, just
not immediately, which is why I quoted the publisher's statement data.

It should be printed in the magazine once per year.


That was the source of the data I quoted.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
  #79   Report Post  
John Atkinson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics

"Mark A" wrote in message
...
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.


This is correct.

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.


As the major proportion of any consumer magazine's revenue comes from
ads,
this is also true.

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.


These figures were not incvluded in the mailing stament figures I
quoted.
If you go the actual formas from which I extracted the information
(printed
in the December or Juanry issues of the magazine) you can see the raw
data.

Does anyone have a history the audited sales statistics for Stereophile?


Our circ figures are audited by the ABC. I can get hold of them, just
not immediately, which is why I quoted the publisher's statement data.

It should be printed in the magazine once per year.


That was the source of the data I quoted.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
  #80   Report Post  
Lionel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Magazine Statitistics

Arny Krueger a écrit :

I'm surprised that our resident worshippers of vinylism such as sockpuppet
wheel have no comment on the horrendous amounts of audible distortion that
this review shows. Given that he lists no other music player in his main
system, one has to wonder exactly how profound the ear damage he must have,
actually is.


Scott "high-IQ" Wheeler has explicitly written that he likes distortion,
in fact he is desperately looking for distortion. ;-)
This explains why he likes venyls, I'm sure that now he is very
interested in this turntable.
In fact Scott Wheeler only likes distortion and very expensive equipment
that he can show to his friends on "awesome days" (lol).
Scott Wheeler is ignorant and incult but he loves to exhibit his
money... :-)

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Magazine Statitistics John Atkinson Audio Opinions 409 February 5th 04 03:22 AM
Saddam/Time Magazine EggHd Pro Audio 35 December 21st 03 08:13 PM
Remove magazine from Sony CDX-656 changer Bruce Car Audio 1 December 5th 03 03:08 PM
- TAS magazine Website Updated - Steven R. Rochlin Audio Opinions 1 July 24th 03 05:18 AM
FA: Matrix sound design magazine (this might interest some of you) Eamon Pro Audio 0 July 8th 03 03:12 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:01 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"